Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 5

message: Regardless of how irrational an editor may be or may be perceived to be, arbitration is not used for content disputes.  This is not to say that one can add deliberately incorrect information or arbitrarily remove content, but the effective way of determining this officially is by putting up a poll for uninvolved editors, perhaps through RfC, and see what the consensus is with the overall Wikipedia community.  I realize I made a comment about Wikiality earlier, but I believe we can trust the judgement of uninvolved editors on this issue.  SighSighSigh 09:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, did you see that everybody so far has said that a vote is not the way for this to be settled?  In this case, a survey will only tell us who thinks what.  It isn't going to settle a content dispute, which is the real issue.  Arbitration can actually be used for such content disputes, but it is not needed here; a solution is already being worked out. Markovich292 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is NO solution being 'worked out'. YOu're POV pushing. No matter how much evidence is presented, you keep blaming us for presenting more. There is NO evidence to prove he's not anti-semitic, there's plenty of evidence to demonstrate that he is. Frankly, arbitration is needed, and it's a shame that there's no way to get some here, because you're being an obstructionist. ThuranX 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, there are at least two people working on a comprimize.  Just because you choose not to be a part of it does not mean it is not being worked on.  And how you can say I am blaming you for presenting evidence is beyond me.  Are you just ignoring that I have called repeatedly for you to bring evidence?  I am an obstructionist only in the sense that I am obstructing you from pushing your POV; you are acting like a bigot. Markovich292 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration is for user conduct only

message: as i see it: in a certain sense he is and in another sense he is not.
it is all about degress of evil.
he is an evil man.
but he is not hitler.
he does not respect other human beings and and their human rights.
he, just like %50 of all iranian folk is a religion-ist but not a racist.
in iran the concept of race or racism is foreign. so a shiite black man would not feel racial discrimnation but anyone who is not a shiite muslim will experience it both institutionally and socially, this is because iran is not yet a fully mature society (btw i was born in iran to secular shiite parents).
antisemitism is a term used historically in the context of racism eg "Hitler was an antisemite" if a jew yelled out i've found jesus! and claimed to have converted to christianity it wouldn't make an ounce of difference for hitler. hitler wanted to exterminate the jewish blood.(this was extremely evil) the difference is that if it was MA it would completely change everything the moment the poor guy says i'm a muslim or better yet a shiite all is forgotten and no need for gas chambers.(still evil.. but less)
so it is incorrect to put this evil man and his nation in the same category as the NAZIs
ahmadinejads attitudes are exactly like the spanish inquisition people, they don't want to kill you they just want you to find god and they're willing to kill you if you don't. 
so if you feel that the word "antisemitism" is more strongly associated with the nazi style of hatred than the inquisition style of self-rightousness then MA doesn't qualify as an antisemite, on the other hand if you feel that the word anti-semite also covers religous zealouts then he does qualify as an antisemite but also (deep in his heart) as an anti-aryite because all aryan people are non shiite and if he had god-like powers he would force them to convert or die. as well as chinese indians africans and even sunnis, it just so happens he is in conflict with israel but his self-rightous views are not racially or ethnically based where he up against chinese folk he'd feel alot more hostility as they are not monotheist and are not protected by the quran as jewish people are...
in conclusion his hostility is primarily circumstantial and political and then religous and not at all ethnic.
i hope this helps to clear people views on the subject.Anon-o-man 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it tells people what to think. It tells people what the encyclopedia thinks. WP is pretty clear that it's not about truth but about WP:V. One can add a disclaimer on category pages too.  Amoruso 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ahmadinejad anti-semitic?  

message: Can we please get a better picture? Perhaps from a speech? This picture looks like he is posing for a fashion magazine. NeoExelor 17:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else brought this up earlier, we decided to put up a better picture when the page is unlocked. --LifeEnemy 05:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a consensus as to a better picture, you could always place it on the talkpage and use an  tag to ask a passing admin to make the change. -- Avi 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Free-use pictures are preferred, fair-use is required. What is the status of those pictures? -- Avi 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. I just grabbed them off of google real quick, like I said. I'm pretty bad with figuring out copyright info, though, so perhaps someone else should find some useable pictures. --LifeEnemy 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not a bad photo. I don't know if you might want a photo that shows his face better, though. --LifeEnemy 20:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Picture? 

message: "We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. [...] If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from".
:"go back where they came from" -- Isn't that what Zionism is all about? This man seems to have a flaky rethoric that contradicts himself. --Pinnecco 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmmm... --LifeEnemy 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum, Pinnecco. Although many people agree with your interpretation of things, Wikipedia is not the best place to discuss it. ThuranX 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny remark