Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 15

[sic] tag
Could somebody please explain to me how this is encyclopediac?--Sefringle 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a standard sort of tag used in writing to indicate that the quote is literally transcribed without corrective edits. It is no more or less encyclopedic than the word "ibid" or the character "#". ==Blue Tie 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blue is correct. The poster in the picture has the name of the country improperly spelled as "Isreal" instead of "Israel." To ensure the reader knows that the caption is not a typo, but a faithful representation of the photograph, the [sic] is appropriate. -- Avi 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ٍٔٔٔRequest for help
a couple of days before I bookmarked this page from Chamsky to use it in this article but now it is expired! can someone help to find the original source? --Pejman47 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.countercurrents.org/us-chomsky110307.htm, Use the original url in the url section of cite web and use this one in the archiveurl tag with March 20 as archive date. -- Avi 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

why is ther no mention of ahmadinejads involvment in the taking of hostages a few dacades ago?


 * Because it was a scam perpetrated by IranFocus and predictibly relayed by a Western media eager to demonize Iran. Sadly, some people didn't even bother to to cross check the legitimacy of the claim. Note that the MKO is very likely behind Iran Focus. Lixy 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned under "Early political career" and here. The accusation is notable, but we can't present it as fact. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that what is presented is balanced and verifiable. It does not say he was involved for sure, but it indicates that there are fair reasons to suspect it -- and that some do suspect it. --Blue Tie 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sivand Dam and destruction of Iranian heritage
Why/How is this related to Ahmadinejad? His name isn't even mentioned in the section, so far as I can tell. If it is relevant, it needs to be rewritten to explain why. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Someone just added that as part of a POV smear campaign during some opposition hype about the supposed threat to the ruins nearby.  I had mentioned that none of it was actually relevant to Ahmadinejad but for some reason I never got around to removing it.  I will now.  Thanks for pointing that out.  The Behnam 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research regarding accusations of antisemitism
Sadly, in yet another attempt to defend Ahmadinejad against accusations of antisemitism, one of his supported has inserted the following original research into the article: "and the are no report on any anti-Semitism towards Persian Jews, and even he donated some money for building a Jewish hospital in Tehran. Even the leaders of Jewish minority of Iran, could criticize him freely for his comments regarding Holocaust." The articles in question do not actually make the argument that Ahmadinejad is antisemitic, and neither of them state that he donated money to a Jewish hospital. And, as a reminder of policy, WP:NOR stats that something cannot be included in an article if: This insertion obviously does that. Please don't insert it again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source


 * First, I am not his supporters (I don't think that labeling other users as X and then refuting their actions is appropriate!, and Jayjg remember this strategy can also be used against you) Second, you have not even read the sources, "For all his inflammatory rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has been careful not to single out Iran’s Jews, and his office even donated money to Tehran’s Jewish hospital." You see there is a hospital! and that article mentioned it in related to the accusations of the antisemitism. So, there is no new compilation had happened here! The others also clearly relate Ahmadinejad's rhetoric to the state of Persian Jews in Iran. I hope this is considered enough. --Pejman47 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah right.--Sefringle 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The second article mentions nothing about him giving donations, you've misrepresented both articles, and in any event, you are just trying to invent arguments to claim he is not antisemitic. One article says "the recent uptick in antisemitic propaganda in books and the media had stoked fears within the Jewish community in Iran. The regime’s anti-Zionist propaganda has at times provoked antisemitic incidents" and the other says "Iranian Jews talk of repeating patterns of discrimination - the difficulty of securing a government job and anti-Semitism in state media" which you ignore. You need to find other sources that say he is not antisemitic; you can't invent an argument based on your view that there isn't any reported antisemitism against Persian Jews, and his office gave money to a Jewish hospital! Please re-read the sections of WP:NOR mentioned above. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "The second article mentions nothing about him giving donations"? There were some sentences which I gave for them 4 sources. In two of them (one of them from BBC) clearly they mentioned that donation to the hospital in related to the accusations of antisemitism, to showing that he is not what some people want to show. In others they discussed state of Persian Jews in related to rhetorics of Ahmadinejad. I am not inventing anything (this is accusation.) they are facts that show other side POV. I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!--Pejman47 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the second article. Please quote what it says about him giving donations. Then explain where these articles argue that Ahamdinejad is not antisemitic. Where they make that argument, not you. You have invented the argument, not these articles. Regarding your statement "I have done my 3rr today, take care till romorrow", I would remind you that the WP:3RR policy states
