Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 8

message: There is no mention of Ahmadinejad's membership with the Office for Strengthening Unity in 1979, his entry into military service during the war against Iraq beginning 1980, and voluntary entry into the Islamic Revolution's Guard Corps in 1986. Further, no mention of him being a senior commander in the Qods force. It is typical in biographies of political leaders, especially Presidents, to document their military service record. There should be a section on the front page on this.  This is public information and not seriously disputed. If a particular detail of his service is in dispute, readers are free to provide factual evidence supports for that.  
I would suggest this inclusion for starters:
Military Background:
Member of the Office for Strengthening Unity 1979
IRGC officer beginning 1986 - Intelligence
Qods Force Senior Commander
Details such as his role in planning assasinations can be included in subtopics mentioning those specific details, or in another section. 
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm
--User:Alecmconroy 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glaring omission of military service and background!

message: So, quickly looking over the page, it seems to me like: 
:Meeting with Jews Against Zion is largely irrelevant to the debate over whether MA is anti-semetic.  Few people are so extreme in their prejudices that they wouldn't even meet with the people they are prejudiced against-- merely meeting with someone isn't relevant to the debate, it doesn't sound.
:That MA denies being anti-semetic, however, is _critical_ to the debate, and very relevant.  That alone makes me think we should generally refer to his anti-semetics as merely "alleged".   I haven't yet run into a case where I've felt it appropriate to unambiguously declare someone to have a prejudice when that person actively denies it.  Of course-- nothing stops us from citing all the ample evidence suggesting MA is anti-semetic.
:It _seems_ like his holocaust denial is not alleged.  CNN certainly treats it that way, and there's a lot of evidence to back that up.  So based on what I've seen for now, I'd say just call his holocaust denial a fact-- but I leave the door open that there might be cause to list it as 'alleged'-- I haven't read through the whole page.   Again, in any case, the vast majority of the evidence adn the reliable sources characterize him as denying the holocaust, and we can mention all that.
Are there other issues I'm missing that are in dispute? --Alecmconroy 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the heading title, it states Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism. I think that any printed denials by MA about anti-semitism also need to be in the article, but that fringe groups are out-of-scope per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, this is why :Category:Anti-Semitic people was removed and replaced with :Category:Anti-Semitism. There is definitely debate and applicability of Anti-Semitism, but I think we've decided that "Anti-Semitic people" is a bit too much now. I may believe that to be true, and Jay did bring 18 sources to back that up, but enough ambiguity remains in others’ minds to make it not 100% clear, as is his Holocaust denial. -- Avi 13:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right-- I should have been clear--  the anti-semetic IS currently stated as alleged, and I think the current way of doing it is  a good thing. :) --Alecmconroy 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you; a lot of editors are hashing out many difficult issues with the intent that pertinent issues are portrayed in a way that neither marginalizes nor overly-emphasizes the contraversial statements and actions of a contraversial man. If your skin (or head in my case) is thick enough, jump on in . -- Avi 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested comment

message: What is the correct pronunciation of the "nejad" part of his name? Is it like the "J" in "Jack" or like the "s" in "pleasure"? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added back the audio pronunciation to the article, so if you have the .ogg codec, clicking on his name in the beginning of the article should give you the best idea of how it is pronounced.  In short though, I would say the "J" is closer to the "s" in pleasure than anything. Markovich292 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The J in Nejad 

message: A Russian news article (link) claims that Ahmadinejad is an ethnic Azerbaijani. The article doesn't say it. Is it true? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure if it is true or not...Unfortunately it doesn't seem like that article it is certain to be accurate on Ahmadinejad's nationality though (this is mainly because that article is found in the comments section of that website if I am not mistaken, and because Ahmadinejad is not the focus of the article).  Since there is only a vague reference to him being of Azerbaijanian nationality, I think it would be best to find out from a few other authoritative sources if this is true or not before adding it to the article. Markovich292 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani? 

