This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Markovich292 (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 14 November 2006 (→Consensus?: correct me if I'm wrong, but Humus hasn't said a single word about his opinion on this compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:40, 14 November 2006 by Markovich292 (talk | contribs) (→Consensus?: correct me if I'm wrong, but Humus hasn't said a single word about his opinion on this compromise)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | Biography: Politics and Government B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Iran Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
- Please redirect comments that have to do with Israel to Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.
- Please redirect comments that have to do with controversial issues to Talk:Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
 Archives | |
|---|---|
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
| Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
| Archive 7 | |
Requested comment
So, quickly looking over the page, it seems to me like:
- Meeting with Jews Against Zion is largely irrelevant to the debate over whether MA is anti-semetic. Few people are so extreme in their prejudices that they wouldn't even meet with the people they are prejudiced against-- merely meeting with someone isn't relevant to the debate, it doesn't sound.
- That MA denies being anti-semetic, however, is _critical_ to the debate, and very relevant. That alone makes me think we should generally refer to his anti-semetics as merely "alleged". I haven't yet run into a case where I've felt it appropriate to unambiguously declare someone to have a prejudice when that person actively denies it. Of course-- nothing stops us from citing all the ample evidence suggesting MA is anti-semetic.
- It _seems_ like his holocaust denial is not alleged. CNN certainly treats it that way, and there's a lot of evidence to back that up. So based on what I've seen for now, I'd say just call his holocaust denial a fact-- but I leave the door open that there might be cause to list it as 'alleged'-- I haven't read through the whole page. Again, in any case, the vast majority of the evidence adn the reliable sources characterize him as denying the holocaust, and we can mention all that.
Are there other issues I'm missing that are in dispute? --Alecmconroy 13:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the heading title, it states Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism. I think that any printed denials by MA about anti-semitism also need to be in the article, but that fringe groups are out-of-scope per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also, this is why Category:Anti-Semitic people was removed and replaced with Category:Anti-Semitism. There is definitely debate and applicability of Anti-Semitism, but I think we've decided that "Anti-Semitic people" is a bit too much now. I may believe that to be true, and Jay did bring 18 sources to back that up, but enough ambiguity remains in others’ minds to make it not 100% clear, as is his Holocaust denial. -- Avi 13:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Right-- I should have been clear-- the anti-semetic IS currently stated as alleged, and I think the current way of doing it is a good thing. :) --Alecmconroy 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you; a lot of editors are hashing out many difficult issues with the intent that pertinent issues are portrayed in a way that neither marginalizes nor overly-emphasizes the contraversial statements and actions of a contraversial man. If your skin (or head in my case) is thick enough, jump on in
. -- Avi 22:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you; a lot of editors are hashing out many difficult issues with the intent that pertinent issues are portrayed in a way that neither marginalizes nor overly-emphasizes the contraversial statements and actions of a contraversial man. If your skin (or head in my case) is thick enough, jump on in
Removing journalism from the top of the article
Suppose that someone start Ariel Sharon's article with saying "he's the one that most of the middle eastern media call him the killer of Sabra& Shatila". Wouldn't it be funny? But this has happened for Ahmadinjed's article. It's absolutely wrong journalism, and you can see in Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons (Writing style section) that this kind of journalism is prohibited. User:Avraham is repeatedly threatening me, and calling this vandalism, so please provide your comments about this, so I can get rid of these personal attacks. The last important thing is that User:Avraham is removing Ahmadinejad's own words from the "Holocaust" section. It seems that everyone's comment about his talks is more important than his own! --Hossein.ir 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please read Advocacy journalism, I believe you are mistaken as to what it means. Thirdly, placing proper warnings on user talk pages is never a threat or an attack. Secondly, please see your talk page. Lastly, please remember to be civil here; that policy is as important as any other in wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your problem is that you're not giving proper reasons. You're edits are very similar to what internet trolls do, because you insist that this is vandalism because IT IS. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hossein, you might check out the actual Ariel Sharon article. In the lead, it says: "Some of his critics have sought to prosecute him as a war criminal for alleged crimes related to the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanon War, for which the Kahan Commission held him both 'indirectly' and 'personally' responsible. While no Israelis participated in the massacre, the investigation found that Sharon was personally responsible due to negligence and complacency. Sharon was dismissed as Defense Minister as a result." Detailed criticism of Sharon. IronDuke 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is based on a fact, not opinion of journalists. This is the distinction. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hossein, you might check out the actual Ariel Sharon article. In the lead, it says: "Some of his critics have sought to prosecute him as a war criminal for alleged crimes related to the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanon War, for which the Kahan Commission held him both 'indirectly' and 'personally' responsible. While no Israelis participated in the massacre, the investigation found that Sharon was personally responsible due to negligence and complacency. Sharon was dismissed as Defense Minister as a result." Detailed criticism of Sharon. IronDuke 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Avi, you're not implying that Advocacy journalism is all right for wikipedia, are you? --LifeEnemy 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. But the section Hossein is referring to does not suffer from that particluar malady. -- Avi 12:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sharon's article has suitable sources and is based on facts. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was pretty sure you weren't saying that. Just making sure!
- Although the lead could use some fixing up (but that is being discussed right now, I believe) it doesn't need to be blanked, certainly. --LifeEnemy 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think there's a problem with the summary of the article. In the mainstream media, Ahmadinejad is most well-known for his rhetoric regarding Israel and the Jews. And I haven't seen any "alternate translations," that changed the essence of what he said about Israel being wiped off the face of the map. Saying Israel should be "removed from the pages of history," or "removed from the pages of time," is essentially no different. What I'm concerned about is the section on him being anti-semitic. The section highlights anti-semitism while the article on controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have his anti-semitism as only a small section. And while I agree that one can be anti-semitic and still be friends with Neturei Karta, one can also be a Holocaust denier and oppose Israel without being anti-semitic. In both cases, though, it's rather unlikely, which is what makes Mahmoud's views on Jews so puzzling and subject to differing views. Robocracy 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- But see, he isn't even referring to Israel as an entity. He said "The illegal occupiers of Jerusalem". I don't think that every Israeli is illegally occupying Jerusalem, but rather the government of Israel. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- And every Jew living there as well, no? -- Avi 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nice try, putting words his his or her mouth. When someone says that they want to destroy the "state of x", they usually mean the government, no the people. Had he meant that he wanted to kill everyone in the "state of x", I don't think he would have remained their president.
- And every Jew living there as well, no? -- Avi 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- But see, he isn't even referring to Israel as an entity. He said "The illegal occupiers of Jerusalem". I don't think that every Israeli is illegally occupying Jerusalem, but rather the government of Israel. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think there's a problem with the summary of the article. In the mainstream media, Ahmadinejad is most well-known for his rhetoric regarding Israel and the Jews. And I haven't seen any "alternate translations," that changed the essence of what he said about Israel being wiped off the face of the map. Saying Israel should be "removed from the pages of history," or "removed from the pages of time," is essentially no different. What I'm concerned about is the section on him being anti-semitic. The section highlights anti-semitism while the article on controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have his anti-semitism as only a small section. And while I agree that one can be anti-semitic and still be friends with Neturei Karta, one can also be a Holocaust denier and oppose Israel without being anti-semitic. In both cases, though, it's rather unlikely, which is what makes Mahmoud's views on Jews so puzzling and subject to differing views. Robocracy 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Not Neturei Karta, apparently. Remember, according to him, Zionists aren't Jews.
Case in point: I googled to see what David Duke's relations are with Neturei Karta. He avoids them.
David Duke's comments from Stormfront.org:
| “ | I don't have any objection to hearing anti-Zionist Jews and even promoting their writings. In some way they are more convincing about the evils and dangers of Jewish supremacism than our own pronouncements because they are from Jews themselves.
But there is a difference between Jews exposing Jewish supremacists such as the late Israel Shahak and having Jewish rabbis lecture us on the dangers of immigration or how Jews are really on our side on the major issues and we shouldn't be concerned about them. This actually occured at one conference I attended. I also sat dumbfounded at a Jewish speaker telling us how WASPs are responsible for egalitarianism and immigration problems and that there is some flaw in our people rather than we being a victim of direct deceit and subversion by the Jewish supremacists. So that was my main point. I hope I have cleared up my position for you. |
” |
An anti-semite hates Jews, so of course, they can't make any distinction between "good Jews," and "bad Jews." And they can't pretend to be okay around "some" Jews. Robocracy 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Repeat with me: "Zionism is not judaism". He's against zionism as a form of racism, not judaism or jews. --Hossein.ir 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The J in Nejad
What is the correct pronunciation of the "nejad" part of his name? Is it like the "J" in "Jack" or like the "s" in "pleasure"? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I added back the audio pronunciation to the article, so if you have the .ogg codec, clicking on his name in the beginning of the article should give you the best idea of how it is pronounced. In short though, I would say the "J" is closer to the "s" in pleasure than anything. Markovich292 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Azerbaijani?
A Russian news article (link) claims that Ahmadinejad is an ethnic Azerbaijani. The article doesn't say it. Is it true? Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure if it is true or not...Unfortunately it doesn't seem like that article it is certain to be accurate on Ahmadinejad's nationality though (this is mainly because that article is found in the comments section of that website if I am not mistaken, and because Ahmadinejad is not the focus of the article). Since there is only a vague reference to him being of Azerbaijanian nationality, I think it would be best to find out from a few other authoritative sources if this is true or not before adding it to the article. Markovich292 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This page has nothing to do with anti-Semitism
So why is it in the anti-Semitism category? It's a biographical page about a modern politician. It's already been decided that this page won't go in the anti-Semitic people category. It's absolutely nonsensical to have it in the anti-Semitism category. FuManChoo 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Read the archives, this compromise was reached after a lot of debate and discussion, and I have a distinct hunch you know that already. -- Avi 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. FuManChoo, please respect consensus. IronDuke 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Now that there is further discussion on this matter, I think it is time to address the temporary solution that you both are referring to. As I recall, it was agreed on by some people from the original discussion that we should create a new section that outlines the possible solutions to the anti-semitism issue. When people read it, the idea would be that they could then decide for themselves which solution is more proper in its use of categories. Markovich292 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Category:Anti-Semitism makes perfect sense. I haven't been following this article lately has that compromise not been stable? (→Netscott) 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Now that there is further discussion on this matter, I think it is time to address the temporary solution that you both are referring to. As I recall, it was agreed on by some people from the original discussion that we should create a new section that outlines the possible solutions to the anti-semitism issue. When people read it, the idea would be that they could then decide for themselves which solution is more proper in its use of categories. Markovich292 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Up until this point it has been stable, although much of the material on this talk page that referenced this category has been archived recently, so you may start to see a rise in removal of that category. Now that this category is under scrutany again, it seems time to find a more permanent solution to the anti-semitism issue, since it was agreed before that adding the anti-semitism category is only a stopgap measure. Markovich292 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well considering all of the haranguing that previously occurred realtive to the Category:Anti-Semitic people question and the prior rather serious lack of stability of the article with people adding and others subtracting that category, how things are now may just be the optimal solution. (→Netscott) 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- An editor that is new to this issue questioned the category, and was basically told "don't mess with the category," which was only added to resolve a dispute in the first place anyway. I have no doubt that this will happen again, possibly prompting a longer edit war than what we saw here. That doesn't seem like the optimal solution to me, which is why I proposed what I did (found here) a few weeks ago. That way, we have something concrete to direct people like FuManChoo to, instead of just telling them not to change something because it "is basically vandalism." Markovich292 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: FuManChoo is confirmed by checkuser, and admitted on his talk page, to be user:Deuterium, who will switch to the FMC account because the password to D is unavailable. He is not a new editor, but an old hand at this account, as can be seen here, here, He was well cognizant of the compromise, and was a regular contributor as was the rest of us. I am somewhat afraid that this was more of a trolling attempt with the thought that his former identity would not be connected. -- Avi 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can we get back to talking about writing an encyclopedia? These personal attacks are of no relevance here. FuManChoo 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No personal attacks were made; just a correction of Markovich's misunderstanding, and a concern I have based on the fact that you are obviously a rather intelligent individual. -- Avi 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can we get back to talking about writing an encyclopedia? These personal attacks are of no relevance here. FuManChoo 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: FuManChoo is confirmed by checkuser, and admitted on his talk page, to be user:Deuterium, who will switch to the FMC account because the password to D is unavailable. He is not a new editor, but an old hand at this account, as can be seen here, here, He was well cognizant of the compromise, and was a regular contributor as was the rest of us. I am somewhat afraid that this was more of a trolling attempt with the thought that his former identity would not be connected. -- Avi 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- An editor that is new to this issue questioned the category, and was basically told "don't mess with the category," which was only added to resolve a dispute in the first place anyway. I have no doubt that this will happen again, possibly prompting a longer edit war than what we saw here. That doesn't seem like the optimal solution to me, which is why I proposed what I did (found here) a few weeks ago. That way, we have something concrete to direct people like FuManChoo to, instead of just telling them not to change something because it "is basically vandalism." Markovich292 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I see it we have agreed that M.A. doesn't belong in anti-Semitic people. So why then does he belong in the anti-Semitism category? Is he a historically significant anti-Semite? I don't think so. FuManChoo 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, we have not agreed that MA does not belong in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Rather, we did agree that until we can get clarity we all agree on, that Category:Anti-Semitism is a suitable compromise that does not paint MA directly as an anti-semite but does not whitewash his considerable remarks and the 18 or so reliable sources that were brought supporting his placement in the people category. That is the gist of the situation now, I hope that clarifies things for you. Thanks. -- Avi 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Either he's an anti-Semite or he's not. IF he is he belongs in Category:Anti-Semitic people. If he isn't then he doesn't. But he's hardly significant enough to belong in Category:Anti-Semitism which should be reserved for notable or historically significant anti-Semites. FuManChoo 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- FuManChoo/Deuterium: a dispute has lasted for way too long and a compromise was achieved. Do you have something new to contribute, other than new disruption? ←Humus sapiens 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Surely Ahmediniejad is an opponent of zionism not an anti-semite? I am not aware he has ordered Jews in Iran to be discriminated against or punished in any way. Arniep 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It would be very difficult for someone of good faith to deny MA is an antisemite. The question is only, may we include him in such a category, is it verifiable? Reasonable people may disagree. As to whether he belongs in a category that denotes his involvement in a controversy related to antisemitism, reasonable people may not disagree. You've only to look at his WP article to see that. IronDuke 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with the anti semitism category Ironduke is that many people may be accused of anti semitism when it was not actually correct to accuse them of anti semitism, as they are in fact anti-zionists. Everyone knows that it is a tactic used by certain campaign groups to try and dismiss anti zionism as something equivalent to Hitlers nazism when it is nothing of the sort. Arniep 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It would be very difficult for someone of good faith to deny MA is an antisemite. The question is only, may we include him in such a category, is it verifiable? Reasonable people may disagree. As to whether he belongs in a category that denotes his involvement in a controversy related to antisemitism, reasonable people may not disagree. You've only to look at his WP article to see that. IronDuke 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- It would not be unreasonable to oppose the application of Category:Anti-Semitism though, because categories are not meant to be added just because something is being discussed in an article. That seems to be the primary misconception here. I am actually quite suprised that the comment that was added to the anti-semitism category page has lasted this long, because that is actually not how Misplaced Pages:Categorization says categories should be used.
- Also, I ask that you take a look at the comment I made earlier regarding this issue. Thanks. Markovich292 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe this category and its use here is entirely consistent with Misplaced Pages:Categorization. I'm not sure what it was about your previous statement you wanted me to note. POV forking the category off into a daughter article is not a solution, I think. Was there more? IronDuke 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- IronDuke I think you misunderstand anti-semitism (as do many other people). Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has not advocated attacks against Jews or discriminated against Jews in Iran, he has only has said it is legitimate to attack Israel and those that defend it as a state specifically for Jews because he considers it a racist and discriminatory ideology. Arniep 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I don't understand it, I'm joined by numerous commentators, and the governments of the US, UK, and Germany. Holocaust denial (which you omitted to mention) = Antisemitism. IronDuke 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I saw the interview on U.S. TV and he has explained that he does believe the holocaust happened, he does not deny it. However, he does not believe however that the holocaust justifies zionism. Arniep 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are also, of course, missing the point entirely. Having him in the antisemitism category doesn't mean he is an antisemite, just that he's involved in the issue. See also Abe Foxman. IronDuke 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but it's quite obvious this category is being misused for political purposes. It is well known that pro Israeli campaign groups routinely equate anti semitism with anti zionism so they should not be considered reliable sources to justify someones inclusion in the category. Hitler was an anti semite, Ahmedinejad is not. Arniep 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You needn't be sorry, you only need to grasp this point: it does not matter what you or I think for the purposes of this category. Merely that MA is involved in the subject. Misused? That's just begging the question. You can't deny there are controversies involving MA and AS. IronDuke 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The only things in that category should be places, events and writings. To place people in it when there is already an anti semitic people category is clearly just trying to get away with tarring people with the anti semitic brush when they are not anti semites. Arniep 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would not object to putting him in the ASs people cat, but I see that other editors of good will do object, and have legitimate reasons. (Not saying I agree with the reasons, just respecting them.) But since we're not putting him in AS people, the plain old AS category is a reasonable substitute. IronDuke 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The only things in that category should be places, events and writings. To place people in it when there is already an anti semitic people category is clearly just trying to get away with tarring people with the anti semitic brush when they are not anti semites. Arniep 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You needn't be sorry, you only need to grasp this point: it does not matter what you or I think for the purposes of this category. Merely that MA is involved in the subject. Misused? That's just begging the question. You can't deny there are controversies involving MA and AS. IronDuke 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but it's quite obvious this category is being misused for political purposes. It is well known that pro Israeli campaign groups routinely equate anti semitism with anti zionism so they should not be considered reliable sources to justify someones inclusion in the category. Hitler was an anti semite, Ahmedinejad is not. Arniep 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I don't understand it, I'm joined by numerous commentators, and the governments of the US, UK, and Germany. Holocaust denial (which you omitted to mention) = Antisemitism. IronDuke 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- IronDuke I think you misunderstand anti-semitism (as do many other people). Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has not advocated attacks against Jews or discriminated against Jews in Iran, he has only has said it is legitimate to attack Israel and those that defend it as a state specifically for Jews because he considers it a racist and discriminatory ideology. Arniep 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe this category and its use here is entirely consistent with Misplaced Pages:Categorization. I'm not sure what it was about your previous statement you wanted me to note. POV forking the category off into a daughter article is not a solution, I think. Was there more? IronDuke 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review the past discussions and compromise reached. Antisemitism is the perfect category until people will decide whether MA is an anti semite or not is controversial or not. this particular category Category:Antisemitism is not contrvoersial in any way. As it says on the top of the category page:
This category signifies that anti-Semitism is discussed within the article. When placed on the page of a specific person, it does not mean that the person is necessarily an antisemite. Please see Category:Anti-Semitic people.
Cheers. Amoruso 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is not acceptable. It is perfectly obvious that the Anti-semitism category is being used as a second best by people who want to label people anti-semites which was all but admitted by IronDuke above. Israeli lobby organizations consistently equate anti-semitism with anti-zionism to try and scare people from criticising Israel for fear they will be labelled "nazis". Ahmedinejad has not made laws against Jews in Iran, he has not criticised them, ostracized them or punished them in any way for their religion or culture. He has however criticised Israel because he is an anti-zionist. Arniep 10:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Which is why the compromise was not to use Category:Anti-Semitic people even though, I believe it was eighteen reliable sources were brought calling him an anti-semitic person or saying he was guilty of anti-semitic statements. You may not like that the US senate and others call him an anti-semite, but he was called so in reliable sources, and your removing the information is tantamount to pushing a POV in the face of evidence. -- Avi 13:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- A bit puzzling to see a new edit battle developing over the Anitsemitism category. Who can deny that anitsemitism is discussed in this article? Its pretty clear that the antisemitism category is not being used for smearing when you've got the chairman of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman in the same category. (→Netscott) 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Netscott I absolutely believe that there should be no people at all in the anti-semitism category as it is ridiculous that as soon as anyone is called anti semitic by any number of Israeli lobby groups for making comments perceived as anti-Israeli they will automatically get put in this category. Foxman should not be in the category at all- a much more appropriate category for him would be Anti-Racism, or Combatting Anti-Semitism, something like that. Arniep 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- It appears Arniep has been indef banned. I don't think his arguments were at all persuasive in any case, but just for everyone's information... IronDuke
- Netscott I absolutely believe that there should be no people at all in the anti-semitism category as it is ridiculous that as soon as anyone is called anti semitic by any number of Israeli lobby groups for making comments perceived as anti-Israeli they will automatically get put in this category. Foxman should not be in the category at all- a much more appropriate category for him would be Anti-Racism, or Combatting Anti-Semitism, something like that. Arniep 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody can deny it is discussed in the article, but I remind you that categories are not supposed to be used simply to say that something is being discussed in an article. Also, just as a side note, that line at the top of the anti-semitism category stating "This category signifies that anti-Semitism is discussed within the article" was only placed because of the debate on this page. If you will read WP:Categorization, you will see that this does not properly decribe the use of categories. I didn't remove it while the temporary compromise was in effect, but I'm going to remove it now.