 * "'The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'. Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system.'" Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know all the things about blocking policies in WP. That statement means that I don't have any Meatpuppet or Sockpuppet and must leave this article till tomorrow! I brought sources that I think support my POV and I am ready to discuss it talk pages, I don't think that it is OR. And in above another users that I have not heard his name till now, supported my view. Your usual threatening behavior is what is clearly unhelpful and disruptive. --Pejman47 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You only have to "leave this article till tomorrow" if you intend to revert again at the first opportunity, which you obviously intend to do. Is that your intent? Does either article say that Ahmadinejad is not antisemitic, or advance that argument? Does the second article even mention any donation to the hospital? Please answer these questions. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to post @ WP:ANI: Pejman47, the WP:3RR rule is there so that editors engage in discussions rather than editwar and not a bump in the road that you navigate by slowing down. In addition, I see also worrisome tendency of engaging on original research that seems to be an attempt to advocate a certain viewpoint in violation of WP:NOT. See this as a friendly warning, continuing in this manner will only result in temporarily losing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If anybody with Natural point of view reads this talk page and the main articles history will clearly find that when you think that your POV is in danger, despite discussing the sources or article you will quickly try to find some ways to threaten and block that users. I think this article has  tag since 6 months ago! If you can satisfy me and other users that the above text is POV or OR, I will definitely accept that. (now, I will leave message on that uses talk page, to continue the this discussion) and when I feel that your concerns about Original research is just an "excuse" for pushing your POV, I will definitely try to revert it when ever I can. Welcome to Wikipedia Jayjg!--Pejman47 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pejman47, is it possible that you have something to do with the POV tag being there? Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus to put that tag till a consensus (see the talk page archive). Some one, last week without discussing it in the talk page deleted that and I reinserted it; and if you see above of this section, you can find putting the tag has consensus. And after this I tried to put other side POVs and get rid of it as soon as possible, but it seems impossible! --Pejman47 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you insist there must be a "consensus", and then refuse to reach one, therefore insist the tag must stay. It's an old trick. And, again, you must attribute "the other side POV", you can't make it up yourself. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert once more and you will earn yourself a 24 hrs block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the first meaning of "I have done my 3rr today, take care till tomorrow!" is that I will clearly not! frankly I didn't like that warning!--Pejman47 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A warning is not about liking or not liking. Pursue dispute resolution and remember that if an article has a POV tag for four months, you are certainly partially responsible for it. Pursue dispute resolution and do not editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speech translation question
Does anyone know where I can get a full translation of Ahmadinejad's speech on 4th April? LeBofSportif 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Any info on exact ethnicity?
Is he persian, kurdish, or azeri? or any combination of those? Manic Hispanic 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Isreal is Poison
Concerning this, it seems to be an OR association of a supposed Arabic word for poison with the misspelling in that statement. Without a source making that association the inclusion of the translation is OR and is not appropriate for the article. Just wanted to get the opinions of the other regular editors here. The Behnam 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know Arabic, but no one's posted a link even from a "non-credible" source that shows this isn't OR and the misspelling explanation is more likely to me so I'd assume it's OR unless there's a source.--Littleman_ TAMU (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you checkout this source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY  she describe the use of the term "Israel Isreal" in arab society. The source is Brigitte_Gabriel an ABC journalist. full length http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev092706a.cfm and click on "view event" Zeq 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have observed this discussion for a while without comment. I want to make one now.

Zeq appears to be making false statements -- repeatedly. First, the statement that was included in the article "Israel means poison" (in Arabic). Aside from having no relevance to the article, so far there has been absolutely no evidence forthcoming for this statement. When asked for some sort of valid reliable source, none was presented. Others, using dictionaries and going both ways from Arabic to English and from English to Arabic, have been unable to find any such relationship. Finally, Zeq presents a video and claims that the person in it discusses this term. Having watched the Youtube video, never once does she discuss this. Israel is mentioned only once and then in comparison with Jordon in terms of how many people have been killed in conflicts.

