Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Lost in translation" (June 14, 2006). The Guardian. [1].


Please redirect general comments to Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Thank you.


Archive1 (28 Oct 2005 - 6 Feb 2006)

Contents

[edit] citation numbers messed up

The {{ref|47}} reference numbering style can easily get messed up - as it clearly has on this page. It will require some work to fix up. IMHO the following reference style is easier to handle, since you only need to keep the reference list at the bottom in numerical order, and add new references at the bottom, and you can make several citations in the text to a single reference if needed, making it easier to support different statements, rather than (wastefully) having to list the same link several times. Anyway, with the two references i've added, i've tried doing this. Here's a brief explanation:

in the text:

First place in text {{ref label|bbckhatami|25|b}}

second place in text {{ref label|bbckhatami|25|c}}

in the notes section:

# {{note label|bbckhatami|25|b}} {{ref label|bbckhatami|25|c}} {{cite web etc...}}

Boud 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a now a referencing system which simply uses <ref> and </ref> tags around the in-line references, and automatically generates the References section. I have converted some refs to this system (after pasting content from the main article), but further work needs to be done. — JEREMY 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative images on the web

Here's another example of style: [2], offered by Iran Student News Agency [3]. Although the guy is appearantly not Ahmadinejad (in the picture I first referred to), the painting below speaks for itself. --Constanz - Talk 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leftist anti-Israel agitator?

Wikipedia is no place for jokes. Put a sentence in informing readers of any possible source of bias if you'd like, but verifiable please, and using an authoritive source. TopRank 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Toprank; have done so — although it's not really a full sentence. — JEREMY 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Ignore me; misread the history. — JEREMY 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEMRI

I do not consider that MEMRI was founded in part by former Israeli intelligence officers to be either unverifiable or irrelevant in the context of this article. Is there a rule under which it should be removed? My point in including it is that MEMRI, which as far as I know has never been accused of having an anti-Israel bias, gives a nearly identical translation. TopRank 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just got the leftist anti-Israel agitator joke. Jaygg, you can point to verifiable facts about Cole if you think they would give the reader a more accurate picture of him. That is not irrelevant. It is a verifiable fact that MEMRI was founded in part by former members of Israel's intelligence services, and it is relevant because the MEMRI translation therefore cannot be considered to come from a source hostile to Israel. If you consider Cole a leftist or anti-Israel or whatever, just provide a verifiable fact and there is no problem with it going in. TopRank 06:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would this claim be relevant to this article? Should it be included as boiler-plate with every single reference to MEMRI in every single article which mentions it? If not, it is poisoning the well. Please read that link carefully. We don't have various sly innuendos included about the other sources referenced here; do we mention, for example, the much more relevant criticisms of Juan Cole as both anti-Israel and an anti-Semite? No, we don't. And you obviously know what poisoning the well is, since you removed it in relation to Hamas. If you again attempt to include this well-poisoning in the article, I will simply revert your edits without comment, as I have done just now. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, either you're deliberately misinterpreting TopRank (which I consider unlikely) or you're just not paying attention. Far from "well-poisoning" (for which, I realise, you could not suffer his edits to persist), TopRank is attempting to demonstrate that MEMRI is unlikely to display a pro-Iranian bias, and therefore why its translation should be trusted. (If anything, rather than acting "with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say", he's talking them up.) This is entirely relevant in a situation where MEMRI's translation is being used as a counter-example to the NYT's. I believe my recent changes render TopRank's description and reference less necessary, but I'd still like to hear you explain why you disagree with this reasoning, and perhaps to apologise to TopRank for your unreasonable characterisations of his actions. — JEREMY 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it is supportive or not; it's an inappropriate description of MEMRI. Jayjg (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a factual description as per the opening of the MEMRI article, and it was externally referenced. Please point to the wikipedia policy or guideline under which it is "inappropriate" to contextualise sources. (I notice you haven't retracted your accusations of well-poisoning, btw.) — JEREMY 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If it is verifiable, which it is or it should not appear in the MEMRI wikipedia article, and it is relevant, which it is because it demonstrates a lack of anti-Israel bias in the translation, and a wikipedia editor inserts it, then it should not be removed unless it violates some policy. I am also asking for the policy or guideline under which you are arguing it should be removed. TopRank 14:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I would also happily put the issue of supposed well poisoning before the arbitration committee, but I would expect Jayjg to recuse himself. TopRank 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea where the idea that every boilerplate reference to MEMRI should discuss its ties to Israel, but here specifically, the fact that an organization presumably sympathetic to Israel interprets the speech the way Cole interprets it is relevant. A reader unfamiliar with MEMRI might believe it has a pro-Iran or anti-Israel agenda. There is no reason that cannot be cleared up in the article using a verifiable fact. Again, I agree to be bound by the arbitration committee's decision if you would like to present it. TopRank 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not file an arbitration request over this. This is exactly the type of petty squabble we do not want. I do think the insinuation that because former Israeli intelligence officers founded MEMRI it must somehow be presumed biased is inappropriate. With a large body of publicly available work that they have done, you should look at that work. It's all there in black and white. Fred Bauder 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times, in how many ways Jeremy and I have to say this. I am not presuming MEMRI is biased. Including the statement dispels any idea a reader might have gotten that MEMRI is biased against Israel. I have to say this is weird. TopRank 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
MEMRI is linked; the person who wants to know anything about it can click on the link. As noted above, I'm simply going to revert insertion of poisoning the well, which you yourself has recognized is a problem. By the way, the arbitration committee doesn't deal with minor content disputes. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that MEMRI is linked does not make the fact either irrelevant or non-verifiable. It is not poisoning the well as was pointed out above. I think you are being irrational here. I'll report it to the arbitration committee and see if they decide not to deal with it. I expect you to recuse yourself from any discusssion. TopRank 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request third opinion

