Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

• Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.

• Please redirect comments that have to do with controversial issues to Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4

Hmm

--Max 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there actually any reliable sources (not politicians) that label him an anti-Semite (e.g. anti-Jewish people rather than anti-Israel)? - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the Telegraph [1] or Der Spiegel [2]? Lancsalot 18:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a little picky, because it is for the best when it comes to future editing that you do. I'm not sure how much you have dealt with wikipedia, but a politician can have quotes in a reliable source. Also (please forgive me if you already know this), neither of those allegations of anti-semitism could be written as facts in wikipedia. In the first article for example, it is the opinion of Mr. Tim Butcher that MA is anti-semitic. I'm sure people will be grateful if you keep that in mind when contributing. Markovich292 03:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the categorisation. Unless we have a reliable source that labels him an anti-Semite (rather than the [sometimes euphemistic] anti-Zionist), I don't think we should include the Category. The Telegraph article labels his "attack" as anti-Semitic, not him. Der Spiegel labels his "rhetoric" anti-Semitic. Neither of these two sources label the man an anti-Semite. This is a biography of a living person, we have an obligation to take the utmost care. - FrancisTyers · 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So he's not an anti-Semite, he just happens to say things which are anti-Semitic? What a bizarre assertion. They guy wants to wipe Israel off the map and is building nukes for exactly that purpose. I'm amazed we are even having this debate. Lancsalot 11:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't hear him calling for the extermination of the Jews. Do you have a source for that? — Wanting to "wipe Israel off the map" (your translation) does not necessarily make him anti-Semitic, it could make him anti-Zionist or anti-Israel, but not anti-Semitic. - FrancisTyers · 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is amazing. The US Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning his anti-Semitism. Some editors simply don't want him in the cat regardless of the facts.--Mantanmoreland 14:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed amazing that somebody thinks that the US senate is a reliable and unbiased source. Some editors simply want him in the cat regardless of the lack of facts. // Liftarn

The US Senate is not a "source," it is a branch of the United States Government. I won't attempt to explain the difference. --Mantanmoreland 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is a branch of the United States Government. // Liftarn

Correct. And numerous reliable sources have reported on its resolution condemning MA's anti-Semitism.--Mantanmoreland 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And what they are reporting about is the opinion that a branch of the United States Government has. They are ofcourse entitled to their opinion, but opinions aren't facts. // Liftarn

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". There is no way of empirically deciding if anyone is an anti-Semite. Instead, Wikipedia quotes reliable sources on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read the page, you would see that we're all already aware of wiki policy. We're discussing whether or not the numerous sources provided meet or fail the tes of being RS. ThuranX 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats not entirely true. The heart of the dabate lies here: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion [(e.g. the Senate calling MA's words anti-semitic)] is a fact (that is, it is true that the [Senate] expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion...When reporting that an opinion is [actually] held by a particular individual or group [(MA allegedly being anti-semitic in this case)], the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence." Markovich292 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not true either. Words or actions can easily be used to empirically prove if someone is anti-Semitic. Look at Hitler, he was verifiably anti-semitic because of observed behavior. The reliable sources Wikipedia quotes on the issue of Hitler already have empirical proof that Hitler was anti-semitic, and that is why he can be included in that category. Oh, and notice how it says inclusion in Wikipedia. That does not give editors a license to call any opinion they want a fact just because it is in an acceptable source and therefore verifiable. What that means is, you can say something like "the Senate called MA's statement anti-semitic," but you can not actually call him anti-semitic because the Senate holds that position. Markovich292 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Words or actions can easily be used to empirically prove if someone is anti-Semitic." Correct, as stated through reliable sourcing. And add to that reactions, also reliably sourced, such as a newspaper account that a branch of the U.S. Government passing a resolution calling him anti-Semitic. That should resolve the issue but still the endless and absurd debate. Interesting how the holdouts on the issue shrug that off or find some excuse to disregard it.--Mantanmoreland 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again..."Holdouts," as you call us, have good reason to say that your "proof" is not indicative of anti-semitism. You are now stating that "reactions" (your misleading word for opinions) are empirical proof of somebody's views.Markovich292 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler? what does Ahmadinejad have to do with Hitler??...Anyway, everyone knew Adolf Hitler was anti-semitic long before his "behaviour" was observed as he specifically and directly spoke about his hatred for the Jews in almost all of his speeches. Also I'm sure you've noticed Hitler is dead, Ahmadinejad is still alive so he may well turn out to be anti-semitic but until he makes direct remarks about hatred of the Jews we can't label him anti-semitic based on people's opinions (especially not in the current politial climate!) at least not in an encyclopedia which is suppose to be based on facts!--Yas121 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Mantanmoreland, you're wrong. You can't use other peoples' reactions to someone to classify that person because people can inherently be wrong and they are, as Marcovich said, opinions. If that newspaper had covered MA saying or doing something obviously anti-semetic, then the cat would be valid. Until then, you can only include quotes that people think he is anti-semetic.

And, for the record, anti-semetism has to be against the jews because they are jews. To date, MA has only demonstrated dislike/hatred towards Israel, because of the politics involved in it's creation and such. --LifeEnemy 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you LifeEnemy for being bold and saying what is on your mind. This has been going on for a while, so if you looked over anything else that has been said above, what do you think (advice is always appreciated, but I must warn you that you are risking personal attacks from the other side if you choose to comment)? Markovich292 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over some of the other sections on this issue over the past week, and I've noticed a lot of hostility and some misunderstanding on both sides, although I believe ThuranX has been overly antagonistic on a few occasions. In either case, my view on the issue is that MA probably is an anti-semite, but (as I stated above) hasn't definitively shown himself as one. Meaning that he shouldn't be labeled as such, especially with all the potential legal trouble. That's just my take on all this. --LifeEnemy 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can see the words of yet another uninvolved and neutral third party above. Do the pro-categorization people finally accept that opinions do not empirically proove anything? And hearing it from somebody other than me, do you finally acknowledge that "you can only include quotes that people think he is anti-semetic" instead of purporting it to be fact? Markovich292 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

These questions seems to have gotten lost in the side-conversation going on below, but I still am seeking answers after you read the comments by LifeEnemy above. Markovich292 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Us Jews have lived in a harsh world. In every society that we have fit in-that we have assimilated-we have eventually been persecuted and killed and robbed. Spain with the Inquisitions, even Germany. My Great-Aunt who's still alive and well today in Tel Aviv called Germany "The New Palestine." They thought they were as German as you could get. 100,000 German Jews served in World War I and 30,000 died in it. But when Hitler came along, their names were scrubbed off the memorials. History repeats itself, and I do not look forward to the day when we are persecuted in American society. But through history, we've learned we cannot be free and secure in a country where we are the minority. Israel is our backbone, the knowledge that if there ever was another government who wanted to murder us again, we would have somewhere to go to. That we wouldn't be locked up and sent to Concentration camps-but that we could be free. As a liberal jew, I totally disagree with the Israeli government and the settlements and the immoral occupation of the West Bank. However disagreeing and refusing to except the Jewish democratic state are totally different. The quote by Thomas Friedman above isn't an opinion or a fact- its an observation of history for the past thousands of years. When one questions the legitimacy of the Jewish democratic state- they are anti-semetic. They might not be anti-semetic in your eyes-and I dont see the need to convince you otherwise-since the whole world doesn't care when Jews die or are persecuted-but in our eyes- they refuse to except the notion that us jews need to have a place-need to have a state. I love America, and I would die for it. But in the back of my head- I will never feel totally secure as I feel when I am in Israel.--Max 15:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(Yes-I still want to help write a bipartisan unbiased outline-because I feel that understanding both sides of view and representing both sides from a neutral view-point is what Wikipedia is about-but I also wanted to share my opinion above.)

A box-soap or a soapbox: What wikipedia most decidedly isn't! // Liftarn

Here inlies the root problem of this debate: "When one questions the legitimacy of the Jewish democratic state- they are anti-semetic." I can't say about you, but everyone else here that wants the category apparently does not realize or does not want to admit that this is their opinion. It may be true in their minds, but other people (not to mention encyclopedias such as this one) say differently. Markovich292 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You definently have a good point Markovich, because as an encyclopedia opinions shouldn't be in the articles. However this is such an emotional issue with thousands of years of history. Why-what is your definition on anti-semitism? You can criticize and raise your voices when Israel commits human rights violations and I urge you to do that and totally disagree with its government-but opposing the establishment of the Jewish Democratic state is opposing all international recognition (The UN and countless Western countries) and is opposing our right to a state. The thing is- you are totally right when you say "here inlies the root problem of this debate." In an ideal world- I would totally agree with you. But I have seen the consequences when we are living as the minority with no place to go in times of death and persecution. It has happened too often. We need a government that will defend us when we are peresecuted as jews. History repeats itself- and we must have somewhere where we can be and raise future generations as Jewish. --Max 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned something else that is central to the issue; the whole "emotional issue" concept. I mentioned that before but I doubt people even paid attention, so I am glad at least you consciously know this issue as an emotional one. Anyway for the record, here is what I said earlier. Let me know what you think: "this is why people that have strong feelings on an issue should have the sense to realize that they are prone to throw logic out the window and edit based on emotion instead."

