Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 16

How tall is this guy?
In the photo of him shaking hands with the 15 captured British sailors, he appears to be rather short. There also don't appear to be many pictures released of him standing next to other people. 128.252.251.44 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking much the same when I saw the footage. :-) Assuming that the sailors were of average height (say 5'7" / 170 cm), I'd say he was about five to six inches shorter - say 5'2" / ~157 cm. That's purely a guess though; anyone know of any official figures? -- ChrisO 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Who added the neutrality tag, and can we discuss it? -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is obviously no more discussion on the matter, so I don't see why this can't be removed. It is probably just a leftover.  For once we appear to have something of a stable article here.  The Behnam 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember how I linked to this site but..... "wiped from the map" - this mistranslation is so bad/false/old.. that it truly belongs on wikipedia. This has been debunked so long ago and so completely that I thought only right wing nuts - whoops sorry...159.105.80.141 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While it may be a mistranslation, it has been heavily used and continues to be heavily used in the media, so we have to represent this prevalence. We've tried our best to not 'side' with that translation despite its popularity.  The Behnam 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * there is no doubt that this article is heavily biased (especially the lead) and most of the concerns are not answered yet; so, till we get to a NPOV article, that tag must be there. I am going to change some parts to reflect the neglected truth and other side POV.
 * I understand that some parts of it is different to some of your POVs, but please be natural and first read the sources carefully. I highly recommend every one before giving comment about the Government of Iran or this person, read the Iran's constitution and Ali Khamenei. --Pejman47 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Several users here doubted the translation of "wipe of the map", it is correct the meaning is not the same as translated from Persian. I hope you will read this article from Noam Chomsky carefully : (taken from, originally from Guardian)--Pejman47 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :
 * "It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement."
 * You don't need to quote sections of the article. If I cared what Chomsky said, I'd read the article.  Anyways, we shouldn't rehash the translation issue again.  I'm quite tired of it.  Let's just put the neutrality tag back in and stop this argument before it starts again.--Littleman_ TAMU  (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * if there are lots of sources (some of them academic) that says the translation is not accurate, trying to ignore them and just saying "put a POV tag" is of course POV pushing. The lead of this article is of course biased, if "wipe out of the map" must be in lead section, the concerns about it, must also be there. Please be open minded and read sources. Truth is not always on your behalf. --Pejman47 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not rehashing the translation argument with you or anyone else. It's been done to death.  The consensus each time is to leave lead as is and have the explanation in the section about the controversy.  The reason I say to just put the tag back is since there obviously are people that disagree with the neutrality of the article.  It's also obvious that we're not going to please everyone, but the consensus is what stays, and if a neutrality tag keeps people from arguing the same things with the same arguments and sources over and over, then I'd just as soon leave it in, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the best thing to do.--Littleman_ TAMU  (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead about that sentence must be as it is, but don't you agree that it must at least give a link to that secton?--Pejman47 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a link. "Wiped off the map" goes to the Ahmadinejad and Israel article.  There's also an indirect link in the table of contents right below the lead.--Littleman_ TAMU  (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For those folks who think the translation is wrong, what is the correct translation into English and how is it substantially different in meaning? Are these translation errors attested to with verifiable and reliable sources?--Blue Tie 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a right-wing nut, far from it. Some see me as appallingly left-wing, as I do have/have had socialist sympathies. I recognize this is not a simple conflict. It goes back decades, and there's no easy answer. Yet even I am taken aback by certain aspects of Ahmedinejad's view of Israel. "Israel must be wiped off the map and, God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."-That's what he said on October 28th, 2005, according to AL JAZEERA. You know, that Arabic news network whose offices were hit by U.S. missiles, and who, in a leaked memo it was discovered Bush, a blatant sympathizer of Israel, planned to bomb.64.231.189.197 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are the original words, and the direct translation into English. "Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)". There may be lingering disagreement amongst speakers of Farsi whether the last verb is "active" (as in "to wipe") or passive (as in "to vanish"), but some (eg Juan Cole) insist that it is passive. PalestineRemembered 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the source or sources for this?--Littleman_ TAMU (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just don't bother... we've already been through this, but people always come here and don't bother to read what we have already discussed. So they show up and bring in their own take as someone who knows the language.  