I consider the description of MEMRI:

MEMRI, a US based translation service founded in part by former members of Israel's intelligence services, interprets the phrase similarly:

To be both verifiable and relevant. Relevant because the MEMRI quote is being used as an interpretation that does not come from a source arguably hostile to Israel. The description of MEMRI certainly does not fit the definition at the link [poisoning the well] however it is being repeatedly reverted by user Jayjg. TopRank 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem with this description, but it's a tossup which one is better. People can click on the wikilink if they want more information about it. I would err on the side of taking that description out and letting people click on it if they want. We shouldn't be conducting original research here, and if there's an issue with MEMRI's translation, then we find a source for that. Fagstein 01:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It has been put in because at least one editor finds it both verifiable and relevant. It is being removed on the basis that it is well poisoning. I will take Fagstein's position as a vote that it is not well poisoning, which has a specific definition that the MEMRI description does not fit. TopRank 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You would be wrong. See the next section. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Shockingly, you seem not to understand that "you are wrong" is not an argument or defense of your position. The fact that "you are wrong" is not an argument at all, but is still the best argument you, or anyone on your side has produced about poisoning the well, should indicate the weakness of your position. TopRank 03:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop your attempts of poisoning the well and your childish ad homs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoning the Well

I also suggest that the Hamas destruction of Israel is clearly well poisoning while MEMRI's ties to Israel is not well poisoning. I have explained the relevance of MEMRI's ties to Israel, which is that MEMRI's quote is being presented as from a source relatively sympathetic to Israel. Hamas' quote regarding the obliteration of Israel has no bearing on the amount of support Ahmadinejad's views have among Palestinians, which is the only relevance of Hamas even appearing in an article about Ahmadinejad. This article is becoming laughably POV with the eager participation of what apparently are editors such as Jayjg who should know better. This is truly sad to see. TopRank 04:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of Israel is Hamas' raison d'être, see their own charter doc and their speeches. I cannot comprehend why is the nationality/ethicity/previous jobs of some of the MEMRI's founders relevant to the quality of their translations. "MEMRI's ties to Israel" is something you'll need to prove. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"MEMRI was founded by former members of Israel's intelligence services" is a verifiable statement. I'm not claiming MEMRI is unreliable. I'm not even claiming that MEMRI is sympathetic to Israel. The reader can take the relevant, verifiable fact and draw what the reader considers an appropriate inference. I think it is appropriate to infer that MEMRI is not some radical left-wing organization that is downplaying its translation out of hostilitiy towards Israel. But the reader can draw his or her own inference. TopRank 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To recap, first, removing information on the basis of poisoning the well does not seem to be even unofficial wikipedia policy. But either way, let's look at how wikipedia defines it:

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term was first used with this sense

In the case of MEMRI, the fact that some of its founders were former Israeli intelligence members is not presented as adverse information, nor is there an intention of discrediting or ridiculing the organization. It is a verifiable fact that is included to dispel any idea the reader may have that the translations were chosen from parties hostile to Israel. Also, Jayjg's contention that it was poisoning the well was contested and Jayjg provided no argument that it is actually poisoning the well after being asked to do so by two different people. Instead he and now Humus Sapiens have continued reverting changes on that basis.

In the case of Hamas, the article is about Ahmadinejad and Israel, the subsection is about Palestinian responses to MA's speech. The fact that Hamas is Palestinian and has been elected as the ruling party is relevant information regarding Palestinian responses to MA's speech. The fact that there is a quotation regarding the obliteration of Israel in Hamas' charter is not directly relevant to the Palestinian response to MA's speech. It is included purely to discredit or ridicule what Hamas says. Unlike the MEMRI reference the Hamas reference is purely poisoning the well. TopRank 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Long speech, little sense. This time you outdid yourself and got both points wrong. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"Long speech, little sense." Is not an argument or a defense of your position. Please produce a defense of your position that obliteration of Israel is not poisoning the well but former intelligence officers is a poisoning the well. TopRank 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of IRNA Holocaust translation

IRNA is the official news agency of Iran. It presented an interpretation of the speech that was entirely removed, first by Pecher, then by Humus Sapiens. Pecher claiming that IRNA is not as reliable as CNN, Humus Sapiens claiming that including it is POV.

"If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. [...] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision." [1]

I don't think I have to argue that this, presented as an Iranian translation, is both verifiable and relevant. If putting this into a less-visited subsection is responsible for the relentless attempts to insert POV into this subarticle, then I suggest merging this sub article back with the main article, where it will get more exposure and these attempts to add POV can be more broadly resisted. TopRank 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mention that it's Iran's official agency and leave it at that. People can make their own determination. Fagstein 06:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you trying to say, the entire independent and free (as in freedom) Western media got it wrong (oh yeah, I forgot: it's controlled by the Joos), while the Iranian propaganda outlet IRNA got it correct? LOL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If the translations differ, include them both. Remember, it's verifiability, not truth. Fagstein 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens, you seem to be attempting to construct this argument such that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically an anti-Western, anti-Freedom conspiracy theorist — and an antisemite. I find your strawmanning and tarbabying extraordinarily offensive; it reflects very poorly on your ability to act in good faith. Please cease all such tactics forthwith. — JEREMY 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your concerns. Where did "anyone who disagrees with you" come from? This is not about me, so I suggest you save your "righteous" adjectives, and watch for amount of whitewashing that goes on in this article. Speaking of which: the Holocaust denial should be called for what it is. Other than whitewash, why is that translation notable? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
When "whitewashing" is adding verifiable statements, "whitewashing" is wikipedia policy. Removing "whitewashing" because it does not match your POV is antithetical to wikipedia policy. The translation is notable, because it is the translation of the government of the speaker. The translation is also notable because speaking of the Holocaust MA says "it seems it did happen". The translation has been there for months and now you deign yourself, without any argument, able to declare it non-notable and therefor subject to removal. That is crazy, but that is what we are starting to see in this article. TopRank 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