To answer your question, my definition of anti-semitism has been mentioned; "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." I use that right from wikipedia because a) it is accurate b) it is widely accepted and c) wikipedia is the place that I would refer to that term most. Really though, the definition of anti-semitism has less to do with the opposition to Israel than you seem to think. "When one questions the legitimacy of the Jewish democratic state- they are anti-semetic" is a widely held belief by people such as yourself, but it is not based on the facts of the matter. Anti-zionism can not logically be equated to anti-semitism because anti-zionism is often opposition to an ideology, not an attitude about a group of people. Even some Jews are anti-zionists, and you probably wouldn't call them anti-semitic. Markovich292 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wiped off map"

In reference to the sentence near the top of the article that reads: 'Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure, criticised by Western governments for his statements that Israel should be "wiped off the map"': To lead a bio on a prominent politician with a categorical reference to a disputed translation of a controversial statement made by that politician, and to use the most inflammatory and provocative translation of that statement available, when there have been other translations that carry a much different meaning, is a really grotesque political partisanship unworthy of Wikipedia. Even if the curious reader could follow the link provided to learn about that controversy, in this article there is not even a hint about the fact that this translation is the subject of hot debate.

I recommend the line be changed to read "Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure, criticised by Western governments for various public statements, particularly regarding Israel and the Jewish people. His statements condemning Israel and raising doubt about the historical basis of the Holocaust in particular have excited great controversy."Gberliner 18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the current version does not accurately describe the issue, but your replacement introduces a bias/opinion/inaccuracy. It is good up until you say "and the Jewish people" because that is not really correct. If you leave that part off, that seems like the perfect replacement to what is on the page right now. I love the second sentence BTW...I don't think anybody else could come up with something better. Markovich292 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - FrancisTyers · 10:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Sources

To those opposed to the Anti-Semite tag, please go source by source and CLEARLY enumerate reasons for each and every one of these sources not being good enough. Blanket assertions and repititive 'western dogs' commentary will be considered obstructionistic and non-productive. We've provided the sources, it's now your burden to line by line EXPLAIN why a given source is NOT worthy of considerations.

• The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml
• Der Speigel - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,395455-2,00.html
• Voltairenet - http://www.voltairenet.org/article134647.html
• Kofi Annan, as quoted by CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/
• List of MA's own quotations. The scope of some of his 'Zionist' statements goes worldwide, into areas far outside the question of Israel, thus supporting the 'Ma uses Zionist for Jewish' - http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/ahmadinejad_words.htm
• US Senate, from NY SUN - http://www.nysun.com/article/24913
• Cleveland Plain Dealer - http://www.cleveland.com/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114733698163590.xml&coll=2
• Wall Street Journal - http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007733
• Der Spiegel, again - http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,418312,00.html

Thank you. ThuranX 03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to prove what you contend; I will not jump through hoops. You know what, I am going to do you a favor and use YOUR OWN WORDS to explain something - taken from Talk:Who is a Jew?: "...self-identification should be the first and foremost source...self-identification fully MEETS [wikipedia] verification...No one can know what a person believes better than the person themselves. So long as they self-identify in a source that others can check that quote at, it should be all that's needed." You haven't presented anything of the sort. In fact, MA self-identifies as NOT being anti-semitic.

If you can't find that, how about this (also in your own words presumably all from WP:RS): "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence." And this is what you say after that; "nothing, according to Wkipedia's own policies, can trump a direct quote, which is exactly what sourcable self-identification is."

Now, when you say this: "there's no wiggle room in what a person considers their own belifs to be," why do you insist on calling MA anti-semitic without anything like you describe above? To include such unproven statements in this article is "counterproductive, NOT factual, and misleading, as well as legally troublesome. Self identification solves such troubles." Does that phrase sound familiar? It should, you said it. Markovich292 04:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And we have MA's own statements, which, iin fact, prove his anti-semitism. You still avoid the issue. Find proof he's NOT. Find a quote from MA which says " I love me some Jews, oh yeah, Jews are cool with me!". There IS NONE, because he IS Anti-semitic, and his own statements support the conclusion that he IS. My positions at Who is a Jew? in NO WAY undermine my assertions here. Nice strawman, but far nicer to be the wolf who puffs it down. Now get to it, you've got a lot of links to address, including multiple citations there which, in fact, are direct quotes from MA. ThuranX 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it is your responsibility to present quotes that prove anti-semitism. If such quotes are in any of those articles, you can go ahead and put them here, with citations. Don't try to trick people into thinking I should be the one to get quotes for you, and don't try to make people think that he has said something anti-semitic withoug proving it. Markovich292 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here goes

1. [3] anti-Israel, not anti-Semitic. Also notice that he does not deny the Holocaust ("If such a disaster is true", not "It is false")
2. [4] Huh? It only talks about nukes.
3. [5]"We are witnessing, in the mainstream press, a propaganda campaign against Iran similar to that preceding the invasion of Iraq." Indeed! Actually the article is about the smear campaign against Iran and MA. Then there are some quotes where various politicians give their opionions.
4. [6] MA does't like Isreal. Nothing new.
5. [7] Yes, MA does not like Israel and dubts (not denies) the Holocaust. Nothing new. Biased source by the way.
6. [8] Seems to mostly be about internal US politics, nothing relevant.
7. [9] Contains nothing.
8. [10] Contains nothing.
9. [11] My German is a bit bad (i.e. non existent), but I can tell it's the MA interview (it's also available in English) where he doesn't deny the Holocaust (the horror! ;-) ).

In conclusion, no source to back up the claim that he denies the Holocause nor that he is an anti-Semite. // Liftarn

If only the category was "People who have made comments that have been described as anti-Semitic", we wouldn't have a problem :) - FrancisTyers · 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes these kinds of decisions based on what reliable sources say about someone. If reliable sources say someone is an anti-Semite, then that's what matters. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read the page, you would see that we're all already aware of wiki policy. We're discussing whether or not the numerous sources provided meet or fail the tes of being RS.ThuranX 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there are no reliable sources that label him an anti-Semite, only sources which state that things that he has said are "anti-Semitic". For example: [12] [13]. - FrancisTyers · 19:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between someone who "says anti-Semitic things", and who "is an anti-Semite", seems purely semantic. What, in your view, constitutes a "reliable source" when it comes to describing someone as an anti-Semite? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That really isn't "all that matters." Reliable sources are needed to put something in wikipedia sure, but that does not mean that the information in the source is accurate. A journalist can be published in a reliable source saying that George W Bush is a robot for example, but that would not be verifiable. That is the same as with anti-semitism, a reliable source can have someone saying that somebody is an anti-semite all they want, but the most you can do is put it into wikipedia saying "this source says that somebody is an anti-semite." Markovich292 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it would be verifiable. WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." And strawman examples are not helpful; no reliable source would publish a journalist saying that George W Bush is a robot - that's what makes them reliable. What would you consider a reliable source when it comes to stating someone is an anti-Semite? In your view, is any source reliable enough? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. If we was to put George W Bush in the category Category:Robots. What type of source would we need? Some examples of sources (fictional, but let's say they are printed in a reliable newspaper):

1. "W Bush is robot-like"

2. "J Random person said that W Bush is a robot"

3. "in my opinion W Bush is a robot"

4. "robotics experts have concluded that W Bush is a robot"

5. "W Bush is a robot"

6. "W Bush admits he is a robot"

Most of the so called sources to MA's alleged anti semitism have been of type 2 or type 3 and some of type 1. I would be happy with type 4 or 5, but given the bias 6 would be best, but that is unlikley. // Liftarn 08:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you and ThuranX use strawman because you don't know what an analogy is? You need to read that article on "straw man" before you cry foul. My point was very simple: even a reliable source can (and will) print people saying untrue and/or unproven things. There are plenty of sources that are reliable enough to report anti-semitism: If you haven't realized by now, the question is not of reliability. I have said it, but in case you are going to cry foul about that, I will say it again; all of the sources, when referring to MA, are not reporting anti-semitic words or actions, they are printing or broadcasting the opinions of reporters and/or writers. When are you going to realize that I operate on facts and wikipedia policy; ThuranX and the others that want to call MA an anti semite operate strictly on their POV, finding sources that share the same opinion, and then call it a fact, "because everybody says so." Markovich292 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What, in your view, constitutes a "reliable source" when it comes to describing someone as an anti-Semite? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see other sections of this debate, this is covered there. Markovich292 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally getting close

Here is a portion of writing above that starts us on the way to finally ending this. Please use this area to work toward a final solution only, not for topic related debate. Markovich292 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Methinks the best way to resolve this would be to remove the cat and add a section entitled "Allegations of anti-Semitism", much in the same way the Mel Gibson article has. That way, it can be stated that "many Western media sources claim that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial and anti-Zionist remarks constitute gross anti-Semitism, which the Iranian government has decried as a means of defaming the nation and Ahmadinejad. The president himself has not made any clear indication whether he is indeed anti-Semitic or not, and the Jews in Iran are granted permission to practice their faith. Nevertheless, it remains a matter of contention." or something to that effect. That way, it wouldn't be considered libelous but the issue would certainly not be ignored. eszett^talk 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... thoughtful proposal, Eszett...Unless contributors to this article want to end up at arbitration, some sort of compromise will have to be made, and I think Eszett's proposal is an interesting one. Remove him from the cat, but add substance to the content.Mikker ^(...) 11:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that is a pretty reasonable proposal. The only thing is, there is already a section labeled "Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism." Maybe the best thing to do would be to change the name of the section to "Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-semitism" and add some of the quotes presented here. Of course this has to be kept balanced, so with every inflammatory quote about him, there has to be a quote from the opposite perspective. Mike Wallace might be a good candidate for one such "defensive" source. Lets not let this get out of hand though, we do not need 20 pages of back and forth quotes in the article. Either way, the section should be changed up a little to address the obvious lean against MA. Maybe boost the section to 4 good paragraphs? Oh, and I of course agree with you that the unproven category (anti-semitism, no others) must go. Markovich292 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you two are open to this prospect since frankly, I don't see this debate getting any farther than it has. Should such a section be made, I feel it would be best to present the arguments for and against/not necessariy for him being anti-Semitic in one section apiece. I would be willing to help write up part of the proposed addition; although I do not feel too knowledgable on the subject I would like to help as much I can.