message: #...the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - The Guardian, a highly respected British newspaper.
#:Opinion of Luke Harding in Berlin and Denis Campbell in Cologne. -ft
#:Yes, the individual authors of this article call MA [Iran's] viciously anti-semitic President, but they do not back up that claim.  It's just name-calling in the context presented in the article. Vir4030 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you saythe Gulf Times and the Guardian are pro-Israel? Have you read either recently? -- Avi 13:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That is somewhat interesting, as for example, we use the Guardian to support all of Chris McGreal's, Desmond Tutu's, and Meron Benvenisti's statements at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, should we remove all those? How about the statements regarding the west bank wall at Human rights in Israel and Israeli West Bank barrier, should we remove those as well? It is difficult to claim that a source is only reliable when it brings something that supports your position, but not when it brings something against your position. -- Avi 14:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure why not? I have no particular feelings about those other articles. I'm interested in this one right now. I understand that you personally feel that the man is an anti-Semite, but it has not been confirmed by any reliable sources yet. Please see below for categorisation compromise. - Francis Tyers · 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Emotinal attachment to an article or point-of-view is not an excuse to ignore civility. Please remember that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are also cornerstones to proper wikipedia function. -- Avi 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I already have above, and in the archives. I have asked for civil discourse and to discuss ideas, not to bandy about emotional catchphrases and personal attacks. If you cannot attempt the former, please do not substitute it with the latter. Thank you. -- Avi 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic 

message: Does this discussion still require mediation?  --Ideogram 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation still required? 

message: I find it hilarious that there is an article on here Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel explaining that he never denied the Holocaust, yet the admins and others constantly put up that he does deny the holocaust. What a wonderful defended lie... Haramzadi 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely certain you understand the concept. Please see holocaust denial. Thanks. IronDuke 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And im not entirely certain you understand the reality of how illogical it is to assume that someone is "denying" something whenever they ask for more information on it or want to investigate it. Are you a POV warrior? or something? Haramzadi 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "POV warrior?" That's an interesting accusation from someone who has only just started editing. Is this the only Wikipedia account you are editing/have edited with? As to your point, suggesting that the Holocaust might not have happened is called Holocaust Denial. Check out our article on it. IronDuke 20:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused here. Haramzadi, could you show me where the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel says Ahmadinejad didn't deny the holocaust? I couldn't find it. If our articles contradict each other, we need to fix them, obviously. IronDuke, could you show me where consensus was achieved to include the information that is being removed? Heimstern Läufer 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the subject you ask about, it quotes Ahmadinejad as saying "If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision"
Notice here he says "which seems they are right in their claim", I believe that is proof he is not denying it, but rather asking questions and wishing to investigate it, he is not denying the event. But further down you see that the "American media" reported that he called it a myth. I believe that the "American media" is the problem here, same with CNN, Fox etc. I am debating the factual relevance of CNN's statement, since it doesn't match the actual translation of what he said. Haramzadi 20:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) It's all in the archives, which you are welcome to dig through. I don't want to seem rude, HL, and you seem a decent sort, but I'm not interested in launching a federal investigation into this because a single purpose account, quite possibly a sock, appears on the talk page to start braying about "Zionists." Playing whack-a-mole is hard enough on this article as is. IronDuke 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I won't worry about it as long as we don't have edit warring. Just a reminder that you're both getting close to three reverts on this article. Heimstern Läufer 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  (in response to ) Federal investigation? I should say, if you launched a federal investigation into every broadcast and report on a news station that wasn't factual, you'd be launching more investigations than you would be "whacking moles"! If launching an investigation is your reactionary response to my assertion that CNN is not completely factual, this only leads me to the conclusion that you have taken CNN and other western media news stations as fact for a very long time, and this has lead you into the mind-set of believing their sphere of influence. But I do find it interesting that "Zionist" is a personal attack (when in reality it is a movement) yet "sock" is a compliment? I see. The only braying im seeing is from neoconservative right-wing zionists that continue to re-affirm and support racist, xenophobic, bigoted, and closed-minded anti-Middle-Eastern ideaologies. You have a 30 page section on "Holocaust Denial" yet when it comes to statements Ahmadinejad made, you rely simply off a CNN news link or the media. I find this fascinating, and a very big revelation about wikipedia. People have continually told me that wikipedia is not a relevant source of information, I have always argued in wikipedia's defense because i've found it's information useful, perhaps I need to change my mind as of today about wikipedias relevance, since it seems to be run by thugs who wish to enforce false allegations. I will not edit the topic again, but let it be known that I plan on writing an article about Wikipedia very soon. Haramzadi 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see what I'm saying, HL? Good thing I have a thick skin, I guess. IronDuke 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to resort to replying to me with merely a sentence and an idiom, suggests that you are walking away, have a nice walk. Haramzadi 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: {edit conflict, replies to IronDuke} Yes, indeed. Haramzadi, if you want your perspective to be taken seriously at all, you must be civil (and note that, despite your allegations, IronDuke has been civil). I see no reason for me to waste any more time with your edits until you begin discussing reasonably. Heimstern Läufer 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The temporary illusion of "civil" is all in perspective. I've already wasted enough time trying to talk to a wall as it were, but it appears I have only made a small crack, whilst the painters and fillers rush in to fix it with the white wash of ignorance, the wall of propaganda stands, and I walk away shaking my head, this article is a sad mockery of any type of historical documentation. Haramzadi 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilarious 

