Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 7

message: I found this article about Iran trying to initiate a rapprochment with Israel, recognizing its existence in a proposal to the United States in 2003. The report claims that Iran's peace proposal with Israel was not accepted by the United States. I think this is some important piece of information that needs to be used in these articles. But I dont know where and in what article we could fit this in best. Anybody have any ideas? Please do use the article as reference anywhere you see fit.
The article: 
:"Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel'" by Gareth Porter. Asia Times, May 2006. Link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html
Thanks.--Zereshk 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I believe this is a fine article. --LifeEnemy 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting document found

message: Very well, if y'all think you have a suitable comprimise using :Category:Anti-Semitism, I'll unlock the article, but if things get out-of-hand, this will be buttoned down pretty quickly again. -- Avi 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not object to you unlocking the article like you did, but you have made a mistake in adding the category right now.  Nobody had a chance to respond to either of the two posts just above, so you swooping in and adding a category that is still being debated is highly premature. I will not revert it myself right away (which would probably result in it being locked again), but it would be prudent for you to perform a self-revert. Markovich292 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you've acted a little too quickly. I never expected another debate until Markovich292 included an unsolved dispute. People then started responding. I never expected so much change over a short period of time. My suggestion is to lock the article again until disputes have been completely resolved. A "suitable compromise" is not enough to end disputes. There could be retorts and or alternatives to solve the problem. You must wait for a week's time (a month's time if you must) before you consider this change. Sr13 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we could leave the category for now, but keep a strict watch on it, as you said. It seems that more people are coming back to this page (besides Markovich, Amoruso and I), so I think we'll be able to get a general opinion on this move pretty soon. --LifeEnemy 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thougth this issue was resolved. He is NOT anti-semitic. Yas121 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I just want to remind you that this was put in place only as a temporary solution, it is not a final compromise.  Well actually, it is simply a stopgap measure that you put in place when you unlocked the article, without waiting for it to be worked out on the talk page. Because of that, this isn't even a good-faith (not in the wiki sense, but in the general sense) implementation of Amoruso's proposal IMO.  Markovich292 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, let’s see

message: Martin Indyk is a one of the most well known pro-Israeli supporters ever in US government.
See for yourself what he has to say abouit MA: . --Zereshk 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said he's not hitler, not that's he not anti-semitic. In fact, he says he denys the holocaust and wants to destroy the jewish state, but it's still not hitler. btw, he's not at all pro-Israeli... he pushed for Israeli concessions for the Palestinians at the time very heavily. Amoruso 09:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US ambassador to Israel also thinks so

message: --'Khamenei's eldest son Mujtaba was Ahmadinejad's campaign manager during the election, and' --
ghalibaf and karoubi alleged mujtaba to have shifted support from ghalibaf to ahmadinejad a few days before election. who wrote this campaign manager bs?
--'Ahmadinejad was widely perceived at the time of his election to be Khamenei's protégé.'--
this one is just pure bs. i was in iran at the time of election, and no such thing was perceived. let alone "widely".
i changed this accordigly.--Gerash77 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mujtaba 

message: I've replaced the paraphrase with the quote from the New York Times version of MA's speech. I think that should be acceptable to everyone, for that is what the man said. -- Avi 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine that this is worse than saying "regime...wiped off the map" for some people.  Just to remind you, someone said before that including this quote at the beginning of the article is "political partisanship unworthy of wikipedia" if I recall correctly.  Still others (look above for example) have said that this quote is wrong.  Basically, many, many people (and reliable sources alike) have said something to the effect of "the primary source for this translation screwed up, so indeed that is not what the man said." Even more moderate opposition to this is that it should not be in the beginning of the article, and instead placed where it can be properly explained.  Also, please see: Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Israel? Markovich292 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't seem like a good idea to have something so highly contested in the lead paragraph, since it can't be NPOV without at least including the arguments against it, which would make the lead to long. I think marovich's version was pretty good, since MA has made (and been critisized) for more than just that one quote. It also avoids an improper (and possibly partisan) translation. --LifeEnemy 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That pretty much sums up what I would have said about this specific issue.  I'll just add that Wikipedia is supposed to clear up issues like this, not push/further the persuasions of the west, which is the effect that the current lead has.  Markovich292 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has disputed the reliability of the NYT. The translation itself has been disputed (also by reliable sources, I believe), and many people feel such a disputed item should not be included in the lead paragraph, but later in the article where the dispute can be properly explained. --LifeEnemy 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map redux