And a thought that came to me...how will we organize this section? Are we going to clump together the Holocaust denial with the allegations of anti-Semitism, or will we break it up into multiple subsections? I would support a rename of the section to simply "Allegations of anti-Semitism", discuss the subject matter of this talk discussion, then follow it up with the Holocaust denial part. eszett^talk 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, for organization, together is probably good. Currently, the sections are together and nobody seems to object...I don't think that there is enough material on his views of the holocaust to warrant its own section though anyway (many of the sources out there say the same thing over and over without introducing new information). But its definately important that opposing viewpoints be within the section they deal with, not somewhere else. Markovich292 07:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Eszett, if you have time, would you want to be the one to work on the section "Holocaust Denial and allegations of anti-semitism?" I think both sides would object to the main contributers writing this section, and by now you are probably well aquainted with the issue. By my estimation, that makes you the best person for the job. Markovich292 23:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My time is a bit limited now since school is starting, but I would be glad to work on the section. This should be enough information for me to compile a decently-sized portion; however, I would like to make sure this gets through before I commence very in-depth work on the section.

In addition, I don't want to unwittingly inject any POV into this section, so I will want to have it peer-reviewed by someone who believes that we can substantiate that MA is an anti-Semite. Lastly, for those who have, thank you for vouching your support for my proposal. eszett^talk 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I still object. You may have removed my comment saying so to another section to demonstrate consensus in this section, and I gully expect you to do it again, but I will keep posting my objections. ThuranX 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, object all you like. The reason I moved your comment is because this section is specifically to work out a solution, as stated above. You have made it clear that you don't want to do that, so filling this area with off-topic babbling it counter-productive. If you can't (or won't) be constructive, don't post here. Markovich292 20:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just go away? Now you're getting outright territorial. I raised an objection because you've taken to making these grandiose statements that 'we're getting close' when you actually mean "My side are all in agreement and now we're just waiting for the other side to please leave". There is NO agreement close to happening. ThuranX 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being absurd. I am telling you that if you are not going to be constructive in this section, you don't have to contribute. People are finally coming together to work out an agreement, and all you can do is object because you are not getting your way. Don't you realize that the above posts include at least one person that seems to share your viewpoint...that MA is anti-semitic. Even if he does not declare that, it is enough that he has contributed to the ideas in a neutral fashion, calling a concession from both sides. Markovich292 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, instead of telling us that you object to this proposal, would you mind telling us why you object and offer suggestions as to how it can be improved as opposed to simply beating down any hopes of us reaching an agreement? It's clear that this is a very polarized debate and neither side will be happy with what the other side wants, but I'm attempting to be partial and address both of your concerns. I will be willing to bend for you to an extent that does not put POV into this article. eszett^talk 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I already have been clear. I'm not jumping through any more of your obstructionist hoops. ThuranX 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Eszett, looks like it is you, FDR315, and me that are the only ones willing to make this compromize happen. Do both of you agree with keeping "Holocaust denial and alleged anti-Semitism" in the same section like it is now? Also, should 4-5 paragraphs be the goal for length (about equal to now but without one sentence paragraphs)? Let me know what you both think...or since eszett is busy with school and people will complain if I do it, FDR315 would you like to propose a structure for the article since you seem to be happy to get involved? Markovich292 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I object, yet agin. Looking at that section, you can remove three carriage returns and get 4 or 5 paragraphs. It changes nothing, and doesn't address the serious isue that he IS an Anti-Semite. The inclusion of text which sources the numerous solid articles which VERIFY his status as a known anti-semite are what is required in that section. ThuranX 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich and Eszett-I think that is a very reasonable compromise. I personally think he's an anti-semite-but i'll keep my opinions and personal bias (I'm jewish) out of this. If you need help on this project- I can definently help- please I'm interested.--Max 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly the kind of person that the other side wants to be involved. What do you think of the things mentioned above...if you were to write an outline as mentioned, I'm sure that would be a great first step that both sides won't object to. Markovich292 23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahuh-im confused- but if you need someone to do this- I can. What do you mean- should I start an outline in the Sandbox? --Max 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of just posting a short bulleted list of what you think should be included? A new section at the bottom of this page would be a good place for it. Just general points to address would be good for now, we can add details later...that way it will be kept short so you won't have to spend so much time on it. Markovich292 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from above section

I don't like saying this, but "Call in arbitration". Markovich has yet again refused to reply to the question of rebutting the sources, and again strawman'd things instead. I honestly feel that Markovich has no intent to ever address the actual question of sources. He's asked for sources repeatedly. They've been provided repeatedly, by multiple editors. He never directly rebutts them, instead simply calling the sources POV or not up to WP:RS, but never addressing the substance, OR the flaws in the sources themselves. His simplistic dismissals of the repeated citations have driven away editors who are unwilling to go on, feeling they are beating their heads against a brick wall. I don't blame them. As I see it, there are really only four directions this can go.

• 1 - we keep going like this, weith new editors replacing those who get sick of it and leave, never reaching a resolution.
• 2 - the page becomes a massive edit war, which leads to mass blockings, long protections, and lots of bad feelings and hate.
• 3 - Markovich engages the substance of the issue, and writes out a long critique of each and every source, detailing his specific problems with each source.
• 4 - Call in arbitration.

Markovich seems to be hoping for an option 5, in which everyone goes away and he gets to keep the category out, but this is unrealistic. Unless a consensus can be formed, this issue will NOT die. Old editors will get a second wind, or get curious about the outcome, and peek in in a week or month, and it will just snowball.

Because it's been repeatedly stated that #1 is already happening, we know that many of the editors involved object to option #1. We're in #1 to avoid #2, so it's clear that most of that same editors are opposed to option 2. This leaves options 3 and 4. I leave it to Markovich and those editors who support his position to choose between options 3 and 4. I support either choice. I feel #3 gives more grist for real discussion and progress, but I feel #4 will yield a fster, more firmly fixed answer. ThuranX 05:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! You actually say that I never directly rebut a statement? That would be funny if this weren't so frustrating. You are unbelievable. I (and/or other people) actually addressed quotes from those very articles, and the English Spiegal article was even addressed in its entirety here as I recall.

In another talk page you write out things that you feel are required to prove someone believes something, and now you ignore your own words!. Hypocrasy aside, wikipedia users probably do not want somebody that is willing to say or do anything to get their POV into an article. Since you are so fixated on your own opinion, please just let everybody else talk this out, because you are obviously to immobile to work toward a compromize. Markovich292 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I just noticed that one of the very sources you put above was added here earlier by Evilbu. Do you remember what he wanted? He wanted people to address the quotes, essentially asking people to explain why they were anti-semitic. What did you say to this? You said: stop engaging both Evilbu and Markovich...they have a hero worship thing going on. So why don't you tell everybody why you resorted to unfounded personal jabs rather than addressing the issue then. Markovich292 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is for user conduct only