- Also, I am going to remove Abraham Foxman from the Anitsemitism category. According to guidelines, he does not belong there since he is in Category:Anti-Defamation League. Markovich292 00:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- So, I'm going through the discussion, and I see, in favor of this cat:
- Ironduke
- Amoruso
- Netscott
- HumusSapiens
- Avi
- Sr13
- Mantanmoreland
- Against:
- Arniep (indef banned)
- FuManChoo (multiple blocks, 6 with old account, 4 on a new account)
- Markovich292
- Francis Tyers
- That's five users in good standing against one user in good standing. I'm happy to keep discussing, but I'm also sensing we're near consensus here. Thoughts? IronDuke 05:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can count me as a "For" as well, Iron. Also please note my comment below.--Mantanmoreland 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's five users in good standing against one user in good standing. I'm happy to keep discussing, but I'm also sensing we're near consensus here. Thoughts? IronDuke 05:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to including the "Anti-Semitic people" category too. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting much- just clarifying the situation here...
- First, let's set the record straight- Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite. It's all in the first paragraph of the article. There are numerous citations from verifiable sources (CNN, New York Times) suggesting that he is an anti-Semite.
- Next, about whether there should be a cat for anti-Semitism. There are quite a few people in the cat, so keep it!! Labeling someone an anti-Semite is not offensive to them nor is it POV because they openly say that they hate Jews. The cat is a list of believers of an ideal; treat it like List of Christians or the like.
- My point-either keep the cat or change to list. Sr13 07:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Jews are respected by everyone, by all human beings," he told a news conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
The remarks come months after Mr Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map - and described the Holocaust as "myth".
In response to questions about Iran's controversial nuclear programme, he said the Iranians "do not need a bomb".
The Iranian president's comments on anti-Semitism came during remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Some people think if they accuse me of being anti-Jew they can solve the problem.
"No, I am not anti-Jew," he said. "I respect them very much."
"Let us remember that there in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together," he said.
Later, he added: "We love everyone in the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians... We are against occupation, aggression, killings and displacing people - otherwise we have no problem with ordinary people."
Not the words of an Anti-Semite. - Francis Tyers · 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, the reason he shouldn't be in the category is quite simple.
- There are many people who claim that some comments he has made are anti-Semitic -- these are opinion.
- There are few people who claim that he is anti-Semitic.
- There are no reliable sources (books, journal articles, monographs etc.) that state that he himself, the man is an anti-Semite.
- He has stated that he loves Jews.
- Categories are for facts, not opinion.
- Francis Tyers · 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- We've been going back and forth over this for months. Whatever you can say about MA it is that he is subject of accusations of antisemitism, so the category fits. Also this category is a compromise, and I reluctantly agreed to it. I was reluctant because I felt that 1. he belonged in anti-Semitic people and 2. a hard core of editors would oppose even "antisemitism" and repudiate this compromise. Sure enough, that is what has happened.--Mantanmoreland 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Francis, there are many, many people who have said that MA, the man, is an antisemite. But even if no one had, virtually every sane person on the planet agrees his remarks were. Thus, the category. This isn't controversial. IronDuke 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching this for quite some time. There should be an "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" heading in the article. Anti-Semitism should not be discussed in the opening paragraph, though. Because anti-semitism is discussed on the page, Category:Anti-Semitism is appropriate. This man has not been proven an anti-semite, so we should not use Category:Anti-Semitic people. Since there is considerable debate about it, though, it certainly warrants a heading in the article. I believe this is the proper way to handle this situation, given WP:BOLP. Vir4030 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree with you about Category:Antisemitism being appropriate if categories were supposed to be used just to say something is being discussed, but that is not the case. They are primarily used to group similar articles together, which is why this category is much better suited to Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which is unquestionably in compliance with WP:BOLP. In fact, the "Accusations of anti-Semitism" section on that page should even be expanded since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Holocaust denial and allegations of anti-Semitism directs readers there. Markovich292 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus?
For antisemitism category:
- Ironduke
- Amoruso
- Netscott
- Avi
- Sr13
- Mantanmoreland
- Vir4030
Against antisemitism category:
- Arniep (indef banned)
- FuManChoo
- Markovich292
- Francis Tyers
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed Iran articles
- Unknown-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press