It appears to me that Zeq is engaging in a creative form of disruption or vandalism. I recommend that until an actual verifiable, reliable source is provided, that this edit be rejected. I also recommend that not much further time be spent on the issue unless Zeq brings actual, realistic evidence and not links to non-evidence. It is a waste of time and I do not understand why this editor is behaving in this disruptive way. --Blue Tie 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie: Chill out. If indeed we can not find a source for this than the edit should be rejected. I suggest that you listen to the link I provided and to this link: http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/videos.asp click on the top video link "interview" In this video she describe her childhood in Lebanon and in it she explain the trem "Israel Isreal" - please listen to both until you find it and we will talk at that point. This is my only edit to this article so your claim about "disruptive" is unfounded and even if you disagree with my statement on what base did you say that I did something "repatiavly" no one can do an edit repeatdly when he edit only once so:.... please appologize. Zeq 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

and here is an Iraqi who used the same and called Israel poison - this is in english: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040424/israel_poison_040423?s_name=&no_ads=

This is a common use across the arab world and youtr attempts to deny it seesm to be a problem. Maybe I should edit this article more often. Zeq 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems you are promising to disrupt the article. I've already had an extensive discussion with you about this and you pretended not to realize that I was calling the inclusion OR, not the translation.  It doesn't help that nobody can verify the translation.  So please, stop trying to put your own conclusions into the article.  Thanks.  The Behnam 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all the translation is verifaibale. have you listen to the video at http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/videos.asp click on the top video link "interview" In this video she describe her childhood in Lebanon and in it she explain the term "Israel Isreal"


 * As for your accusation: Not at all - I have not disrupted nor I have any intentions. Don't put words in my mouth which I did not say. I only edited this article once and already I am accused in "repeated disruption" - what kind of nonsense is that ? where is the "repeated " part ? (only made one edit).


 * But yes. I plan to edit more - You should Assume Good Faith (that is a policy your recent edit violated) and don't describe an edit that have not yet took place as "disruption" - you and other are all violating AGF and need to appologize. Zeq 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will assume you are referring to Blue Tie as I do not recall saying "repeated," though you still need to realize that your inclusion is inappropriate. The Behnam 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "It seems you are promising to disrupt the article" - this is a violation of WP:AGF. Please appologize. Zeq 17:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. You have stood by your OR inclusion and also said 'maybe I should edit this article more often.'  As you haven't renounced your disruptive inclusion this strongly suggests you plan to make similar edits in the future.  It was back when I tried over and over again to explain to you why your edit was inappropriate that I was assuming AGF, but you've spoiled it now.  Sorry.  The Behnam 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but was it so disruptive? He introduced it once and it's been removed... I don't see it having been restored... sure perhaps it could have been a bit sneaky but I think AGF is warranted here. 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm overreacting. It is just that about 10 hours ago I tried explaining it to him over and over on his talk page, in a bunch of different ways, and he just kept somehow 'missing' the point and pretending that I was only calling the translation OR, when I emphasized that it was the association that I was calling OR.  The Behnam 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking, but I did find this article from The Newyorker that may be related somehow. It says “In one of the translations, he talks about Uncle Sam. In Arabic, Uncle Sam is 'Amm Sam'— it rhymes, you see. The Arabic word samm means poison, and an uncle, in Arabic, is supposed to be someone you can trust.” Maybe completely off topic anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When I tried to verify the "Isreal" translation, I did get 'samm' as a return for poison, even in the Persian dictionary. But I guess it really isn't relevant here, though interesting. The Behnam 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Behnam: You may be right and I confused Sam with Is-Real. Sam (prounced SUM or some but a shoort U) is poison. Isreal is one of the "nicknames" for the devil in Arabic (Shitan is the main word that would apear in a dictionary). You really need to get anArabic speaker (even better than me) to explain it to you. Just like the saying in Arabic "first comes saturday and next comes Sunday" - this seems like a simple sentence but every Arabic speaker know it