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic

1. ...the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - The Guardian, a highly respected British newspaper.
2. ...the anti-Semitic president of Iran... - The Week magazine.
3. Ahmadinejad, who has caused a stir with a number of anti-Semitic remarks... - The Gulf Times an Arab newspaper.
4. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is notorious for Holocaust denial and his Hitlerian exhortation that Israel should be "wiped off the map." This open call for Israel's extermination cannot help but remind us of 1933, when another anti-Semite who openly called for the extermination of the Jews was elected by his people. - Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism
5. Nadler Condemns Ahmadinejad’s Latest Anti-Semitic Rant - Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Representative
6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Semitic remarks - United Press International
7. Not all Muslims, however, share Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic views - Deutsche Welle
8. Anti-Semitism International: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words - Anti-Defamation League
9. Mr. Ahmadinejad's anti Semitism is a true face of the Iranian government - Ghassem Namazi, Iranian.com.
10. Like the Persian royal adviser Haman (the most infamous anti-Semite of antiquity), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reeks with his own considerable animus for Jews... Similarly creative anti-Semitic rants... Avi Shafran, spokesman for Haredi Judaism
11. ...Iran and its anti-Semitic president - Alan Dershowitz.
12. That coin -- virulent anti-Semitism -- circulates throughout the Muslim Middle East, not just in Iran. Ahmadinejad's ugly outpourings were condemned in the West... - Jeff Jacoby
13. There really are anti-Semites in this world of ours right now who not only wish to destroy all Jews but are doing all within their powers to bring that about. Does the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, suggest anything? - Daniel Lapin, Modern Orthodox Rabbi and political commentator in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
14. ...Ahmadinejad has tried to recast himself as less a radical anti-Semite... - The Australian
15. ...people who lack a baptismal certificate are excused for their clearly anti-Semitic hatred. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are symptomatic of those who glide effortlessly back and forth between reproaching the "Zionist entity" and glorifying the massacre of Jews. - San Antonio Express-News
16. ...Ahmadinejad comes across as an out-of-control anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed... - Fox News Channel
17. So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind — with an anti-semite - Ehud Olmert in The Times.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So Jayjg, if I provide a list of sources(opinions) that see Israel as an apartheid state (ie [14]The Guardian, a highly respected British newspaper.) Can I label Israel an apartheid state in Wikipedia? Yas121 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg, for providing this long list of sources. Here's my challenge, yet again, to those who say MA is not an anti-semite. I want, as I continue to want and NEVER get, a REAL analysis of the flaws. At best we get 'contains nothing' and 'well, i don't read german but I'm sure this isn't really a source'. The side supporting the addition of the category wants a detailed analysis of each and every source with some serious consideration as to their flaws, not flippant two word dismissals. Give us a solid basis for eliminating a source, and we'll discuss it. And we will go through the sources, one by one, until we're done. but no more of this mass dismissal of long lists. It belittles one entire side of the argument and promotes more and more bad faith. ThuranX 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg kudos on the great work and effort. I think that finally settles the dispute. I've never seen so many sources to support a fact in any wikipedia article. Amoruso 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is great work. And the best thing is, he is not blatantly POV pushing. But the thing is, I still am not certain if you truly don't know the difference between fact and opinion, or if you are still just trying to inject your POV into the article by calling this a fact. Markovich292 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally we have somebody that introduces quotes instead of expecting somebody else to do it for them. I have to say, ThuranX probably would have never gotten around to making this type of post. And before I continue, I have to address viewers of this debate, and hopefully an admin will see the kind of behavior he has engaged in. He has repeatedly used personal attacks and falsehoods in an attempt to strengthen his argument. Even just above, he says he has never gotten a real analysis of the flaws in any quotes, and that we should "give [his side] a solid basis for eliminating a source, and we'll discuss it." He has gotten in the past exactly that, and all he did was ignore or insult us. This type of behavior is not acceptable.

Now, onto the quotes. I don't think the word opinion is in the vocabulary of editors anymore. Just by a quick count, it looks like eight of those are directly attributed to individual authors. Is it your argument that anything people say in reliable sources is true?

Listing number eight is just about the least useful. It is acually the title of an article, and whats worse, that article is full of quotes by MA. If any of those are allegedly anti-semitic, why did you not use them? Does it not occur to you that most (if not all) sources that are not a direct quote or report specific actions are the POV of the author?

Now, I just hope this is the last time I have to point this out because I, as well as other people, have already done it at least a half dozen times: The quotes you included are by journalists, commentators, etc. Even if there is no reporter listed, all of those quotes you put down are opinions of people that share the opinion that MA is anti-semitic. It is like gathering a group of people that all call George Bush stupic, and claiming it is a fact because they say so. You have not one single quote of MA, and not one shred of proof that he has done anything anti-semitic.

Before you say "but they all call him anti-semitic!" remember the following (from wikipedia policy): "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence." You can not claim that somebody holds a particular belief (in this case, anti-semitism) by other people's opinions alone. What you are doing is the same as if I found somebody that says "ThuranX hates Iranians," and then I turn around and claim it is a fact that ThuranX hates Iranians. He may very well hate Iranians, or he may love them (or something in between), but there is not enough proof to say it is a fact that he indeed hates Iranians. Markovich292 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be insisting that Wikipedia editors themselves decide for themselves the truth of whether or not someone is an anti-Semite based on their own evaluation of their statements or actions. Not only would this be forbidden by policy, but it would contradict the WP:V policy, which is concerned with verifiability, not truth. As for citing the 17 sources here, how would you propose doing so; by naming each one in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one earlier. I think I addressed it fully in a prior edit, however. To summarize, it is not "original research" to add a reliable source that is reporting on actions that fit into Anti-Semitism. Some of the issues on "verifiability, not truth" are also listed later; the way you mention it here may lead people to believe that it is OK to call anything a fact because it is verifiable. Markovich292 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take that little bit of snide behavior as a personal attack, and ask that you take a day to cool off. Thank you. ThuranX 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

With the way you repeatedly avoided the issue of giving quotes and insisting that I do it, my comment on you never getting around to adding quotes is justified. As for the rest, it is funny how you can make your jabs at me and other people that disagree with you all you want, but then when I call you on it, you ask that I take a day to cool off. I suggest the same for you. Markovich292 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First you accuse me of laziness, saying i'd never put together a list, i did just a few sections above. Then you you me as an example, putting POV in my mouth? If you don't cease and desist, I will pursue this with an administrator. Go cool off, please. Before your get yourself into trouble. ThuranX 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not accusing you of laziness, but just as another editor seems to have noticed, you may have been stalling for quite some time before you added that section above. And I mentioned it to Jayjg I think it was, but I wonder if you can pick out an analogy when you see it. That is not the same as saying that you believe what I included in the analogy. As you hopefully recall, I did the same before, using myself in such an analogy. Markovich292 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed I forgot about your comment "saying i'd never put together a list." What I said was: "ThuranX probably would have never gotten around to making this type of post." You put together a list of sources, expecting us to look for the quotes you said were there, Jayjg actually put quotes on the page. They were not the same kind of post. I just thought I would say that before you get mad at me again for your misinterpretation. Markovich292 23:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just giving a list of links, why not give sources? But Ok, if it makes you happy:

1. [15] - yes, that's a good source
2. [16]- "said The Buffalo News in an editorial" (emphasis added)
3. [17] - opinions, not news
4. [18] - just say that MA "reminds" of Hitler and it's an op-ed, not news
5. [19] - he's entitles to his opinion, but opinions aren't facts
6. [20] - yes, that's a source altough it doesn't clearly say that he is an anti-Semite (only that he made such remarks). This is the kind of sources we need.
7. [21] - this is actually the closest I've ever seen to a real source
8. [22] - has been mentioned already, both biased source and no clear evidence of anti-Semitism
9. [23] - an online community. Is that a reliable source? And again it's the writers own opinion
10. [24] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
11. [25] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
12. [26] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
13. [27] - commentary by a biased person, not a news item
14. [28] - editorial, not a news item
15. [29] - op-ed piece, his opinions are not facts
16. [30] - FOXnews, "the most biased news source in the west". Yeah, that's reliable source, but even they don't call him an anti-Semite but says "In the U.S. and much of Europe — in short, the traditional center of the Christian world — Ahmadinejad comes across as an out-of-control anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed". But if you want to play that game the article is also a source to that W Bush is "anything from Hitler to a drooling caveman".
17. [31] quotes Israel's prime minister designate, Ehud Olmert and he is not a reliable source except for his own views. You may add it to the article that he thinks so.

So in conclusion all we have is a lot of people having opinions. I begin to think you just google for a few articles and add them without actually checking what they say. Is it some kind of stall tactic? // Liftarn

Actually, the articles all describe him as anti-Semitic, including number 4, which compares him to that other anti-Semite, Hitler. You seem to be asserting that there is a difference between having an "opinion" that someone is an anti-Semite, versus there being an established "fact" that someone is an anti-Semite. What, in your view, turns that "opinion" into "fact", and how does that square with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "according to a random person on the street mr X is a satanist" and "mr X is a satanist" or "a group of experts establish that mr X is a satanist". Of the articles nearly all (excluding only two) are either opinion pieces (i.e. they give the opionion of the writer) or states that somebody else has an opinion. If we would give opinons the same status as facts just because they are mentioned in a reliable source then we could write that Zionists occupy Washington, NY and London.[32] // Liftarn

Well, as I keep asking, who would you accept as an authority in this matter? What source is reliable enough to decide if someone is an anti-Semite? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is your intention, but you seem to be playing the role of mediator in this case...thats not a complaint, we finally have somebody here that wants to get things strait. Liftarn is again telling you and the other people here the same thing I have been saying the whole time. Based on your question though, I think you either messed up on your wording, or you again missed the fact that the reliability of the source is not the issue. If any of the sources you put here actually had MA himself speaking or acting in an overtly anti-semitic manner, this would not be a problem. Markovich292 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But that absolutely wouldn't be acceptable, because that would be original research. Wikipedians cannot decide, based on their own assessment, whether or not Ahmadinejad has spoken or acted in "an overtly anti-Semitic manner". Instead, Wikipedia can only quote reliable sources which describe him as an anti-Semite. So the question is, which sources do you feel would be authoritative enough to establish Ahmadinjead as an anti-Semite? Can you name any specific sources who you feel are qualified enough to make this judgement, and, if so, who are they? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded to the issue of "original research" below.

"Overt" does not have to do with opinion, it smply means observable. So in other words, if he is observably saying or doing anti-semitic things, it is verfiable that he fits the definition of anti-semitic. If his actions are not overt, wikipedia users can not verify that he is anti-semitic; that is unproven and therefore libel. It is not a personal opinion if somebody says something that is described in a dictionary. Markovich292 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly what it is. They first expect us to gather quotes (which is their responsibility), and then they throw quotes at us like crazy, all of which have the same fundamental flaw. Instead of accepting that these are all opinions, they expect us to address every single quote individually, just to waste time. Markovich292 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "they" is. I'm not part of any "they". I saw the discussion on this page, and contributed to it. I have not asserted that Ahamdinejad is an anti-Semite, nor have I insisted that he be described as one. I spent a great deal of time bringing sources and quotations which described Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic, and now am trying to understand the criteria you are using to make this assessment, which appear to be undefined, unclear, or in violation of policy. If anything it is my time which is being wasted, since, after I actually bring sources, the responses I get are non-specific "you are wasting my time with too many sources" and "these are just opinions". Again, please explain, in your view, what turns the "opinion" that someone is an anti-Semite into "fact", while ensuring that we avoid original research? Is there any source which you would find acceptable for this purpose? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you are not part of the "they" I mentioned. In fact, as I recall, I said "they" would not have done what you did, taking the time to introduce a list of quotes with sources such as that. You are the only one that is actually trying to work with this side, rather than disregard it completely or call its supporters "nuts", "crazy," and the like.

Now, it is not just "in my view," but an opinion is this: "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." The minute "positive knowledge or proof" is found, it ceases to be an opinion. There is no "original research" involved in finding sources that state MA is exterminating Jews, or that he says "I hate Jews." Again, it doesn't have to be as extreme as "I hate Jews," but it still has to fall under the definition of anti-semitism on the English wikipedia (i.e. hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.) Markovich292 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But the sources listed obviously believe Ahmadinejad's statements are anti-Semitic, and that, as a result, he himself is an anti-Semite. Are you saying that in order for Ahmadinejad to be an anti-Semite he must have said or done something that you believe proves he is an anti-Semite? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From your wording, it appears you believe that MA automatically is an anti-semite because people say he is (using the phrase "as a result"). That is not even nearly in accordance with wikipedia policy. To answer your question, I don't contend that I am the sole authority on who is and who is not an anti-semite. By the same token, neither is any other editor. There are two options when looking at a definition; it can be interpreted/changed, or it can be used directly. The former is an opinion, the latter is fact. When people use an altered personal definition of a word to classify other people (for example, saying anti-zionist = anti-semite), that is clearly not factual. When words or actions are encompassed by a definition (that has not been changed by the person using it), that is a fact. As an example, look at MA saying Israel should not exist; his words in this case are "characteristic of opposition to the existance of Israel," which falls under the definition of anti-Zionist. Markovich292 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn asks, "Instead of just giving a list of links, why not give sources?" .Well, Liftarn, I did. it was given a summary dismissal, instead of actual discussion. Then I was insulted with 'I have to say, ThuranX probably would have never gotten around to making this type of post.' If the side which opposes the AS tag continues with this behavior of blatantly ignoring the conversation and forking the discussion into section after section, while insulting those on the other side, I will pursue administrator intervention. It's getting clear to me that we've reached the point in the debate where we have overwhelmingly met WP's standards, as JayJG has expressed, and the opposition seems most interested in playing parliamentarian with Robert's Rules. I believe that, as JayJG has summarized, we've met the burden of proof under Wikipedia's standards and the category can be established and supported by verifiable evidence. ThuranX 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are again misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the way things happened. Liftarn gave answers that were short and to the point; you were given a perfect opportunity for discussion by responding to to those comments. All you said was "If you'd read the page, you would see that we're all already aware of wiki policy. We're discussing whether or not the numerous sources provided meet or fail the tes of being RS." You were involved in no such discussion. This kind of discussion is actually taking place now, with a relatively neutral third party, so restating your opinion that "I believe...the category can [be]...supported by verifiable evidence" is not just going to all of a sudden give you to the right to make POV edits.

I urge you to look at the entire debate. As far as I recall, there has not been a single quote brought forward that does not involve opinionated editorial. It has been day after day of you insisting that your POV can be labeled as fact, just because people agree with you. There is also the issue that any casual observer can probably see that you, and others on your side, are plenty responsible for "blatantly ignoring the conversation and forking the discussion into section after section, while insulting those on the other side." There is no lack of evidence on that...in fact, here is the very first insult, "Your crazy if you don't think he's anti-Semitic." And BTW, I'm pretty sure calling someone nuts is a personal attack. Markovich292 01:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been lurking on this discussion for a while now, and I just wanted to make a couple comments. It seems to me that a question has been raised several times now and not answered: What source or sources have the intellectual/moral authority to pronounce on whether or not MA is an antisemite? This does not seem to be being addressed head-on. Merely retorting, "Yes, but what proof do you have that MA is an antisemite" is not enough. Indeed, it misses the point entirely. If MA had said, "I hate Jews" last Friday, we could not, on the basis of that alone, include him in this category. Someone notable, preferably a number of notable someones, would have to agree. This is the situation we find ourselves in now. We have a large number of disparate, notable sources who say he is an antisemite. Is that their opinion? Well, yes. But how could it be anything other than an opinion? There is no ultimate referee on this or any other question WP writes about. The consensus is that MA is an antisemite; I see no evidence refuting this. IronDuke 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I don't recall anyone asking for sources that have "moral authority" though. I kind of said I little on reliable sources, is that what you mean? Anyway, I assume you are asking me so I will sum up a little in hopes it will address your concerns. All of the sources like news agencies, magazines, etc. brought so far all are perfectly reliable sources. It is not that sources lack "moral authority," and actually it is not even necessary to have some source labeled as a "moral authority" to report exactly what has been done or said. I would disagree with you that we need many "notable" people to agree that MA is antisemitic if he said "I hate Jews" and it was actually verifiable (wikipedia policy agrees with me on that I believe). As long as a source has the information that proves something, nobody has to say they agree because POV is not needed to substantiate facts. Quite the opposite; facts are needed to substantiate POV.

I'm glad my point that all of these quotes are opinions hasn't fallen on deaf ears to those "lurkers" like yourself. You are exactly right that plenty of people call him anti-semitic. Let me clarify a few things that may have gotten lost in the conversation about that though. Someone said that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not fact. What this means, is that if a source has someone saying "Mr. X is anti-Iranian," that can be included in the article, because it is verifiable. Anything like that can be included, but the basic rule of encyclopedias is that things that have been included must be kept in their original format. By that I mean that opinions in other sources must be called opinions here, facts must be called facts, studies must be called studies, etc. Markovich292 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there's a difference between a reliable source reporting that somebody called MA an anti-Semite and a reliable source saying that MA is an anti-Semite. We can have reliable sources reporting that people have said all kinds of nonsense. If that would be the rule we could report that W Bush is both Hitler and a caveman[33]. Of the long list of claimed sources there are only few that are actually usefull. We have a source that says he made anti-Semitic remarks[34] (altough you may want to ask if SpaceWar is a reliable source) and only two sources to that he actually is an anti-Semite [35][36]. // Liftarn

Why do so many people here find it difficult to distinguish between opinion and facts? I guess perhaps an example might help. Despite being of Jewish descent Bobby Fischer, the famous chess player, is/was Anti-semitic, that is a fact not opinion.

When asked what he wished to do with the remainder of his life, he answered, “To expose the Jews for the criminals they are, the parasites they are, the liars they are, the thieves they are, the murderers they are .... Jews were always bastards throughout history. They are liars, they are the worst pieces of shit in the world. They mutilate their own children.”[37]

Now then until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes direct Anti-semitic remarks against the Jews (sorry but Holocaust doubting doesn't qualify!) it is opinion that he is Anti-semitic. In the opinion of Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert he is Anti-semitic![38]

So in the words of Amoruso "I think that finally settles the dispute." :-) Yas121 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, for the thoughtful and well-reasoned replies above. It seems to me that the arguments against putting him in the AS category fall into two camps: 1) He has not said he is an antisemite. 2) He has not made remarks that people on this page feel are, in their judgment, sufficiently antisemitic to qualify for the category. But 1) antisemites virtually never label themselves as such and 2) it isn't up to us to say what is and isn't antisemitic in MA's remarks. We can only follow what others say. As Markovich indicates, the sources we have are reliable, yes? So why is that not enough? The impression I'm getting is that some of you may feel that there is no standard by which we can put him or anyone else in the category, unless they admit it. Is that right? IronDuke 14:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, #2 is close, but it doesn't have to do with people "not feeling" that he is an anti-semite. There are plenty of people that say (paraphrased) "well golly, he could be anti-semitic, but there is no proof." They are the ones that fit into the category I mentioned earlier, those that apply the meaning of a word without interpretation. The people that say (sort of paraphrased) "he is an anti-semite and belongs in that category no matter what you say" are the ones that use words however they want. The point of having clearly defined words is so that opinions do not have to be used when classifying people or things. Take a knife and a dagger for example. Some people call a knife a dagger, because they do not apply the real definition of the word (either they don't know or they don't care). Here, people are doing the same thing; but calling an anti-zionist an anti-semite (but in this case they don't care, considering they obviously are aware of the definition). I do not know if you were here for the many instances the wikipedia definition of the word has been brought up, but none of the editors have shown reliable sources that have either quotes or actions by MA that fit that definition. You see the length of the debate? The majority of that is because the other side insists that people agreeing with their opinion automatically means that MA has done something to qualify himself as anti-semitic. Markovich292 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to address everything directly so I have no doubt that I remembered to do so. Here is the last thing I think I have left: "The impression I'm getting is that some of you may feel that there is no standard by which we can put him or anyone else in the category, unless they admit it."