The Neutrality of the article and its factual content are disputed. Relevent information is being removed by POV known POV warriors, which means that its factual accuracy is compromised. Tags added in this regard.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you need to stop blindly reverting articles as your first edit. I'm simply not accepting your usual editing methodology on this article. Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Jay, you have blindly reverted three times on this article, you are in absolutely no position to bemoan anyones "editing methodology"! - You are a known POV warrior, and this is just any series of blind reverts made by you which remove information which can be seen as Critical of your POV. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a "known POV warrior"? LOL! Anyway, please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what facts are being disputed and what assertions are biased. The assertions made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are known and widely documented, and as far as I know, nobody has disputed their accuracy. Irishpunktom, if you're going to slap a tag on this, you need to very specifically explain why you're doing so, or I'll just remove the tag. --Leifern 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy appears to rest over Jayjg's removal of these two paragraphs:

In 8 May 2006, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.[4] In 1981, Israeli fighter jets targeted Iraq’s nuclear reactor but today experts state, this is not the case, explaining Iran has such facilities located in numerous locations, with some being deep underground, a safe distance from aerial strikes.[5] Israel is within range of Iran's ballistic missiles but Israel is believed to possess the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.[6]
Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, drew unusually stiff criticism from an analyst on Israel's state television, Yoav Limor, for talking of destroying another country. "There is a broad consensus that it would have been better if Peres had not said this, especially now," Limor said. "I'm quite sure Israel does not want to find itself in the same insane asylum as (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad."[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3850070.html
Well, for starters that does not constitute grounds for a tag of factually disputed; no facts are in dispute here. As for violating NPOV, I'm not sure how Peres's comments are relevant to the topic at all. I'm going to leave the NPOV tag intact for now, but the factual dispute has got to go. --Leifern 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The first seems to me clearly on topic; the second should perhaps be summarized down to There has been widespread Israeli criticism of this proposal to destroy another country (with link). Septentrionalis 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Would the editor who added the dispute tag please describe why the neutrality of this article and its factual content are disputed? —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy over Shimon Peres (May 8, 2006) has no place in the section "2005 "World Without Zionism" speech" and I think this is not the right article for it. Especially the paragraph "Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, drew unusually stiff criticism from an analyst on Israel's state television..." ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that the removal of the IRNA translation of Ahmadinejad's speech, as well as the POV application of the non-wikipedia policy of removal of well-poisoning in the case of MEMRI but not in the case of Hamas, warrant the addition of a POV tag to the article. Especially given that here in the discussion, there is literally no defense of the positions taken by Jayjg, Humus Sapiens and others. Other than namecalling and gang reverting there is no discussion taking place. That is the decision of one group and readers should be directed, if they are interested in seeing the process behind this article. TopRank 03:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MEMRI and Hamas: second try

If there is a reasonable position, here is the place to put it.

[edit] Hamas

In a biographical article about Ahmadinejad, in a sub-article about MA and Israel, in the section about MA's world without Zionism speech, there is a subsection about the Palestinian reaction to the speech. Hamas, a group with popular Palestinian support has expressed a position on Ahmadinejad in the context of the controversy about the speech. What is the relevance to this section or to this article of a quotation in the preamble to Hamas' charter? If the quotation is not included to discredit or ridicule Hamas, what is the point of the quotation appearing in the article? What is the relationship between the quotation and the Palestinian reaction to MA's speech? TopRank 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas supports exactly what Ahmadinejad called for; Hamas's support for the destruction of Israel is certainly relevant when it defends Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel. As it is, the phrase is a compromise, since the article used to actually state the obvious truth, whereas now it uses a euphemism. And there are plenty of sources for that truth:
etc. By the way, that last link was from the Khaleej Times, in the United Arab Emirates. Anyway, you went complaining to various ArbCom members about this, who told you that you were wrong, and that you shouldn't continue to remove obvious and relevant facts. In fact, to quote one of them on your Talk: page I don't think much of this edit [7] by you. Deleting a well known fact on the basis that there is no exact quote seems rather obtuse. Additionally I don't think the phrase "destruction of Israel" is particularly point of view, biased or inflammatory.[8] The fact that you continue to edit-war to remove these obvious facts is quite damning. The next time you do, I'll be restoring the non-euphemism version ("calls for the destruction of Israel"). Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEMRI

In a biographical article about Ahmadinejad, in the subsection regarding the translation of a speech, specifically a quote that has been portrayed, arguably incorrectly, as a threat to carry out the physical destruction of Israel, there is a reference to the fact that the group whose translation is being included was founded in part by Israeli intelligence members. The relevance of this fact is that the source that is producing a less inflamatory translation was founded at least in part by people with no incentive to downplay threats to Israel. If there is an argument that the inclusion is not relevant, or a basis on which it should be removed, please put it here. TopRank 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just preempt Jayjg's main argument. The fact that the information can be found somewhere else does not by itself warrant its removal here. TopRank 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it was partly founded by Israeli intelligence members is irrelevant to this article; it was founded a long time ago, we do not mention the founders of other news/translation services, and we do not use poisoning the well to imply a "natural bias" on the part of an organization. If The New York Times says something we think it supportive of Ahmadinejad, so we describe it as "The New York Times, which became an internationally recognize paper under the ownership of Adolph Ochs, a Jew, stated..."? Of course not. Moreover, boilerplate information which is available in a link is not included in every article describing the link, that's why we have links in the first place; your "pre-emption" of what you claim is my "main argument" simply holds no water. Please desist from trying to insert this well-poisoning without consensus; any edits you make which include this phrase will be deleted in their entirety. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You are asserting it is well-poisoning, but you have not shown how it is consistent with the wikipedia definition of well-poisoning when you have been repeated asked to do so. There is far from a consensus that it is well-poisoning, you are the only person who has said it is well poisoning here. I and Jeremy have said it is not well-poisoning. Fagstein has said he does not see a problem with it, implying that it is not well-poisoning. "Deleted in their entirety", over several different edits, including edits you do not dispute, just because they come from a single editor is abusive and you should know better. You are not being rational here. Parenthetically, this is support for the POV tag. TopRank 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope you recognize the difference between a long time ago, over 100 years in the case of the New York Times and a long time ago, 1998 in the case of MEMRI. I also hope you recognize the difference between "a jew" and "former members of Israel's intelligence services". If the Times had been founded ten years ago, but former members of Israel's intelligence services, I contend that it would be completely relevant to point to that fact that we are not dealing with some radical anti-Israel organization. You obviously would disagree. What would your argument be? Because so far you have not made an argument. TopRank 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times is still published by Ochs' Jewish descendents, the Sulzburgers, so the issue is "current", and you still haven't managed a coherent defence of your poisoining the well. Nor, despite all of your campaigning, have you managed to get even one Arbitration Committee member to agree with you on this; in fact, they all seem to disagree with you. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I also hope you recognize the difference between "a Jew" and "former Israeli intelligence officers". A compromise has already been reached. It seems you just want to argue. When one of the most active editors of an article, who also happens to be on wikipedia's arbitration committee, argues for the sake of arguing, that is another reason the article should have a POV tag. TopRank 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What we are talking about is a translation, not an interpretation. There are plenty of people who are bilingual in English and Farsi, as well as English and Arabic; so MEMRI's translation is easily verifiable and disputable. By including the presumed caveat that the founders of MEMRI are one thing or another, you are planting the idea in some readers' heads that the accuracy of the translation is in doubt. That is poisoning the well - if you can find sources that dispute the translation, that's another matter. --Leifern 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There is one translation: "wiped off the map", and another translation "removed from pages of history", or "eliminated from slate of time" that are linked in the article. One of the less inflammatory translations is from a source founded by former Israeli intelligence officers. MEMRI, a relatively unknown organization, that a reader might presume has produced a less inflammatory translation because of an anti-Israel bias, is the source that disputes the translation. On the one hand, the entire subsection is describing doubts about the accuracy of the translation. On the other hand "planting ideas in readers heads" through verifiable facts is the wikipedia-approved way to do so. I get a sense that you have not read the section in question. TopRank 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am confused that you can even argue that it isn't well-poisoning. You are attempting to imply that their translation is somehow less valid because of who may possibly have founded it. This is the very definition of well-poisoning.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Not less valid, Moshe; more valid. The suggestion is that MEMRI is unlikely to mistranslate MA in a way favourable to him. Therefore if a translation does seem to concur with the Iranian one, it's possibly more trustworthy if coming from MEMRI, who are not known for their pro-Iranian bias. — JEREMY 04:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If there is a discrepancy about the translation, then the different interpretations should be noted in the article; assuming one bias or another based on the source is a fallacy. Incidentally, former intelligence officials are trained to be accurate not biased. We can argue that point for a long time and never arrive at a consensus. --Leifern 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"US-based translation service MEMRI interprets the phrase similarly". This is adequate, I don't see what the problem is as long as MEMRI is merely translating and not interpreting.... Ramallite (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the section? Because I cannot figure out where you get assuming one bias or another. I also do not see how "founded in part by former Israeli intelligence officers" is more of a fallacy than "US-based". There is no assertion of bias. It is clearly not well-poisoning. Intelligence officers are trained to be accurate, not biased. But the reader cannot be informed of MEMRI's background this even though it is verifiable. That is POV. As a compromise, I'll change it to MEMRI, a translation service. TopRank 15:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links that fail

Humus Sapiens hid a paragraph because the link that sourced it expired. It was a paragraph that had survived examination from people with different views over months. In general, information that clearly did support their statement but have now expired should not lead to information being removed, perhaps insert a cite-tag so someone else can track down another link. The link that points to Erekat's "we should be talking about adding Palestine to the map" has failed. Somebody should restore it. In the future, I hope we can avoid trigger-finger hiding of information that goes against our POV's. TopRank 15:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

TR, the paragraph was not "removed" as you insinuate: I commented it out and marked Fix the link then uncomment. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You hid the paragraph as I said, not as I insinuate. It was a paragraph that had been in the article for months during which time you have been an active editor of this article. It was a paragraph that you have seen, and that you would have removed months ago if you had not been able to verify it. My point is that instead of immediately hiding a paragraph of information that you know is verifiable, it would have been better to leave it and put a message in the comments to alert someone to find another link. If you must change the article, it would be better just to add a cite tag. By hiding the information, as far as readers of the article are concerned, you removed the information. You would not have done that to information that fits your POV. It was behavior that you should be ashamed of, but I ask that you not do it in the future. TopRank 01:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversions of near article rewrite

I am reverting most of the recent changes of User:TopRank. Besides the fact that most of his edit summaries stated that he was just *fixing* the article because of another editors "tantrums", the information is also very pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's talk about the reverts you made. The information I supposedly added that you are describing as "very POV".

  • Humus Sapiens hid a paragraph because the link expired. I found new links and unhid the paragraph. Like Jayjg before you, you reverted that edit.
-Please explain how this was "very POV".
  • Peres' statement that Iran can also be wiped off the map was consolidated with the other statements by Israeli leaders in a new subsection "Israeli reactions to the speech". You reverted that edit
-Please explain how this was "very POV"
  • Dates were added to the Palestinian responses and the responses were put in order. You reverted that edit.
-Please explain how this was "very POV"
  • In an obvious mistake a quoted paragraph appeared twice. I removed the second one. Like Jayjg before you, you reverted that edit so that the paragraphs again appeared twice.
-Please explain how this was "very POV"

This behavior is outrageously inconsistent with wikipedia's philosophy and truly you should be ashamed of yourself. I urge adult wikipedians to keep an eye on this article. Because it seems that some people who should know better feel relentless pressure to change the article to fit their political agendas. TopRank 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove POV tag?

Any second? TopRank 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MEMRI, a source relatively sympathetic to Israel ?

MEMRI presents some middle-east articles/TV shows translated in english. Its purpose is to make extremist arab/muslim speech understandable. The sympathy may reside in the choice of the excerpts. But they are all authentic and presented without commentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.120.53.149 (talk • contribs).

Oh, please! For centuries, antisemites have been slurring Judaism by presenting selective, out-of-context excerpts from the Talmud and the preaching of extremists. How is this any different? It's what they choose to translate (and thus elevate to prominence) that reveals their agenda. — JEREMY 03:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional mistranslation?

Liftarn and Jeremy insist on adding this to the article:

There is some question about whether the English idiom "wiped off the map" is an accurate translation of what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi, with some sources suggesting the phrase may have been deliberately mistranslated.[2]

It's clearly an extreme minority opinion/conspiracy theory from a non-notable source. Can Jeremy or Liftarn explain their seeming disregard for policy? Are there a number of reliable sources promoting this conspiracy theory? Also, please keep in mind that even if this source were not disqualified on other grounds, one cannot use a Swedish source to discuss whether an English translation from Farsi is correct. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's two parts. "There is some question about whether the English idiom "wiped off the map" is an accurate translation of what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi" this is undeniable since theree are many different translations.[9][10][] "with some sources suggesting the phrase may have been deliberately mistranslated." This may need more sources.[11][12] // Liftarn

As far as the first part goes, the fact that there are different translations does not necessarily imply that any one of them is inaccurate; one can only say there is a "question" regarding the accuracy of "wiped off the map" if people actually question its accuracy. As far as the second part goes, neither of the sources you have brought are reliable sources; even worse, "Little Red"'s version of the conspiracy blames MEMRI, but MEMRI never actually translated it as "wiped off the map", but instead used a much milder expression. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We can say that it has been translated in different ways. And the sources are good as sources about themselves so we can say that "A and B thinks this and that". // Liftarn

What's the point in saying it has been translated in different ways, when we show just that in the article itself? There's no point in additional useless verbiage, unless one is trying to make some kind of point. As for the sources, since they're not reliable, they can only be used in articles about themselves, not about anything else. Let me know if you start an article about "Little Red". Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Swedish translation does not say anything that the English translations do not say so I'm okay with it being out. I've hidden it for now. I also think "deliberately mistranslated" is a little too strong for what we have verifiable sources for. I think as it is, the reader has plenty of information to form a fact-based conclusion without being led by the editors. TopRank 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some translators

If we must spell out all of the different ways the phrase is translated in this very article, then we should spell them all out: Some translators prefer "regime occupying Jerusalem/regime occupying Qods/occupying regime" to "Israel", and "[vanish from] from the page of time/eliminated from the pages of history" to the idiom "wiped off the map". Otherwise we can just say where there are differences and leave the actual translations where they are. TopRank 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed entire section with no discussion?

Jayjg: That section has been here for over a month, during which time you have been an active editor. This is really insane. The speech was newsworthy at the time and directly addresses the subject of this article, Ahmadinejad and Israel. The speech has also been given a full paragraph in the main article, but you are deleting every reference to it in the subarticle. You are going on a POV rampage. It is starting to appear that you cannot be objective when editing this article. As a member of the wikipedia arbitration committee, you should be setting a higher standard. TopRank 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly far too lengthy, it doesn't matter if it is relavent, would we include the entire speech during the Nuremberg Rally on the Holocaust article? Also please do not refer to the edits of other people as "insane" it is not at all civil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
When a section that has been here for six weeks, during which time Jayjg has been editing throughout, is suddenly removed in its entirety that is insane. Second, this is not the entire speech, but excerpts. Make suggestions for shortening it if it is too long. How can you even consider removing it in its entirety when one paragraph out of five is dedicated to it in the summary in the main article? Again, that is insane. TopRank 13:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You condescending tone does not help your argument, again please be civil. A long section composed almost exclusively of quotes does not belong in a wikipedia article. If people want to see it the interwiki is right there.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
A major section that has been present through edits by Jayjg and yourself for six weeks should stay until you at least provide a summary. Wiping a relevant section out, that just happens not to support your POV, on the grounds that it is too long (but not even offering a shorter version) is behavior that you should recognize as POV activism contrary to wikipedia ideals. TopRank 13:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have provided adequate reasoning. The amount of time that it has been there is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