message: :Remember Haramzadi, Wikipedia is not a blog. The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to point out inaccuracies, not debate your opinion.
:For the last few months, I've been noticing that people are using this page as a battle ground of opinion. Everyone, please use this talk page for it's purpose- correcting mistakes on the article. Sr13 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has got nothing to do with blogging or opinions, my friend, go look at what Ahmadinejad said on the Mahmoud and Israel page, he states that "The Zionist regime must be removed from the pages of history" he never used the words "wipe" , "off" or "map", this smoke screen thrown up is ridiculous propaganda. Haramzadi 06:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haramzadi, that's fine, and may well be true.  But Sr13's point is still valid.  There is way too much personal attacking and opinion pushing going on on this talk page.  If you have a problem with something stated on the MA and Israel page, then you should be making this comment on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.  Vir4030 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of a Talk Page

message: :Copied from above
I think a sub category of :Category:Persons involved in Antisemitic controversies can be appropriate. Amoruso 12:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with including him in a category of :Category:People involved in anti-Semitic controverseries. - Francis Tyers · 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great... I wonder if people will agree to this category. I would also like to place Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne there, I think it's a good choice. Amoruso 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could include Mel Gibson too. I think this category is a good idea. - Francis Tyers · 10:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems too wishy-washy and unnecessary. I think there's a strong enough consensus so far to keep the anti-Semitism category. It doesn't imply that he's anti-semitic. Robocracy 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is being factual wishy-washy? There is no-way near consensus, there is currently a small majority. - Francis Tyers · 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this category as well.  Vir4030 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: When I say wishy-washy, what I mean is that the title of the category is extremely long, as if the category itself isn't notable but was solely created out of people complaining of the controversy. It is almost as bad as naming a category, "People who may or may not be anti-semitic." Just keep the category as Anti-Semitism. It doesn't imply that he's anti-semitic. Robocracy 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Robocracy. Instead of using a really long title, just explain in the category that these people have admitted and/or have been referred to as antisemetic by several sources. Sr13 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Robocracy.  It really does boil down to "may or may not be anti-semitic", and in fact would probably open the gates even wider for dubious inclusion of articles.  Ford MF 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the information has been moved to its proper location, there isn't really a reason to include the category on this page.  I don't know if you were here for the first time I mentioned this, but compare this situation to Israel#Human Rights and Human rights in Israel.  A category in the Israel article for human rights would be out of place-even though there is a fairly sizeable section.  On the page dedicated to that issue, however, you will find a category placed there because that is consistant with how categories are supposed to be used. Markovich292 18:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible compromise

message: I just created the article 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and was hoping some people here would help me by fleshing it out. It is a bit of a stub at the moment.  Thanks!Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2006 Iran Holocaust Conference]] 

message: Does anyone have the copy of, or a link to, the letter which Ahmadinejad wrote to the American People which was made public today in New York? I can't find a copy, and I'd really like to read it word-for-word. Vir4030 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the letter that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote for me and for all Americans! 	 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Descartes_mind_and_body.gif 	 
Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to the American People 

message: Could someone double check the translation of the quote mentioned in the section "Quotes by President Ahmadinejad" and verify the source? Sr13 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, it's done.  Thanks for the help, unknown person. Vir4030 17:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation