Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 16 September 2006

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	user:Markovich292, user:LifeEnemy, user:Mantanmoreland, user:ThuranX and many more

Mediation Case: 2006-09-14 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Amoruso 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Who's involved?

user:Markovich292, user:LifeEnemy, user:Mantanmoreland, user:ThuranX and many more

What's going on?

The debate is over the question if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad belongs to the category of Anti-Semitic people or not. Those saying he is have included a list of WP:RS to back their opinion that comments made by Ahmadinejad are clear and explicit anti-semitism, including his actions over endorsement of a conference and cartoon contest of holocaust denial. Those saying that he isn't have said that his comments do not constitute anti-semitism, that no anti-semitic quotes were given, and that the sources simply state their opinion, which is not a fact and therefore should not be included.

What would you like to change about that?

another opinion is requested - I think that enough WP:RS and reasoning have been posted. The discussion is simply going in loopholes with every side repeating what he said.

Would you prefer we work discreetly?

no...

Mediator response

I'll take this as my first mediation.Hemhem20X6 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Hemhem20X6 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)=== Discussion ===

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.

Can you please provide the quotes here? Thank you. I'll be back in about 6 hours.

you mean the sources that are used to categorise him ? Thanks for your effort. Here they are, note there are users who are saying it's opinions and therefore it's not enough for category - it's quite a long discussion in the talk page :

Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic

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

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

Re: The Quotes Above

The following is some of the content on the main talk page that directly addresses the above quotes and is the reason many editors still oppose Ahmadinejad being listed as an anti-Semite:

Just by a quick count, it looks like eight of those are directly attributed to individual authors. Is it your argument that anything people say in reliable sources is true?

Number eight is acually the title of an article, which is most obviously the POV of the writer. Most (if not all) sources that are do not have a direct quote or do not report specific actions are the POV of the author like you see here.

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

Remember the following (from wikipedia policy): "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence." You can not claim that somebody holds a particular belief (in this case, anti-semitism) by other people's opinions alone. Markovich292 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how this statement by The Guardian' is not reliable. If you would like to say that he never made these comments, why don't you find the text of the speech itself?

"...the Iranian President called the Holocaust 'a fairytale' and called for the destruction of Israel."

Also, please state the policy that you are citing. Hemhem20X6 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I, nor anyone as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that this quote is not reliable. The problem here is that it is the responsibility of people that want to add the category to find such a direct translation (that is verifiable, and in a RS), because this could very well be the writers interpretation of his quotes.

For the sake of argument, and this is accurate, those words are not inherently anti-semitic anyway. Wanting the destruction of Israel is anti-Zionist. The Holocaust comment does not qualify him for the wikipedia definition of anti-semite, but it has landed him in the Holocaust Denial category (although at least one editor has maintained that he does not belong there, as his recent direct quotes never deny the Holocaust, but rather doubt it).

• Cited Policy Here

Markovich292 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you find his quotes? That would really help.

Hemhem20X6 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be directing that question to the people that support the category. They have repeatedly ignored requests like that, and this is why this topic has gone on long enough to require mediation. As I said, it is thier responsibility to get such quotes to prove the category belongs in place. With all respect, I neither have the time nor the will to do the work that is supposed to be done by someone else (as a mediator, this is not your responsibility either). Markovich292 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich, why are you pretending that this is not a direct quote basically ? The direct quotes are in the discussion on MA's discussion page. This is what he says. The truth is that you think such comments are not enough for the anti-semitism category like you said in the next sentence. Stick to the truth and that's your second argument. Anyway, there's also no need for any direct quote as the Guardian is a WP:RS - this is what you're missing. Btw, if the Guardian will write an article explaining that IQ tests or some other tests in the pasts showed a low intelligence level of Bush, then that will be a category too perhaps. Your attempt in relating a "stupid" category to a well established phenomenon of anti-semitism explained by serious scholars is quite pathetic. Amoruso 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I responded to his question on reliability, and his other question about getting an actual verifiable and reliable copy of the speech. Don't try to put words in my mouth like ThuranX did. I also can't help but notice that you say "direct quote basically." Colloquially that means you acknowledge that it really may not be a direct quote. The doubt will only disappear if you do as Hemhem20X6 is asking and get the original text of the speech.