How wikipedia works is major changes are made by consensus, discussion and compromise. To make a major change the way you are trying to make it is POV activism. The idea that no mention at all is preferable to language that was acceptable to both you and Jayjg for six weeks is ludicrous. It is sad that I even have to explain this. TopRank 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So is it just completly unreasonable for me to suggest you start acting with a little bit of respect? The matter at hand is not how long it was accepted or who agreed to it. The matter is that you are not supposed to include a long section filled almost entirely with quotes in a wikipedia article. That is what wikiquote is for.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The entire section was just a reproduction of one of Ahmadinejad's speeches, it was neither relevant nor interesting. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As you know, it was widely reported in the international and United States press. That a speech by Ahmadinejad about Israel that is widely reported in the news media can be not relevant to a wikipedia article "Ahmadinejad and Israel" is breathtaking. Obviously do you not find it interesting, I suspect for POV reasons, but that is not grounds for complete removal. I removed the quotations except one and just left descriptions of what was said. You removed that also. This is very disappointing behavior. TopRank 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue (and article) here is the controversy (regardless of the current whitewashed title), not any general speech or statement Ahmadinejad makes about Israel. Wikipedia articles should actually be about something interesting and relevant, not merely a soapbox for some politician's speeches. All the quotes are in Wikiquote. And your accusations accusations of POV and failure to assume good faith are even more disappointing, as are your continued spamming of ArbCom members pages. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I and others find that text quite interesting and relevant. It was widely reported in US and international press because they found it interesting and relevant. Why, when after six weeks the section suddenly became objectionable to you, did you not start a discussion here yourself so that we could reach consensus? TopRank 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Interesting and relevant" for what reason? How "widely reported" was it? And of what relevance is the "after six weeks" statement you keep making? I cleaned up the article and removed some useless puffery, explaining why in my edit summaries; who cares how long ago it was added? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long after a pssage is edited is it no longer allowed to be removed? 3 weeks? Maybe a month?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre, isn't it? And I'm not sure exactly what TopRank thinks the importance of that "young tree" vs. "old dying tree" analogy was. Does he consider it poetic or moving? It seemed rather dull, bland, and all-too predictable to me. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Many news sources led their international sections at the time with the story that Ahmadinejad said Israel is an old tree that would crumble in a storm. I left the quotation in for any reader who remembered that story which was widely reported. The reason a long section was put into the wikipedia article, and that it takes a full paragraph in the article summary out of five paragraphs is because at the time it was considered very interesting and relevant by essentially everyone. That is the reason it lasted six weeks of intense editing by people with your POV before now when you decide to remove it with no discussion at all. TopRank 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
None of your quotes (even in the shortened version) are either particulary relavent or particularly notable. Least of all the dying tree metaphor- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
None of the quotes about his opinion of Israel, given in a speech about Israel, that was widely reported in the news, is either interesting or relevant to an article "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel"? Before it had too many quotations. I removed almost all of the direct quotes and now you claim it is not relevant to the article. (Don't read the title of the article, that's just a whitewash) 1) Why not discuss it before removing it six weeks after it was put in? 2) Why not offer alternative language instead of removing it?TopRank 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Alternative language to the quotes? You meaan that we should change what he said? Just because the quotes were taken from a speech about how bad Israel was does not make them relavent or notable enough for this article. As we've said before, the length of time that they were present in the article is completly irrelevant, so please stop reminding us.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You do not believe it is notable. Are you asserting that that is the consensus of editors or do you assert that you have the right to remove sections that happen not to match your POV without consensus? There certainly is no policy that a widely reported speech about the subject of a wikipedia article should not be reported at all in a wikipedia article. The shortened version has one paragraph of summary of the speech and one quote. Change the language of the summary of you'd like. Removing it entirely is disappointing behavior from people who should know better. TopRank 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
For six weeks there was an obvious consensus that the information was relevant, a consensus that you and Jayjg were part of. Now apparently the consensus changed suddenly, and you and Jayjg were the only people who knew about it. That is insane. TopRank 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually there was no discussion of it on the talk page, and I have not been editing this article very long. Usually when people start editing an article they mainly concentrate on the recent edits, so a bad addition can sometimes get by. You are just assuming that there was consensus about it because it was around for 6 weeks, and oh yeah, Thats insane.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you the only person who counts towards consensus? Six weeks ago that was a new addition. Are you submitting that the editors at that time, including Jayjg let a bad addition get by. There was discussion about it in the discussion of the main article. I wanted a small mention, other editors, apparently with your POV, wanted a full paragraph in the summary. If there is a paragraph in the main article summary, there should be a section in the article. TopRank 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Completly irrelevant, articles are supposed to change constantly. Should I show up at some other article then demand that nobody removes anything that has existed for a certain amount of time unless every single person who used to edit the article shows up and expressed agreement? I think it is time you move on to another argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Two people have said it should be removed: You and Jayjg. Two people, not counting Jeremy who was the first to restore it, think it should stay. Myself, and Irish. There is no consensus that it is not notable or relevant. When it first went in, six weeks ago, Jayjg left it because it was relevant. I'm not sure why he has now changed his mind. He has not explained. Major sections of articles are not supposed to constantly be removed in their entirety without discussion. I'm calling for other editors to read the article, read this discussion and weigh in. Until a consensus is reached, I see no reason for it to go but I am willing to leave a section with only one direct quotation. TopRank 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I submit that I, TopRank, Jayjg, Moshe and IrishPunkTom have made our opinions known. I would very much appreciate if other editors weigh in on this. Count me as one vote for the section remaining in its shortened form: [13] TopRank 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion request has been filed

I think the section as it presently stands should preferably stay. It is a short quote particularly compared to e.g. the Holocoust section. I think it is relevant and notable enough in that I felt I got a better overall view of Ahmadinejad's attitude: someimtes arguably fascist or at least extreme and other times fairly moderate, from having read it. It brings the article up to date.

