Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 6

message: Can anyone here confirm/disconfirm that Ahmadinejad has/had a jewish mother? I was told that
Mohsen Rezaee has claimed that but could not find any sources in languages I speak. 84.190.175.210 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish mother? 

message: By reading the user information of the people that have posted, I noticed that Zionists and Israelis are essentially the only users discussing/editing this article. It\u2019s despicable how you can even claim the pursuit of neutrality\u2026
:I am neither an Isreali nor a Zionist. Can I still claim persuit of neutrality? --LifeEnemy 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV? 

message: Hey, yas, should I run screaming that it is a conspiracy that it was protected sans the category this time?  -- Avi 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: m:The Wrong Version. ;) - FrancisTyers · 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: OK, since there is at least one "representative" from each group at this time, I just thought I would start this section as a general guide before this continues. Please add simple comments as you wish, but discuss controversial propositions below before adding them. Markovich292 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very possible to prove a negative. Sometimes. The fallacy is appealing to lack of proof of the negative. It's quite a different thing. One can ask someone to prove a negative and use it as an argument if no proof exists, but not as a definite proof, since it remains possible. Amoruso 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia works according to WP:RS. Wikipedia is about verifiablity not truth. See WP:V and WP:CITE. Therefore this point is quite irrelevant in wikipedia. Amoruso 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note quote : "An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."" ===> Wikipedia doesn't say the category is true - truth is in the eye of the beholder, but simply that it's based on reliable verifiable sources. Amoruso 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:RS sources are accepted in wikipedia for categories as well. All facts are opinions as represented. Every history is written from someone's perspective. Don't change wikipedia. Amoruso 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: *Do not ask editors to proove a negative
:It is very possible to prove a negative. Sometimes. The fallacy is appealing to lack of proof of the negative. It's quite a different thing. One can ask someone to prove a negative and use it as an argument if no proof exists, but not as a definite proof, since it remains possible. Amoruso 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works according to WP:RS. Wikipedia is about verifiablity not truth. See WP:V and WP:CITE. Therefore this point is quite irrelevant in wikipedia. Amoruso 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note quote : "An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."" ===> Wikipedia doesn't say the category is true - truth is in the eye of the beholder, but simply that it's based on reliable verifiable sources. Amoruso 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Points

message: To keep this concise, do not use the following types of sources that do not conclusively prove anti-semitism.
*Opinions
*Editorial comments by journalists, etc.
:WP:RS sources are accepted in wikipedia for categories as well. All facts are opinions as represented. Every history is written from someone's perspective. Don't change wikipedia. Amoruso 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable Sources

message: I do not think negative categories should be applied to controversial living people or functioning organizations at all. How many verifiable reputable sources should suffice to put Bush into the "draft dodger" category? How many verifiable reputable sources should put Clinton into the "dishonest politician" category? What should put the IDF into the "organizations that commit war crimes" category? Ahmadinejad does not admit he is an anti-Semite, neither do his supporters. For wikipedia to take a side in this controversy and assign him the category hurts wikipedia and does not hurt Ahmadinejad. If Tony Blair is put into a category "subservient leaders" then all readers will suspect the objectivity of wikipedia, but only those who already see Blair that way will find it convincing. Count this as a vote for not categorizing the Pope under "people who slur Islam" and also not assigning Ahmadinejad the category "anti-Semites" despite any reliable verifiable sources we can find to negatively categorize all controversial figures and organizations. TopRank 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the main conflict of this debate. I'm glad both of you see where the non-categorization people are coming from. This idea you mentioned is pertty much the basis for most of the policies that we have been trying to point out to the the people that are pushing for categorization. As you say, it is up to the reader to decide what they think; it is not up to editors to put people or things in a category based on opinion. Just think of how the quality of categories would suffer if we could add anything just because someone says it is true. Markovich292 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Living People in General

message: Please add the Bosnian version to the interwiki links: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Thank you, Kseferovic 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In general, please use an  tag, as that categorizes the article for sysops. Thanks. -- Avi 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bs (Bosnian) 

message: Watching a pundit on TV refer to the man as President Tom, I was surprised. Typing it into Wikipedia and getting redirected to this page surprised me further. Not getting an explanation of this nickname bothered me. Don't get me wrong, I've seen it used enough to justify the redirect. Someone out there knows where this trend started, so could you please include it somewhere, PLEASE don't forget to cite sources. Thanks. Angrynight 01:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Tom...seriously? 

message: This needs to be added under the U.S.-Iran relations section once protection is removed. Minutiaman 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14911603/ Interview with Brain Williams on September 19]

message: is it not worth mentioning somewhere in the section about the presidential race that several of the 1979 hostages accused MA of being one of their captors? whether it's true or not, it's an important allegation, and i think it deserves mention Parsecboy 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged revolutionary 

message: The debate was actually over after sources like this (there are atleast 17 of them : see above list here) : Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks calling the Holocaust into question have disappointed Muslims in Germany, who do not share his anti-Semitic views.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the massacre on six million Jews during the Nazi dictatorship a "myth." His statements may have provoked outrage around the world, but neo-Nazi and radical Islamic groups found in Ahmadinejad a new spokesperson.
Not all Muslims, however, share Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic views. 
...
 http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1907670,00.html 
Amoruso 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly right. The beginning statement of this section is incorrect and misleading because of that. Thanks for your insight; it was clear, neutral, and much appreciated. Markovich292 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he's clearly not neutral. He's on your side in the matter. People that think the same (false, according to 1 side) views like yours are not neutral, they're one of the sides. Amoruso 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, stating what one side of a debate is trying to say and talking about policy is not taking sides; therefore, he was being perfectly neutral. Markovich292 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He took your side, claiming the false idea that this contradicts policy (he didn't use this word), which it clearly doesn't. He wasn't neutral, he was simply one (of a few) who agreed with your position. Amoruso 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure any neutral observer will see my point about that comment above being neutral, so go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe; I don't feel the need to convince you otherwise. Markovich292 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: very one sided view... Amoruso 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just so we remember

message: I'm quite surprised no one seems to have mentioned this (at least in this archive). There is a substantial part of this man's life that's missing from the biography. Going from a professor to an appointment of mayor didn't happen overnight. Events led to that appointment from 1987-2003. I have tried to search and have not come up with much.Prospero74 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was governor of Ardabil province before becoming mayor of Tehran.--129.111.68.21 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an English language new service that can verify this? (I can't read Farsi/Persian.)Prospero74 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Zereshk 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 Year Historical Record Gap !!!! 

message: The intro can discuss the wiped off the map issue, but "wiped off the map" cannot be in quotes because according to most farsi speakers who have read the speech, that is not what he said. If anyone has any other issues with the article, I suggest this is a good place to put them. TopRank 14:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of this revision?  Markovich292 21:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that much better. TopRank 01:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no problem in the earlier version. You can link to that page talking about the remark but this is the common way it's known. It's literary meaning is the same - wiping off the map/exterminating/obliterating : that's not disputed. What's disputed is whether he meant obliterate the regime or the whole physical entity - of course that's silly because like said the same line was already used on missle in parade (will be added here too), but that's the "dispute", not the actual basic meaning without interpretation of the words. Amoruso 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? I don't want to debate just for the sake of debating. In English, quotation marks do not indicate that the "literary meaning is the same". They indicate that enclosed is the exact phrase used by the speaker. The expert consensus is that it is not the exact phrase. Why on earth would you even argue for this. Do you consider it your duty as a defender of Israel or Jews to ensure that the article demonizes Ahmadinejad to the maximum degree possible? TopRank 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are just revolting. What I said I stand behind it, if you want to make it personal not in this forum please. Amoruso 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it odd that you can tell TopRank not to make it personal "in this forum" even though you have done precisely that already, on more than one occasion. Markovich292 01:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "wiped off the map" could be included in quotes because it's so well known, but then it could be explained that experts agree that it isn't the correct translation? Just an idea. --LifeEnemy 08:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think, given the nature of this quote, that it shouldn't be included in the beginning of the article (as per your reasons), but it should be included in the proper section, followed by the reasons for it not being completely accurate. --LifeEnemy 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues to be addressed before unlocking

message: Since this is an issue of wording and not so much of policy, I propose that we try to seek a concensus on exactly how to phrase the very beginning of this article that refers to MA saying "wiped off the map." To get this started, here is a proposal:  (also above). So far this seems to be the revision that shows the least political bias, but I welcome suggestions on how to improve it. 
As other editors have pointed out though, "wiped off the map" is a partisan translation that really shouldn't be listed without questioning whether is is accurate. Since this appears in the very beginning of the article, it also is probably not the best solution to try to include a long explanation on why "wiped off the map" is contested. Thats why the proposed version is written how it iswith a direct link to wikiquote (which has a good source assosciated with it): avoiding partisan [mis]interpretations and to the point. Markovich292 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, given the nature of this quote, that it shouldn't be included in the beginning of the article (as per your reasons), but it should be included in the proper section, followed by the reasons for it not being completely accurate. --LifeEnemy 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting "wiped off the map."

message: i have heard alot from my relatives that Ahmadinejad was an executioner in Iran and is responsible for the deaths of over 2,034 young men and not just responsible, but he commited them as a hangman. please get some research about this because the world needs to know.Random 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre trasmitting the rumors incorrectly. He wasnt a "hangman". The rumors were that he was "tir-e akhar" or "tir-e khalas" (the guy that makes sure people are executed after a firing squad has executed someone). And also that he was involved in the US embassy hostage ordeal in 79. But none of these allegations have ever progressed beyond hearsay, speculation, and stories from Iranian opposition websites. One would think that if there were any verifiable documents pertaining to these rumors, they would have been postered all over the internet by now. Especially now that he's visiting NY.--129.111.68.21 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: postered all over the internet by now In a democracy with a free press, a free internet, a freedom of information act, and a stable government with a fetish for documenting everything, that would be true. In a nation with a totalitarian police state headed by a religously charged oversoul of absolute authority overseeing all aspects of everyday life, chances are nil. --mitrebox 06:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But our internet and press is supposedly free now, isnt it. So that shouldnt be an obstacle.--Zereshk 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahmadinejad was an executioner

message: Which syllable in his last name is the secondary accent on? There are so many to choose from... -WikiMarshall 06:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typing the pronunciation/phonetics is kind of difficult (and I may get it wrong anyway), so I suggest you click his name in the article where it is listed at the beginning. If you have the required codec, you should hear the pronunciation. Hope that helps. Markovich292 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: re: ref of the persian articles
* [8][verification needed]:^ خاتمی رٿت (in (Persian)). Note: this needs to be confirmed by someone who understands Farsi:
The article is about Khatami, and has nothing to do with what is being refered to.
* [9] "This government is the most favorite government of Iran in 100 years": the article says "one of the most ..."
ref [4] and [13] are correct.
someone correct it when this comes out of lock.
Gerash77 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. [8] has been removed and replaced with a , and [4], [9] (now 8), and [13] (now 12) have had the  tags removed and the words "one of the" added. Once the article is unlocked and the references can be checked on a regular basis, we will likely need more Farsi verification. Thanks again. -- Avi 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: verification needed