Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 16

message: In the photo of him shaking hands with the 15 captured British sailors, he appears to be rather short. There also don't appear to be many pictures released of him standing next to other people. 128.252.251.44 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking much the same when I saw the footage. :-) Assuming that the sailors were of average height (say 5'7" / 170 cm), I'd say he was about five to six inches shorter - say 5'2" / ~157 cm. That's purely a guess though; anyone know of any official figures? -- ChrisO 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How tall is this guy? 

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

text: His websites generally don't use actual transcripts of any speeches, but instead summarize the text.  The Behnam 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech translation question 

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

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  Most talk pages are way too long and have rarely if ever been archived.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

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

text: This is an article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number and status of Jews in Iran do not belong in the article and surely not in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Ahmadinejad has been accused of antisemitism, so it is very relevant to include such information.--Kirby♥time 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:LEAD. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To begin with, the status of Jews in Iran is irrelevant to whether or not Ahmadinejad is an antisemite. More importantly, has anyone notable made the argument that Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite because the Iranian government gave some money to a Jewish hospital, or the various other original research arguments invented by User:Pejman47? I'm not sure why he persists in this, he knows OR is not allowed on Wikipedia, and has been told that about this specific argument by many different editors. You should know better too. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the source? The CSM is a highly respected and notable organization.--Kirby♥time 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kirbytime, there is whole lot of info that does not belong in this article. When the info is irrelevant, no matter how reputable its source is. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: some of the sources, e.g. CBS, clearly discussed "the state of jews" in Iran in relation to his "anti-Isreal" remarks; so, it is not OR. --Pejman47 06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you reread the title of this article. As noted, MA's comments have caused a lot of reaction and therefore are notable. The "the state of Jews" (please note capital J, also you consistently misspell Israel - I hope unintentionally) in Iran does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: of course the misspleings are unintentional. anyway, nobody questioned the notability of that quote,  but of course there is objections about its representation. And you also please read the article  again, you will find it that the author has intentionally saw a relationship with that quote and the state of Jews (OK capital) in iran. it is not OR. please help to make this article natural. and yesterday I made a post in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to bring fresh voices here. But I don't see any yet. sigh!--Pejman47 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSM is saying that the state of the Jews is being used as a response to the antisemitism allegations, it is highly relevant. Read the source.--Kirby♥time 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As other editors pointed out, for a biographical article, MA's exorbitant remarks and corresponding worldwide reactions are notable, but the status and the number of Iranian Jews are not. That CSM article (or rather, a more scholarly reliable source) probably belongs in the article Persian Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the two sources are the same source, a story by Scott Peterson for the Christian Science Monitor. Second, this one story does not at all discuss whether or not Ahmadinejad's statements were antisemitic; rather, it notes Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, and Ahmadinejad himself is mentioned only peripherally. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I don't understand why "stated" is being replaced with 'claimed' or (on the other side) 'rejected' because 'stated' is supposedly POV.  How is it POV, or in one editor's words, "very POV"? If I recall correctly "stated" was used after a previous discussion as a compromise since it is very neutral, though flavorless (hence neutral).  I ask that you all please make a good clear case now why "stated" is so unacceptable.  Thanks.  The Behnam 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be specific? A diff that shows that change will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. According to WP:WTA we should use "said". --Aminz 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is the most recent.  Apparently Sefringle thinks there is something very POV about 'stated' that has something to do with his sincerity.  I simply can't see where he is coming from; "stated" seems so neutral to me as to approach bland writing.  The Behnam 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: the way it is written implies that Ahmadinejad was sincere when he claimed to not be an antisemite. Even the source says "claimed." It is written as if saying that the accusations of antisemitism are thus invalid, since he "stated" that he is not antisemitic. He claimed not to be antisemitic in response, it is a claim, and lacks sincerity. --Sefringle 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be trying to address his supposed sincerity or lack thereof here.  This POV type of writing was stripped when adding to this article so as to prevent a POV projection.  And we shouldn't be changing to 'claimed' with the sole purpose of questioning his sincerity, as that is purely POV editing.  The Behnam 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again with the sincerity bit? It's extremely hard to assume good faith here. First of, the burden of proof is on the accuser and besides twisting of the words in some speeches, you have yet to show any evidence which would support that he is anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is none of our business if he is sincere or not. The article is here to serve a higher purpose than to represent your POV. Lastly, I'll ask you to follow the talk guidelines and refrain from using biased titles in the future. Did you really need to append incredibly there? I do not consider "stated" to be POV Lixy 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In wikipedia, we should give all the raw data to the reader and let them decide for themselves. --Aminz 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also POV editing to imply that he is sincere about his quote, and to imply that the charges of antisemitism are invalid, as the lead, as it is currently written does.--Sefringle 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your definition of "saying". Isn't it the words that come out of mouth? --Aminz 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Said" seems to me more factually accurate. He said that, right? I do not think that any reader will not be able to make his/her own mind about if he was sincere or insincere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your recent change improves the wording, swaying it away form Ahmadinejad's propaganda. But claimed would be better, since the charges of antisemitism are stated as alleged, his response should be as well, or it should be re-phraised, for example: "in response to these assertions, he said..."--Sefringle 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The incredibly POV use of 'stated'