means: "First we will be done with the jews and than we will go after the chrstians" Zeq 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but let's just stay away from including it here unless we know that was the usage they intended. We cool? The Behnam 18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK given one condition: Please listen to the interview with her and decide for yourself what she asan arabic speaker sais about israel Isreal. share your observation with us on talk page and you will decide if to include it in article. I will not add it. Zeq 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will listen in a bit (after listening to Jurassic Park as I am), but as that interview doesn't appear to be about the specific poster in the article I don't see it supporting the inclusion without being OR. In fact, I am questioning the value of that image to the article as we could choose something actually involving Ahmadinejad, rather than just his picture on a sign.  I remember that image being added awhile back as a WP:POINT violation so that does not help either.  The Behnam 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The interview is only a ref to the translation. Zeq 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so in that case it wouldn't support inclusion anyway. I'll take a look just out of interest then.  The Behnam 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, don't feel like dealing with the video; a transcript would be better. Anyway, Lixy said something below that you should probably address.  The Behnam 19:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me please weight in on this a native Arabic speaker. "Isreal" means squat in Arabic. It's not even close to any word. Of course, Israel in itself is a "nickname" for the devil. I'm not sure about the etymology of that, but am confident that it predates the Israeli state. Zeq, since you're not fluent in Arabic, it'd be nice of you to take such issues on the talk page first. Feel free to contact me about anything related to the Arabic language. Lixy 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. so it is not poison by 'Isreal' in arabic is a nick name for the devil. Zeq 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Isreal means nothing at all. Lixy 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He he. This dialogue is funny. Zeq is like Iran defending its civilian nuclear enegy program, and The Behnam is like the US, immediately assuming that Zeq has the worst of intentions, based on no good evidence. LeBofSportif 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The irony of such an analogy is a wonder to behold. Not to mention the inaccuracy. Tarc 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC explain why Ahmadinejad does not ware a tie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6528881.stm Zeq 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahminagad? 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BIAS
though Ahmadinejad has stated that he is "not anti-Jew," and that he "respect[s] them very much."[12]

That sounds like some Boratesque satire of Ahmadinejad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.139.124 (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have a specific recommendation? The Behnam 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have!, There is some satire in "anti-jew", there is only one word word for that concept in persian and if he is accused of anti-semetisim ,it is better to change it to "He sated that he is not anti-semetic"; I don't think, It will change anything, but at least the tone of the lead became a little more natural. --Pejman47 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean. Anyway, I'll let some others comment before changing anything.  The Behnam 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but this argument has no founding. When you say that "there's only one word for that concept in Persian", do you know any language that has more than one word for that; I sure don't. Plus, the claim in itself is ridiculous since he has rules over a Jewish population in Iran and never treated them any better or worse than others. That said, I don't oppose a change. The lead is FAR from neutral in my opinion and it's not that detail that'll make it any better. Lixy 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the idea is to replace his quote with "though Ahmadinejad has stated that he is not an antisemite and respects Jews very much", since the use of quotes aims at questioning and ridiculing the truth and honesty of his statements. That isn't neutral. The Behnam 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you follow the reference (#12 at current) you will see that the quotes are there due to those phrases being a direct quote from the BBC article: In my own opinion, and consider that for what it is worth, Looking for other insidious reasons lfor the quotation marks before checking the actual source only helps to increase distrust in this difficult article. Thanks. -- Avi 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Avi, I do not understand your logic here. That sentence is not natural, and you know that. Some people say he is anti-semitic and he wanted to show that he is not. I think it is clear, there is no reason here to quote the translation exactly here, as in other cases that we don't need to quote in apostrophes!.