There are plenty of standards by which people can be classified. I said that on more than one occasion in the past on this very topic, but you may be new enough to have missed it. What I (and policy) do not accept is when people try to pass off opinions as a standard by which they can place him in the category (same as calling it a fact). A summary of what is required: verifiable anti-semitic words or actions. See above if you want more explanation...search for "23:04, 5" and "21:45, 5"

Markovich292 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. If we was to put George W Bush in the category Category:Robots. What type of source would we need? Some examples of sources (fictional, but let's say they are printed in a reliable newspaper):

1. "W Bush is robot-like"
2. "J Random person said that W Bush is a robot"
3. "in my opinion W Bush is a robot"
4. "robotics experts have concluded that W Bush is a robot"
5. "W Bush is a robot"
6. "W Bush admits he is a robot"

Most of the so called sources to MA's alleged anti semitism have been of type 2 or type 3 and some of type 1. I would be happy with type 4 or 5, but given the bias 6 would be best, but that is unlikley. // Liftarn

Well, even #4 is sketchy at best. "Experts" are able to say anything they want, and statistics show that people believe even false claims. Beware of appeal to authority. #5 is also not very useful; I can virtually guarantee that any article that has "MA is an anti-semite" printed is because the author feels that way. Markovich292 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn, thanks for the list. That's nicely laid out. I would ask in 2., what if "J Random person" is in fact an expert on robots? Then we'd be looking at a situation like number four which you would be happy with, yes? Markovich: what I hear you saying is that MA must himself admit that he is an antisemite, or else we may not place him in that category. Correct? IronDuke 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In the case of type 2 and the person is an expert in robotics then it would be type 4. Given the sensitive issue it would be best with more than one source. // Liftarn

Well, at the risk of sounding annoyed; I already aaddressed that...it can be found with a search for "20:43, 4 September 2006" on this page. Here are more entries that have supplemental information: "23:04" and "21:45" Markovich292 05:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but where you address it at 20:43, you seem to be saying that it's up to us to interpret MA's remarks and actions. If they are "obvious," like Hitler's actions, then we may label him an antisemite. If non-obvious, we may not. I hope I do not annoy you further when I say something that's been noted before: that attitude violates WP:OR. It's hard to think of a more classic case of OR than saying, "I have cobbled together some words from MA that I think indicate that he is an antisemite." It's not up to us to define him; it isn't even entirely up to MA to define himself -- it's up to third parties. IronDuke 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read both entries for "20:43" (one follows directly after another)? Sorry I didn't mention that. If you read it and you still think it violates WP:OR, look at the entry from "21:45." To summarize, it is not OR if an editor places a person in a category, if that person is in a reliable source saying or doing something that is covered by the definition of that category. I hope that isn't to clumsy a sentence to make sense.

It is very, very relevant that you mention "I have cobbled together some words from MA that I think indicate that he is an antisemite" as being original research. The people that want him classified as anti-semitic are making that exact claim. If I am not mistaken, that means they are all using original research.

When it comes to personal views, the subject in question is the best candidate to define themself. MA can easily call himself an antisemite, and all wikipedians need to do is make sure it is verifiable....boom, he is defined as an anti-semite. That is of course not the only way to define him as such, but it is the best way. Markovich292 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing one other kind of source.

7. George W. Bush was seen inserting chips into his chest OR said he inserts chips into his chest

That would be an overt act and along the line of MA killing jews or saying something like "I hate jews." That would be how Hitler was classified as anti-semetic, and MA killing jews would probably one of the more likely outcomes. I guess. I hope that made sense, snd wasn't pointless. --LifeEnemy 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is ahmadinejad anti-semitic?

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)

also his holocoust denial should not neccisarily be interpretted as unspoken support or attempt to minimise the actions of Nazis. it might indeed be the case but it also might not. i refer you to Hanlon's Razor.Anon-o-man 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles can never say who is antisemitic or not. Tell people the facts, for e.g, "he has remarked that israel should be wiped off the map" and they can decide whether he is an anti semite or not. Dont tell people what to think.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.233.128 (talk • contribs) 10:43, September 12, 2006 (UTC)

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)

In conclusion

I would like to make sure everyone had a chance to see and/or address this before I officially ask that the article be unlocked:

In the course of (apparently) trying to act as an unofficial mediator, IronDuke said the following: "It's hard to think of a more classic case of OR than saying, 'I have cobbled together some words from MA that I think indicate that he is an antisemite.'"

The only response to that included the following: "The people that want him classified as anti-semitic are making that exact claim. If I am not mistaken, that means they are all using original research."

That is almost certain to be the resolution of this debate; NOR is the definitive policy for this issue. All that has to be done is to reach an agreement on the section for holocaust denial/alleged anti-semitism (see earlier on this talk page - work is still in progress). Markovich292 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? That is totally one-sided and self-serving version of the discussion. There has been no resolution.--Mantanmoreland 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mantanmoreland. Also, if I seemed to be presenting myself as a mediator, I apologize. In no way was that my intention, and I believe that on this issue, my acting in that capacity would be entirely inappropriate. Many notable sources call MA antisemitic. His remarks butress this claim. I'm trying to get at whether that's enough for people to label him as such and if not, why not. IronDuke 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, the way you were probing the issue was very respectable. Mediators should ask the same kind of questions that you have been asking, so thats why I thought you were unofficially trying out mediation type duties. So, have you gotten information on what you were wondering about; if current sources are "enough for people to label him as [anti-semitic] and if not, why not?" Markovich292 20:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Even when staring at how you are violating NOR, how can you still claim that nothing is resolved? Markovich292 20:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe Marokovich is still arguing this, and this "conclusion" by himself is a real chutzpah after blaming the other side of concluding exactly the opposite. Anyone who seriously read AM's statements and the dozens of WP:RS above has come to the same conclusion : The category fits AM perfectly and is probably one of the most reliabe, sourced, accurate category description in wikipedia which can not be seriously disputed. Markovich didn't even bring one source to present his WP:OR claim that the whole world is wrong and he's correct on this. The category obviously stays, simply because no argument was made against it, no argument that is within wikipedia policy. Amoruso 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between my conclusion and yours, is that I waited and paid attention to other editors, and made sure that wikipedia policy supports my conclusion. The "conclusion" that you made in the past procalimed your opinion correct and that those who disagree lack reasoning. And did I ever say that "the world is wrong" and I am right? No. I resent this kind of underhanded tactic you have repeatedly used in this debate to get your jabs in at me rather than addressing the issue.

"The category obviously stays, simply because no argument was made against it, no argument that is within wikipedia policy." On the contrary, it is your side that has not shown that policy supports it. That is why the category has continually been challenged. As for that "no argument that is within wikipedia policy" part, I don't know what you are trying to pull here, but everybody can plainly see that the arguments against you are rooted in wikipedia policy. Markovich292 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh you waited and paid attention did you. How phony. Your deceptive ping-ponging between "you did't provide reliable sources" and "you aren't providing anti-semitic commetns from AM" were exposed by the majority of the editors here. Fact here both dozens of WP:RS were presented and clear anti-semitic comments of AM were presented too. Left with nothing to say, you kept going back and forth and indulging in some philosohical self meditating about an impossible theory of how a person is suppoed to categorize, presumeably your next step is to say the only way to categorize AM as an anti semite is if one has a divine revelation that he is. Clearly, the category is solid, backed up in wikipedia policy, and will stay intact. Amoruso 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it second nature for you to just make up false claims to support your argument? You are again using everything short of a true personal attack just because there is nothing in wikipedia policy to support your attitude that we should place MA in the category. It is really getting tiring to have to address every time you make up falsehoods in an attempt to push your POV and assert that your position to include the category is right and that there is nothing in policy to oppose it. Markovich292 23:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

well you're right on one thing, it's getting tiring. I still can't believe how you manage to get the inner strengths going in circles endlessly. I'm beginning to think you actually believe what you're saying and somehow you really did convince yourself that MA is not an anti semite in spite of the huge amount of evidence and WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. Can you convince yourself in the same way that the Earth is flat ? Fascinating. The bottom line of what you keep saying is that you think that his comments do not constitute anti-semitism and therefore he isn't. That's amazing, but that is your bottom line. Amoruso 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you lack the comprehension to understand what I am saying? I never said one way or another if I think his comments constitute anti-semitism; instead I have pointed out that opinions of people (your "huge amount of evidence") are not grounds to classify someone into such a category. You, however, have made it clear that you are going to make sure that what you believe gets pushed on everybody else, and anyone that thinks differently than you on this issue is inherently irrational. The real bottom line is that you want to call somebody anti-semitic, but can't produce sources that have empirical proof of anti-semitism. Then, when you realize you don't have that, you try to say opinions of people that agree with you are enough. When even that fails to meet the criteria for classification, you turn out remarks that are skirt the no personal attacks policy. Markovich292 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> Just because you think that we didn't produce sources that have empirical proof of anti-semitism doesn't mean we didn't, because we did. This is pushing your own WP:POV which you're trying to hide now and also falsely acussing other of no personal attacks (which is what you're doing actually) with absolute no cause and no good faith just to derail the conversation. Ok, you made your WP:POV very clear. The majority of editors + the majority of WP:RS think otherwise. You can read the comments any way you wish to, but don't enforce your WP:POV which is a fringe opinion in the article while violating wikipedia policy. Amoruso 07:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what? My opinion is not important, but because you falsely accuse me of trying to push my POV I am going to tell you exactly what I believe here: People should not be getting away with passing off an opinion as a fact in an encyclopedia that many people refer to and trust for accuracy. I also notice that you ignored me mentioning that you can't give proof of anti-semitism; instead you claim I am trying to "derail the conversation." After that you use dishonest wording to make people think that I hold a "fringe opinion" amongst editors and invent the notion that I am violating policy, all to deflect attention from your POV. FYI, I never accused you of a personal attack; if you think I did you should re-read my comment. Markovich292 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that no proof of anti-semitism was given. Others including many WP:RS think otherwise. You still haven't explained why your opinion that his comments didn't make the criteria or don't answer the definition are more important. You can't get around the basic fact that it's your opinion. You keep trying to pass it off as a 'given' and it isn't - it is your personal interpretation, and that has nothing to do with wikipedia. Amoruso 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is the letter of wikipedia that sufficient proof was not given. Don't try to trick people into thinking that I have ever claimed that my opinion has anything to do with the criteria for inclusion, that is just dishonest.