They are probably right but we have to go with sources.  The Behnam 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not using what Noam Chomsky (I remind you that His first career is linguistic) used? and settle this forever.: "dubiously translated" in Parenthesis.--Pejman47 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, the problem is that it isn't about representing truth. This is about what the various source are saying, and unfortunately mainstream sources continue to repeat the "wiped off the map" version.  Of course we must discuss the significant disagreements to this common description, but we already do this.  If it was widely considered discredited we could represent this, but sadly enough it is still used, over and over again, with every news report mentioning Ahmadinejad.  I personally think it is stupid that they continue to translate safheh-ye ruzgaar as "map" but they obviously don't care.  The Behnam 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * where did you "but we already do this"? I don't see anything in the lead or elsewhere. and Chomsky and Guardian are household names.--Pejman47 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is mentioned here . Chomsky isn't mentioned by name but I believe he falls under "Some experts."  And the Guardian is the source used.  The Behnam 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, If that translated quote must be in the lead, "dubiously translated" also must be there maybe with an appropriate link. --Pejman47 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In context, I see no substantive difference between wiping someone off the map and wiping them from the pages of time, or, if I do see a difference, wiping someone from the pages of time is somewhat worse. So this argument is pointless. Use wikipedia policies about sources and let it be done. --Blue Tie 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I'm just trying to explain to Pejman why we can't take a side here.  I actually think MEMRI's "eliminated" is much less confusing than the 'vanished' versus 'wiped', but unless Pejman still objects this should be all done.  The Behnam 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * my objection is just about the lead. --Pejman47 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it enough to have the 'Easter Egg' link to the information? The Behnam 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the link, But why you called it "easter egg"? It was just a link to the full details of that speech. I propose adding "(dubiously translated)" I hope this compromise will settle this issue forever.--Pejman47 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Discussions about translations belong in the article about the phrase. This article is about MA himself, and the VAST majority of English language sources (this is English wikipedia) use wiped, which is what belongs in the article without any white-washy POV tags. -- Avi 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We've been through this many, many times. All the reliable sources repeat again and again that he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map", and the claim that it was "dubiously translated" is both original research and an extreme minority view - and even then, the alternative translations say the same, or worse. The compromise was that the words would be put in quotes, and linked to the section discussing the exact translation. That was done, and it has "settled this issue forever". Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be questioned whether or not some of these RS are reliable for the complicated language issue, but this isn't so critical that a change is required. The curious can just click the link and read more about it.  Of course the issue may not be settled forever if these "RS" ever decide to correct themselves, but until that distant day all of this is just beating a dead horse.  The Behnam 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I have a question: why you always bring the issue of original research, even if it is not related to that debate, at all. The sources where some linguistics professors one of them was Chomsky, I know that he is in a far far far left in political atmosphere, and of course a very small minority. But it is not OR and he and other sources debated the translation to show that it is not as bad as perceived; they said those on Behalf of Ahmadinejad, Not for worsening the issue. let me frank, maybe (I don't know) they just wanted to white-wash it, but me and you are not in the place to judge the "hidden motives" of someone e.g. Chomsky. And by the way, I want to continue the debate about "the hospital" which also resulted in 24 block of me. But this time I will open a RfC for it and bring fresh unbiased users to this talk page. Do you agree with it?--Pejman47 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Chomsky doesn't speak Persian; a linguist is not a translator. More importantly, the controversy is about him stating that Israel should be wiped off the map, regardless of what he really said. This has been explained many times, but you still insist on trying to defend him from the charge. "Wiped off the map" gets 325,000 Google hits; that's what notable, not Chomsky's political piece published on some left-wing blog claiming that the translation is "dubious". Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So it wasn't OR!, and As I said in some lines above, me and you are not in the place to judge the "hidden motives" of someone like Chomsky, and I think that article was published in Guardian, too. (I am not sure)
 * By the way, You are welcomed to discuss your views on Noam Chomsky on his article. take care,--Pejman47 22:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It must be noted that google hits doesn't constitute factuality. for example, out of curiosity one might search the term Jayjg, to see what it means, but instead he/she will encounter: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-18,GGGL:en&q=Jayjg . Hence, we know google searches are of irreverence --Gerash77 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you are making. There was a huge controversy about his statement that Israel be "wiped off the map". World leaders condemned him for it. The UN Security Council and Secretary General censured him for it. It was a big, big deal. I'm not sure why people keep trying to pretend it never happened, or that he was not internationally condemned for the statement. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Speech translation question