 * I think insisting on that sentence just shows you are far away from being "natural" here. --Pejman47 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about letting personal points of view or unintentional original research slipping in to any article, let alone one as controversial as this. The safest way to prevent that, in my opinion, is to bring direct unadulterated quotes from reliable sources. While paraphrasing is allowed, if it is true to the text, perhaps in articles as high-profile and contentious as this one we should be a bit more careful. -- Avi 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So are we worried that "anti-Jew" may not really mean "antisemite" or something? As far as I know they are the same thing, so the quotes don't really add anything except the possible 'satirical' interpretation. The Behnam 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter; direct quotes require quotation marks per every rule of grammar. Further, I am not sure about you, but in a sentence with multiple quotation marks, such as the one in question, my first assumption, and I tend to think most readers' first assumption, is that we are getting a quote. Following through with the reference confirms that. Is their any concern that the BBC article being sarcastic as well, it too puts quotes around "Anti-Jew". And that is simply because it is a direct quote of MA. Here too, we are directly quoting the BBC, and to not have quotation marks is a greivous grammatical error. It somewhat concerns me that people are reading insidious, diabolic, and malevolent undertones into something so grammatically basic and sound. Please, y'all, step back and think about what we are supposed to be doing here. If the sentence was MA claims he is "pro-women's rights" which would be a direct quote of some source, or perhaps MA stated that he is a "devout follower of Islam" where the section in quotation marks is a direct quote of a reliable source, would we even be having this discussion? -- Avi 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that in this case there is concern that the quotes are being used instead of denotative equivalent paraphrasing to downplay his own response to the allegations. And of course BBC can have POV; one day I read an article there that used "Hamandinejad" instead of his real name. It was corrected in a few hours, but still, the source can have POV, and we oughtn't project this into the article.  The Behnam 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that your argument is irrelevant, I believe, in that this is still a direct quote. Direct quotes require quotation marks in all forms of the English language unless they are in paragraph form and set off in blockquote format. I am still surprised that there is any argument on the proper usage of English grammar. Shall we procede to have his initials in lowercase, ala "mahmoud ahmadinejad" because using uppercase may be indicative of a POV that glorifies this man to the point of godliness (ala "Lord", "Him", "Jesus", etc.)? I think that is rediculous, but I find it difficult to seperate the concern about capitalization with that about quotation marks. Grammar is grammar, simply put. -- Avi 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you object to replacing it with paraphrase? Or do you think that "anti-Jew" is somehow not the same as "antisemite" in this situation? I don't contest the use of quotations but I do question the necessity and effect of these quotations being used here. As you seem to thinking it simply a matter of usage then you shouldn't object to it changing to an equivalent paraphrase. Others find the use dastardly and want it changed. I don't see how there is a problem here unless you think that the paraphrase would actually change the meaning. The Behnam 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The-Behnam, please go ahead and change it. They 're first meanings are definitely 100% the same, the resistance to it, just shows that the current version is intended to give a "hidden message".--Pejman47 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'd like to talk it out with Avi first, as I'd prefer we actually agree to the change so to avoid any sort of editing battle. The Behnam 19:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am very much against any warping of a direct source to fit preconceived points of view. By extension, this has become a slippery slope issue, in that what will be next, will we be subtly changing the paraphrase to fit Pejman's point of view, or your point of view, or mine? There is nothing as pure a reflection of a source than that source's own words. This is even more true here when the quote is actually of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's own words. How can there be any shred of doubt about point of view when we quote the man himself, unadulterated?!?! I am very, very concerned about this now, as I see overtones of whitewashing going on. There is absolutely no good reason to change the words of of Ahmadinejad as brought by the BBC; there is nothing as NPOV and as reliable as the direct quote, and especially as I sense that changing it is being used by some (and I do not believe by you, Benham) as an ideological issue. The use of the quotation marks has nothing to do with satire and ridicule, as was incorrectly supposed earlier; it simply and truly is a matter of English grammar. So yes, I am firmly opposed to any changes to pure text which result from ideological perspectives. Paraphrases are open to interpretation and coloration, and are much more likely to result in edit wars than pure, unadulterated quotation. Perhaps those who find the use of quotations dastardly should ask themselves why they do. I notice that no one has answered my questions above. I will repost them here for y'all's convenience: Forgive me if I do not respond for a few days, as the second days of Passover are fast approaching and I may not have time to respond before sundown. My silence in no way indicates approval or disapproval of any response; merely my inability to respond. On a personal note, thank you, The Benham, for your continued interest in discussion. -- Avi 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If the sentence was MA claims he is "pro-women's rights" which would be a direct quote of some source, or perhaps MA stated that he is a "devout follower of Islam" where the section in quotation marks is a direct quote of a reliable source, would we even be having this discussion?
 * 2) Shall we procede to have his initials in lowercase, ala "mahmoud ahmadinejad" because using uppercase may be indicative of a POV that glorifies this man to the point of godliness (ala "Lord", "Him", "Jesus", etc.)?
 * 3) Shall we go through all of wikipedia removing all quotation marks and paraphrasing all sources for fear of intimation of ridicule and satire?
 * Well I just don't see the big deal in changing it to simply 'that he is not an antisemite.' Even the BBC source recognizes this obvious paraphrase. I can understand in a variety of situations where a direct quote is preferred over a paraphrase, but this is usually when the paraphrase is controversial. I don't see anything controversial about anti-Jew=antisemite, and even BBC doesn't. Do you? Also, I don't know if the others objected on an ideological manner. My understanding was that they objected because it may cast doubt on his claims about himself.  If we agree that anti-Jew = antisemite, it should be harmless from your perspective to make the change, and yet those who find the current form poor will also be satisfied.  In that sense, the change would be 'win-win'.  Unless, that is, you find something controversial about equating 'antisemite' to "anti-Jew", as the BBC does.  So I think you should answer that question.  As far as your 'take-to-the-extreme' questions go, they appear to be missing the point.  The point is that the use of quotes here has been found questionable, and so is being discussed.  Nobody is questioning the validity of the quotations from a denotative viewpoint but this particular set seems to carry weight in a more connotative sense.  Of course it is possible that users have an ideological connection to this issue but I don't see how it affects the legitimacy of this discussion, since the proposed change doesn't push any ideology, as far as I can see.  If it does, then the BBC (apparently) also shares this ideology.  Sorry but I can't figure out what POV is threatening to slip in if this change is made.  I don't see any harm in just using the sourced paraphrase, but if you do object to this specific paraphrase please elaborate and I'll take it into consideration.  In the meantime, I'll go look it up to make sure that 'anti-Jew' is indeed the same as 'antisemite'.  Thanks and have a good Passover.  The Behnam 21:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Avi, your questions are not relevant for many reasons; First, it is a rule to capitalize names of people regardless of their status. Second, not all articles are as sensitive as this one. Lastly, if someone raises a potential ambiguity, then it's our job to remove it for the sake of clarity, balance and NPOV. I think The Behnam has more solid points regarding the issue, and since ambiguity has been demonstrated, replacing the quote with a simple anti-semitic seems in order. Lixy 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My questions were an example of reductio ad absurdum. Regardless, I propose the following compromise, bring the entire sentence as "No, I am not anti-Jew…I respect them very much." This way we have the exact quote, yet there are no special quotes around "anti-Jew" so there can be absolutely no possibility of misunderstanding even by those who are not well versed in English grammar. I have made the change in the text. Thoughts? -- Avi 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding why people insist on paraphrasing Ahmadinejad, rather than quoting him exactly. He obviously chose the phrase "anti-Jew" carefully, as do many other "anti-Zionists" who comment on the mid-East situation. They say "anti-Jew" rather than "antisemite" because a) they like to promote the straw man argument that Arabs are also semites, and b) they often like to promote the conspiracy theory that Jews are not semites. It's best to quote people exactly, especially when it's clear they've chosen their words precisely. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there an equivalent term for "Semite" in Persian? Personally I don't know and I don't have a Persian dictionary with me, but if someone can reveal what it is and compare it to the original Persian text, then it would be obvious what he meant. But Jay is probably right. Khorshid 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Khorshid, "semite" in Persian is "Sâmi" and is frequently used in the linguistic fields :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.123.37 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Why do you assume he was speaking in Persian? Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when does Ahmadinejad speak English?? Khorshid 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, He can't speak English beside (Hello, good morning, thank you,...). And once I wanted to include the fact that his university is not considered "first class" in Iran, but there is no official university ranking in Iran, so it may be considered OR. --Pejman47 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno; maybe when he reads speeches at the U.N.? Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you're saying Ahmadinejad spoke to the UN in English?? I hadn't heard this. Khorshid 05:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm asking why you assume he was speaking in Persian. See my previous question "Why do you assume he was speaking in Persian?" above. Jayjg (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood your question. My question is, does he speak any other languages? As far as I know, he only speaks Persian, and thus naturally he would only conduct interviews in Persian, with a translator present obviously. That's how it works with most statesmen, e.g. speaking their own languages using a translator. When you ask why I assume he was speaking Persian, basically you're saying that he may have said what he said in a different language. As far as I know, he doesn't speak English or any other languages aside from Persian. Khorshid 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently he was speaking through a professional translator. Here's the official transcript, which says "anti-Jew". Here's the whole conference on Youtube. Jayjg (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen "anti-Jew", being used by anyone, ever, except by Borat, until I saw the BBC article. Is it widely used?-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It gets over 70,000 Google hits. Almost none from Borat, as far as I can tell. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The second hit is a Borat quote, also, this (the 10th Google hit) use seems to imply that antisemitism and "anti-Jew" are equivalent.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how either of your statements relates to mine. Almost none of the hits I saw were related to Borat; I checked far more than just the first page. Further inquiry indicates that 96% of the hits are not Borat related. Also, it seems monumentally irrelevant what a specific use would "seem to imply". Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, "semite", in Persian, is sâmi (sâmi ben Nuh), descendant of Noah). Verify it here I would be interested to see the actual transcript.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? What is the fetish that editors have here trying to over-turn reliable sources with their own original research? Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to see it for my own interest, not for Wikipedia. I apologize if I didn't make that clear.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I don't know why Jayjg puts those two reasons down; I don't think his word choice was that clever. Even the BBC makes the connection that 'anti-Jew' means 'antisemite' in this situation, and don't see how either of Jayjg's claims apply since nothing about Ahmadinejad's statement appears to further either the strawman Arab argument or the 'Jews aren't semites' notion. I find it even more peculiar that Jayjg attached "obviously" to it. My guess is that there isn't a special word, 'antisemite', in Persian and that 'anti-Jew' is just the way it is said. Of course this could use verification, but in any case the BBC makes this connection as well.

This really shouldn't be that controversial. If he had explicitly said "I am not an antisemite" he could have been trying to operate on the strawman argument, as in "I am anti-Jew, but not anti-Arab, so therefore I am not an antisemite", but his words were 'anti-Jew', which in English equals 'antisemite'. Also, I don't see at all how this is about 'Jews aren't semites', since he doesn't talk about Semites. I don't believe it is an actual 'phrase' like it is in English, and his usage isn't about English implications and insinuations. Jayjg, I think you are worrying too much. The Behnam 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already provided links to a transcript and the Youtube video. The official U.N. translator says "anti-Jew", as do the other reliable sources. We shouldn't second-guess them with our own original research. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BBC makes the obvious connection. I find this odd - didn't you once pick on Pejman47 for thinking that 'antisemite' is different from 'anti-Jew'? And particularly disturbing is that you seem to oppose it because you assert that it furthers some straw man arguments, which doesn't follow at all.  The Behnam 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting your point; Ahmandinejad claimed he was not "anti-Jew". It was in response to accusations of antisemitism. Various sources reported it. We report the accusation, and we report his response, as detailed in reliable sources. Either he said "anti-Jew" because he wanted to make a specific point that the term "antisemite" didn't convey (or his interpreter did), or he wasn't trying to make any specific point, and they mean the same thing. Either way, we quote what reliable sources have to say. That's policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Benham, while it may be a matter of absolute certainty that Anti-Jew=Anti-Semite, in my own opinion, I think that using direct quotes in controversial articles is preferable, where the text does not threaten to overwhelm the article. May I have your opinion on the compromise I provided? -- Avi 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with it myself, but seeing that I had to be shown the satire of the original version I'm probably not the best person to ask. How about we wait with this version to see if the usual people show up offended?  The Behnam 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no "satire" in the original version; that's why it had to be shown to you. People are inventing reasons to take offense. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jayjg, but I actually care about other people's concerns with the articles. I don't think your last comment added anything constructive to the conversation, but anyway, let's get back to waiting for their responses.  The Behnam 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind WP:NPA--Sefringle 04:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)