Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 4

Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Zionism
To date, comments by Ahmadinejad have been directed at the state of Israel, not the Jewish people as a whole. His infamous quote "to wipe Israel off the map" has been mistranslated (as you should see in the article). This is not a call to kill all the citizens of Israel, but rather meant to call for the removal of the state from the region. He has been very specific in his words, stating that the Middle East is not where he feels Israel should be.

Some comments by ThuranX in the revision history are either inaccurate or do not point to him being anti-Semitic. He does not want all Jews exiled from everywhere on earth as ThuranX claims, and he does not want all Jewish people killed. The general consensus on this talk page before seemed to be that any accusations of anti-Semitism on the part of Ahmadinejad are not factual and based solely on opinion. That is why there is nothing in the article that mentions him as anti-Semitic and why placing him in the category of anti-Semitic people is inappropriate.

That said, he is an Anti-Zionist. But, anti-Zionist attitudes do not make somebody anti-Semitic. In wikipedia for example, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are treated as distinctly separate issues. Interpreting Ahmadinejad's anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism is based on opinion, so classifying Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Markovich292 05:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC) vis


 * Ah, the "I'm not a racist, BUT..." ploy... Mi kk er (...) 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your crazy if you don't think he's anti-Semitic.--Firebird 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is just so productive in dealing with the issue. Markovich292 07:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is old territory. MA's numerous public comments have been described widely as anti-Semitic.--Mantanmoreland 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter how many people call him anti-Semitic; those are all opinions that, if stated as fact in an article, violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Classifying him as anti-Semitic is the same as letting people's points of view dictate the way he is portrayed in an article.


 * Let me reiterate: calling him anti-Semitic is not based on his words or actions; it is solely based on the POV of people that equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.  Wikipedia has two separate articles that describe how people are placed in these categories.  The fact of the matter is that Ahmadinejad meets one of them (anti-Zionist), but not the other (anti-Semitic).  Markovich292 07:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is of course very possible that he actually is an anti-Semite too, but we have no sources indicating that. // Liftarn


 * I thought that was a possibility as well but it really isn't approriate for people to be calling other people anti-Semitic if they don't actually act that way. Calling someone anti-Semitic (in the US at least) is a pretty weighty accusation...but without sources to back it up like you mention, it is slander, plain and simple. Markovich292 09:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's accurate, pure and simple. One doesn't have to have a Jewish baby roasting on the barbie to be anti-Semitic. Tis enough to have said what he's said.--Mantanmoreland 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here? The person who asked made a polite, intelligently constructed argument for considering him anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. I haven't read any real counterargument :"you don't have to roast a baby...", "he could be anti-semitic too...", "it's crazy to think he isn't...", "lots of people have said that...". Are those the best counterarguments that can be presented??? Evilbu 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is going on here is a return to reality. The initial comments above stated a ridiculously narrow view of the term "anti-Semitic," arguing in effect that one must advocate the extermination of Jews to be considered anti-Semitic. By that criteria virtually no one other than Hitler would be considered anti-semitic.--Mantanmoreland 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I feel obligated to point out that I have never restricted the definition of anti-aemitic to what you say above. I have been working off entire articles that are within Wikipedia.


 * Now that we took care of that, let me continue. The single longest section on this page is the one above dealing directly with anti-Semitism.  I re-read it, and I am going to quote some extremely relevant things:


 * "Namely if he is anti-semitic, then we need to document why he is anti-Semitic, and not just accept other people calling him so as proof that he is'" to which you reply "No, this is not the place for original research." You are confronted that citing necissary sources is not original research, and then respond with this: "...one pretext after another is being advanced to remove content unfavorable to Ahmadinejad."


 * My point is, you are one of the few people that is arguing that he is deserving of the Anti-Semitic tag. "Other editors honestly believe that it is far from obvious that MA is an antisemite, and feel that POV article tagging is counter to both the spirit and the letter of wikipedia."


 * I also support labelling him as Anti-Semetic. He's clearly anti-Zionist, which requires hating a large portion ofhte world's jews. Further, he supports the exile of jews from Iran, Iraw, and the rest of the middle east. He's called for them to be exiled from many other nations, and considers Europe to be the right place to put the Jews. Supporting the dissolution of Israel is anti-zionist. Supporting the dissolution of Jewish communities throughotu the world is anti-semitism. Further, he promotes the publishing in Iran of Ford's International Jew, and of the Protocols. Publishing anti-semitic literature (and those are anti-semitic, not anti-zionist), also makes him an anti-semite. He hates all jews. He FOCUSES on Israel.ThuranX 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping you were just trying to drive home a point by saying that anti-Zionism requires hating a large portion of the world's Jews. Zionism is a political issue, not a racial issue, so therefore he hates the "Zionist Regime" and not necessarily the occupants of Israel.  Now a question; do you feel that relocation of Palestinians when Israel was created was racist?  Is Zionism a form of racism?  Whatever your POV, a UN Resolution backs up that it is not.  Ahmadinejad is only advocating the same type of relocation today for Jewish people that Palestinians were forced to go through 60 years ago in the name of Zionism; therefore, if the nations that were responsible for the creation of Israel are not collectively racist, then he can not be called anti-Semitic.  (Please note that I am trying to illustrate the issue with comments from other perspectives in the above section, I do not support the anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic opinions that I have addressed).


 * As far as anti-Semitic literature in Iran goes, there hadn't been state-controlled distributions of the materials you refer to for years before MA became president. There are of course cartoons, books, etc. but remember, Iran is a democratic society.  MA does not have to approve of everything for it to be said in his country. Markovich292 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thuran I assume you're responding to Markovich292's comment at the top of this section, as I do agree with your position here.--Mantanmoreland 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still not impressed. Yes, original research has no place here.  But "lots of people" isn't a good argument either, it's a weasel word according to Wikipedia policy.  Do you have a source for his antisemitism? Opposing the creation of the State of Israel, is not the same as antisemitism, which is pure racism, hate aimed at Jews just because they are Jews, not because of actions or opinions you disagree with.  Give me a trustworthy source of a real antisemitic action or statement by Ahmadinejah, please.Evilbu 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt you'll ever be sufficiently impressed. it's rare now for anyone, even an obvious bigot like MA, to come out ans say flat out ' hey, i've got a few hours, let's go kill jews'. but they think it. OVer the last 8 months that I've been watching this article, i've seen numerous editors add cites for his views,and seen as many editors remove them, claiming that saying he's Anti-semitic is POV no matter the level of evidence, or tht it's Original research, or whatever yellow flag of the day they can throw. This is going to keep going until MA says 'kill all jews' in english, because we've already seen the trouble with 'wipe them off the map'. Ultimately, some editors will always fight to make anythign he says about jews be seen as JUST being about israeli jews, and continue to drop the Anti-semitic tags. This is what, the third, fourht, seventh? section about this issue. tehre will be dozens more. I'm frustrated with it, so I'm done with this article for a while. Once he starts killing persian jews, it'll jsut be 'oops, they were zionists' and that'll be that. then the other jews,and oops, still zionists... whatever. bye. ThuranX 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. MA has frequently stepped over the bounds of mere anti-Zionism, and no matter how one may want to finesse that point it is really quite obvious. --Mantanmoreland 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Even an obvious bigot like MA." This is exactly the kind of POV I am trying to keep out of the article by having the dabate take place here.Markovich292 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't help but notice you still haven't given a link. Then you assumed that I was gonna use weak counterarguments like "the persians jews were zionists too".  Then you said you were "done with this article" because there has been a conflict too many times.  Let me ask it this way : there used to be a law in Belgium allowing persecution of Ariel Sharon, are we antisemitic now?  The Soviet Union supported Egypt in the past against Israel, is the Soviet Union antisemitic now?  A norwegian paper published a cartoon of Olmert as a nazi, is the editor antisemitic now?  Where does it stop.  That many people don't like Ahmadinejad and what says is certainly comprehendible, but it's unfair to call him antisemitic when he opposes zionism.  Antisemitic is racism and illegal, Wikipedia should not be a tool against Iran.Evilbu 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have to answer this. Belgium antisemetic? Probably. They, like the french sold the jews to the Nazis in exchange for a turned back while they looted the houses. USSR? well, WHO commissioned and published the Protocols for almost 100 years? Oh yeah. RUSSIANS. Egypt's a strawman. Norway? There aren't many jews there, so who knows how they feel, but there's a lot of anti-Zionists in scandanavia, so there's probably some blurry lines. Since you'r FROM Belgium, by your own admission, I think you've got a large streak of the Anti-Zionism that's vogue across Europe now. AM hates all jews. I guarantee for you that if every jew in israel lay in the streets and gave up their claim, he's shoot them before they could move out. And his next move would be calling for the expulsion of all other jews from all arabian lands. He's an anti-semite. ThuranX 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indenting is getting crazy here, but we must keep it neat.. Have I got a streak of anti Zionism that is popular across Europe? Maybe, maybe not (I am only 21).  But suppose I was, and I told you that in my opinion Israeli state was built on unfair grounds.  Would you call me anti-semitic for that?


 * It depends on what you cite as unfair grounds, but it's not unlikely, because most objections are based in veiled anti-semitism if you know the history of the region. Saracens to Ottomans to British to Balfour to White Papers to the Mandate to the War. Eventually, it all comes down to the one argument that Muslims always demand be recognized when it's in their favor, Right Of Conquest. That's the basis for those, like MA, who want to restore the Mohammedan/Moorish Empire, and it's their basis for demanding Israel roll over and die. However, that view is also a contradiction in itself. Either Right of Conquest and Spoils of War are viable policies for all peoples, or for none. Muslims demand that RoC and SoW be recognized for any Islamic victories, and ignored for Dhimmi and Infidel victories. Most Anti-Zionism is based in only one of two things, anti-semitism or some notion that, by finally getting land and asserting themselves, Jews become hypocrites for actually treating others as they've been treated(HIllel's golden rule, cited by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a major philosophy. It's hypocrites not liking it when they see the other side doing as they have done. That said, most of those citing reason two actually still default to reason one, because they feel they are superior to the 'others' in such a situation. Feelings of inherent superiority are pretty much feelings of 'anti-my-inferiors' (if i may abuse the language for a meaning). (Finally, remember a blank line after comments so that we DO keep this mess neat. I added some to your comments to keep the format uniform.) ThuranX 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that’s it....calling Evilbu anti-Zionist just because he is from Belgium is bad, but saying that it is "not unlikely" that he is anti-Semitic is completely different. It is only fair that another perspective on this issue be brought up.  The following can be found in the article Anti-Zionism:


 * "many Jews see attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic. For example, Yehuda Bauer has argued: 'If you advocate the abolition of Israel...that means in fact that you're against the people who live there.'"


 * Also from the same article, "...associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is [allegedly] intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies."


 * Put frankly, you are being overzealous in your accusations of anti-Semitism and for wikipedia editing at the very least, need to be more discriminating on what, and who, you classify as anti-Semitic.Markovich292 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the first quote supports my position that anti-zionism = anti-semitism, it doesn't decay it. Bauer's statement's both clear and logical. As for the other, I notice you quote it out of context... looking up the context reveals that this is an unsourced statement regarding the views of critics of associating the two ideas. So... an out of context quote as strawman. Interesting. Finally, I'm no more zealous in wanting the accuracy of this article than the other side (that's you) is zealous in watering down reality for what Stephen Colbert refers to as "wikiality." By Bauer's standards, MA has far exceeded the definition of Anti-Semite, possibly exponentially so. As for Evilbu, I gave latitude, and said 'not unlikely', not 'Yes you are.' Remember, the Belgians threw Jews into the street as teh nazis marched down the road, and like the French, they then ran into homes and stole the silverware and jewelry. If that's not anti-semitic behavior to you, nothing will meet your definition. ThuranX 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay first of all the discussion of whether or not with the current sources MA can be categorized as antisemitic, has degenerated here. It's my fault : I started about Belgium's possible prosecution of Sharon.  I should have seen the incomparability because Belgium is a group, not a single person.  Secondly, Thuranx spoke of actions by civilians in the past, many of whom are dead now....  Irrelevant thus, but still I would like to hear some sources on those Belgian mistreatings of the Jews (just interested). (Besides my own grandfather worked for the resistance, and helped Jews to find shelter...)Evilbu 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that group/individual contrast you mention is so wrong, given the culture of Iran and how the post-revolution Iranian culture probably affected AM. anyways, as for Belgium, I've heard those stories from cousins who fled Belgium during the Holocaust and from speeches by survivors at my synagogue, and referenced many many time in conversations I've listened to among the 'older generation' who remember the war. And i left room for belgian non-haters... My cousin's family survived thanks to nuns and lentil soup in a Belgian convent till they could be smuggled to the french ports. but the stories of the French throwing Jews at the feet of the Nazis are pretty common, and there are a number my cousin has told of the same going on in Belgium. I can't cite an author recounting such or documenting survivor tales of such offhand, but I'd be shocked if the stories aren't in books by now. ThuranX 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first quote does not support anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism because it is an opinion. I see now that the reason we are having difficulties here is that you can not distinguish opinion from fact.