Does anyone know where I can get a full translation of Ahmadinejad's speech on 4th April? And I think Archive 15 was created prematurely - some of the archived topics were active less than 2 days ago! LeBofSportif 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This had been unanswered since April 6. I don't know where to find it; does anyone else? -- Avi 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you try www.president.ir? -Mohseng 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * His websites generally don't use actual transcripts of any speeches, but instead summarize the text. The Behnam 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
The page was way too long. I am certain you can continue conversations as we now stand. -- Avi 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right. It seems like this page has gone under way too many archives recently. Some of these excessive archives should be combined. Otherwise, trying to read through the archives becomes more inconvient and annoying for the readers. Most talk pages I've seen on wikipedia wait until there are about 50 or more contents in the talk page before archiving.--Sefringle 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It usually depends on length, noty number of entries. BIAS and Neutrality are the equivalent of 15 or so simple entries. -- Avi 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree about excessive archiving. This article's talk page is one of the better archived talk pages that I participate in.  Most talk pages are way too long and have rarely if ever been archived.  I don't know how to do it so I can't help those other pages.  I wish I could since many of them have discussions from 2004 and 2005 and sometimes later.  Combining the archives might help searching them, but, as I said I don't know about it (oh I just noticed the WP:ARCHIVE link).  Anyways, combining them would make a very large archive article and I doubt it'd help enough to justify going through the archives and intelligently combining them into topic discussions or even just combining every two archives.  Is there no way to search them using Wikipedia's search?--Littleman_ TAMU  (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of not being an antisemite
I strongly doubt that he was sincere when he said he respects the jews. His actions speak louder than his words do. As such, we should avoid the POV that he is sincere about this quote by replacing "said" with "claimed," since this is less POV wording and doesn't take a side on the sincerity of his words. The way it is currently written implies that he is sincere about the quote.--Sefringle 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Every week I have to argue yet again that there was a huge controversy about him stating that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Apparently there was no controversy at all about that, he wasn't condemned by all sorts of world governments and major organizations, not to mention the UN, for saying it. Instead, the real story was that he was horribly maligned and mistranslated, as part of a greater world conspiracy to vilify him, and this is what Wikipedia should be talking about. After all, what are thousands of reliable sources compared to a couple of editorials from polemicists, and a bunch of blogs whining that he really said "Zionist regime", not "Israel", and that it was really "wiped from the pages of time", not "wiped off the map". Oh, I see, that's completely different, and makes it all better. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle, when you "His actions speak louder than his words do", could you be more specific? Did he ever bake Jews in ovens or something? I'm curious. Lixy 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lixy, when you say "Did he ever bake Jews in ovens or something?", could you be more specific? If someone doesn't do that, does that mean they don't hate Jews? Jayjg (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * no it doesn't mean. but by donating money to Jewish hospital in Tehran and etc (see the sources I provided 1 month ago) it means he doesn't hate Jews. And "Say" is the most non-point of view for that purpose. It is very clear.--Pejman47 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to whom does the fact that the Iranian government gave money to a Jewish hospital means he doesn't hate Jews (as opposed to, say, just being a cheap political trick)? And why would your view on this be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The question was not directed to you. I wanted Sefringle to illuminate me on what ACTIONS that "speak louder than [..] words" were performed by MA. Lixy 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But my question was directed to you. Could you please respond? Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do that as soon as I get an answer to my question. Lixy 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please adhere to WP:WTA consensus, if you think "say" is POV, address your concerns on that page.--Gerash77 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please mind WP:SOAP. Also, he said the "illegal occupying regime of Jerusalem", not "zionist regime". --Kirby♥time 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do mind WP:SOAP, which is not relevant here. Thanks for clearing that up about the "illegal occupying regime of Jerusalem"; he probably meant Switzerland or something; certainly not Israel. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahmadinejad is anti-state-of-Israel-since-he-percieves-it-as-an-illegal-occupier-of-Palestinian-lands and not an anti-Jews-as-a-racial-or-religous-group. His comment on holocust means no more than this. That's the truth. 
 * Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, comments that: "The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies." and that Iran has no plan to attack Israel whatsoever.--Aminz 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you stop with the denigration of people who disagree with you? You don't see me making snide remarks about "Shoah business".--Kirby♥time 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not denigrating anyone, and I fail to see what this has to do with "Shoah business". Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming bad faith on editors who disagree with you, by saying that they are whitewashing the issue, is not exactly what I consider "not denigrating anyone". --Kirby♥time 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming bad faith, and it's not about editors who disagree with me. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he thinks Israel should be destroyed, many times, in public. Many world leaders have condemned him for it. Various people have also tried to make excuses for him, saying he didn't really mean what he said, or he only meant "getting rid of the Zionist government", or various other claims that either have no credibility, or amount to the same thing destroying Israel. That is whitewashing, and it's simple reality. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Just because people disagree with your "obviously contorted view" of the world, doesn't mean that they are "whitewashing" anything.--Kirby♥time 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok now you're just trolling.--Kirby♥time 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is you who is trolling. Holocaust denial alone qualifies as antisemitism, so with that whitewash you only discredit yourself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you even talking about?--Kirby♥time 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denial, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about them? When did I ever mention that? All I did was warn jayjg to stop using this talk page as a soapbox for his pro-zionism tirade.--Kirby♥time 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't make this personal, this is not about Jayjg. MA was widely condemned by the international community for expressing antisemitic views. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Well, that's what Ahmadinejad's defenders and whitewashers say, anyway. Others differ." - Ahmadinejad is a random sample of a group of people in Iran. His denial of holocust was nothing more than an echo of a political heresy that had gained popularity among that party for similar reasons that Bat Ye'or's mythical thesis (not my words, Lewis's words) has gained popularity among some parties in Israel. Ahmadinejad's words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense. He is certainly against the regime of Israel and believes that the land belongs to Palestinians. But there is nothing beyond that. --Aminz 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is antisemitism, and MA went even further. The definition of antisemitism does not say anything about "words should be taken in a pragmatic sense rather than in a literal sense" - and BTW, History of antisemitism proves you wrong again. The fact that MA finds a chorus of adorers in WP, while almost the entire world condemns him, is telling. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Humus sapiens, please don't use ironic language. Ahmadinejad was fairly condemned for denying holocust. He shouldn't be condemned for what he is not. --Aminz 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a holocaust denier and that makes him antiemitic. There was no sincerity in his quote, and it shouldn't be phraised in this article like there was.--Sefringle 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
There is a disagreement here whether to include the quotes of this person about Isreal in lead or not and if yes, should it be accompanied with some sentences from sources saying that the state of Jews living in Iran has not changed after the presidency of Ahmadinejad and all of the rhetorics are just somehow "political"--Pejman47 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * plus the Christian science monitor and CBS that you can find in recent edits please see this links    and then consider the reasonings of Jayjg, me and others regarding this issue in the talk page archive:  Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 15 and in above sections. Then please give your comments!--Pejman47 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many, many times. Please see Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, and Archive 14 where this was discussed. This may well be what he is best known and most notable for in the West (English Wikipedia) and the constant attempts to remove this from the lead seem to be merely to try and rehabilitate this man's image. Whether we like it or not, he is known for these statements, he has been internationally, and near universally condemned for these statements, and this is one of the key elements that makes him notable in the US. Whitewashing is a violation of WP:POV just as much as smearing is. The article has iron-clad, watertight sources for his statements; they should remain. -- Avi 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding extraneous, unrelated except at most tangentially, data trying to mitigate his statements is classic POV whitewashing as well, and does not belong in the lead. The statements added in the past were not only POV, but WP:OR as well, IIRC. -- Avi 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number and status of Jews in Iran do not belong in the article and surely not in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? Ahmadinejad has been accused of antisemitism, so it is very relevant to include such information.--Kirby♥time 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:LEAD. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To begin with, the status of Jews in Iran is irrelevant to whether or not Ahmadinejad is an antisemite. More importantly, has anyone notable made the argument that Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite because the Iranian government gave some money to a Jewish hospital, or the various other original research arguments invented by User:Pejman47? I'm not sure why he persists in this, he knows OR is not allowed on Wikipedia, and has been told that about this specific argument by many different editors. You should know better too. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the source? The CSM is a highly respected and notable organization.