I should not be taken as endorsing the comments y TopRank regarding the time the article has remained up without interference (which I feel is irrelevant) nor with the accusation of POV crusading that does not appear consistent with assuming good faith. If there is reason to doubt good faith then it would be helpful to the observer to state what this is and would certainly be fairer to the person being criticised. Also, perhaps on a point of pedantry, is this strictly apposite for a third opinion request? There are four editors and acrimony flying all round, should a request for comment be considered? --Lucifer(sc) 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think different edits should be treated differently. If some vandal comes in and adds a section that should be treated differenty than an entire section that is referred to substantially in the main article. Removing a section with no discussion is how vandalism should be treated. You see a lot of discussion now. Look at the version of this talk page at the time the section had been removed then restored then removed again. No discussion at all. That is how vandalism should be treated. Also there should be a different burden for keeping an article as is or making a major change. When Jayjg suddenly wants to remove a section entirely that has been here for a while, there should be a different burden than if he removed it when he first saw it six weeks ago. I consider that relevant. I cannot just decide that the "wiped off the map" speech is not notable and that section should be removed, then if someone agrees it should be gone until enough people come and say it should stay. To remove a substantial section of the article is not a clean-up. It is a major change that should have been discussed here, by him, before the change was made. And the change should not have even been attempted until a consensus formed. A consensus certainly has not formed yet that it should be removed. Thanks for the tip about the request for comment. Not exactly sure how that works. TopRank 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we have some media source for this? How about just summarizing what they had to say about this incident and leave it at that? Seems like a compromise to me. Fagstein 21:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
IRNA, Iran's official news organization produced the full text of the speech. As far as I know, this is the only time it has done so. This is an article about Ahmadinejad and Israel. The speech was by Ahmadinejad about Israel. Seriously, where is the argument that the speech should not be mentioned at all in the article? Has there ever been a situation where a sub-article of a biographical article has been directly addressed in a speech by the person the article is about, but wikipedia policy prevents the speech from being mentioned at all? Beyond that, as the section shows, it was reported on extensively by Western media. There is no wikipedia policy that would cause it to be removed. Jayjg does not like what it says but there is no wikipedia policy that relevant, sourced information should be removed because an editor does not like what it says. TopRank 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments submitted [14]

Looks like I did it wrong. Could someone point me to an explanation of how requests for comments works? TopRank 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel sentence

According to some translators the subject was a "regime" and not "Israel" and the idiom "wiped off the map" was not used.