Speaking of personal interpretation, it is your belief that anti-zionism = anti-semitism that has nothing to do with wikipedia. It is your opinion that is getting in the way of a debate on the issues; you keep focusing on false ad hominem arguments aimed at me rather than looking for sources that meet wikipedia standards. Markovich292 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MA has never said ANYTHING (as far as any reliable sources) against the jews "as a religious, ethnic, or racial group", the only things he has said are against the state or Israel or about questioning the holocaust. Neither are anti-semetic, but one is anti-zionist.

Also, you are mistaken when you think opposing the cat means someone thinks he's not an anti-semite. Personally, I think he very well could be one, but there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to show that he is, which is what is needed to call MA one here. All the pro-cats shown is that some people think he is anti-semetic, which is totally fine to put in the article, but as opinion, not fact. As I have asked many times (and been ignored every time) does anyone have a reliable source that has MA saying/doing something against jews?? None of the sources listed have anything like that in them. If you don't have a quote like that, than MA cannot be called an anti-semite on this encyclopedia.

I hate to say it, but this argument is going nowhere. It's just both sides having the same argument about eight times now. If no progress is made soon, there will be no choice but to send this to ArbCom, which I'm half ready to do because this is just getting annoying. --LifeEnemy 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the chat, we have Liftarn conceding at LEAST 3 sources, and concurring that the addition of Ehud Olmert's opinion is worthy of article inclusion. On top of that, we have multiple respected international opinion writers, including a fellow Iranian, all concluding that MA has repeatedly made Anti-Semitic comments, or expressed Anti-Semitic views. We have provided, repeatedly, and even to the satisfaction of one of those 'on your side', so to speak, enough WP:RS to support his inclusion. should this change later and you have a solid preponderance of 'MA loves him some Hebrews' sources, then we can revisit the subject. Until that time, we've jumped through all your hoops, played all your games, and the page needs unlocking. Get it unlocked so we can add in his recent replies tot he UN demands regarding Nuke development, and get on to other important issues. I'm sick of wasting time here. Get it unlocked, LEAVE the category alone, and MOVE ON.ThuranX 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't originally thinking about you when I wrote my first question above, but you sure have answered without knowing it. I say over and over that it is perfectly justified under wikipedia policy to add those comments to the article if they are not stated as fact (categorization is the same as calling it a fact BTW), and how do you respond now? You act like I have been saying the exact opposite! Seriously, is it intentional that you are so grossly misinterpreting what I have said, or do you truly not know you are doing it?

As I recall, you said before that telling someone to "just go away" is "outright territorial." Now all you are doing is telling me to go away, just so you and the the other zealots that want to classify someone against policy can have their way. Markovich292 20:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I said 'MOVE ON', meaning, proceed to fixing other parts of this article. Second, I'm glad you now agree that yes, we have the Citations, and can keep him in category. It's good to see in print that you agree that the facts presented should be in the page. guess we can unlock now, go get an admin. ThuranX 21:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. MOVE ON in the context you put it does not just mean "proceed to fixing other parts of the article." Here is a question: how little have you actually been paying attention if this is the first time you have seen that I said policy supports adding the comments to the article? I can see why this has been going on so long now, you probabably have ignored half of the answers to questions that have been asked here. And if you seriously think that me saying "it is perfectly justified under wikipedia policy to add those comments" is the same as saying we should "keep him in category," your comprehension problems are worse than I thought. Markovich292 22:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it, I know what I meant. don't presume, yet again, to put words in my mouth. Now, to conclude, as you want so much to do. The comments are in, the category is in, end of discussion. ThuranX 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This "I'm sick of wasting time here. Get it unlocked, LEAVE the category alone, and MOVE ON" is not the same as this "I'm sick of wasting time here. Get it unlocked, LEAVE the category alone, and [proceed to fixing other parts of this article]." If you didn't mean what you said in the first quote, you should have done a better job choosing your words. Persoanlly, I think MOVE ON is exactly what you meant, but now you are saying differently because you didn't restrain yourself and want people to think you didn't mean it. Of all the people, you are the one that is putting words in other people's mouths (please see above, 21:37 is a great example).

Regarding your decree at the end of your post: I think that may have been the most arrogant comment I have ever read (or tied with Amoruso's post before at least). Do you honestly think that you have the supreme authority to proclaim a discussion ended and your POV the almighty last word? Markovich292 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

but not as arrogant as your concluding statement above. Amoruso 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which would be? Markovich292 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

the conclusion remark and topic. You concluded based on your pretty much one-man-vendetta against the world to take this category off the wrong conclusion. Amoruso 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So a topic that openly calls for other people to address my comments is arrogant? And do you mean the conclusion where I sumize that you are trying to pass off OR as something else? You still don't seem to have anything to say about that btw; your remarks have been directed at me for the most part to aviod the issue. Maybe you just think that people that disagree with you are inherently arrogant. Markovich292 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you actually think Markovich was conceding that the category should stay, then your comprehension skills really ARE terrible. As he and others have said the entire time, it's perfectly alright to have reliable, verifiable quotes in the article from people that think MA is anti-semetic, as long as they are presented as OPINIONS. You can't, on the basis of others' opinions alone, say that he in fact is anti-semetic, which is what putting him in the category is. It would be perfectly alright to put him in a "suspected anti-semites" category, which isn't actually a bad idea. What does everyone else think of that? --LifeEnemy 05:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all opinions. It's an opinion to call Hitler an anti semite too, it's always an opinion. You're contesting the legitimacy of the category itself, which is fine, but should be done within the category , not in the article. As the category stands now, AM is the most fit to be in since there are so many WP:RS opinions who agree that his comments are anti-semitic. Amoruso 07:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Techincally, it isn't strictly opinion that someone is anti-semetic, it's just fact (whether they hate jews or not). Although I understand that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to know for sure if someone is A-S, unless you are that person. This is where the two sides of this argument differ. One side believes that if enough people say your are anti-semetic or anti-semetic-like, than you are an anti-semite. The other side says that's not true, and that someone can't be called anti-semetic unless they themselves do something obvious. It's the same difference with Hitler. Hitler killed a LOT of jews, and he spoke out against them very often. So, Hitler just is an anti-semite; there's no room for opinion there. As of yet, MA hasn't killed any jews or spoken against the jews specifically (or so I think; if he has, someone should point out a link to that quote). That makes him probably an anti-semite, given the impression people have of him, but not definitely.

On the matter of WP:RS; it should be considered that many people confuse anti-zionism and anti-semetism, and many just don't see the difference. Also, the A-S category states that anti-semetism is "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." So, the debate is really whether or not MA has displayed hostility towards jews in that manner, which rules out arguments like "MA is anti-semetic because the US Congress says so," and similar arguments. For MA to be categorized as anti-semetic, he to say or do something that is obviously anti-semetic. To date, I haven't seen anything tha quite fits that definition. --LifeEnemy 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the thing - you haven't seen it that way. Many of us here did, and many WP:RS saw it as well, saw his comments directed against jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, exactly that. You could say Hitler killed Jews for a whole differnet reason than anti-semitism and that his comments over Jews weren't anti-semitic but aryan motivated or directed towards masses but he really didn't mean it, or something of the sort. Someone could make an argument. The question is how most people perceive his comments and actions. Amoruso 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could argue that, but it would be like arguing the earth is made of cream cheese. Could you tell me the source it is that has MA's anti-semetic comments? I've been asking for it, but noone wants to give me a straight answer. You say he made comments against the jews directly as a people. Please show me these comments, I have had no luck finding them. If they exist then, yeah, he's an anti-semite. Just show me, please. --LifeEnemy 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently nobody can refute that it is OR for them to say something to the effect "I have cobbled together some words from MA that I think indicate that he is an antisemite." As a result, I have to face people that are getting increasingly hostile. I have had enough of you people that won't deal with the issue and instead make this personal. I am going to ask that this page be unlocked soon so I can remove the category in question, unless people make material available that contains empirical proof to allow us to add the category under Wikipedia policy. Markovich292 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