message: As an avid reader of Wikipedia, I have never seen such a cruel display of Western bias. Even the founder of the Klu Klux Klan, Wiliam J. Simmons, has a more forgiving lead paragraph than Mr. Ahamadinejad.  I am not arguing whether Mr. Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite, he may very well be but that should *not* be the opening paragraph. Mel Gibson in a drunken stupor commented that "Jews are responsible for all wars in the world"; Even Pat Robertson has made controversial remarks about Jews;  President Andrew Jackson slaughtered thousands of Native Americans and blatantly defied the Supreme Court of the United States; Bill Clinton had sexual relations with an Intern; What I find interesting is that all of the aforementioned people are Americans and their comments/actions aren't included on their lead Wikipedia page.  It's only the "anti-Western" people like Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that have the most negative lead paragraphs.  I guess you can only be an anti-semite if you're American. 
This article is mired in a sticky bias that just flat-out reeks.   Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia that is devoid - as much as possible - from editorializing.   The editors of this article - especially the lead paragraph - should be ashamed.   These are the exact type of articles that give Wikipedia the reputation of being unfair, unreliable, and biased.
Winter Light 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ""anti-Western" people like Osama..." . You're serious ? Amoruso 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm asking if you're serious that Osama Bin Laden is simply anti-western and that's why his article is biased like you claim. You'd rather write in the lead that Osama is just a peace loving misunderstood guy fighting against the Big Devil ? or that MA wants to wipe out the Little Devil from the world for just reason ? Amoruso 12:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah!You really want to see a "negative lead paragraph"?? Head over to Hamas....(Where Admins such as Jayjg have taken an oath to Rev/Block anyone who may disagree)... Yes it may read like a damming report written by the Israeli PR machine...but they still call it an encyclopaedic article!!! Yas121 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid future violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lead Paragraph is Completely Absurd 

message: I just read on BBC that Ahmedinejad claims to be inspired by God, and that Bush is likewise inspired by Satan.  Bush similarly claims himself to be inspired by God.
I thought God is of Peace, Love and tranquility, not wars and bullets and bloodshed. If any of these men are really for God, they would not be fighting and would be at peace! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their whole deal is that they think they are fighting to make peace. Besides, God isn't against killing a few thousand (or million) non-christians; just take a look at the old testament. --LifeEnemy 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did you get that from?  There were no Christians at all in the Old Testament.  But in the New, Christ tells his followers who wanted to call fire down on non-believers "You don't know what kind of spirit you have."  (Lk 9:55) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, either way, my first sentence still stands. This section is unnecesary anyway. --LifeEnemy 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, if you substitute "people not of his/their religion" for "christians", then it works. --LifeEnemy 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is one of the things that makes Christ's teachings so very different from every religion in the world.  Because every religion in the world has something in it, somewhere, that says "It's perfectly okay to screw over 'the others'."  (Be it through usury, genocide or whatever). Only Christ's teachings stand out as being different from the others: he specifically taught that it is NOT okay to do this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know that's not totally right. But in any case, this is not the place for such a discussion. I shouldn't have brought it up. --LifeEnemy 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look into the actual teachings, you will see that what I said is absolutely correct. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. Other religions teach peace and non-violence as well. Buddhism, for example. I believe Hinduism and some other religions are also similar in that respect. You sound like one of those ignorant christians (not all) who think that they're better than everyone else. Awareness of other cultures is a good thing to have. --LifeEnemy 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I still disagree with what you said that "God isn't against killing a million people". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's totally all right. We all have opinions. I was probably somewhat out of line in the way I expressed my ideas. My bad. --LifeEnemy 01:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's 'Inspired by God' comment 

message: During this past week’s episode of Real-Time with Bill Mahr a woman named Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute attributed a parapharsed quotation to Ahmadinejad where Ahmadinejad said he wanted to ’destoy the United States’ (in her words). I checked Wikipedia, thinking I might find some reference detailing what this referred to, but there’s nothing here as far as I can see. Does anyone know what she may have been referring to? --Cplot 01:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard "destory the whole western world, the civilized world; He wants to take over the planet. etc. It might be concluded from the chanting of "Death to USA".--Gerash77 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Enterprise Institute on Bill Mahr 

message: Most of the citations in this article are in Farsi, and even if we have some people willing to go on record verifying the citations, this is English wikipedia, and it does strain the credibility of the article to an extent. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English. Thank you. -- Avi 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified Farsi-language citations 

message: The citecheck template is a specialized template.  It applies only to articles that misuse citations, such as quotes taken out of context.  When using citecheck, please discuss specific problem citations on talk.
Sometimes editors put citecheck on an article when some other template is really needed, such as when they think an article has POV problems or not enough citations.  If that's the case here then please replace citecheck with the appropriate template.  Respectfully, Durova 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citecheck template 

message: This is not alleged. Read the sources where he says so in black-and-white. This is alos not WP:OR, it is brought from the primary sources as per wiki policy. Putting in alleged for Holocaust denial is a form of POV-pushing vandalism, will be reverted, and does not count towards 3RR per wiki policy. -- Avi 12:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest simply pointing out that it is sourced and not come down so harshly (is a form of POV-pushing vandalism). Remember, assume good faith! --LifeEnemy 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct; thanks. -- Avi 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The holocaust denial/anti-semetism section? I think NPOV would be representing both sides of the argument fairly. There needs to be mention of MA's own quotes about anti-semetism and coverage of some things he's done that are inconsistent with anti-semetism. Pro-anti-semetic arguments might warrant a little more weight in that section, since it seems to be such a pervasive idea in western media, but I don't have a really good idea of everything that's been happening involving MA. I hope I understood what you were asking. --LifeEnemy 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial