Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. As this mediation has been closed, subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Mediation progression

Firstly, my apologies on this constant shuffling of mediators. You have seemed to have been extremely unlucky in this regard. AGK has retired from the Committee, and as such I am taking this case and hope to take it through to a successful resolution. Again, I apologise for all the jumping-about.

What I have decided to do with this case is to have it broken down into groups, with spokespersons appointed for each. There's some more information at WP:M#Disputants. I do this because this mediation has a lot of parties, and that hinders mediation because a) waiting for everyone to give input etc. takes forever; and b) it basically can create superflous discussion. Every opinion is treated equally here, so it doesn't matter if two or eight people are supporting it.

So, if I could have the parties broken down into groups for the first issue (ie. those who wish for the lead to change in a particular fashion as one group, and those who don't want it to change/change in a different manner in another), that'd be great. From there, once they're finalized, a spokesperson can be appointed from the group. If someone places you in a group and you disagree with that, please remove your name from the group and recategorise yourself.

Hopefully this'll minimize the time this takes, which I understand has already been extensive. Cheers, Daniel 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Group 1

{the intro and other parts of this article must not be at odds with what "mainstream" media report and must be natural.}

• Pejman47 (talk · contribs)

Group 2

{The common views presented in the media about MA should be presented fairly without giving undue weight to his personal remarks}

And especially undue weight to post-remark apologetics given by others, and not corroborated by MA himself. -- Avi 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Both seem more than verifiable. I hadn't seen the source where MA corroborates the English translation either though. Can you provide it? --68.21.93.136 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

60 minute interview. And Al Jazeera uses it too. -- Avi 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The 60 minute interview online did not have him verify the translation. After the 60 Minutes interview, the New York Times, ABC, FoxNews, International Herald Tribune and others have discussed the possible mistranslation. The article should have the most up-to-date well-sourced information, even if it doesn't make MA look as bad (not to mention BLP). --68.21.93.136 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sefringle (talk · contribs)

Parties? Daniel 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a hunch that we may not all fit into one group or another, though in general we might; It is difficult to speak for all in my party in one sentence, but here's my effort.--Sefringle^Talk 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, please note that WP:BLP applies everywhere,...--Pejman47 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, but the inclusion of well sourced information, even if it makes Ahmadinejad look bad is not a BLP violation.--Sefringle^Talk 02:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it going to be possible to partition people into groups? I would really prefer to avoid having everyone commenting, to keep things moving, but if such a set-up is impossible I guess I'd have to use the all-in model. Comments? Daniel 07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

proceed, each user have a unique POV, so it is better to have all of them "have their say"--Pejman47 08:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't know where 'everyone else' stands. I do know what I expect. Hornplease 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this time, before "what you expect happens", the arbitrator doesn't resign... --Pejman47 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediator, and our apologies for that - AGK has had some issues in real life that he needs to deal with. Given this split method doesn't look like it will work, we'll proceed as normal. Cheers, Daniel 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying problematic sentences

In the interests of moving forward and singling out specific concerns, I'd appreciate it if people can list the sentences they dispute for whatever reason, in the relevant discussion sections, as well as a short reason explaining what you object to and why. From there, we can try and find compromise versions of individual sentences to hopefully suit everyone. Cheers, Daniel 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

[edit] Current text

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (born October 28, 1956) is the 6th and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He became president on 6 August 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election. Ahmadinejad's current term will end in August 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in office in 2009 presidential elections. Before becoming president, he was the Mayor of Tehran. He is the highest directly elected official in the country, but, according to Article 113 of Constitution of Iran, he has less total power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.

[edit] Discussion

• Is the discussion about term of office and possible future runs for office lead-worthy? I do not think so. -- Avi 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I think some of this information seems relevant for an article about a head of state (how long will he be head of state, what powers is he granted over who..); but its exact placement and wording are pretty open to me. --Nosfartu 04:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Of course this is lead-worthy. The article is about the man and his office, not just about the controversies surrounding him. — Omegatron 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph

[edit] Current text

Ahmadinejad is an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush Administration and supports strengthened relations between Iran and Russia (see Iran-Russia relations), Cuba, Venezuela (see Iran-Venezuela relations), Syria (see Iran-Syria relations) and the Persian Gulf states. He has supported Iran's nuclear program declaring it is for peaceful purposes in spite of contrary demands by the United Nations Security Council to end it. He was condemned internationally for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and described the Holocaust as a "myth", leading to accusations of antisemitism. In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”

[edit] Discussion

The part I have a problem with reads: "leading to accusations of antisemitism. In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.” " I think it makes light of the accusations of antisemitiism, and gives too much undue weight to his "response" thus asserting that it is more important.--Sefringle^Talk 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Would expanding on this sentence by providing slightly more details about the "accusations of antisemitism" go part of the way to addressing your concerns with this sentence? Possibly "in the world media", some details about particular dates, a particular quote about the allegations made against him, or some combination of the previous, being tacked on the end of the "accusations of antisemitism" sentence? Daniel 04:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good suggestion. It is pending on what the others say as well though.--Sefringle^Talk 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but there would have been no point in opening it up for addition comment if you didn't agree :) So, other parties, comments welcome about any of the above proposals. Cheers, Daniel 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current text is fine as is - the reader should be able to judge for himself whether or not Ahmadinejad's response makes sense when considered with the "wiped off the map" statements. I don't think it would make sense to not mention a world leader's response to accusations made against him. In fact, we may also consider mentioning the government's response as well. What I oppose is the random inclusion of information about him donating to Jewish hospitals and the like, as I feel this is an original attempt to paint him as not antisemitic. The Behnam 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

the lead must summarize the article, a link should be given to the controversy about translation and interpretation of the "wiped of the map".

He is a high-ranking official and for getting a neutral article in these cases his response and his government response must be included. As I said to Avi sometimes ago, a foreign-ministry spokesmen or others of his kink don't give their personal view in the media meetings. And their remarks should be considered as corroborated by MA himself. Deciding whether they are sincere or not should be left to the readers and is not job of WP users. --Pejman47 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, his response should be included. The question is, will you accept (not like or prefer) an extra series of words being placed in there, if it will go part of the way to resolving this dispute? Daniel 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

after those serious allegation, his or his government official response must be presented in neutral manner. In my opinion, accepting this, is 90% of the way to solving this dispute. --Pejman47 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about the response won't be changed; what I'm merely asking you is "do you object to adding another three words to the specified place (see discussion above)?", remebering that such an agreement by you may seem trivial to you, but it will go part of the way to resolving this dispute. Daniel 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, but I didn't get what exactly you wanted to say by "three words"; would you please post your proposed version here or in my talk page?

and in the case that I and other users (I 'm not the only one who must accept the changes) agreed to them, we expect that our concerns will be heard, too.--Pejman47 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, any particular proposals you wish to put forward? Pejman47, you can raise any concerns you have immediately after this issue is resolved, archived or put on hold. Cheers, Daniel 04:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is how I would like it to read:

He was condemned internationally for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and described the Holocaust as a "myth". He has been compared to Hitler by many in Israel, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and thus indicted of antisemitism, charges which he denies.

Yahel Guhan 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yahel, what you put here is different from what you first mentioned in the top of this page. The intro of a BLP article about a head of state must summerize all the important points of the article free from POV stuff, and as far as I know PR is not allowed in here.

Daniel, If you don't have any objection, can we move to other objections?--Pejman47 13:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He was condemned internationally for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map"... This requires a minor qualification. As page Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel demonstrates, the exact translation and meaning of his remarks is disputed. The controversy is notable and well-sourced. At the present time the lead gives the impression that no such controversy exists. smb 13:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this motion. Plenty of sources are available to support this if requested. --Nosfartu 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this statement requires a qualification. The assertion that Ahmadinejad has claimed that "Israel should be wiped off the map" is followed by 3 reference links. The first of these, marked [9], also serves as the reference link for the assertion that Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust to be a Western myth. The link is a BBC article that speaks to Ahmadinejad's opinion of the Holocaust, but which makes no mention of the infamous "wiped off the map" comment. The second link, marked [10], is to a New York Times article that provides an English translation of a speech he delivered in Parsi. This translation renders his comment as "this stain [referring to the suffering of Palestinians]... will be wiped away from the Islamic world." As the controversy surrounding whether Ahmadinejad has made the statement he is alleged to have made centers on whether the formulation "should be wiped off the map" is a faithful translation, this link does not serve to indicate that the quote is an accurate attribution, but rather reinforces the claim that it is not. The third link, marked [11], is a 60 Minutes Ahmadinejad interview conducted by Mike Wallace, in which Wallace asks why Ahmadinejad would say such a thing, and Ahmadinejad refuses to directly respond-- he does not own up to the statement.

Here is one link to an article questioning the claim: http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

I suggest changing the following passage--

He was condemned internationally[9] for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map,"[9][10][11] and described the Holocaust as a "myth",[9][12] leading to accusations of antisemitism.[13] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”[14]

to read as follows:

Many of his statements have fostered controversy and condemnation. He has questioned the internationally accepted history of the Holocaust [link to BBC piece] [link to Al Jazeera piece] [link to CNN piece], and he has made statements that many have interpreted as a desire to wipe Israel "off the map" [link to 60 Minutes piece]. Still others claim that his remarks are mistranslated or taken out of context [link to Informed Comment piece] [link to NY Times piece]. He is often accused of antisemitim [link to Guardian piece], but he resists the charge, stating “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.” [link to BBC piece] Brrryan 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to rectify this problem are reverted on grounds that 'mediation is in progress', when this process seems to have stalled. smb 09:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

People should not be reverting on grounds that mediation is continuing, whilst not contributing to the discussion about it here. I cannot assist you guys reach a resolution (partial or full) unless both 'sides' are contributing to the discussion (not the reverting). Daniel 05:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just change the 'questioned' in Brrryan's to 'challenged' or 'has called for more research about' and then make reference to the controversial conference that was held in Tehran; then, it would seem like both positions are having their side mentioned. --Nosfartu 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the second paragraph - since there is no objection - it appears we have reached an agreement that all notable views should be included. smb 06:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm an argument will still be made about what is notable and what isn't ('post-mark apologetics', 'third-party apologetics', etc.).

I think everyone agrees notable views should be included, but we should try to agree about what that is above, so we don't have to come back to it later. That he was quoting someone and that what he said had had multiple translations both seem notable (and of course verifiable) to me. But, I think discussion about specifics would go above until agreement is reached. --Nosfartu 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about chiming in late here. I have two specific issues at this point attempted changes to this paragraph.

1. There has been a move to change the focus of the condemnation from Ahmadinejad himself to "his statements". I believe the sources brought are rather clear that the focus of the condemnation have been the man, not the statement. This article has many more references for each sentence, or sentence fragment, than the normal biographical article, specifically to show that the criticism being leveled is accurate, and that there is no WP:BLP violation. Attempts to "whitewash" and minimize accurate criticism and the proper weight being given to "uncomfortable" events are as big a violation of WP:NPOV as those which magnify the importance of minor criticism and those which apply undue weight to "uncomfortable" events.
2. The issue of adding post-remark apologetics, delivered by people other than Ahmadinejad, to the Lead. Yes, we all know that these remarks are the subject of worldwide discussion and debate. We have an article about that: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel#2005 "World Without Zionism" speech. However, this article is about the man himself, his statements, and what gives him notability. Where he himself responds to criticism of one of his comments that is brought in the lead, I am all for bringing that response in the lead. Check the history, I am the one who argued with Jay and others to retain the "loves Jews" comment in the lead. Whether I agree or disagree with the sincerity of the comment, it was made by Ahmadinejad and deserves to come immediately after the criticism. However, other people making comments about what Ahmadinejad said, and not Ahmadinejad himself, does not belong in the lead; rather, it belongs in the section where more detail is given and in the article about the statement itself. Once again, trying to recast an uncomfortable situation, in the face of the available citations and data, is as much a violation of WP:NPOV as would be not having the "anti-Jew" response in the lead.
3. Trying to shift the focus from Ahmadinejad to Khomeini in the lead. This article is not about Khomeini, it is about Ahmadinejad. It is irrelevant to the main thrust of this point, which is the world-wide criticism of this man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, due to various extreme statements and positions he has seen fit to utter and support. Whether he is quoting from The Quran, Khomeini, or whomever in no way shape or form affects the criticism. The world response to him makes him notable, so, in the lead, it is his statements that need to be discussed. Later on in the article, when matters are discussed mroe completely, more likely, using summary style, in the articles the focus on those particular statements, is where the pros and cons and debates should be brought and fleshed out.

In summary, this article is on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the lead should be a synopsis of what makes HIM notable and worthy of a wikipedia entry. Trying to subtly or overtly deflect criticism from what is accurately presented by either changing the text away from the predominant view in the press which afforded him the notability, or by trying to shift the focus off of him and onto other people, is improper and a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. -- Avi 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for the 'condemnation' passage to remain more or less the same. In any case, it is not for you or I to say whether the quote is (in)accurate or whether the criticism is (un)justified. What matters most, is that there remains a notable dispute over the exact translation and meaning of Ahmadinejad's words published by reliable sources. Speaking only for myself, I do not think it necessary to have a quote "delivered by people other than Ahmadinejad" to that effect, but in accordance with NPOV we should include a short neutrally-worded sentence making the dispute known. This can be underscored with a link to the appropriate page so readers can make up their own minds. smb 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that such text is necessary, but it is inappropriate in the lead. It's proper place is further in the article where these controversies are discussed in more detail, with a {{main}} link to the appropriate article. -- Avi 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a serious and notable dispute. "Wiped off the map" carries militaristic connotations. It's correct to have a note on the controversy in the lead section, but I agree for the need to keep it very short. smb 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are exactly correct, and that phrase with those connotations is how it was reported by basically every news outlet, from the BBC to Al Jazeera. That is what put Ahmadinejad on the map to stay. The dispute is notable, which is why it has an article in its own right, and should be referenced in the body of the Ahmadinejad article—but not in the lead. -- Avi 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you cannot block notable information from the lead section for no good reason. Ahmadinejad was condemned for making remarks reliable sources say were not spoken. A dispute plainly exists that is noteworthy. We need to recognise all notable points of view. This can be done in a concise manner. One should be perfectly happy for people to note the controversy and read the page, allowing them to reach their own conclusion in their own time. I'm not concerned if the first view is afforded more words than the second, just so long as neutrality is maintained. smb 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of accounts as to the statement agree in the "wiped off the map" translation, smb. The dispute is notable, but not leadworthy. It belongs in the more expanded discussion. Please see the points I have brought below with Pejman. Information is not being blocked, but being placed in its proper position. Reading the article will allow everyone to make their own decisions about Ahmadinejad. However, Ahmadinejad, the man is not notable for the debate about his statement, but for the statement itself. Trying to deflect criticism and whitewash wikipedia is as much a WP:NPOV violation as is improperly maligning someone. -- Avi 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Avi, First thanks for participating in this mediation.

Yes, It is stupid that we include a comment from Noam Chomsky doubting in the translation of the "wiped of the map" phrase. But the response from his or his top government officials about the allegations must be included for NPOV reporting even if they are not sincere. As I said twice ago, if a foreign minister of a country says something in a media conference (and later he doesn't say that he is "misquoted"), it should be considered the view of his boss.

He is a living person and his status and the allegations against him change with time. After the incident in Columbia University the lead and other parts of the articles was edited by dozens of (seemingly) unbiased editors (with some exceptions) with no previous editing history in this article. His answers to questions from the holocaust to destruction of Israel is different to what the lead says, He actually didn't deny the Holocaust and clearly said the Iran will not attack "any country" and goofed about Homosexuality in Iran and etc. I think the media fuss at CU incident which took the front pages for a couple of days deserves some sentences in the lead.--Pejman47 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pejman. I have a few points about a government official's statement being considered ipso facto the voice of his boss:

1. Firstly, that is an assumption, or original synthesis.
2. Secondly, is Ahmadinejad this person's boss, or are they responsible to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who "has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies," which would invalidate any such argument ab initio.
3. Thirdly, Ahmadinejad himself was confronted about this very quote on the 60 minutes interview with Mike Wallace, and did not use the "mistranslation" excuse, but tried to explain his quote.
4. Fourthly, according to the New York Times his own translators used that turn of phrase!

About the concept that allegations change over time, even if that were to be true, in this case there have been no change as to this particular allegation. There only have been post-remark attempts at minimizing the impact of the statement.

About the Columbia University affair, I think that people get carried up in current events. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. I believe ee should writing articles with an eye towards the long-term, not the short-term. This quote is going to be part of Ahmadinejad's historical legacy. The CU visit may or may not be, it is too soon to tell. This is why I think the gas-price issue below also should be removed from the lead.

Thanks, -- Avi 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I infer from your comments above that you don't have any problem if his own response (in better words: "explanations") from the 60 minutes or Columbia University or whatever is included in the lead using ""? believe me, Agreeing to this, in my opinion will solve most of this dispute.

OK, you have a point. But even if you don't agree that whatever his foreign minister says is what he himself believes. You must agree that he is a high ranking official, and his remarks will have some political effects. So In my opinion it is rational if his government response is included after allegation. I think, In this case we need an opinion of the party user too.

as it was discussed before, the issue that even some of the official translator used "wiped of the map" doesn't mean that it is correct. And in your link from the New York Times, it is clearly stated that there is no "map" in the original Persian phrase, (did you completely read the article?) I know that I can not request that the phrase in the lead to be changed to its correct translation, but the level of the dispute around that translation makes it necessary that a hint about it is included. I propose adding just this : "(its translation is disputed)"

The media fuss around the Columbia University was so big that it deserves to be mentioned in the lead. currently it may be considered as one of his legacies, but if as you say, after 6 months or more this event is forgotten (which I don't think so), that phrase must be deleted. --Pejman47 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pejman. I'll try and answer point-by point.

1. I would have much less of an issue if it his own words were accurately stated and cited.
2. Yes, but not in the lead. It belongs in the expanded discussion about the statement, which unquestionably has been debated and which debate must be discussed, in its proper place.
3. Yes, but I quote: “Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: ‘It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word “map” was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said.’” One of the most important reasons this man is notable is that phrase, and how it was disseminated throughout the world, from Fox News to Al Jazeera. There is absolutely no question that "wiped off the map" is the way the phrase has been translated—when it was said by Khomeini and when it was said by Ahmadinejad. I think that perhaps adding "its translation has been disputed" (wikilinked) without elaboration of any apologetics is a possibility that may need to be further considered.
4. I think this is in the gray zone of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, #5 which discussed journalism. They key term is "historical significance." I am not certain that his visit to Columbia was historical, and even if it was, is it one of the key events that defines his historical legacy?

-- Avi 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit break1

Avi, I can accept a compromise in which only "(the translation is disputed)" is added after the wiped of the map. only his own explanation (from 60 Minutes or Columbia University) is added after the allegation. Cheers,--Pejman47 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 60 minutes/Columbia explanations? I do not recall where MA addressed the "wipe" comment at Columbia. As for the 60 minutes confirmation of the comment, I do not think that any text belongs in the lead either -- it is too much detail and belongs in the body, although the footnote should remain, as should a footnote(s) listing the sources for the alternate interpretation after the phrase (this translation has been disputed). -- Avi 14:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean two sentences from his response to questions about his idea about Holocaust and whether he wants to destroy Israel.

about the Columbia University, I think an informative sentence like "In September 2007 his visit to NY and making a speech in CU resulted in a media frenzy [Appropriate Links]" (not anything more) must be added. --Pejman47 18:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A transcipt of his speech at Columbia is here. He responds to whether "Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?".. I completely agree with what Pej is suggesting, I would just point out that there are a few other issues that need to be resolved as well (I tried to make a complete list below)..--Nosfartu 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Columbia University issue, I still think that that incident is not a legacy-changing one, and I am not certain a sentence in the lead is appropriate; I'd like to hear why others believe this one incident will have a lasting effect on how society, the world, and history will view Ahmadinejad. As for his response to the destruction of Israel at the CU speech, he did more dancing than Fred Astaire, but never denied it when the moderator put it to him point blank:

MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security. You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there. We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. QUESTION: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is...The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no? There's the plight of a people. QUESTION: The answer to your question is yes. AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, thank you for your cooperation. We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum. Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are. AHMADINEJAD: Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized.

– Washington Post

-- Avi 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Avi, It is not the job of me or you to interpret what he said. The response from him to the allegation should be included for a NPOV article, whether it is lie, BS, fact, dance, etc really doesn't matter. let the readers decide what It means. Majority of the people who read that page in WP are NOT stupid and CAN decipher so obvious remarks.

For a compromise, only some sentences for example just from what you collected above should be quoted and a "(it is disputed)" after the wiped out of the map phrase. After that the issue of this article is closed for me. --Pejman47 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

However, he never answered the question, Pejman. Nothing in the above quote that I brought answers the question "Does MA or his government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?". Putting ANYTHING from that speech in the context of an answer is original synthesis. -- Avi 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All he said was just after the question of whether he wants to destroy Israel or not. By common sense, it IS his answer to the question and can be said his "defense". What you did above was original research: you "interpreted" the answer and doesn't want it in the lead because of that. --Pejman47 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pej that MA's answer is a direct response regarding MA wanting to destroy Israel or not, but I'm willing to look at other sources as well. The problem is that Ahmadinejad's response has to be given, and I can find other sources that I think do this if we need. I invite Avi to propose one or two though.. --Nosfartu 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is MA's simple and direct answer to the question "Does you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?" and where can it be found? Not in the Columbia University speech, nor in any other transcript of his statements, I am afraid. Discussion about MA's love for other nations which are not Israel or other peoples, including Jews, is irrelevant to the lead. Yes, this discussion is necessary in the in-depth section of the article, but to start bringing in outside interpretations in the lead is inappropriate in my opinion. We already all agreed that to say that the statement's translation is disputed will appear in the lead. This in and of itself serves to act as the balancing factor. The nature of the dispute, if it cannot be sourced to the man himself as the "I love Jews" statement, is undue weight in the lead, in my opinion. -- Avi 14:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

PR^talk says - This interview is an RS - but we risk pandering to the low level of understanding (prejudice?) of the monoglot audience unless we're very, very careful. The questioner has a massive linguistic advantage over Ahmadinejad and exploits it ruthlessly ("answer me Yes or No" - see Bush or Blair ever getting that treatment?). It's not even as if we can trust the translations we're getting - maybe he was translated "existence as a Jewish state" as "an apartheid Israel" - and politely backed off from soapboxing on the subject of the necessity of regime change. There is no way to give Ahmadinejad justice in his bio other than by giving him the benefit of the doubt in every case involving translations. PR^talk 09:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't require giving the subject of the article the benefit of the doubt. WP:BLP requires presenting well-sourced information responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and WP:LEAD requires the lead to be capable of standing alone, to establish context, to summarize the most important points, to explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and to briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. Toward the current dispute, they together suggest we present well-sourced information conservatively, encyclopedically, and briefly.

This means multiple viewpoints need to be listed if there is more than one significant viewpoint, and each viewpoint needs to be labelled as a viewpoint. We have agreed on this, and are looking for a source that would describe the MA viewpoint. Feel free to suggest a few of your own. --69.210.13.93 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to make a list of the grievances (along with possible solutions for each) instead of us all making separate proposals to Avi or any other single user. I essentially agree with you, but would find the current MA explanation sorely lacking (it makes him appear bipolar when he appears to have a pretty standard reply to the charge, quotes of which may be found below). --Nosfartu 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be able to reach a resolution much more quickly with Avi involved. I only have a few points really.

• It should be allowed to include "post-remark apologetics" (analysis) from reliable experts on the Middle East, news agencies, Iranian government officials, or MA if we are allowed to include analysis of his remarks from these same sources (the point here being that he never said "I call for Israel to be wiped off the map", he only strongly implied it; news agencies were then cited to 'prove' what he said or meant). I'm happy with the current wording in the article, however: (for a statement that was interpreted as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map.")
• Because the word interpreted was added, it's now noted that the interpretation is attributed to someone and that there are other possible interpretations of his words. I personally think, along with what seems to be a few other editors, that another interpretation of his comments should be listed so readers can reach their own conclusion. Reliable experts on the Middle East, news agencies, Iranian government officials, and MA all seem like reasonable sources to get the interpretation from. Because it is in the lead, it is reasonable to minimize the amount of words. I also think it looks like most editors are happy using MA as a source.

Thus, I think a possible (perhaps not best) solution is to briefly cite MA commenting on his "wiped off the map" comment. Possible comments to summarize (all given by MA when asked about 'calling for the destruction of Israel'):

• 1)"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government" (60 Minutes Interview)
• 2)"So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself." (Columbia Speech)
• 3)"We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum." (Columbia Speech)
• 4)"We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation." (Columbia Speech)
• 5)"Israel is not a nation. Well, we like the people, yes, because they are victims as well." ... "I said that the Zionist entity should open the borders and the gates" ... "We love all people. We are opposed to Zionism, occupation, terrorism, dropping bombs on behalf of people when they are inside their own homes, killing men, women, and children" (Second 60 Minutes Interview)

..more can be found, but his general response seems to be denying the state of Israel (not the people) and calling for a Palestinian election. The exact quote (and possible paraphrasing) is up for debate, but a brief MA response seems like a (possible, not best) solution. I am also open to briefly mentioning that the translation is disputed (I believe Avi and Pej siggested this). --Nosfartu 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Avi was the main audience I was shooting for, but others are encouraged to leave their own comments and proposals as well. --Nosfartu 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major issues

I attempted to collect a list of the major issues above and assemble them here for easy access. Others could add or modify to these bullets, and once we have a non-redundant list we could come up with a new proposed text. Discussion could also take place underneath each of the bullets. --Nosfartu 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" condemnation needs an attribution

   I think it is very important to list where the criticism/condemnation is coming from regardless of whether there are a large number of sources (international is very vague). I think it is also important to point out here that this an interpretation of his words (showing that there are indeed multiple interpretations). --Nosfartu 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   I agree it is important to show attribution, which I believe is sufficiently handled by footnotes 10, 11, and 12. In terms of being an interpretation, the vast majority of the supporting quotes, actually, the vast majority of all citations referring to this statement do not make that differentiation. -- Avi 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I was suggesting attribution in the journalistic sense, where the reader is notified in-line about who is providing the information (finding a summary word would be hard, but "Many new organizations" may work). I was also suggesting that we include the fact that is "wiped off the map" is one (widely reported) interpretation. The reason I am suggesting these two points is because there are a plethora of sources (not currently included in the article) which provide varying interpretations of what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It doesn't make sense for the lead to suggest there is only one interpretation of what Ahmadinejad said when multiple interpretations exist. So if we mention one interpretation I think we need to mention that it is an interpretation, who's interpretation it is, and at least the fact that there are other interpretations out there. --Nosfartu 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" condemnation needs qualifying/balancing information

   I think more context needs to be given to the comment. This could include mentioning that multiple translations of his quote have been put forward, briefly discussing an alternative translation, mentioning he was quoting another official, etc. No particular choice sticks out to me, but it is very important to point out that there is more than the version put forth in the currently cited sources. I think balance requires this, but that we should do it in as little space as possible. --Nosfartu 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Agreed, but not necessarily in the lead. I believe Pejman's suggestion of rephrasing that sentence to read He was internationally condemned for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map,"[footnotes] although the translation has been disputed.[footnotes] is a viable solution. Explanations of what the dispute is and who disputes and who confirms should be relegated to the section/article on the comment itself. -- Avi 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is good! The lead can't delve in to every possible interpretation, but it at least needs to acknowledge their existence. --Nosfartu 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Obvious solution is to include the alternative/literal? translation "regime in Jerusalem vanish from the pages of history" as a "minority view". Not give it undue, but a concise reminder that translation is an imperfect process - which is important to any understanding of this article, Iran, Ahmadinejad etc. PR^talk 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'd like to suggest that I think this issue is still being approached from the wrong perspective. That is, the discussion seems to be "How can we include this interpretation of MA's statements without seeming biased?" The question itself is biased. Particularly in the intro I think it is best to focus on quotes and interpretations which are widely agreed to, that is that most experts would agree are representative of the man's opinions. Important debates about him perhaps should be mentioned but not lead with (and explicitly qualified as debatable). What can be stated as a general consensus is that he has advocated the dissolution of the current state of Israel. Interpretations that imply that he advocates war or killing are not consensus and should not be treated as such. The "wiped off the map" translation bears mention since it has been discussed so widely but it should be mentioned as a secondary point with the explicit mention that the interpretation/translation of this statement is hotly debated. The notion of leading with this statement and then discussing other interpretations of his views is a very biased approach (really that approach could be rightly characterized as a "straw man" approach).

   I would recommend a phrasing like the following.

   He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population. One of his most notorious statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" but interpretations of this statement vary widely.

   --Mcorazao 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

3. MA's Holocaust response may need to be modified to a more represenative quote

   I think that MA's current quote puzzles the reader, especially after the reader looks at the text immediately preceding it. I think it is important for the reader to know that MA claims that he respects Jews, Christians, etc. and that he is calling for Palestinian elections to determine what should happen to the state of Israel (note his true intentions aren't being judged). --Nosfartu 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   What is the confusion? He called the Holocaust a "myth" perpetrated on the "innocent nation of Palestine." Due to this he was accused of being anti-semitic, which he denies. It's rather clear. -- Avi 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   In this part, it was supposed to be talking about his "I love Jews" comment. Do you not think it looks silly for him to be portrayed as a Holocaust denier and then for him to claim that he "loves Jews"? I just thought it read weird and thought there might be a better quote of his to use for his "defense". --Nosfartu 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

4. It must be clear the man MA has been condemned

   I have no problem with this, but I believe it's important to provide attribution and context along with the condemnation. --Nosfartu 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Which is in the extensive footnotes already there. -- Avi 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   So this point was made to address your concerns. I was saying I agree that the condemnation should be directed at MA the person rather than the comments he made. I was also suggesting more information needed to be provided to the reader. (More information, e.g. Who said he was being condemned, Have there been any other points of view, etc.) --Nosfartu 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Whether response must come from MA or an array of reliable sources

   I believe that a response can come from reliable experts on the Middle East, news agencies, Iranian government officials, and MA. I'm willing to work with a subset of these if other editors believe this is called for. --Nosfartu 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   I agree those sources are eminently acceptible, and should be brought, but not in the lead of the article, which needs to maintain the brevity and direct focus on the article's subject, Ahmadinejad himself. When the comment is discussed in more detail (its own section in this article and its own article), then the plethora of back-and-forth outside interpretations of the comment, Ahmadinejad, Khomenin, and all other related issues can be brought in great detail. -- Avi 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   So I again just think the news organazations need to be mentioned in some way in-line and that a brief mention needs to be given. I think we agreed on part of this under the second bullet. --Nosfartu 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Brevity must be maintained in the lead

   I agree that the lead should be brief, but I think that it may currently be coming at the cost of attribution and other necessary information. We should mention why he is known, but we still need to maintain a balanced and encyclopedic view. --Nosfartu 02:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

   Attribution exists; please see the extensive footnotes on each sentence in the lead. -- Avi 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   When I said attribution I meant identifying the source(s) in-line. I tried to talk about that above..--Nosfartu 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this summary. I invite responses to the assertions above. Daniel 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I tried to change some of this to meet some concerns on the talk page, which I see are echoed here, but there is resistance for reasons I do not understand. Regardless, see here and here for my attempts. — Omegatron 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of editors have tried to resolve it in the article and have become confused. Better to move on and discuss improvements here though. --Nosfartu 01:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third paragraph

[edit] Current text

During his presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a gas rationing plan to reduce the country's fuel consumption, dissolved the Management and Planning Organisation of Iran and cut the interest rate for private and public banking facilities.

[edit] Discussion

Personally, I do not believe this belongs in the lead; it is a more minor point which belongs in the section about his governance. -- Avi 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for an article about a head of state rather than an article about a personality cult, and I think some of the information has relevance to Iran in the long term; however, the information in the paragraph doesn't seem completely important and the placement of the paragraph doesn't matter to me. I'm alright if it is moved. --Nosfartu 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We should have something in the lead about who he actually is and what he's done with his career, and not limit it to just controversy surrounding him. If these are the most notable things he's done in office, they should be mentioned in the lead. They seem to lack context as currently worded though. — Omegatron 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolutions agreed upon

At this point, it would make sense for us to try and distill some consensus-based direction out of the above discussions. Currently, I think there is one thing we all agree on. Please feel free to add. -- Avi 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wiped sentence to read: "He was condemned, internationally, for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."[10][11][12] (this translation has been disputed)[13][14][15]" -- Avi 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I am coming into this discussion late I will just say that I don't entirely agree with this opinion as I have previously mentioned above. --Mcorazao 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and do this, cheers, .--Pejman47 14:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

why should the translation dispute even be mentioned in the lead? Yahel Guhan 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To mention this particular translation without mentioning that there is not scholarly consensus on what he was trying to say is inherently biased. Either the statement should be left out or the lack of consensus has to be stated. -Mcorazao 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the fact that the translation has been disputed has acheived enough world-wide recognition that the neutral point of view requires us to mention it in the lead. However, any further discussion of this fact needs to remain in the text. I would like to hear arguments as to why the dispute should not even be mentioned with the statement. -- Avi 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-article-specific comments

Sorry about starting a new section, but I did not know where else to put this. Firstly, I wanted to thank all those involved so far in this process for the substantive discourse that has been rather free of vitriol and rancor. Hopefully, we all have a better appreciation for the various positions and policy/guideline interpretations that are at the core of this difficult, but important, article. I hope that people who were involved over the past two years, but have been somewhat quiet now, will join in. On that topic, my point with this section was to note that due to the upcoming holidays, I will not be able to post Thur, Fri, and of course Saturday, and may not have much time tomorrow either. My silence is not meant to agree or disagree with any posts or comments made, and I will hopefully return sometime next week to continue to partake in the discussion. Wikipedia often measures its decisions in hours, not days, due to the global reach of the Internet and the availability of editors at all times. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to participating in bringing this article to the best compromise and consensus we can. Thank you. -- Avi 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is a slow process (as I'm sure some people have noted), so your absence for three days will not matter too much - you won't miss any groundbreaking resolutions, I suspect, because proposals usually take more than a week to be proposed, discussed and then agreed on by everyone involved. Cheers, Daniel 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unlocking the article?

It appears that the current mediation is farther from completion than I had thought. In that case, perhaps we can consider unlocking the article, subject to the agreement that edits should not be made to the areas under mediation, and should be reverted if done so. I am just worried that if the article gets re-opened, any hope of stability will be shot, setting this process back even farther. Thoughts? -- Avi 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think both are outside the scope of the mediation process.. the article should be unlocked by uninvolved administrators and all editors should try to edit by consensus. That's just my opinion though.. --Nosfartu 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is. I would hope that all parties realise the fragility of proceedings here, and resist revert-warring. Daniel 08:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another attempt

Although I expect this will go nowhere I'll take another stab at a proposal. What if the controversial intro paragraph reads like this.

He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population. Like many in the Muslim world he has called for "free elections" in the region giving the Palestinians a stronger voice in the region's future. One of his most notorious statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" but interpretations of this statement vary widely. He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth to make "the innocent nation of Palestine pay", leading to accusations of antisemitism. In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”

--Mcorazao 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

except the word "notorious" I am OK with this version. --Pejman47 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As a point of comparison the Spanish language version of the page does not even mention the "wiped off the map" quote. It does, however, mention the Holocaust denial in detail. It is also worth noting that the article makes significant mention of the fact that has explicitly advocated creating a Jewish homeland in Europe, or Canada, or Alaska which this English article mentions only in passing. That statement, among others, could be seen as clarifying the "wiped off the map" statement. Again, not trying to force an interpretation. Just trying to check bias.

--Mcorazao 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pejman47, any particular expression you prefer instead of "notorious"? I originally thought to use "controversial" but that seemed too tame. Perhaps "criticized"?

--Mcorazao 01:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the "criticized" is the most encyclopedic term in this condition. --Pejman47 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Anybody else have a comment on this proposal? --Mcorazao 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it could use a few minor tweaks, but I would be more than happy with it. Notorious isn't very encyclopedic (unless we attribute it), so other words might include: criticized, contentious, controversial, etc. Given the level of attention the remarks were given, it seems fair to me to briefly mention one of the chief critics' interpretations. There would also of course need to be citations for all the material. So it could use a few tweaks, but I am mostly happy with it.. --Nosfartu 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks. I had stripped out the citations for the sake of focusing on the wording since that has been the point of debate. Regarding the brief mention of the "wiped off the map" quote I'll make two comments: 1) If this hadn't been so widely discussed in the media I would argue that it does not belong in the introduction and arguably not in the article at all simply because there is a lack of scholarly consensus as to what he meant or how representative this particular statement is of his views. 2) The introduction should attempt to give a broad overview of the subject. Specific details given there should only be there if they are good examples that support the broad overview; not simply because they have garnered a lot of attention. So I think a brief mention in the introduction is the most this quote deserves in the intro, not the least.

In any event, how does this look?

He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population.^[1][2] Like many in the Muslim world he has called for "free elections" in the region giving the Palestinians a stronger voice in the region's future.^[3][4] One of his most criticized statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely.^{[5][6][7][8][9]} He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth to make "the innocent nation of Palestine pay",^[5][10] leading to accusations of antisemitism.^[11] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”^[12]

--Mcorazao 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Any input for this suggestion will be much appreciated. Daniel 06:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely support this proposal, it is rather NPOV and doesn't contain any apologetic stuff and etc...

I think after implementation of this, we can consider the issue of this paragraph closed. --Pejman47 19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty happy with it too and would just like to see what other editors think.. Nosfartu 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose it. This is even more POV. and pro Ahmadinejad, and doesn't really address any of my concerns. Yahel Guhan 03:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would adding the Prime Minister of Israel's comparison of him to Hitler address your concerns? While it's notable, it may belong a little deeper in the article. I couldn't find any of your other concerns above.. --Nosfartu 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of inciting some strong feelings ... Although I don't have a specific issue with adding commentary from world leaders I do have a concern about selectively choosing commentary to support a particular point of view. The opinions of the Israeli government are obviously significant but clearly they would tend to be some of the most biased (just as the opinions of others in the Iranian government would be). I would tend to think adding Israel's specific feedback in the intro necessitates adding specific feedback from a lot of sources to balance this which is too much detail for the intro (although as Nosfartu suggests it is appropriate in the later sections).

Yahel, can you be more specific about the POV concerns you have? And what sorts of "pro-Ahmadinejad" statements are you referring to?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be possible to avoid actually quoting the statements, but using generalisations (as is the purpose of the lead) and maybe make a comment to the effect of "A number of Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel's status have been met with mixed reactions" or use controversial etc.? Would this help in resolving the neutral point of view/fair representation dispute at all? Daniel 09:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) For my part I think avoiding such specific things as quotations in the intro is the generally the right thing. The main argument in favor of keeping this particular quote here is that it is so famous in the English-speaking world. Nevertheless I would not object to removing it from the intro. But I think removing it would be the opposite of addressing Yahel's concerns if I am understanding correctly. Also to a large degree this whole discussion started explicitly because there was a strong sentiment that people wanted this quote in the intro. --Mcorazao 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "to make Palestine pay" line should be removed. That is as POV as it gets. It is attempting to justify his holocaust denial, which is completely POV in my opinion. Yahel Guhan 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Holocaust denial or just the clause about Palestine? I don't have a big problem with removing that clause in the intro although I am curious why it is POV to mention this. I presume you mean POV biased toward Ahmadinejad? I think this clause could be seen as pro or con depending on one's perspective.

--Mcorazao 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like what you've done there, avoiding alarmist words and smears, while covering his rhetoric:

He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population.^[13][14] Like many in the Muslim world he has called for "free elections" in the region giving the Palestinians a stronger voice in the region's future.^[15][16] One of his most criticized statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely.^{[5][6][7][17][18]} He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth to make "the innocent nation of Palestine pay",^[5][19] leading to accusations of antisemitism.^[11] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”^[12] PR^talk 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean the part about Palestine alone. The Holocaust denial part is important, as it is partly what he is notable for. Yahel Guhan 05:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, then what about the following?

He has been widely quoted as calling for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population.^[20][21] Like many in the Muslim world he has called for "free elections" in the region giving the Palestinians a stronger voice in the region's future.^[22][23] One of his most criticized statements was one in which, according to some translations, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but interpretations of this statement vary widely.^{[5][6][7][24][25]} He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth^[5][26] leading to accusations of antisemitism.^[11] In response to these criticisms, Ahmadinejad said “No, I am not anti-Jew, I respect them very much.”^[12]

--Mcorazao 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts, everyone? Daniel 04:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That (other than the antisemitism self denial issue) satisfies my concerns. Yahel Guhan 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can accept this version as a compromise. --Pejman47 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I also can accept this compromise version. --Nosfartu (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final call on resolution one

Fantastic work! That's all the parties who has contributed to this mediation since the start of the month agreeing. In the interests of making sure this resolution 'sticks', I want to canvass the opinions of the other, less active parties to make sure they agree.

Involved parties, please note your agreement or disagreement to this proposal if you wish to contribute. This discussion will conclude in 48 hours time if no-one dissents. Cheers, Daniel 22:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Having heard nothing back, this edit will be implemented: User talk:Mcorazao#Mediation proposal.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been implemented: see here. Cheers, Daniel 07:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.