Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 4

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

message: 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"Speaker Haddad Adel: West's tough attitude casts doubts over Holocaust, IRNA, 04 June, 2006 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. "Lost in the Fog: Iranian Jews", Question the Mark, 27 August, 2006 
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 Wikipedia:Categorization. Amoruso 09:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Accusations of anti-Semitism

message: 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)
thread_title: news

message: 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:
#Copy quotes directly onto this page, and italicize them.
#Always cite sources (in line)
#Follow the quote with your explantaion, indented one line
#Do not indent new quotes (i.e. do not put : before them)
#Limit yourself to one quote to keep this short*
#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:
#Anti-Semitic or Pro-Israel organization's publications
#Secondary sources that derive reports from biased primary sources
#Opinions, even if they are those of prominent figures
#Quotes taken out of context
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  '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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Here is your chance