 * The second quote was taken from a larger statement, but only to keep things to the point. I added "allegedly" because I know it is unsourced, and included it because it is accurate in describing the type of POV you reflect; anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism.  There is good reason to believe that you want people to see MA as anti-Semitic so as to taint him due to his opposition to Israel (as mentioned in the quote).  Therefore, there is no "strawman" here.  Anyway, throughout this debate you have been saying things like "by Bauer's standards" to try to make people accept opinion as fact, thus pushing your clear POV.


 * Lastly, I am referring to your entire attitude that anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism when I say overzealous. Sure, you want this article in your POV just as much as I want it neutral, but that is not what I was saying is overzealous.  In dealing with other users, you don't hesitate to throw around the term "anti-Semite," and that is overzealous.  And implying that I have a poor definition of anti-Semitism is counter-productive.  I mentioned before that I work off the Anti-Semitic article, so implying otherwise it just malicious.Markovich292 04:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't helped but notice that you continue to ignore entire sections of this article, and the article on MA and Israel, that substantiate the cat. This article is watered down on the subject and gives far too much space to spin from the Iranaian news agency, but it still makes the case.--Mantanmoreland 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an open mind. Tell me what section to read.  Give me a link, copy it here, whatever, and I will definitely read it (I've been reading the article, that is why I ask)Evilbu 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are referring to me, but I can assure you that I have read the article you mention, and have read plenty of sources beyond wikipedia articles. I have seen nothing that proves MA is anti-Semitic, and by that I mean actions or words on his part that fit into the Wikipedia article of Anti-Semitism.  You claim there is evidence beyond just opinions stated in articles, but still only make vague references to sections in this article that do not point to racism of any kind.  Since you can not produce anything other than opinions regarding the alleged Anti-Semitism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I am going to remove the tag that links him to that category on Wikipedia.  I believe that I am acting in accordance with the written policies of wikipedia and their intent, and therefore am working for the common good.  Disagree all you like, but please keep in mind that neutrality is a cornerstone of wikipedia, and at present you are not able to provide that.


 * Considering the amount of time it took to find out that nobody has any information to prove that MA is anti-Semitic, please do not try to add anti-Semitic references to the article unless there is NEW information that you are fairly certain will draw a consensus from the wikipedia community that he is indeed anti-Semitic.Markovich292 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ThuranX further responded above. I think that it is unfortunate that some editors can't see anything anti-Semitic about MA hosting a Holocaust denial conference or an anti-Semitic cartoon competition (much less his revolting comments on Israel). Let's get real, folks.--Mantanmoreland 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I havn't seen any reputable proof of anti-Semitism either. Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, and attempting to blur the two distracts from the main issue. Take a parallel:


 * Advocating that Russians in Estonia (who forcibly replaced many of the pre-existing population in a similar manner and around the same time as the creation of Israel) not be permitted to merge Estonia with the Russian Federation is not anti-Russianism, is it? In fact, calling for the Russian settlers to be transfered from Estonia to Russia may be extreme, but it doesn't naturally follow that advocating that course of action indicates a hatred of all russians everywhere.Not supporting the political aims of a group of people does not indicate a hatred of them. That said, I suspect MA is an anti-semite, and if it can be proved conclusively, I'll fight tooth and nail to keep that information in the article.Detruncate 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a quote by Thomas Friedman that I would like to state. It goes like this: ''“Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”'' He gets it dead on. I, as a liberal jew, totally disagrees with the Israeli government's policies. However, encouraging the destruction of the world's only Jewish state is anti-semetic. Hamas and other militant(in my eyes terrorist) organizations claim for a population transfer of the Jews(other than the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1880.) In reality, this would mean driving us all into the sea. You have blinded your eyes if you think MA merely disagree's with the Israeli government. --Max 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great quote,and I thank you for putting it out there for the other side to read, but it won't work. They already deny any claim by a western journalist as biased and proof that the west is either blind or full of idiots, or they say that western judgements shouldn't be applied to an eastern guy like MA. ThuranX 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Markovich292 has already pointed out MANY times, you have no proof that he is anti-semitic or has made anti-semitic comments. Proof for labeling Ahmadinejad as anti-semitic would lie within providing proof of anti-semitic comments.  Using this quote by Friedman does not support your argument because a quote by a "famous person" is an opinion and nothing more.  Furthermore an opinion of said person is no more valid than your opinion.  Nobody is saying that Western judgments do not apply to Eastern diplomats and calling people blind and idiots also violates WP:COOL so I ask that you present VALID proof that Ahmadinejad is an anti-semitic and people will gladly make the necessary changes.  Mike 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Us Jews have lived in a harsh world. In every society that we have fit in-that we have assimilated-we have eventually been persecuted and killed and robbed. Spain with the Inquisitions, even Germany. My Great-Aunt who's still alive and well today in Tel Aviv called Germany "The New Palestine." They thought they were as German as you could get. 100,000 German Jews served in World War I and 30,000 died in it. But when Hitler came along, their names were scrubbed off the memorials. History repeats itself, and I do not look forward to the day when we are persecuted in American society. But through history, we've learned we cannot be free and secure in a country where we are the minority. Israel is our backbone, the knowledge that if there ever was another government who wanted to murder us again, we would have somewhere to go to. That we wouldn't be locked up and sent to Concentration camps-but that we could be free. As a liberal jew, I totally disagree with the Israeli government and the settlements and the immoral occupation of the West Bank. However disagreeing and refusing to except the Jewish democratic state are totally different. The quote by Thomas Friedman above isn't an opinion or a fact- its an observation of history for the past thousands of years. When one questions the legitimacy of the Jewish democratic state- they are anti-semetic. They might not be anti-semetic in your eyes-and I dont see the need to convince you otherwise-since the whole world doesn't care when Jews die or are persecuted-but in our eyes- they refuse to except the notion that us jews need to have a place-need to have a state. I love America, and I would die for it. But in the back of my head- I will never feel totally secure as I feel when I am in Israel. --Max 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Gov't of Iran
Just a comment I noticed - Iran is not a democratic country. It's controlled by a supreme leader who's almost as anti semite as AM. Amoruso 07:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone said Iran is a democratic country? Are they kidding? Iran is known for notorious human rights practices.--Max 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because there are human rights violations in a nation does not mean it it not democratic. Look at Israel for example.  The fact of the matter is, Iran's Head of government is an elected official.  As for the Supreme Leader of Iran:
 * "The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts"
 * "Members of the assembly are elected by direct public vote to eight year terms." Markovich292 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really mean much. There are many, many nations with constitutions in place who still are ruled by dictators. All it takes is ignoring, suspending, or overthrowing the extant set of rules. Further, other dictators put into place 'constitutions' which amount to nothing more than a document saying 'This makes Bob the king, because Bob the king SAYS it makes Bob the king.' Such self-serving circular reasoning is the basis for a number of national 'constitutions'. having one doesn't mean much, and election for life is pretty much a dictatorial starting point. Add to that that anyone who opposes the current party, like the student demonstrators a few years back, can and do disappear for speaking against the supreme leader for life means that there is no true opposition. declaring yourself a democracy while killing all who dissent from your one party system doesn't make it a democracy, no matter how much stationary your print it on. Iran's a dictatorial government, and MA has only limited powers which the SPFL could revoke at a whim. ThuranX 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no free elections in Iran, all candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council, a non-elected body who has the ultimate power in the country. There is no free press, no freedom of expression etc. Calling Iran a democratic country is of course ridiculous. I recommend you to read the Freedom House report. /Slarre 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. ThuranX 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Why is it that almost any other head of state has a nice respectable image yet we use a picture of him turning on his side and poor lighting to portray him as a (crook,villian,mean,badguy)? I think no matter what the opinion, a proper picture should be placed here. I have a few to suggest.--Bangabalunga 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, it's not a very good picture. You can't even make out his features that well. --141.209.196.70 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, once this page becomes unprotected we should change it to a "Standard" Portrait. Yas121 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He's had a multitude of pictures. No one's submitted an official state photo. If you find one, add one. One of the previous was eliminated for being black and white, which made him villianous seeming. Find a good one, add it, just make sure it's not a copy vio. ThuranX 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK will do. By standard I meant an official state photo or something close to it. ie. something like this and NOT this :-) Yas121 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people
Can someone either find respectable sources that say that it is widely accepted that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, or can you please remove the original research category tag that is also in violation of WP:BLP. Here's a relevant quote from WP:BLP: Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation.Deuterium 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To anyone looking for such sources: Please remember that opinions (even a widely accepted opinions) are still not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia even if printed in  respectable sources.


 * Another Important Note (from Reliable sources): "Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page."   This means that we should not even have to debate this.  I tried to point out that the people that incessantly attack MA are unjustified in doing so, but they refuse to let it sink in that they are not only against the Wikipedia community, but they are also blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy.


 * this is all here already.

Denying the Holocaust
In December 2005 Ahmadinejad made several controversial statements regarding the Holocaust and the State of Israel, at one point referring to the Holocaust as a "myth" and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial. He said that although he does not know whether or not nor to what extent the Holocaust occurred, if it had in fact occurred, European countries should make amends to the Jewish people by giving them land to establish a state in "Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska" instead of making "the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime" . The statements were condemned by many world leaders.

The head of Iran's Jewish community, Haroun Yashayaei, sent a letter to Ahmadinejad in early 2006 that read, in part, "How is it possible to ignore all of the undeniable evidence existing for the exile and massacre of the Jews in Europe during World War Two? Challenging one of the most obvious and saddening events of 20th-century humanity has created astonishment among the people of the world and spread fear and anxiety among the small Jewish community of Iran."

In February 2006, Former President Mohammad Khatami clearly rejected Ahmadinejad's remarks by calling Holocaust a historic fact.

Accusations of anti-Semitism
Criticism of the "anti-Semitic statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" "of hate and animosity toward all Jewish people of the world" has come from the U.S. Senate, which passed a unanimous resolution condemning his "harmful, destructive, and anti-Semitic statements." Identification of Ahmadinejad with antisemitism has come from a variety of sources. 

The Iranian government has responded that "the Western media empire is trying to portray Iran as an anti-Semitic country" and alternate translations have been cited to contradict the accusations. Currently, 40,000 Jews live in Iran. Their treatment is a matter of great debate, though it is certain their treatment is better than other religious minorities in Iran.

In short, there are dozens of sources which fit WP:RS and WP:V and WP:CITE and also fit the criteria set forth in Categorization. Amoruso 09:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Utter rubish is the labelling of people anti-semitic or anti-whatever in an Encyclopedia Wake up people anti-zionist and anti-israel statments don't = anti-semitism no matter how much you want them to!! stop injecting POV into this encyclopedia! Yas121 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

news
BBC: prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/290806_b_debate.htm Iran TV debate challenge to Bush]. Odds of Bush risking to expose his dumb *** ? None. --Striver 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to resolve this quickly
This could certainly go on for quite a while, so how about we stop it and work on a final revision that has a well written article without seemingly tacked on information?

The quest here for me has been is to keep NPOV in this article. To keep this article neutral, we can't state opinion as fact for one thing. Everybody should know that it is fine to state opinions in articles, but they have to be labeled as such. A category can't be labeled as opinion, so placing something in a category is the same as calling it fact. Thats why the burden of proof lies with the person that adds the category; they must have sources in the article that are not open to interpretation and clearly detail why that person deserves that particular assosciation.

So, are people going to finally stop removing warranted categories (Holocaust Denier or Man for example)? And are other people going to stop adding unwarranted categories (Anti-Semite or Purple People Eater for example)? This debate is so simple that this is the only real compromize available to us, so how about we get it over with?Markovich292 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you have a "compromise" consisting of agreeing with you. My counter-compromise is that you agree with me and retain both cats.


 * Seriously, read the anti-Semitic article and then explain to me how that does not apply to MA.--Mantanmoreland 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that I stand for wikipedia NPOV policy and you stand for inclusion whatever the cost, I would say my mission is more in agreement with the spirit of an encyclopedia, like this should be. The category thing was only part of it though anyway.  There is still the matter of merging all the stuff into the article that you added.  That is another thing that I intended to be part of the compromize...thus making it that much more agreeable for everyone.  It could never hurt to see what we all think about how it should be organized.Markovich292 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Friend, please. Everyone who has been editing Wiki for more than one month always "stands for NPOV," whether or not that is actually the case. The dispute at this point concerns only the cat, as best as I know. Looking at the Wikipedia definition, I really fail to see how, since you at least agree with his being a Holocaust denier, you can't also agree that this makes him an anti-Semite on the basis of the definition. Your disagreeing with the definition does not justify your disregarding it. --Mantanmoreland 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical insertion (edit conflict): It is not WP:NPOV to leave out something that is true just because it is not all sweetness and light. For example, look at all of the articles on Human Rights. The question is simply, do we have verifiable evidence from reliable sources that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an Anti-Semite? I happen to agree with Mantanmoreland that the sources brought above fill this requirement. You do not. Peace treaties and brokering aside, I think we all agree that the article should be WP:NPOV, but that does not mean to supress information either. -- Avi 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I humored you and went over the article, again. The one thing that every single definition has in common is the fact that they all reference Jews as a people.  If you actually read MA's quotes (without trying to speak for him), it is clear that he is always referencing the "Zionist Regime" as he calls it.  There is a distinction that he makes between all Jews and Zionists. When he does use the word Jews, it is never in a racist way.


 * Just for the sake of argument, if you still think he is talking about all Jews, here is something to think about. The United States Department of State defines anti-Semitism in its 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism as "hatred toward Jews — individually and as a group — that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."  How is it that you don't realize that his motivations are political?!


 * This is not trying to suppress information. I have agreed that we should include information in the article regarding allegations of anti-semitism, but only if it isn't stated as fact.  As of now though, it is not our place to designate him as an anti-semite because we have no factual evidence, it is all based on interpretations.Markovich292 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines Anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." What part of this don't you understand? This discussion has gone way past absurd.--Mantanmoreland 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This discuaation has gotten much to long, but look at why...by that very simple definition MA is not anti-Semitic but you claim he is anyway.


 * Lets make up a hypothetical: he land we call Israel is a state of German people, and lets just say that "Anti-Deutsch" was used to describe the philosophy that says the part of Germany where Israel currently is should be dissolved.  MA would still be saying the exact same things in this case.  He would be of the "Anti-Deutsch" mindset, but that does not mean he hates German people.  In other words, the fact that Jewish people populate the region is not why he wishes the lands returned to Palestine.  If it were a German state where Israel is, MA would still call for the region to be returned to its "rightful owners."  Since we can substitute another race into the issue like this and MA would still oppose them, we know that it is not a racial issue with him.   So what part of this don't you understand?  Markovich292 03:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why some editors are so passionate to whitewash Ahmadinejad in the face of all the evidence, and are putting so much energy into proving that point. I find it disturbing, to be quite frank.--Mantanmoreland 03:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because the evidence for MA being an anti-Semite is very thin at best (we do have references to him being called an anti-Semite, but that's not the same thing) and as Biographies of living persons says "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". If he would be dead then it would probably be easier. I do understand why some editors are so passionate to throw mud at Ahmadinejad and are putting so much energy into that. // Liftarn


 * You can't refute the logical argument I presented so instead you accuse me of whitewashing. I show that he passes a pretty universal test to determine if somebody is racist, and it is ignored.  Unbelievable.  Markovich292 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Markovich (Btw, that's also a Jewish name :) ), that was an interesting argument but also lacking on perspective and ignoring history and knowledge. The Jews have been persecuted for so much time that they warranted their own word as "anti semitism" -> obviously Jews would be sensitive if a person will say he wants to eliminate them, and atleast they would want to say that he's anti-semitic. Now your arguments lacks the basic problem of origin. But let's focus first on what's true with it. AM being a muslim fundemtalist will persecute anyone not muslim in the area but mitigating factors for those people will be if : (1) they have no political aspirations and willing to live under muslim rule (2) they're arabs and hence share cultural and cetain linguistic and behaviourial patterns (3) they're eastern - MA will despise the western culture which he sees as threat. (4) they're outside the realm of the muslim empire - they're far away... now with Jews they're no mitigating factors because they are politically organized, many of them west orientated, and not arabs. Now if you take the Germans in your example into this frame - the result is certainly similar on the mitigating factors, but those Germans you mentioned they still have the fatherland right ? they still have Germany don't they ? Well Jews don't have Judea somewhere else. What AM is suggesting is that Jews have conspired a conspiracy, worldwide conspiracy in order to perform genocide on other people, that they're essentially not even a people - they belong in europe or better yet alaska (he said it) and that they have evil plans. Now if someone will suggest that the blacks have invented slavery and invented being poor and persecuted and are actually driving a whole conspiracy world wide net of drugs to hurt the caucasians, the pure white race of the american youth in order to intermingle and bring their satanic behaviour with them, wouldn't you say they're anti blacks ? You would... What AM is saying is identical to what White Power are saying. how can you say that one is anti semite and one another ? It is true that the line between anti zionism and anti judaism is still there, a line, but when one is talking about zionism not only as a wrong idea but as an evil conspiracy, one is being an anti semite . You can't demand to throw 5-6 million jews out of somewhere to alaska and argue that it's simply being anti israeli.


 * Thank you for taking the time to consider this and make comments. I know of the history of persecution, and I am glad that you mention this.  It is one of the factors that I considered when I mentioned that the people pushing the issue from your side are likely to have a strong bias.  You hit the nail on the head when you said: "obviously Jews would be sensitive...and at least they would want to say that [Mahmoud Ahmadinejod is] anti-semitic."  The part that I disagree with in that quote (from the unedited version) is you including that "he wants to eliminate them."  That is the way it has been interpreted by you, and probably the majority of Jews in Israel, because of the sensitivity that you mentioned.


 * I respect your time in constructing an argument to debate this in a civil manner. I agree totally that there he selectively opposes certain groups.  By your own admission, he persecutes based on political aspirations, arab vs. non arab descent, Westernization, and geographic identity; none of these single out Jews, however.  It just so happens that there may be many Jews that do not fall into favorability with MA, but he is not singling them out specifically for persecution because they are Jewish.  He lacks the kind of direct targeting of Jews that is required to call someone anti-semitic.


 * I think the above should have proven my point, but you took the time to write the above comments, so I'll address them anyway. First, the following quote is entirely based on opinion (as far as I know, show me the quotes and I will believe otherwise): "what [MA] is suggesting is that Jews have conspired...worldwide...in order to perform genocide on other people, that they're essentially not even a people...and that they have evil plans."


 * Now, about your African-American analogy: someone claiming that African-Americans invented slavery does not match here because MA did not claim that Jews invented the holocaust, he asserts that it was governments and the media that exaggerated it. As for the rest, MA has never shown a philosophy like that of White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis.  They advocate persecution of Jews just because they are Jews, as I said above, MA does not.


 * One more thing. Lets just say in my above example about Germans in the holy land, there were no "greater Germany."  For this example, there are 6 million Germans in what is now called Israel and a further 6 million scattered throughout the world.  MA would still be calling for the dissolution of the state that holds the 6 million Germans in the holy land.  That is the fairly universal way to tell if somebody is racist (i.e. substitution of one race for another.  Assuming the person doesn't also hate the group substituted, and if the person would say the same things, it is not racism) that I mentioned before.  MA passes this test.


 * Here is a parting thought on your paragraph. When somebody calls for relocation of Jews in Israel:
 * They do not have to dislike the Jewish people to advocate relocation because of political views
 * They are not referring to all Jews and therefore have no apparent attitudes about Jews in general
 * Would you call the original division of the region anti-Palestinian? After all, there were Palestinians that were in the area that became Israel, and they were the majority.  There is the same situation now; for the land to be returned to the "rightful owners," Israelis would be displaced just as Palestinians have been.  Considering how similar these circumstances are, if you don't call the division of Palestine anti-arab, you can't call the dissolution of Israel anti-semitic. Markovich292 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Markovic, I disagree to your argument that an anti semite needs to target only jews. On the contrary, an anti semite will by definition target more than just Jews usually. This is the basic notion of the Nazis. They look first at themselves, Aryan and then they spot the societies that are the most "dangerous" to them in that sense. Jews are in the front line, but gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, serbs, crippled, mentally ill, communists, are next on line. This is exactly the same train of though that MA has... but instead of Aryan it's Muslim, and the biggest threat to that is Judaism follwed up by the entire western civilization. There's no connection between this rather than a positive connection perhaps, and the fact he's an anti semite.


 * As for the last comment, the number of palestinian exodus is less than half a million Arabs who left and 1 million jews who left Arab states (and Iran). also there was no state here. Comparing that to policide and sending 6 million jews to alaska, not to essentially the same country (jordan-arab-syria was same back then) is differnet, not to forget that happened in a war iniated by the ARABS themselves. If we attack Iran in purpose to annhilate Iranians and then we're expelled from Israel that's differnet. you see how analogies like that are worthless. bottom line your test of checking who's racist is not valid like explained. about his quotes, he said it all, including what you think he didn't - that holocaust is a zionist myth. these exact words. it's all quoted here time and again in the articles and discussions and refs. He blamed in on zionists, not on europeans. Amoruso 07:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * anyway this is not what you wanted, so I don't know why you're arguing it.... you wanted sources, not opinons and deductions and those were provided. A uniamous U.S senate decision is WP:RS which is also the basis for other designations which they make. So you have (a) sources (b) deductions (c) opinions based on the definitions (d) the fact holocaust denial is WP:RS to be a form of anti-semitism . you can choose one of those or ignore them all. Personally, I don't care. It's interesting though that you tried to argue he's not even a holocaust denier. If someone didn't keep deleting that category too, you'd be more convincing but deleting his sourced material speeches themselves in effect like this showed some not perfect good faith plausibly. Like i said, personally I don't mind the anti semite category. good day. Amoruso 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're NUTS!!! You say " I have agreed that we should include information in the article regarding allegations of anti-semitism, but only if it isn't stated as fact. " That's pointless and a a trap, and you KNOW it. You're acting in bad faith here. If we add somethign that's an allegation and not fact, you'll remove it for NOT being a fact. Stop lying about your 'compromises' and be honest. The only compromise is 'your way 100%'. that's all you'll actually accept. I'm sick of reading your lies and dealing with them. I haven't edited to add the category yet, but I'm getting ready to join the edit war. You basically are denying the existence of anti-semites at this point. By YOUR definitions, as evidenced by your views, not even Hitler's an anti-semite. ThuranX 00:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're calling me nuts now. I guess we know where you stand.  I never impugned your character but you still find it perfectly ok to call me duplicitous (I assume, you spelled it wrong so I'm not sure) in the edit summary and NUTS here.


 * You lay out a case that "If we add somethign that's an allegation and not fact, you'll remove it for NOT being a fact." You are again dead wrong in reducing me to an unreasonable oaf.  I have never done that here, nor have I ever indicated that I would.  My compromize was meant to illustrate that it is YOUR responsibility to show that MA is FACTUALLY DOCUMENTED as an anti-semite, or CLEARLY has anti-semitic views.  I also mean to let people know that I advocate INCLUDING the allegations of anti-semitism, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SAY THAT THIS IS A FACT.  SO FAR THE ONLY THING THAT PEOPLE HAVE PRESENTED ARE QUOTES THAT THEY INTERPRET AS BEING ANTI-SEMITIC AND DO NOT PROVE THAT HE HATES JEWS.


 * By saying that I am "denying the existence of anti-semites"...and that my "definitions, as evidenced by your views" do "not even [qualify Hitler as] an anti-semite", all you prove is that you haven't been paying attention to anything I have said. I argue that you can't go placing all the people that you want into the anti-semite category.  I don't care how you want to spin it, I do not have a narrow definition of anti-semite.  You really want to know the kinds of the people that I call anti-semites?  Hitler obviously, but  also people not as obvious, such as Mel Gibson (even before his DUI incident).  You should note, Mel Gibson even publically denied being an anti-semite.  So now seeing that your personal attack is pointless and without merit, are you finally going to focus on the issue again? Markovich292 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the fact someone denys a crime for instance won't be enough to vindicate him if he's declared to have done the deed. I don't know why you argue that you only saw opinions, which is what you were asking for btw, but you're ignoring :

(a) the WP:RS sources provided (b) a uninamous U.S senate decison, which as a designator of labels is regarded WP:RS in wikipedia. I don't know what bigger lobby you want to say he's anti semite. He's also been called anti semite by Israel's officials. That's another WP:RS right there, since they too are careful about it. Amoruso 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By mentioning that he denies it, my only point was that I have no problem calling someone anti-semitic, if there is evidence. The issue here is not that I won't call MA anti-semitic, it is that there aren't facts to back that up. Markovich292 07:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"(2) they're arabs and hence share cultural and cetain linguistic and behaviourial patterns" I thought I'd pop in and point out that the large majority of Iranians are Persians, not arabs. there's a large difference. As for the issue on NPOV sources, the US Senate and Israeli government are dubious at best; the US government has issued sanctions on Iran since the 1979 revolution, and obviously Israel/Zionist government and Iran are sworn enemies. With the level of research all of you have put into the topic, I'm surprised that that issue hasn't been brought up already, or that those sources were used as if they even qualified as NPOV evidence.--Charibdis 05:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that Iranians are not arabs, if you read the paragraph again you'd understand what i was trying to say. Ok, you think it's not reliable, I disagree. Of course his friends wouldn't call him names, but as for WP:RS sources, designations like this should be enough. 07:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the "Everest of cites"
This is the site I mean : "They (Israel) kill women and children, young and old. And, behind closed doors, they make plans for the advancement of their evil goals."

"Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame" (as quoted by Iranian TV)

"The Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day."

I'd like to know more about these quotes. They are, in my opinion, the closest to racism. Context, language,source.. I'm sorry but I'm a little wary of a site that says "stop defamation of Jews", a site like this could be biased.

For instance "They (Israel) kill woman and children.." That makes it look like every Israeli wants that and makes evil plans. But he could have meant "Israeli cabinet", "Israeli military",....

Same comment about that "They(Zionists)" thing?

And then "most detested people". In my language, we have a different word for"people" when it means "humans"(="mensen") and for when it means "ethnic groups"(="volkeren"). So what exactly does he mean? Evilbu 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What he means is that he hates Jews. Duhhh...... The quotes speak for themselves. Stop denying what is obvious and right before your eyes.--Mantanmoreland 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop engaging both Evilbu and Markovich. At this point, NO evidence will sway them. There's no value to trying to sway them. They have a hero worship thing going on. Nothing will ever be enough. We cited his words, they fault translation. We cite Iranian translators, they claim dissidence anf factionalizing. They draw a line, (US Senate), We cross it (Kofi Annan), they dig the Rubicon itself and claim he's a puppet so he doesn't count. Nothing will ever convince them, and when he starts to exterminate Jews, they'll claim that Wikipedia shouldn't make judgments about the internal politics of other nations. When he declares a jihadic Final Solution, they'll claim it's a religious imperative, and we shouldn't POV up his Islamic nature with judgements of murder that aren't substantiated in Iranian Courts. Nothing will ever convince these two that he's an anti-semite. despite saying their minds are open, no evidence presented gets any response except to be insulted. Not legitimately contested, but insulted. 'Kofi's a puppet', 'The US Senate doesn't count', 'the translators are biased', 'the Jews hate MA'. and so on, and so on. I honestly feel that nothing will move them to engage in a good faith discussion on the issue. I'm not sure where we can go from here, but nothing will ever change their positions, not evne MA's own words, as we've seen. I hope someone can find a solution, but I certainly am done. ThuranX 02:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this discussion has long since become utterly fruitless.--Mantanmoreland 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So to paraphrase, you are both saying that you can't find suitable evidence so you just want people to assume that your viewpoint is right and stop discussing it. When it comes to your later analysis ThuranX, you couldn't be more wrong.  Yes, hero worship...thats what it is (this is sarcasm if you can't tell).  That is only something that people say to try to push their POV.  I don't claim "dissidence and factionalizing," I don't call anyone a sock puppet, and I certainly am not immobile in my opinion.  I do not insult evidence as you say either, I actually read and consider it; if it doesn't point to anti-semitism or has an obvious lack of facts, I say so.


 * It is my opinion that you are the one that is immobile. I have no opinion on the issue other than maintaining NPOV, but you have an obvious bias.  Insinuating that I would deny calling him anti-semitic in the article even in the face of overtly racist remarks or actions is just another way for you to attempt to discredit what I have to say.Markovich292 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you "paraphrase" wrong. What I'm saying is that you are impervious to good-faith argument and that no amount of evidence will convince you that MA belongs in the anti-Semitic people category. "Maintaining NPOV" does not mean hiding things that make you upset or uncomfortable, or conflict with your particular political worldview.--Mantanmoreland 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "even in the face of overtly racist remarks or actions" like the mountain already provided. Yep, that's right. It's what you've done, so it's what I say. We HAVE found suitable evidence. You don't want it. So we went and got MORE. you ignored it. More. You refuse it. Not REFUTE, REFUSE. Here's a novel idea. YOU prove he's NOT Anti-semitic. We've got am mountain that says he is. we've got international leaders saying it, we've got his own people saying it, we've got him being clear about it. You find proof he's a Jew hugging matzah eating happy guy with nary a care about Jews, and we'll relent. Find proof that Jews in Iran are treated with absolute equality with muslims. Find proof that there's absolutely zero discrimination in his policies. Find proof he believes in the Holocaust. Find proof he doesn't believe that the Holocaust was made up by Jews. go for it. then we'll relent.ThuranX 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually not necessary. All that this editor really needs to do is to explain how all the considerable sources amassed here are inconsistent with MA being in this category. That hasn't been done and instead we get a lot of "black may really mean white" semantic quibbling. Another thing we get, and have gotten in the past, is the view that "He is not anti-Semitic because he doesn't say 'I'm an anti-Semite.'" One editor actually advanced that malarkey in those very words a couple of months ago. The same editor asked me to find whether Google turned up "MA is an anti-Semite" and sure enough it didn't -- but neither did it for Hitler. T--Mantanmoreland 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(jumping in the middle of thread) Hi Mantan. It sounds like you are talking about me since that sounds LIKE what I said. What I said/meant was you have to provide sources that LABEL/CALL the person the name of the category you want to add them to. Listing what a person says doesn't qualify them for inclusion. Citing sources that say Joe Blow is a XXX, qualifies him for inclusion. I am not saying that MA has to call himself an anti-Semite, he dosen't, OTHER reliable sources need to call him that and then in he goes. Thanks.--Tom 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to another editor. In fact there are numerous sources, cited in the article, that call MA an anti-Semite, notably the US Senate resolution but also many others.--Mantanmoreland 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I guess its all semantics. The US resolution you refer to doesn't call AM an anti-semite. It says "A resolution to condemn the harmful, destructive, and anti-Semitic statements"...Does making anti-semtic statments make one an anti-semite? Probably yes, so include him :) Anyways, I do NOT want to defend this guy, more about defining the process for how people get included into Wiki lists and categories...--Tom 18:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have explained over and over, but the people that keep calling him anti-semitic refuse to accept the notion that they are projecting their opinion onto the issue. I looked around, and the only people here that insist on calling him anti-semitic are of Jewish ancestry.  How can you not see that there is a HUGE bias because of that?  When someone makes statements like MA did about a nation that has so many people of your same ancestry, there is going to be a problem with maintaining a neutral perspective on the issue.  If I were a strict Roman Catholic for example and MA publicly made slur about the Pope, don't you think I would have a bias there?  If such a situation existed, I would have the good sense NOT to edit MA's page, and you should be equally reserved about editing in this situation.  Markovich292 04:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"putting all other criminals to shame" seems to indicate anti-Semitism as there clearly have been worse criminals. // Liftarn


 * In context, that quote indicates a dislike for the Israeli government because of human rights violations. The dislike of the Israeli government is not indicative of anti-Semitism.  That is like saying I hate all Americans (and every ethnic that has people in America) because I dislike some of the things that the government is responsible for.


 * Do you have any source for in what context it was said? // Liftarn

I don't get it. First you give a link to an "Everest of cites". Curiously, I follow it and read. Then why I want to go deeper about a few, the link is all of a sudden relevant("Duh he hates Jews") and other arguments like Iranian nespapers are mentioned? Without being disrespectful, wouldn't you be dissatisfied with Wikipedia if we put Ariel Sharon in a "anti-Arab category", apart from criticizing Arab nations, he has waged battles against them too (which Iran hasn't done (directly)). You would probably refute that by saying he says and does that because of the actions of certain Arabs, wouldn't you?Evilbu 10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop the nonsense. You have further quotes demonstrating how MA fits the definition of anti-semite, not that any further were needed. Clearly there is no convincing you and any further discussion is fruitless.--Mantanmoreland 13:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless you can find any real evidence MA is an anti-Semite then it will be quite fruitless. And no, "I think he is an anti-Semite" is not a valid reason. // Liftarn

Look, I started this question because I want a NPOV. Doesn't it strike you that I picked out the worst things myself? I show willingness to change my opinion. But you do not seize the opportunity. I only see general remarks and references to an abundance of evidence... Please give me a quote or whatever, I mean a link right here in this topic on this talk page to look at.Evilbu 16:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
The page became protected as I was in the midst of updating citation templates. As I am party to the content issue that started this protection, I would like to know if anyone would be upset if I continue editing the page only to update the citations to use the requisite cite templates, etc. If anyone feels that is an improper use of administrative privelege, I will obviously refrain from editing the citations. The last edit was done before I knew the page was protected (see time stamp -- 10:21 for both). All it did was capitalize the word "Farsi". I will self-revert if enough people prefer, but I think that is innocuous. -- Avi 14:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be inappropriate, as you are one of the main participants in this edit war. The citation templates are unimportant and can wait until we have resolved the pressing issue of the anti-Semitic category tag. Deuterium 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Deuterium, about the citatinos being unimportant. They are what gives the article its verfiability, and wothout them, the entire article can be deleted; any article can be deleted if it is not sourced. Also, I am finding many of these citations are in Farsi, and while that may be great on the Farsi Wikipedia, it is a significant problem here. So far, I was tagging them with check tags, but someone needs to verify them quickly, otherwise I am afraid the sections would be considered unsupported as unverified. -- Avi 14:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the page is protected because of the anti-semite issue presumbably, so any edit you make Avi which is totally unrelated to this issue and is definitely not disputed, you should be able to make with no problem. Amoruso 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he's a participant in this edit war and using his admin privileges to get around the page protection is inappropriate. The point of page protection is to make both parties resolve their issues, not to allow participants on one side to continue editing obliviously. Deuterium 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly I fail to see how one can reach a consensus on the anti-Semite tag if something innocuous such as this can't be resolved.--Mantanmoreland 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets face facts. We'll never reach a consensus to admit him to an anti-semite list that contains people like Nazis and Hitler who were anti-semitic admitted and proud. How can you ever hope to add a living person who has never made any direct anti-semitic remarks, does not consider himself anti-semitic and has around 40,000 jews living freely and willingly under his rule.Why do you think other Encyclopedias don't have any rediculous lists like this accusing people on the basis people's POV!?! All it does is helps Wikipedia take a step towards looking like a Mickey Mouse encyclopedia
 * As for this page protection...why did you have to protect after Ahmadinejad was added to the contriversal anti-semitic list!?! Yas121 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider protecting the page, as I am a participant in the edit controversy. It was user:Deuterium who asked for page protection, and it was granted by User:mets501. So, you may wish to discuss the issue with them. -- Avi 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you don't find it odd that he protected the page immediately after you added the controversial category in question? Isn't it supposed to be that in this situation the article NOT include slanderous designations when it is locked from editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markovich292 (talk • contribs) 16:46, August 31, 2006   (UTC) 


 * Not at all, how was he supposed to know I was editing? Look at his timestamps, he was going through WP:RFP and got to that at 10:21, exactly as I was editing. Do you know where Yas121 is editing now? How is User:mets501 supposed to know where anyone else is, or what edit they are planning? True prophecy has been gone a long time now [[image:smile.gif]] I find it more odd that user:Deuterium requested protection within five minutes of his edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deuterium [[image:smile.gif]], but hey, that's life. -- Avi 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I find your insinuation of conspiracy theories as insulting, but that too is life. -- Avi 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not an insinuation of a conspiracy theory because I am referring to one person that I feel took action based on his own views.  One person does not make a conspiracy.


 * The kind of assumption that you made here shows how biased you really are. You take something as benign as what I said and seem to draw all sorts of conclusions. This is why people that have strong feelings on an issue should have the sense to realize that they are prone to throw logic out the window and edit based on emotion instead. Markovich292 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism. That's why those objecting to the anti-semite category don't make much sense. As the leading holocaust denier in the world, "AM" (is that like JayLo or MJ?) is obviously an anti semite. But that's where it ends for me, silly discussion and editwar. As to these Jews living in Iran, yes they were also living in German for some years under Hitler. There's no difference between hitler and "AM", and the only reason he's not wiping off the Jews in Iran is for politically to look good, as if his persecution of them is of any merit to any regime. If he could, he'd wipe off every Jew on the planet and if you rather close your ears or pretend that "AM" is actually saying entirely differnet things, then that's your quaint prerogative. It should be noted that people also took Hitler's remark unseriously and said that he doesn't really hate Jews. Jews said that in the 30's in Germany like that Jew's "statement" in Iran. Amoruso 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow it seems you can read the mind of president Ahmadinejad...very impressive indeed. Pitty the Pentagon doesn't have your "expertise". Just one question tho if "Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism" why have a seperate category of Category:Holocaust denial? Yas121 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Holocaust denial is a subcategory of Category:Anti-Semitism, similar to the way that Category:British statisticians is a subcategory of Category:British mathematicians. This is why AM is not in Category:Anti-Semitism, because he is in two subsets Category:Holocaust denial and Category:Anti-Semitic people. Those two subcats do NOT overlap, but being in a proper subcat usually obviates the need to be in the over-category. -- Avi 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Holocaust denial may be a form of anti-Semitism. There is a large overlap between the two groups, but they are not identical. Anyway, it's a moot point since MA is a holocaust dubter, not a holocaust denier. I also notice that Godwin's Law applies. Tanks for playing. // Liftarn


 * so you're claiming that AM decided to act upon Godwin's Law ? I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Except that there is no such thing as holocaust "dubter", that's like half a pregnancy. He's the biggest holocaust denier in the world. And holocaust denial is always anti semetism. Amoruso 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that you just proved Godwin's Law and should take the consequences. Sure there is something like a Holocaust dubter, that's a person that dubts the Holocaust. Your two last sentences is pure POV so it's not useable. Dubting the Holocaust is no more anti-Semitism than dubting the lunar landings is anti-Americanism. // Liftarn


 * Your use of Godwin's Law is strange, to say the least, since I never provoked anything that had to do with the nazis. MA did. Constantly. In every second speech of his. No, he's not a holocaust "doubter", he's the biggest holocaust denier in wide media today. Doubting big aspects of the holocaust is the essence of Holocaust Denial. Go read that article before you make uneducated comments about the issue. Your attempted analogy makes no sense, as the lunar landings AFAIK didn't involve the genocide of 6 million americans. Amoruso 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, actually you said "There's no difference between Hitler and 'AM'" ("AM" I am assuming references Ahmadinejod). And FYI, his analogy is just fine.  Doubting the holocaust is a question of the accuracy as portrayed by the media, just the same as doubting the moon landings question the US government.  Either doubt has nothing to do with the genocide that took place; it has everything to do with historical accuracy. Markovich292 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mahmoud is talking about nazis and about the holocaust. So the idea of "provoking" Godwin's law here is preposterous and laughable. And again, the fact you are unaware, perhaps lacking of education, on the term "holocaust denial" is of no consequence. What Mahmoud is doing is denying the holocaust. That's the term, that's what he's doing. And yes my analogy wasn't wrong, it should take into the % of Americans, so the analogy should be whether he's doubting a genocide of 150 million americans. Amoruso 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the logic you present (that we should call MA anti-semitic because holocaust denial is a subcategory of anti-semitism), we have to call some of the worlds holocaust museums anti-semitic (including the Museum of Jewish Heritage). This article's category is listed in Category:Holocaust, which just so happens to be under the blanket category of anti-semitism. Markovich292 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * that's either funny/infantile/plain sad from you. Mahmoud should be under a holocaust deniers obviously, that's why he's in the category of holocaust denial, whereas these museums are there exactly for the opposite reason, but then again you already know that. Amoruso 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just realised what you were actually saying... that holocaust category is under anti-semitism category so people who commemorate the holocaust are anti-semitic, oh my god.... just when you thought you heard everything. Amoruso 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not saying that people who comemorate the holocaust are anti-semitic. I am saying that even in the case of a museuem that is clearly not doing anything anti-semitic, people could follow your (poor) logic above to classify it as anti-semitic.  Markovich292 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * how is that poor logic ? Holocaust denial is under anti semitism for one reason and holocaust is of course under anti semitism for another reason. Your logic is the one flawed. Just because a banana is yellow doesn't mean the sun is a banana. That's what you were trying to say, a common fallacy. Amoruso 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked over the comment that mentioned holocaust denial as a subcategory of anti-semitism. It was orignially made by Avi, and my first comment about it was directed at him.  You responded to me instead of Avi, so I forgot you didn't make that original comment.  Sorry for the confusion; it is not your logic that I am calling poor.


 * Anyway, it is poor logic because Avi cited the fact that holocaust denial as a subcategory of anti-semitism as reason why MA is anti-semitic. Also by his argument, it doesn't matter why somebody is in a subcategory.  MA is in the holocaust denier category because he doubts the facts about the holocaust, not bcause he hates the Jews.  Despite this, Avi still advocates that because "holocaust denier" is under the "anti-semitic" category, MA is anti-semitic.  The point is, based on AVI's logic, anything or anybody can be called anti-semitic, just if they happen to be in a category that is under the anti-semitic listing. Markovich292 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you could follow my logic. I see I was wrong. Here, let me explain what I was saying on a simple level:

I was explaining to Yas why we have a separate category, a matter of set theory, not how MA is automatically an anti-semite. For anyone to make that jump strikes me as someone whose first language is not English, someone who typed before they thought, or trolling. It is astounding to me, Markovitch, that you can read into my words what you have, and I suggest you take your own advice above about being too close to the issue, for I assure you you are really off-base on this one. I happen to think MA is an anti-Semite, based on his speeches and actions, but that has nothing to do with my explanation to Yas. Wow. I am plain ole stunned, that anyone could interpret it that way, innocently or not, but, I guess that too is life. -- Avi 19:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, my wording was a little off. I am a native speaker, but may have typed before I thought as you suggest.  I should have said "Avi implied that because holocaust denial is a subcategory of anti-semitism, MA [should automatically be considered] anti-semitic" instead of "Avi cited the fact that holocaust denial as a subcategory of anti-semitism as reason why MA is anti-semitic."   I say that because the example you cite (Category:British statisticians is a subcategory of Category:British mathematicians) is clearly a fact, so assosciating it with Category:Holocaust denial being a subcategory of Category:Anti-Semitism is saying that all holocaust deniers/doubters are automatically anti-semitic.  (Totally unrelated to the debate, but I should say this anyway: from the way I speak, you may think I deny the holocaust - I do not.)


 * I also should have said "despite this, Avi still believes that because [MA is a] holocaust denier [he is automatically] anti-semitic" instead of "despite this, Avi still advocates that because "holocaust denier" is under the "anti-semitic" category, MA is anti-semitic." That one was not so much based on the words you said in the section you quoted, but your probable attitude that holocaust denier = anti-semite.  I assume that, because you say "I happen to agree...that the sources brought above fill [the] requirement [to call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...an Anti-Semite]."  If you were working off the wikipedia definition of anti-semite, then the only sources that "prove" he is an anti-semite are his comments about the holocaust (because that then is used to say that if he doubts the facts of the holocaust, he must be an anti-semite).


 * It would have also been more clear if I had said "also by his argument, [if] somebody is in a subcategory, [that automatically qualifies them for the main category]" instead of "also by his argument, it doesn't matter why somebody is in a subcategory." They are the same idea, I just used the wording I used to address how Amoruso said "Holocaust denial is under anti semitism for one reason and holocaust is of course under anti semitism for another reason."


 * So, with all factors considered (beyond just your small representation above), you can see that my assessment was not "out of the blue" even if I am "off base." Markovich292 22:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * anyway, like i said - "every holocaust denier = anti semite" without any exception, so that's it for me. Amoruso 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And like almost everyone else has said, that is an opinion that you are trying to push in the article (by categorizing him as anti-semitic). Markovich292 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * it's not an opinion. It's simply telling the phenomena of holocaust denial for what it is. It's been exposed from books to civil court suits and the agenda behind it is crystal clear to the humankind. Amoruso 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I find it suspicious that all pro anti Semitic people are ignoring my "Everest of cites" topic above. Please reply to my latest reply. Maybe we are just seeing it wrong. Maybe antisemitic means "not being nice to Jews". Denying the holocaust is definitely not nice to Jews. I thought however that antisemitism meant : hating Jews as a race, thus all Jews even babies. Denying the holocaust is not that. But hey, what does everything think of my definition. Should we put it in the antisemitism article now? Of course then I'll also put most of the Turkish government in the anti-Armenian category. However, I'll be consequent and also put Orhan Pamuk in the anti Turkish category.Evilbu 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read into holocaust denial, you'd understand that it's a technique in "hatred" of Jews... pretending that denying an event is unrelated to the phenomenon or that it's simply not being nice is not knowing what anti-semitism is about. The holocaust deniers are usually exposed as Nazis, and you'd agree that nazis are anti-semites wouldn't you ? It's simply the same thing. This was proven time and again, and if you're arguing that, you're arguing holocaust denial... a magic circle of sort. Anyway, I don't want to argue this. I explained to you the terms, that's it as far as I'm concerned. Amoruso 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not "pretend" that denying the holocaust isn't related to anti-semitism in many cases. You may say that holocaust deniers are "usually" exposed as Nazis, but that is mostly based on cases in Europe and certainly not proven in this case.  There is no amount of "reading into" holocaust denial that will prove it is a "technique in hatred of Jews."  You know why?  Becaust that is your opinion.  Other people may think the same thing, but that doesn't make it a fact. Markovich292 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see three cards being played here. The first one: "There's just an abundance of proof! Look!" Second one : "Duh... he's just antisemitic, can't you deduce that?" Three : "He is the biggest holocaust denier, and actually that is antisemitic too!" The three cards are being used one after another, thus confusing people trying to argue with you in a coherent way. Yesterday I saw an African American in New Orleans claiming Caucasian people bombed the dam to flood the city and expell the black population. Does that accusation make him a racist too?Evilbu 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary for newcomers
If you are coming to this talk page and want to know the basics of what is going on, here is an excerpt that states both sides. Please do not add new material to this section.

What I don't understand is why some editors are so passionate to whitewash Ahmadinejad in the face of all the evidence, and are putting so much energy into proving that point. I find it disturbing, to be quite frank.--Mantanmoreland 03:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because the evidence for MA being an anti-Semite is very thin at best (we do have references to him being called an anti-Semite, but that's not the same thing) and as Biographies of living persons says "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.". If he would be dead then it would probably be easier. I do understand why some editors are so passionate to throw mud at Ahmadinejad and are putting so much energy into that. // Liftarn


 * You can't refute the logical argument I presented so instead you accuse me of whitewashing. I show that he passes a pretty universal test to determine if somebody is racist, and it is ignored.  Unbelievable.  Markovich292 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Markovich (Btw, that's also a Jewish name :) ), that was an interesting argument but also lacking on perspective and ignoring history and knowledge. The Jews have been persecuted for so much time that they warranted their own word as "anti semitism" -> obviously Jews would be sensitive if a person will say he wants to eliminate them, and atleast they would want to say that he's anti-semitic. Now your arguments lacks the basic problem of origin. But let's focus first on what's true with it. AM being a muslim fundemtalist will persecute anyone not muslim in the area but mitigating factors for those people will be if : (1) they have no political aspirations and willing to live under muslim rule (2) they're arabs and hence share cultural and cetain linguistic and behaviourial patterns (3) they're eastern - MA will despise the western culture which he sees as threat. (4) they're outside the realm of the muslim empire - they're far away... now with Jews they're no mitigating factors because they are politically organized, many of them west orientated, and not arabs. Now if you take the Germans in your example into this frame - the result is certainly similar on the mitigating factors, but those Germans you mentioned they still have the fatherland right ? they still have Germany don't they ? Well Jews don't have Judea somewhere else. What AM is suggesting is that Jews have conspired a conspiracy, worldwide conspiracy in order to perform genocide on other people, that they're essentially not even a people - they belong in europe or better yet alaska (he said it) and that they have evil plans. Now if someone will suggest that the blacks have invented slavery and invented being poor and persecuted and are actually driving a whole conspiracy world wide net of drugs to hurt the caucasians, the pure white race of the american youth in order to intermingle and bring their satanic behaviour with them, wouldn't you say they're anti blacks ? You would... What AM is saying is identical to what White Power are saying. how can you say that one is anti semite and one another ? It is true that the line between anti zionism and anti judaism is still there, a line, but when one is talking about zionism not only as a wrong idea but as an evil conspiracy, one is being an anti semite . You can't demand to throw 5-6 million jews out of somewhere to alaska and argue that it's simply being anti israeli.


 * Thank you for taking the time to consider this and make comments. I know of the history of persecution, and I am glad that you mention this.  It is one of the factors that I considered when I mentioned that the people pushing the issue from your side are likely to have a strong bias.  You hit the nail on the head when you said: "obviously Jews would be sensitive...and at least they would want to say that [Mahmoud Ahmadinejod is] anti-semitic."  The part that I disagree with in that quote (from the unedited version) is you including that "he wants to eliminate them."  That is the way it has been interpreted by you, and probably the majority of Jews in Israel, because of the sensitivity that you mentioned.


 * I respect your time in constructing an argument to debate this in a civil manner. I agree totally that there he selectively opposes certain groups.  By your own admission, he persecutes based on political aspirations, arab vs. non arab descent, Westernization, and geographic identity; none of these single out Jews, however.  It just so happens that there may be many Jews that do not fall into favorability with MA, but he is not singling them out specifically for persecution because they are Jewish.  He lacks the kind of direct targeting of Jews that is required to call someone anti-semitic.


 * I think the above should have proven my point, but you took the time to write the above comments, so I'll address them anyway. First, the following quote is entirely based on opinion (as far as I know, show me the quotes and I will believe otherwise): "what [MA] is suggesting is that Jews have conspired...worldwide...in order to perform genocide on other people, that they're essentially not even a people...and that they have evil plans."


 * Now, about your African-American analogy: someone claiming that African-Americans invented slavery does not match here because MA did not claim that Jews invented the holocaust, he asserts that it was governments and the media that exaggerated it. As for the rest, MA has never shown a philosophy like that of White Supremacists/Neo-Nazis.  They advocate persecution of Jews just because they are Jews, as I said above, MA does not.


 * One more thing. Lets just say in my above example about Germans in the holy land, there were no "greater Germany."  For this example, there are 6 million Germans in what is now called Israel and a further 6 million scattered throughout the world.  MA would still be calling for the dissolution of the state that holds the 6 million Germans in the holy land.  That is the fairly universal way to tell if somebody is racist (i.e. substitution of one race for another.  Assuming the person doesn't also hate the group substituted, and if the person would say the same things, it is not racism) that I mentioned before.  MA passes this test.

who's against who on this page so far
You said there was a majority to your side in this little debate here. I think there's a draw.

He should be in category anti semite :


 * 1) Mikkerpikker
 * 2) Firebird
 * 3) Avi
 * 4) Mantanmoreland
 * 5) ThuranX
 * 6) Amoruso
 * 7) SighSighSigh with a qualification. Anybody that say they want to "wipe Israel from the map" (and this is from Al-Jazeera) is an Anti-Semite.  However, in general, I do not know the value of this type of category.  If the category is valid, however, Ahmadinejad should remain.
 * 8) Lancsalot
 * 9) HawkerTyphoon - With an appropriate citation from a European, Russian, Japanese or South American news source

He should not :

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancsalot (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Tanzeel (there is a clear distinction between anti-zionism and anti-semitism)
 * 2) Liftarn (with qualification, we have no reliable source saying he is)
 * 3) Evilbu
 * 4) Markovich292
 * 5) Charibdis
 * 6) Yas121
 * 7) Deuterium
 * 8) User:SethDelisle:SethDelisle
 * I changed the wording of the categories from he is an anti-semite to he should be in category anti-semite so that I could add my vote SethDelisle 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First please sign your posts. At least three in the above discussion are unsigned.
 * Secondly, a majority is not a "draw."
 * Thirdly, this is not an accurate compilation. Jut going through the discussion above quickly I noted that "Max" was not listed as for.
 * Fourthly, consensus is not determined on the basis of a strict "up and down" vote.
 * I had a fifthly but I forget what it was. Oh, I know: the preponderence of WP:RS sources saying he is anti-Semitic really make this whole discussion pointless. Even if it were 9-6 for not being anti-Semitic, instead of the other way around, it wouldn't would be against the weight of V evidence.--Mantanmoreland 13:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why don't show said evidence? If you have some hidden evidence that clearly says he's anti-Semitic wouldn't it be better to come forward with it? // Liftarn
 * Come on. You're not going to start with the "no evidence" malarkey again are you?--Mantanmoreland 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whay not? Should I just ignore the lack of evidence? // Liftarn

I'm sorry but either take me off the list or change your wordings (I don't have the audacity to change your own text). I have never said that I think he is not an antisemitic. I just don't think we can be sure about that for now, given the sources. That is not the same. And I'm telling you, stop complaining about me being persistent, at any time : either write a link here in this very talk page or send me a personal message and I will read it.Evilbu 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a flaw in your voting system. This talk page is in "featured articles in other languages (Hebrew)". It will be very easy to advertise this page between Iranians or Muslims, and have a 99 percent vote of not antisemitic. I can easily do that if you want to see the result. I can promise 1000+ comments in the very first day. I have nothing to add to the discussion, he is simply anti-zionist, not anti-semitic. Not related to this discussion, but he should be added to terrorists or terrorist supporters though. 24.28.69.25 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Mazda


 * This kind of voting is not very accurate, useful or conclusive. The fact of the matter is that given the evidence/sources it is clearly a POV to label him anti-semitic. As for his comments about "wiping israel of the map" well sorry to spoil it for you but he actually said "This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." Even that was a reaction to Israeli defence minister Shaul Mofaz's statement threatening to take unilateral military action against Iran. Would anyone else say any less in Iran's position? Yas121 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify for those thinking they're getting all the information, the above translation, provided by Yas, is the redacted Iranian state version, not the 'wipe them off the map' agreed upon by translators ofr the US, UN, private media, and so on. In fact, it's exactly Yas' sort of response which muddies the water on this. He sticks to the most advantageous interpretation for Iran, whiel those of us who seek accuracy reagarding MA find the most widely agreed upon translation by disinterested parties, instead of 1984 style apologist doublespeakers FOR the regime. 90+% say it's wipe off map, iran says, oh but we meant Make them never have existed, and that's nicer and better. Come on. 'Erased from history' is so Anti-semitic it FAR outpaces 'wipe israel off the map'. TO say 'we must make it as though jews never existed"? Come ON! ThuranX 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You do realize that you claim western media was FOR Iran in the past but have no opinion today, don't you? Western governments today are quite clearly against Iran, and claiming that the media is effected by politics in 1984 but not today is crazy.


 * Please see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the truth on the "wiped off the map" quote. It is being interpreted in the west as a call for destruction: Iran has no idiomatic use of "wiped off the map," so it can only mean that he wants Israel dissolved.


 * Even if you don't accept the alternate "erasing from history" version, how can you possibly believe that "erasing Israel (i.e. the Zionist Regime) from history" is the same as "we must make it as though jews never existed?" Markovich292 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop babbling. Yet AGAIN on this talk page, you've run off in a direction totally unrelated to my comment. 1984 is a book by George Orwell. I recommend you read it. I made NO reference to the evolution of western media coverage of Iran over the past 27 or 22 years, but to MA's administration redacting their translation with 'iranian idiomatic inconsistency' excuses, since all other sources agree it was MA's intent in releasingthe speech to the world that he wants the west to read it as 'wiped off the map'. We have the citations to support our claim, you've got NOTHING. I want a list, from you, of 10 NON-Iranian sources who find that MA is NOT against the Jews. ThuranX 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When you are as cryptic as saying 1984 can you blame me for that misunderstanding? This is not a literature thread, so I thought you were referring to the year 1984.  Hopefully you know things were a lot different with US/Iran relations then.  Oh and so far, all the references to anti-semitism in the media reports are editorialized by reporters.  What I mean is, the report gives a quote, and then the reporter or news service says something like Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic.  There are many variations or circumstances, but the point is that these are the opinions of the reporters, article writers, whatever. Also, there are a lot less western sources than you think.  Many news organizations use the exact articles/words by organizations such as the Assosciated Press.  Reuters is another fine example.


 * I am not going to waste my time finding 10 sources that say MA is not anti-semitic, there is no point. These would all be editorial opinions that are worthless.  It is your job to find one of his quotes that PROVES that he is anti-semitic (opinionated interpretation does not count).  As I said this is editorial so it can't be used for wikipedia, but I will humor you with ONE western source: Mike Wallace.  He spoke face to face with MA, and he still doesn't think MA is anti-semitic.


 * I will do you one better than 9 more sources saying MA isn't anti-semitic; here is a very ineresting article : "[an Iranian Jew] said that Iran was relatively tolerant. 'There is no pressure on the synagogues, no problems of desecration. I think the problem in Europe is worse than here. There is a lot of anti-semitism in other countries' and 'Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community, [is] the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel.'" If MA were anti-semitic, there would be plenty of sources saying that he speaks against these Jews, but there aren't any.  Markovich292 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Steele expresses an alternative interpretation that I find credible, in his piece in the Guardian: "The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem."

Jonathan Steele expresses an alternative interpretation that I find credible, in his piece in the Guardian: "The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem."

another argument from the same piece that I found compelling: "A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out."

Accuracy of the holocaust (who he blames)
I remembered some people claim that Ahmadinejod blames the Jewish people for the false reports of the holocaust. Here is a quote to address that. It supports what I have been saying all along, that he blames governments, not specific groups of people:

"Is it not a reasonable possibility that certain victorious countries in the war aimed to make up an excuse on the basis of which they could keep the defeated people constantly ashamed." Markovich292 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Get a clue. So what? Now he's saying that half the world has suckered te other half into believing the Holocaust never happened to get their way in other things? Occam's Razor says NO. Stuff like this just proves that his hate of Jews lets him believe it's perfectly acceptable to slander half the world as idiots, the other half ass evil, and leaves 'just him' holding up a light of truth? Come off it. He's got a hero complex, a superiority complex, and he's trying to build a reputation as a messianic figure onthe backs of the Jews, just like a dozen other demagogues throughout history. ThuranX 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you are certainly can create connections where there are none, I'll give you that. I can't believe how you can get that his alleged hate for Jews is how he justifies saying that.  He doubts the facts, and saying that this comment is in any way attached to hate (of Jews) is just nuts.  He may be using the situation to his favor, but it is not "on the backs of the Jews."  It is built around the state of Israel.  In this case, I have no reservations about saying that you are blinded to the facts because they don't match what you believe.  "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine


 * Markovich292 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is your chance
OK, so none of you have actually taken a quote and explained WHY it makes Ahmadinejad anti-semitic. I suspect that this is because you will have to use the words I think, in my opinion, or something similar. The people that support calling him anti-semitic have ignored repeated questions from Evilbu to say why they think the quotes make him anti-semitic, or they have just been insulting. So if you have a case that is not rooted in opinion, here is your chance to prove it.

Guide for this section:
 * 1) Copy quotes directly onto this page, and italicize them.
 * 2) Always cite sources (in line)
 * 3) Follow the quote with your explantaion, indented one line
 * 4) Do not indent new quotes (i.e. do not put : before them)
 * 5) Limit yourself to one quote to keep this short*
 * 6) If you are not commenting on a quote, do not use this section

Note:*If he made any anti-semitic statements, only one is needed to prove your argument. Pick the one you think is most incriminating.

Some things that do not qualify as sources:
 * 1) Anti-Semitic or Pro-Israel organization's publications
 * 2) Secondary sources that derive reports from biased primary sources
 * 3) Opinions, even if they are those of prominent figures
 * 4) Quotes taken out of context
 * 5) Editorialized news articles in which the writer fills in missing information

Before you add a quote, make sure we all agree on the above points. Markovich292 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * here we go again with Markovich's set up for a bait and switch. Luckily for those of us who are fully literate, we can call him on it before anyone falls for the bait. He says "The people that support calling him anti-semitic have ignored repeated questions from Evilbu to say why they think the quotes make him anti-semitic", asking WHY THEY THINK' so. But he's already said, one sentence before, "I suspect that this is because you will have to use the words I think, in my opinion, or something similar". SO here he's dismissing anything with a viewer's perspective on the issue, and in the VERY NEXT LINE, he solicits the exact same. This is why I've stopped arguing, he sets up these impossible, destined-to-fail situations, then seeks to exploit that percieved failure as a vittory for his side. Finally, there's been citation of a number of sources which meet WP:RS, including but not limited to the U.S. Senate (who he dismisses as bought by the Zionistsand or Jews and thus biased) and the U.N., which he dismisses as also bought and paid for. So any non-wiki-editor source is out on the basis that it's owned by the opposition, and any wiki-editor opinion is out as being opinion and not up to the standards of factual sourcing and WP:RS. Under these conditions, as I've said too many times already, Markovich will settle for nothing less than MA standing in from of him andsaying in Markovich's native tongue 'I want to fry the kikes, fry them all, want to help?' ThuranX 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Markovich made a mistake in suspecting and writing that, but he has been restraining himself. Markovich, please don't do that anymore because you see what it leads to ... But instead of dismissing him as unreasonable, I can't help but notice you don't prove him wrong.  Do it.  I am begging you to change my mind.Evilbu 18:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Markovich made a mistake, but do what he says anyway'. Listen, genius, I couldn't change your mind with a bone saw and an icecream scoop. The facts have been presented over and over and over, and you still ignore them or dismiss them as Zionist propaganda. There's no point in trying, because one, you're asking me to prove a negative, and two, you're asking me to prove it to a zealot. ThuranX 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought you were smart enough to be able to understand my VERY FIRST SENTENCE. "OK, so none of you have actually taken a quote and explained WHY it makes Ahmadinejad anti-semitic."  That says nothing about opinions, and by ignoring that you are either acting out of BAD FAITH or just can't comprehend what I am saying!  And if you are going to quote from me, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.  I said "repeated questions from Evilbu to say why they think the quotes make him anti-semitic.  Considering that Evilbu has repeatedly asked you to explain what exactly MA has said to qualify him as anti-semitic, your criticism of my wording is just an attempt to avoid the issue.  Do I really have to overcomplicate it and say "repeated questions from Evilbu asking editors to explain exactly what about his quotes prove that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite because so far people have completely ignored that he is looking for proof rather than vague references to [allegedly] nonexistant quotes."  You couldn't even understand that I gave you a chance to produce a quote that qualifies him as anti-semitic.  Or is it just that you don't want to admit that you don't have one? Either way, your hyperbole is both unfounded and childish. Markovich292 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just look at this talk page if you want to know what Wikiality is
A vote should not be used to determine what is or is not fact. A vote may be used to determine what is neutral, but whether or not Ahmadinejad meets the definition of Anti-Semite is a factual issue that is not determined by a vote here. Of course, what we need, and what we don't have is a concrete definition of Anti-Semite. Some people would think only Adolf Hitler is an Anti-Semite, which is a reasonable point of view, and others would think Mel Gibson is an Anti-Semite, also a reasonable point of view.

As far as the "concern" that calling Ahmadinejad is libel, I would love to see Ahmadinejad file suit against Wikipedia in New York District Court for libel. That would make my day, really.

But honestly, we really need to define what Anti-Semitic is before we can have a discussion as to whether Ahmadinejad is Anti-Semitic. SighSighSigh 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There already is one, and it's been given above repeatedly. The problem is that some ofthe editors opposing the Anti-semite tag are, quite seriously, digging both heel and head in the sand. This whole 'need for a definition' was covered above. They ignored it, saying that wikipedia's definition was too vague, and other definitions are designed to allow any jew hater into the category. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that certain editors do not believe that anti-semitism exists at all. Stop playing their game. Sources were cited, and instead of countering with good sources, they cite Wiki Policy, and conspiracy theory, use circular logic to avoid issues, and fault everyone else, while painting themselves as great heros of 'truth', when they're really champions of 'truthiness'. ThuranX 17:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You say "certain editors do not believe that anti-semitism exists at all" I say "certain editors" do believe anti-semitism exists AND are very familary with the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Here is a summary for those not familiar It refers to the act of persistently raising the alarm about a non-existent threat, with the implication that the person who cried wolf would not be taken seriously should a real emergency take place Yas121 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With so many signs that this is really a wolf, the world can't reserve his crying for another day, not again. Amoruso 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So many signs? What signs? That he dislikes Israel and have dubts about the Holocaust? That's not really hard evidence. // Liftarn

How about Canada ? Good enough source ?
Canada is not known for its great liking of Israel, not in foreign policy and not due to the excesseive passport scandals. It's also not great on its treatment to Jews, as its consitution has favourism to christian religion in respect to school funding, and there's been a lot of anti semitism in Quebec over the years (My comments). But this is what Canada says of AM's comments :

Ottawa also issued a strong rebuke, with Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew saying: "We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. These comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Is this enough ? Amoruso 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no lack of abundant verifiable and reliable sources on this. Proving the truth of this is like proving the earth is round. One cannot convince nonbelievers.--Mantanmoreland 04:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, again you make claims in bad faith. But I ask you, after nobody responded politely to Evilbu's call for sources, who is the person that called for specific evidence to prove me wrong?  Markovich292 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, just because Canada devotes more funding to Christian schools, it does not mean that Canada is "also not great on its treatment to Jews."


 * But in relation to to the quote; I'll say the same thing here that I did about the US Senate - this is the collective opinion of the legislative body in Ottawa. As I have said all along, there is no problem referencing it in the article saying "this is what the government of Ottawa thinks" or something similar.  But for a categorization, where you can't say that "this is based on opinions," this is not enough.  You need an anti-semitic statement or action by the person, as opposed to commentery on these statements.  For example; Mel Gibson.  Before his arrest, plenty of people called him anti-semitic, in acceptable sources, but that is not enough to call him anti semitic by wikipedia standards.  After the arrest, however, there was a direct quote that was sufficient to call him anti-semitic.  What I am saying is, you can't rely on commentary by other people to place an article in a such a category, especially when the article is on a living person.


 * I am not saying that MA has to say "lets kill all the jews" or "i hate jews." Anything that fits the wikipedia definition of "...hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group..." is just the same in effect.


 * BTW, your opening comment about anti-semitism in Quebec is misleading to those that may not be reading carefully, because the quote is actually from Ottawa. Markovich292 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * this is not about Canada, but actually they're in adhering to a policy of illegal (international law) discrimination on the issues of shcool funding. Now, how surprising - it's not good enough for you. Surprise surprise. It's really getting pathetic. We showed you all the sources in the world and you keep arguing thin air, it's really unbelievable. First you say that opinions don't matter, then you ask for statements, then statements are brought to you, then you say they don't matter and you want opinions and when opinions are brought again then again you ask for statements ! Do you think everyone in wikipedia are idiots ? Why are we wasting a time with someone like you who clearly lost his argument and is just going in circles ? Mel Gibosn in fact is not categorized as an anti semitic because I presume he apologised for his remarks, where AM is proud of his remarks. AM's remarks were anti semitic and everyone in the world, I repeat, every intelligent person on the planet Earth who wrote an editorial or was a member of a parliament in the world who's not a funder of Hamas or so, when asked, has said that these remarks were anti-semitic. And we're showing you an abundance of evidence like said above. You're arguing a non issue and it's pathetic. Soon you yourself will realise you're going in circles arguing nothing. Ineed it's exactly like trying to prove the earth is round. Amoruso 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, pathetic? What is pathetic is that you refuse to admit that opinion is not the same thing as fact!!!   I have always maintained that opinions do not matter, so don't try to claim otherwise.  I have asked for no less than FACTS.  How about you read exactly what I said when asking for QUOTES BY AHMADINEJAD.  "So if you have a case that is not rooted in opinion, here is your chance to prove it."  And what did I say I was seeking?  "a quote [that explains] WHY...Ahmadinejad [is] anti-semitic" and again "repeated questions from Evilbu asking editors to explain exactly what about his quotes prove that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite."


 * Your attitude that this is some sort of contest with winners and losers is probably why you will never back down from your fight to make people think your opinion is proven to be fact. Your case is on shaky ground, that is the problem.  You can't provide evidence that PROVES he is anti-semitic, only opinion after opinion that means nothing.  You really want to know why this has gotten so long? Your side is so stubborn that they will not admit when their opinion is not the definitive word on the issue.  You bring in source after source of people that agree with your POV and expect people to believe that this makes it a fact!!!  How self-serving can you be???  Maybe you are the one that thinks all wikipedians are idiots.


 * Also, I never said Mel Gibson was categorized as anti-semitic, I just said he could be by wikipedia standards. Sure he apologized, but MA has even allegedly denied he is an anti-semite.  And yes, he is proud of his statements....but they are statements that oppose "the Zionist Regime" (i.e. Israel).

I know I'm hardly neutral here (I do think MA belongs to the anti-Semitic cat), but let's all please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Nipping such personal animosity in the bud is a better bet than having to hand out npa tags and going to WP:PAIN -- Mi kk er (...) 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

how about France and Colombia ?
Read here :

It says the Atlantist representatives of UMP - the governing party in France – compared Mahmud Ahmadinejad to Adolph Hitler. It says a colombian editorial referred to antisemtism citing AM's policy.

is there a BIGGER consensus in the world than this ? We started with Israel and the U.S and we arrived with the rest of the world. If everyone thinks that AM is anti semite why is the category wrong I wonder. Amoruso 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the same as above, they are opinions of people - especially considering the colombian source is an editorial. There could be tons of people that call him anti-semitic, but that does not change opinion into fact.  For example, millions of people say that their favorite band is "the best in the world."  Millions of people may say is it, but that does not make it true. Markovich292 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are the opinion of people. We should go and find the opinions of animals perhaps , perhaps the opinions of Alien Beings. Will that justify your call ? An anti-semitism is a phrase made up by human beings, not zombie people. That's why considering someone an anti semite will mean that he is an anti semite if the entire world seems to think that way. Why is Hitler an anti semite ? Because that's what people think. We brought you statements that we consider anti-semite, you said they're not. We brought you the opinion of the rest of the world which agrees with us. You're in minority and you're pusing WP:POV that's fringe opinion. You have nothing to say and yet you continue. Amoruso 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * your example is also wrong, misleading and non relevant. "best" is a matter of taste, so while "best" won't be accepted, most famous will. As in most famous anti-semite in this case. But if millions of people will consider a band to be of the type of "rock" then that band will be a rock band because the opinion of people who consider their music to be rock while others consider it to be grunge and others consider it to be rap and the artist won't say what it is - so if 90% of the world will seem to think it's rock then yes they'll be in the rock category. got it ? Amoruso 06:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, best is a matter of taste. That doesn't mean the example is wrong at all.  Do you really contest that the opinion of millions is a fact because many people say so?  It is perfectly relevant, because we are dealing with opinions in your case, and opinions in that one as well.  And I really would like to know how you can claim that it is misleading.  That sounds like the kind of falsehood you spread when you claim I am arguing a "non-issue."  Here is a new example that you can not brush off because it involves "best"; millions of people claim that reincarnation is a fact, but there is not enough proof to say that it is.  Take the Dalai Lama for example.  It is a fact that he is a spiritual leader, but the opinion of millions that he is a reincarnation of another person.  Wikipedia acknowledges that many people believe this, but not that it is a fact.  This is just like your case: you have a mountain of people that agree with you, but no direct evidence. Markovich292 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, by your example let's change it to "anti-semitic people by the western world belief, ok ?" Because he was reincarnarted by the buddhist belief etc. Your examples are useless, simply and utterly you're wasting everybody's time. Amoruso 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You either missed the point or just ignored it. I will state this simply:  People, by their very nature, are not going to agree on everything.  People accept definitions of nouns (e.g. anti-semite) so that categorization is not done solely by a vote.  Anti semitism is a noun.  It has a very easy to understand definition.  Ahmadinejad does not meet this definition.  Because humans often label someone as something without proof, people call MA anti-semitic.  This fact does not provide evidence that MA fits into the definition of anti-semitic, it only shows that lots of people think that he is anti semitic.  Calling someone something that is deemed a negative term without it being true is libel.  Libel on pages of living persons is against wikipedia policy.  Therefore, Wikipedia policy is against you categorizing MA as anti-semitic at the present time.  Now, that should be clear enough for you to realize that considering someone an anti semite will not mean that they are an anti semite unless humanity changes the definition of "anti-semite."  Markovich292 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * you're going around in pathetic circles again. What you see as anti semite is your opinion, this is a term made which is open to discussion. You still did not say what is anti semite in your opinion or explained why we should care what your definition of the term is. When the world community has a consencus over a term like this, then that's how it is determined. This is with every issue in the world. Amoruso 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You fail to accept that MA has done or said nothing anti-semitic by the wikipedia definition. "People saying so" doesn't count.  Any source you cite is a)opinion or b)MA saying something that you think makes him anti semitic, but does fails to prove "prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group."  This is going in circles because I keep telling you that and you keep finding reasons to ignore it. Markovich292 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ha, now you're citing wikipedia ? (not that it helps you, in fact it refutes you). but anyway, wikipedia also says : "Holocaust denial is generally considered an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory." like I said - discussion over. Amoruso 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Two points: 1) "generally considered" (not always), 2) he did not deny the Holocaust // Liftarn


 * 1) lol 2) rotfl but "Holocaust is a zionist myth that didn't exist" is indeed not denying it. Amoruso 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another reason that this is going in circles...we went over this before. Liftarn is right, "Generally cosidered" means that there are enough people, such as yourself, to conclude it is a widespread sentiment but is not necessarily true.  In other words, not all holocaust deniers are anti-semites.  Oh, and I find it funny that you say wikipedia refutes me, but don't even say why.  Do enlighten me... Markovich292 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I conclude that the discussion is over and the category should be kept
I see no point in playing this game with those who deny the millions of sources cited above. Discussion is over as far as I'm concerned, I believe everyone saw the logical conclusion. I won't play this game by people who want to deny an obvious obvious category anymore even though the deniers have absolutely no reasoning or no sources to back themselves up. Amoruso 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of all the arrogance! How do you get off declaring yourself right and all who oppose you devoid of reasoning???  Your section title alone proves that your opinion has to be the alter on which we worship.  You have been immobile from the very beginning, and saying that "we deny an obvious category" is a high and mighty attitude.


 * Since you have declared yourself the victor, that probably means you won't be introducing new material on this topic so I say goodbye. I don't care what you think about the man, as long as you don't keep trying to push your POV here.


 * For the record, nothing that meets wikipedia standards for categorization has been presented. I am not as presumptous as Amoruso to declare this over and my side right, but since they have not proven their case the category should be removed.  It just screams admin bias when such a category has been allowed to stay when people are trying to verify that it is indeed based on fact.  Markovich292 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * lol I'm arrogant, but your hypocrite phony "guidelines" weren't ? Yeah I'm over with the discussion because clearly everyone can see you don't make any sense. You're actually gonna say you want a reliable source next identifying him as an anti semite, lol. As if we weren't there already. This is truly hilarious. Amoruso 09:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All of those guidelines were perfectly reasonable. The only thing "wrong" with them was they didn't allow you to try to BS everybody with nonfactual rhetoric.  Even so, you were still welcome to critique them.  Also if you notice, all of this has taken place in a relatively short amount of time so most people probably haven't seen the recent discussions yet...how about you let them make up their own minds instead of speaking for them?  Markovich292 09:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I utterly disagree. Unless a reliable source is given where he clearly is identified as an anti-Semite that category should not be used. // Liftarn


 * Amoruso, I find it rather brazen that you are so bullheaded about your opinion that you are attempting to declare this debate done and over, after giving many ad hominems and rebukes of the other side consisting merely of "lol". Those who don't think he should get the cat have offered you a chance to provide some objective information that substantiates that he is an anti-Semite, but so far you have only provided opinions, mainly from Western sources (not that there's anything bad about that, but they aren't the be-all, end-all of all sources).


 * I know I'm not neutral in this - personally, I don't think he deserves the cat, at least not yet. He could very well be an anti-Semite, or he could simply be an anti-Zionist. As of current, I don't feel we have enough information to substantiate whether he is indeed an anti-Semite or not. We have not heard any reports that he's exterminating the Jews in his nation - in fact, he has appointed several Jews in his nation to positions in Parliament if I'm not mistaken - nor has he stated that he is against the Jewish faith and race.


 * Methinks the best way to resolve this would be to remove the cat and add a section entitled "Allegations of anti-Semitism", much in the same way the Mel Gibson article has. That way, it can be stated that "many Western media sources claim that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial and anti-Zionist remarks constitute gross anti-Semitism, which the Iranian government has decried as a means of defaming the nation and Ahmadinejad. The president himself has not made any clear indication whether he is indeed anti-Semitic or not, and the Jews in Iran are granted permission to practice their faith. Nevertheless, it remains a matter of contention." or something to that effect. That way, it wouldn't be considered libelous but the issue would certainly not be ignored.  eszett talk  10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... thoughtful proposal, Eszett. In my opinion, it is pretty obvious that he's an anti-Semite but, honestly, how important is a damn cat anyway? Do the majority of readers even look at the things? I doubt it. Unless contributors to this article want to end up at arbitration, some sort of compromise will have to be made, and I think Eszett's proposal is an interesting one. Remove him from the cat, but add substance to the content. Mi kk er (...) 11:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that is a pretty reasonable proposal. The only thing is, there is already a section labeled "Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism."  Maybe the best thing to do would be to change the name of the section to "Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-semitism" and add some of the quotes presented here.  Of course this has to be kept balanced, so with every inflammatory quote  about him, there has to be a quote from the opposite perspective.  Mike Wallace might be a good candidate for one such defensive source.  Lets not let this get out of hand though, we do not need 20 pages of back and forth quotes in the article.  Either way, the section should be changed up a little to address the obvious lean against MA.  Maybe boost the section to 4 good paragraphs?  Oh, and I of course agree with you that the unproven category (anti-semitism, no others) must go.


 * Let's face facts, it has nothing to do with anti-semitism, disliking of the Jews, their race/religion but ONLY to do with this..."I think that the situation of the leaders of the regime occupying Quds [Jerusalem] is too well-known for me to try to say something to other nations about it... Those individuals are the root cause of insecurity throughout the Middle East. They do not have the right to impose their views on others." (P Ahmadinejad speaking after his win in the election. Yas121 11:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm... whatever. We're never going to resolve the CONTENT of this dispute because it seems to be mainly sematic - one definition for those pro-MA, one for those anti-MA. Let's talk compromise and stop debating the point to death... Mi kk er (...) 11:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that this is a living person and, after reading through this discussion - I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy and am usually just a gnome but this discussion caught my attention - to place him in a cat he does not necessarily belong in would be libellous, I would say that it carries more importance than it does for a dead person or a fictional character. Moreover, Ahmadinejad isn't exactly Mr. Nobody - this wouldn't be a big deal if it was for a minor politician in Australia, but this is the president of a nation who is very involved with not only regional, but also world, politics at the current time.
 * I don't know if he's anti-Semitic or not, but it's unreasonable to judge whether he is based on what he has said and done. It's obvious that he's an anti-Zionist; it's not so obvious that he's an anti-Semite. Placing him in the cat seems more of a pre-emptive thing than anything else. It'd be like placing him in a cat of Iranian vegetarians because he might just be a Iranian vegetarian.
 * But unlike his potential vegetarianism, the matter of him being an anti-Semite or not is a very relevant discussion given his suggestive statements. Several governments and individuals have said - or, as I should say, stated their opinions - that he is an anti-Semite, but definite proof, at least now, has yet to be established. He's no saint and I have no intention to defend the man, but placing him in the cat seems to me to be more of a defamation of his character than anything else. Discuss it with a section rather than apply definite labels - that is how the subject matter should be treated regardless of the subject.  eszett talk  12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you for helping me keep my sanity :) I had almost given up hope that there were people who cared about issues such as defamation on wikipedia. I really respect that you may not even care that much about defending Ahmadinejad but you still speak up on  how to keep wikipedia clean.


 * As discussed above, the root problem is the encapsulation of the cat "Holocaust denier" in the cat "Anti-Semite". Those two are not related at all. Let's look at the facts. German Neonazis are usually both. Then there are "regular Jew-haters" who believe that the Holocaust happened and still don't like Jews for whatever reason. And then there are those who—like our subject, I guess—believe that the Holocaust was fabricated to ensure the establishment of an Israeli state, yet they might not dislike Jews otherwise. Well, that, and he surely opposes the very idea of Zionism. So "Holocaust denier" and "Anti-Zionist" - yes. But "Anti-Semite" makes no sense at all. Kosmopolis 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Oh, and please don't mix up state policy with individuals' opinions. Even if Jews were disallowed to practice in Iran (like e.g. the Bahá'í are), you would have a hard time proving that MA is an Anti-Semite.


 * First of all I frown upon the title of this topic. (I won't call it arrogant or anything because that could again be used against me.)  And secondly : yes it is important.  Has anyone ever taken a look at this page :.  People reading about Anti Semitism will end up here, and find MA here, along with Hitler. (By the way, I inspected that list and noticed that there is at least one other person in there, without any sources, even from the article about him itself!)Evilbu 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what makes it important. Somebody is looking over the topic, and sees MA (or anybody else there that doesn't belong) and thinks "huh, I didn't know that."  They then will think, "wow, what a racist"... or worse:  try to tell other people it is true no matter what evidence there is to refute it...


 * Just for curiosity, are you talking about Osama bin Laden being poorly categorized? Markovich292 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't talking about Osama Bin Laden. Oh well they are gonna find out any way : Ahmed Rami.  I am afraid this does mean that the page is doomed to become another battleground. But I am not ashamed of my action : the article never calls him antisemitic, nor does it mention antisemitic actions, nor does it mention other people's quotes calling him antisemitic.  Sources are definitely nowhere to be found ... Evilbu 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)