--Kirby♥time 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the status of Jews in Iran is clearly OR and an attempt at apologia. No, it shouldn't be included. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirbytime, there is whole lot of info that does not belong in this article. When the info is irrelevant, no matter how reputable its source is. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * some of the sources, e.g. CBS, clearly discussed "the state of jews" in Iran in relation to his "anti-Isreal" remarks; so, it is not OR. --Pejman47 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread the title of this article. As noted, MA's comments have caused a lot of reaction and therefore are notable. The "the state of Jews" (please note capital J, also you consistently misspell Israel - I hope unintentionally) in Iran does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * of course the misspleings are unintentional. anyway, nobody questioned the notability of that quote, but of course there is objections about its representation. And you also please read the article  again, you will find it that the author has intentionally saw a relationship with that quote and the state of Jews (OK capital) in iran. it is not OR. please help to make this article natural. and yesterday I made a post in Requests for comment/Biographies to bring fresh voices here. But I don't see any yet. sigh!--Pejman47 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * CSM is saying that the state of the Jews is being used as a response to the antisemitism allegations, it is highly relevant. Read the source.--Kirby♥time 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As other editors pointed out, for a biographical article, MA's exorbitant remarks and corresponding worldwide reactions are notable, but the status and the number of Iranian Jews are not. That CSM article (or rather, a more scholarly reliable source) probably belongs in the article Persian Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, the two sources are the same source, a story by Scott Peterson for the Christian Science Monitor. Second, this one story does not at all discuss whether or not Ahmadinejad's statements were antisemitic; rather, it notes Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, and Ahmadinejad himself is mentioned only peripherally. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * but in that article, clearly the author linked those with each other. and why I am still don't see any new name here. It seems that Request for comment doesn't work --Pejman47 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the author did not "link with each other"; there is nothing in the article that claims to be about whether or not Ahmadinejad is antisemitic. As for the RfC, it worked well enough. Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * for me it is very clear: he intentionally linked them with eachother, and of course Request for Comment failed, do you see any new name in above?--Pejman47 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The incredibly POV use of 'stated'
I don't understand why "stated" is being replaced with 'claimed' or (on the other side) 'rejected' because 'stated' is supposedly POV. How is it POV, or in one editor's words, "very POV"? If I recall correctly "stated" was used after a previous discussion as a compromise since it is very neutral, though flavorless (hence neutral). I ask that you all please make a good clear case now why "stated" is so unacceptable. Thanks. The Behnam 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you be specific? A diff that shows that change will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. According to WP:WTA we should use "said". --Aminz 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * is the most recent. Apparently Sefringle thinks there is something very POV about 'stated' that has something to do with his sincerity.  I simply can't see where he is coming from; "stated" seems so neutral to me as to approach bland writing.  The Behnam 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the way it is written implies that Ahmadinejad was sincere when he claimed to not be an antisemite. Even the source says "claimed." It is written as if saying that the accusations of antisemitism are thus invalid, since he "stated" that he is not antisemitic. He claimed not to be antisemitic in response, it is a claim, and lacks sincerity. --Sefringle 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be trying to address his supposed sincerity or lack thereof here. This POV type of writing was stripped when adding to this article so as to prevent a POV projection.  And we shouldn't be changing to 'claimed' with the sole purpose of questioning his sincerity, as that is purely POV editing.  The Behnam 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again with the sincerity bit? It's extremely hard to assume good faith here. First of, the burden of proof is on the accuser and besides twisting of the words in some speeches, you have yet to show any evidence which would support that he is anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is none of our business if he is sincere or not. The article is here to serve a higher purpose than to represent your POV. Lastly, I'll ask you to follow the talk guidelines and refrain from using biased titles in the future. Did you really need to append incredibly there? I do not consider "stated" to be POV Lixy 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In wikipedia, we should give all the raw data to the reader and let them decide for themselves. --Aminz 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also POV editing to imply that he is sincere about his quote, and to imply that the charges of antisemitism are invalid, as the lead, as it is currently written does.--Sefringle 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of "saying". Isn't it the words that come out of mouth? --Aminz 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Said" seems to me more factually accurate. He said that, right? I do not think that any reader will not be able to make his/her own mind about if he was sincere or insincere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your recent change improves the wording, swaying it away form Ahmadinejad's propaganda. But claimed would be better, since the charges of antisemitism are stated as alleged, his response should be as well, or it should be re-phraised, for example: "in response to these assertions, he said..."--Sefringle 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)