I know there is not a need for a direct quote to include details from a RS in an article. You have missed (or are completely ignoring) that I have said policy supports that, on more than one occasion. This ability, however, does not allow you to classify someone as as an anti-semite unless you have proof to meet the wikipedia definition. Lastly, I ask you to reread the G.W. Bush analogy, because you obviously have missed the point, not to mention that you are being uncivil in how you respond. Markovich292 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Markovich. First you threw them on User:Thuran X and now on me - it seems you shouldn't walk around barefoot in your apartment for the time being. Anyway, the direct quote is the same and it's one of the (many) proofs of anti-semitism here. I won't get into this attitude of yours where you ask for sources then find excuses to deny them and invent wikipedia policies again. Amoruso 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop fighting, because that doesn't help. Be civil, at the very least.Hemhem20X6 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I try, thanks. For direct anti-semitic quotes here : where he also talks about the network of zionists around the world - if you look at the discussion, I've written several quotes showing MA's talking about ZOG - Zionist Occupation Government : this is a form used by anti semites and it's a proof of anti semitism. He made several comments in this sense. and here - . him saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust is an overblown fairytale" is not disputed by anyone, not by MA himself or anyone else. This is the kind of thing that frustrated editors on the talk page : They had to argue things that are meaningless simply because one user brought them up and started the campaign to take the category off. Everybody was fully aware that MA made certain comments but when a user keep saying "provide proof" for anything irrationally, it got frustrating. Amoruso 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Suuure you try to be civil. At 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC), Hemhem asks for civility and then at 00:43, 16 September 2006, you are clearly being uncivil. Markovich292 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Now we can get around to finishing this debate.

Hemhem20X6 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the primary response to that Spiegal article, as it was written on the talk page:

"Within the entire interview with "Spiegel", the most antagonistic view he shares it that he thinks Israel should not be located in Palestine. Thats hardly an anti-Semitic attitude."

Here is Amoruso's primary response to that on the talk page:

"Your continuing denial of his anti-semitism is quite funny actually"

Markovich292 02:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hemhem20X6, now you see a big issue here. Amoruso insists that MA made comments that claim of "ZOGs" and that his comments "clearly make him an anti-semite." He then expects people to find these comments by Ahmadinejad that he is referring to in a source like this one provided above. He doesn't actually put the quotes that allegedly make him anti-semitic on the page for all to see. When the editors involved read the source itself, something like half of them see no ZOG or anti-semitic comments, because it is POV that allows the other editors to see it that way. Markovich292 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hem, hem! I don't care who started it! Please address the issues that are at hand, and don't live in the past. Please read the other source too. If you have seen The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, please look at the article. He makes several claims that Zionists control the world. Isn't THAT Anti-Semetic?

Hemhem20X6 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I just want to remark that the notion that this was the most antagonistic view (Israel not in palestine) in theinterview is a remark from someone who clearly didn't read the interview. Amoruso 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the kind of unproductive personal comments that Amoruso has made the whole time. He claims that people don't read sources just because they do not see the world through his POV. Markovich292 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> Amoruso 04:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I mentioned his behavior in my post at 02:46 was not to blame someone for starting anything. It was to make it clear that without putting these alleged quotes right on the page, anybody that has a neutral attitude will not be able to pick out the things he claims are anti-semitism. Markovich292 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I start, thank you to HemHem for the usertalkpage note. I'm sticking my head in. Now, onto the situation. Fist, I've left the page and the discussion. I became too upset by the circular obstructionist tactics I saw being used by Markovich. Roughly, they'd go 'provide a source; source provided; source insulted as POV, agenda-oriented, nonWP:RS, WP:OR, WP:POV, or some other, but never actually refuted point by point explaining the charges of POV, agenda-oriented, nonWP:RS, WP:OR, WP:POV; requests for point by point ignored; declaration that if side won't point by point their problems with a source, they can't keep refusing category; first side asserts right to edit for NPOV and then requests sources; lather,rinse, repeat'. After months of this, I gave up last week after Markovich filed a complaint for incivility against me for repeated use of the terms 'obstructionist tactics, obstructionism, and obstructionist'. He took this to be personal attacks. He kept putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of doing it to him while dropping phrases like 'you people' into the discussion, in the context of referring to the jews and 'zionists' who are fighting for the category (This, to me, was a severe personal racist attack, but he denied it). He asserted that anyone who was Jewish or Zionist was inherently biased and needed to either leave or carefully reassess their position. At this point, I felt that it was best for me to leave the page before I got baited into committing something I could be cited for. I do not wish to deal with Markovich again, nor to be involved anymore with this situation. My position and support for the category and both the WP:RS and WP:V of suitable experts in the area of identifying anti-semitism is amply clear on the page. Use that for anything you need from me. I've been fairly well soured on Misplaced Pages based on this. ThuranX 03:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in writing out some long response to the first part of that, because the archives pretty thoroughly disagree with that assessment.

Also, did you even read that report? Here it is. None of it says a word about your use of the term obstructionist. I request that Hemhem20X6 also read it, because it shows exactly the kind of hostility that the other side has propagated in this debate.

The following is completely false: "dropping phrases like 'you people' into the discussion, in the context of referring to the jews and 'zionists' who are fighting for the category"

Here is the full quote: "you people that won't deal with the issue and instead make this personal." ThuranX is deliberately ignoring the entire quote, which refers specifically to the people that wouldn't deal with the issue and make the kinds of personal remarks that you see in the report that I included above. Markovich292 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich dude, have you responded to Hemhem20X6 's question ? Amoruso 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Medcab active cases