That statement is relevant, verifiable and supported in the rest of the article. "Some translators" are identified as Cole, MEMRI and the NY Times translator in the article. Why, other than that it does not fit your POV, should the sentence be removed? TopRank 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You have consistently been acting very rudely and I would hope that you could begin acting a little more professional. When you say "some translators" right before you identify the three that you just mentioned, you are implying that there are more, if there are you have not identified them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm an amateur. Are you being paid? Does "some" really imply more than three? If you don't like the word "some", change the word, don't remove the entire sentence. What you are doing is POV activism. TopRank 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You really are not in any place to make accusations about my motives. "Some" does not inherantly imply more than three, however when you use the word right before you mention the only three that you are referring to, you are insinuating that there are actually more.
Also you are equivicating, asking someone to be professional is the same as acting them to act mature and not get personal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what information the sentence adds; we immediately show the reader two differing translations. Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a summary of the subsection, and points to exactly where the disagreements are. What exactly are your grounds for removing this relevant, verifiable statement? Very disappointing. TopRank 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you not read my reasons why it should be removed? Very disappointing. Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a summary that adds information. Deleting a summary that is relevant and verifiable is very disappointing. There is no rule that subsections cannot have sentences that explain what the subsequent quotes will demonstrate. TopRank 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to see what you're saying here; the section was quite short, and no summary was required. Summaries are an inevitable way of introducing POV, and are not usually required, except as article leads, or perhaps leads to very lengthy sections. The summary added nothing but useless verbiage, much like your continual repetition that every edit you disagree with is "very disappointing". Jayjg (talk)
Please show me a policy "no summaries" or else show me a policy reason this verifiable relevant information must be removed. "Inevitable way of introducing POV" doesn't work because we see the sentence. "According to some translators the subject was a "regime" and not "Israel" and the idiom "wiped off the map" was not used" does not by any standard introduce POV. Wikipedia policy is not to remove relevant, verifiable information because you don't like it. TopRank 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It highlights the difference between what was widely reported and what some translaters say. I cannot see a reason to remove this relevant, verifiable statement except POV. TopRank 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well what you believe is hardly relevant. You have only produced three translators that disagree with the established translation, and all three are people or organizations that typically hold fringe positions on most issues.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The New York Times, MEMRI and Juan Cole typically hold fringe positions on most issues? Second, none of the "Israel wiped off the map" sources purport to be direct translations, rather summaries or paraphrases. The only sources I have ever encountered that purport to be direct translations say "regime" in some form (note the Farsi word "rezhime") and two of the three, one by Juan Cole and the other by Memri, which whose president is a former Israeli intelligence officer, and which is routinely accused of pro-Israel bias say he did not use "wiped off the map". Please show me a link to someone claiming to translate the speech that uses "Israel must be wiped off the map". TopRank 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The New york times was just reporting the dispute. It wasn't their position that the translation was wrong, and yes Juan Cole is somewhat of a fringe figure.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The translation provided by the New York Times, which is featured more prominently than any other translation on the page, is "the occupying regime must be wiped from the map". That you didn't know this really raises the question of did you read the page before becoming such a vehement editor of it. TopRank 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current version is perfectly adequate - it notes that MEMRI and Cole translate it differently. Putting the same information in a summary form slightly earlier in the same section seems entirely unnecessary. At any rate, it seems fairly clear, at least, that "wiped off the map" is not a literal, word for word translation of what Ahmadinejad (and Khomeini, presumably) said. I'm not sure anyone with a knowledge of Farsi has ever disputed this. Presumably the translation was meant to be contextual. "Erased from the pages of history" or "wiped from the page of time" or whatever the literal translation is, is not a very commonly used phrase in English, while "wiped off the map" is. I think that a translation of this sort is probably unwise, but I'm not sure it makes much difference. Also, is Moshe trying to suggest that MEMRI, as a "fringe organization," is likely to have some reason to give a translation that's vaguely more favorable to Iran? john k 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that MA used the word "regime" and that he did not use the idiom "wiped off the map" but what is the [[[harm]]] in making it more clear? This is relevant, sourced information. What is the benefit of not presenting it? How is making it more clear, using relevant sourced statements POV? If it is not POV, why should it be removed? TopRank 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also does every quotation in wikipedia stand alone? Is it that quotations should never be introduced or is it that these quotations should not be introduced? I'm also not seeing a lot of arguments about wikipedia policy. I'm seeing a lot of arguments that come down to "take it out because I'd rather it not be there." TopRank 02:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything, and the "fringe" comment was primarily directed at Juan Cole, he is really not mainstream at all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"all three are people or organizations that typically hold fringe positions on most issues" Forgive me if I get the impression that this is not being conducted in good faith. TopRank 02:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any particular evidence that Cole is outside the mainstream of academia writing on Middle Eastern history? He certainly has strong viewpoints, but those viewpoints (opposition to the war in Iraq, sympathy for the Palestinian cause) seem pretty par for the course for academics of the Middle East. His views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be somewhat outside the mainstream of American political life at the present, but they are fairly typical of, for instance, European opinion. And, at any rate, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the focus of Cole's research. What exactly are you referring to in your contention that he is far outside the mainstream? In this particular case, has anybody with knowledge of Farsi disputed Cole's contention that "erased from the page of history" or something along those lines, is a more correct literal translation of Ahmadinejad's statement than "wiped off the map"? john k 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is miles away from American mainstream opinion. He supports the old dual loyalty charge against most American Jews, he uses the epithet "Likudnik" basically torefer to any Jewish person that supports Israel. Here is an LA times article that basically states that Juan Cole is a non-notable attention seeker: [15].- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding on your talk page, since this is off-topic. john k 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While relevant and supported, the summary is also unnecessary, especially for such a small section. I would suggest leaving it out. Fagstein 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevant and supported but leave it out because what? One or even many editors considering a phrase unnecessary is not grounds for removal, if it is relevant and supported. Please point me to a wikipedia article that does not contain statements such as that. If not I think it should go in. TopRank 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Leave it out because it's redundant. It adds nothing to the article to summarize two sentences in a third, unless I'm missing something here. Fagstein 06:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

To remove a significant section without any discussion (there was no discussion at all here until I added it after the section had been removed then restored then removed again) and then to persist even when it became apparent that it was a minority viewpoint indicates that an agenda has become more important than wikipedia policy or consensus. I had hoped this type of activity had come under control when I recently suggested removing the tag but obviously it had not. TopRank 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article mentioned on The Guardian "Comment is free" website

In an article entitled Lost in translation, Jonathan Steele says: By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the controversy gets the NYT wrong, claiming falsely that Ethan Bronner "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map" 129.241.47.164 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Steele says "I'm glad the NYT accepts that the word "map" was not used by Ahmadinejad." In fact, this is how Bronner concludes the article: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so." Typical dissembling from an Ahmadinejad aplogist. --Mantanmoreland 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel."[16] // Liftarn

"So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so." -- Ethan Bronner.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Steele denies that Bronner stands by the original story. What he is saying is that when Bronner notes that Ahmadinejad (inadvertently?) changed Khomeini's word (which might mean "map," but don't quite exactly mean that) to a different word (which doesn't mean "map"). Bronner's conclusion seems to be that "wiped off the map" is basically what Ahmadinejad meant, even if he may have misquoted Khomeini and said something slightly different. john k 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Brenner did stand by the Times' early translation, despite all the spin and dissembling. In fact, here's Brenner's conclusion: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so." It is typical of the rubbish that has been published on this subject that Steele mischaracterizes the Wiki article. --Mantanmoreland 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, saying you want to remove an entity from the pages of history, to remove all rememberence of the thing, is much worse then saying you want to destroy them. This guy is grasping at straws. Masterhomer 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/h/Talk%7EMahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel_57e0.html"