category won't be removed. There are enough WP:RS and editors here who made it clear that AM's comments are anti-semitic. Just because you think otherwise doesn't give you the right to blank categories out. Your opinion is not more important than others. You're on the fringe here and this is not enough to take the category out. Try to bring atleast one argument or source that supports your view that he isn't anti-semitic, then maybe the discussion could continue. Amoruso 07:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, you repeat yourself over and over without listening to anybody. I have specifically said my opinion does not have any bearing on the issue, and by the same token yours does not either. You insist that he belongs in the category because 'he is obvioiusly an anti-semite,' but plenty of other people disagree. You also ignore people (other than just me) that tell you over and over that it is you that has to bring sources to keep him the category. This discussion can continue the minute you pay attention to that. You could also just tell us if you haven't been able to find anything to categorize him based on wikipedia standards; you don't have to make this an issue of your pride. Markovich292 22:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat - it is your opinion that there isn't "anything to categorize him based on wikipedia standards" - that is your interpretation of these standards and your beliefs. I'll assume good faith and assume that this is really your opinion. Respectfully your opinion was heard over and over. Clearly, the majority of editors + many WP:RS (you havevn't provided even one to support your view) think otherwise - they think the comments are exactly in the definition of anti-semitism , any definition of anti-semitism including the wikipedian one. So stop passing your opinion as something else, it won't fool anyone. Amoruso 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What won't fool anyone is your insistance that people that "think otherwise" (ie people that think MA is an anti-semite) is proof of anti-semitism. Sure, some well-known people agree with you, but that does not automatically mean that he is an anti-semite because of it. The requirement for inclusion is that he fits the wikipedia definition of the word. It is your opinion that he does, so you want to put him in the category. Because you claim that anti-zionism = anti-semitism, it is your interpretation of these standards and your beliefs that are POV, not mine. Markovich292 02:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You even say that people think this, but not once do you mention above that it is supported by evidence. BTW, I mentioned that Mike Wallace is sourced as saying that MA is not anti-semitic, but adding the source is useless because his opinion is no more valuable than the opinions you have given. Markovich292 02:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, markovich, your determinaion that everyone is against you, and you've had enough of 'you people' (and we all know what you mean by THAT), suggests to me you ought to go take a couple days, smell the roses, enjoy the last days of summer, chase a butterfly, pet a puppy, and go relax before coming back to the article. Stating that 'cobbling together sources' is OR, when you asked us to FIND those same sources, is just more of your baiting behavior. Stop it, and confront the issue. you asked for sources, you got them, and one of your allies even concedes that at least 3 sources qualify as RS, and one more as RS (for a sourced opinion.) that's enough. You have, as yet, provided zero sources refuting our sources. we've got a preponderace of RS, we've got admissions from the opposition. I understand you've got a deeply personal aversion to calling AM anti-semitic, and I'm sure you feel your reasons justify your choices of behavior, but you have to face it, he is, and we've got the cites to demonstrate it. Given our research, it won't come out of the article until such time as you come up with more RS stating that he's a big ol' matzoh brie lovin', jew hugging, pro-semite. That will never happen. either find and construct a single ,solidly reasoned argument that we can work on refuting or conceding to, or concede yourself. thank you.ThuranX 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say again what many others have already said (and you'll probably not like me for it). There is a difference between the sources that have been requested and the sources that have been given. The given sources have all had something to the effect of "I think MA is an anti-semite" or "MA is totally an anti-semite." As said before, these are all opinions of people which, since verifiable, can be included in the article as opinions (with quotes). Markovich and others have been asking for sources which cover MA saying or doing something anti-semetic (many have covered MA being anti-zionist, not the same thing). To date, not one of these types sources has been provided. Without one, you can't say that MA is an anti-semite for a fact in an encyclopedia. I know (as well as many others) that MA probably is anti-semetic. Probably. That is only my opinion, and my opinion should never go down in an encyclopedia as fact.

Oh, and I should also mention that the burden of supplying evidence is not on the "anti-category" side, but the pro-cat side. I'm afraid this works on a kind of "innocent until proven guity" principle. Besides, where would you find a RS that says MA isn't anti-semetic? There would be no point to publishing that.

I don't totally agree with Markovich's statement up there either. But, no admin will unlock this page yet anyway, since there's still a lot of anger going around on here. --LifeEnemy 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The editors here (those that do) and the sources obviously think that MA is anti-semitic because he said anti-semitic comments, not anti-zionist comments. Markovich and other read these comments as only anti-zionist and not anti-semitic, but these sources and others read them as anti-semitic. That's why since there are those many sources and there aren't any sources stating the opinion of Markovich on this matter, the logical conclusion is to let the category stay. Again, it's ok to say that his comments didn't cover the criteria needed for anti-semitism per definition - but who makes that call ? Amoruso 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so very much LifeEnemy (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really that happy that you said that so I don't have to say it again)! You are exactly right about the difference between sources called for and the sources given. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good way to describe the situation too.

And to ThuranX, please do enlighten me as to what "you people that won't deal with the issue and instead make this personal" means. It won't be the first time that you try to put words in someone's mouth. And I have made it perfectly clear that I don't have an aversion to calling MA anti-semitic...I have an aversion to compromizing the content of an encyclopedia so people can say whatever they want to say. BTW, I never made the "determinaion that everyone is against me." I said people [that support the category] are becoming increasingly hostile. Please make sure you actually pay attention to what I wrote before you misquote me again. Markovich292 22:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, not taking your bait. ThuranX 03:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You DO have an aversion to it. If you did NOThave such an aversion, you would've accepted the NUMEROUS sources that even the other wikieditors have accepted. It's clear to everyone who wants the category kept that you, in fact, are acting as an obstructionist. ThuranX 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So now you are speaking for me? Your argument is a fallacy, and I don't know if it would be worse that you don't realize it (ignorance), or you know but say it anyway because you think it will make people think less of your opposition (bigotry). Of all the people, I have left my opinion out of this in favor of WIKIPEDIA POLICY, and what do I get? You making some grand accusation that I have an aversion to calling Ahmadinejad anti-semitic. You can go on thinking what you want about how I feel personally (whether I think he is an anti-semite or not), BUT TO PRESUME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND ASSERT THAT I AM TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THIS CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE OF PERSONAL REASONS IS DESPICABLE. I have already made it clear that I am acting as an obstructionist only in the sense that I intend to keep this encyclopedia free of POV classifications. Markovich292 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

SO... Me speaking for you is bad, but you speaking for me is ok? alright. double standards will make this so much more civil. ThuranX 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone speaking for you yet, ThuranX (interestingly enough, you just spoke for Markovich by saying he has an aversion). I have seen you misunderstand and misrepresent people's words, though. Also, you in particular are being very hostile and very personal about this issue, and it would probably be best if you (and most people involved in this) tried to cool down and get everything into perspective. If we all do that, then we can continue this discussion in a civil and amicable manner.

And, Amoruso, could you please show me these quotes that are anti-semetic and not anti-zionist? I have asked more than a few times to see these and have pretty much been ignored. The sources I've seen have all had anti-zionist, holocaust skeptisism, and other irrelevent quotes. I would honestly like to know what the quotes are, please. --LifeEnemy 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only instance that even comes close to your claim that I have spoken for you is when I read your "MOVE ON" comment for what it was. Reading someone's sentence and reacting to it it NOT speaking for them. To be considered "speaking for you" I actually have to have said something as if I am speaking for you, not interpreting your sentences. You did that, I have not. There is NO double standard to speak of. Markovich292 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich292, please stop your personal attacks on ThuranX and on anyone else who disagrees with you. The situation is rather simple. We have comments of AM - many editors and many WP:RS think these comments, yes - the same comments, are anti-semitic - not anti zionist but anti semitic. You read them differently, that's your prerogative. But wikipedia is about WP:V and clearly we have the sources to support our opinion, yes opinion, on this. It's always about opinions as explained above, the question is who backs it up with sources and who is the majority. Describing this as anything else is wrong and misleading. Amoruso 09:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you pick out Markovich as making personal attacks when ThuranX and others are doing almost nothing but making personal attacks? The quote you're responding to isn't even anything like an attack. Talk about a double standard.

Why is it that no matter how often I ask to see these anti-semetic quotes, noone will actually point me to them? All I get is, "we read the quotes differently than you." This is ludicrous. There is little to no interpretation when it comes to anti-zionism/anti-semetism. Anti-zionism is against the state of Isreal and anti-semetism is against the jews specifically as a people. I'm amazed that so many people have trouble understanding this simple concept. If someone could just provide a quote of MA saying something anti-semetic, I would gladly change my position and support the category, But the only response I've ever gotten is "I think that these quotes [against Isreal] are anti-semetic, because that is how I read them." How does that fit into wikipedia policy? That is such a blatant violation of WP:OR that I'm can't believe this is even an issue! Would someone please just show me these anti-semetic quotes instead of dodging the issue with BS responses??? --LifeEnemy 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your presumption to speak in such a manner above (2:49) was improper and a clear attack on good faith, and even going as far as a personal attack. I am awaiting your apology. Markovich292 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source or anything, but it is representative to an extent. Robert Arial, 9/12/2006 [39]. -- Avi 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Better Picture?

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)

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)

If there is a consensus as to a better picture, you could always place it on the talkpage and use an {{editprotected}} tag to ask a passing admin to make the change. -- Avi 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few links to pictures. See if anyone likes them better.

• http://mahmoud-ahmadinejad-news.newslib.com/img/logo/3791.jpg
• http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/afpji/20060513/060513144341.8e5of80p0_iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-b.jpg
• http://libertyjustincase.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/mahmoud_ahmadinejad_oic.jpg

I just grabbed these off google real quick. --LifeEnemy 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Free-use pictures are preferred, fair-use is required. What is the status of those pictures? -- Avi 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

The article needs to be edited, for one thing the picture should be removed per the editors above and fair use counterexample 8. I'm unprotecting, proceed cautiously in editing and continue working out your differences. Haukur 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced it with what I feel is a neutral-appearing photo from the photo section of the official website of the Iranian presidency, which should be acceptable under {{Promophoto}} -- Avi 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Funny remark

"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)

Hmmmmmm... --LifeEnemy 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)