Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Wiped off the map"

Was the recent speech denouncing Israel delivered in Farsi or some other language then English? If so, I'd really love to see some commentary on the translation. The phrase "wiped off the map" has extremely strong connotations of nuclear war in English, but in a very idiomatic way. Other then that particular interpretation of the metaphorical, the remark, as the context is decribed here, does not clearly advocate force against Israel, though it certainly rejects its legitimacy as a State in extremely harsh terms. I don't mean to take a POV here but I just think the media and this article is lacking clarity on the details of the language used. --Brian Z 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Given the fact that it was given to students in Tehran, I imagine it would have had to have been delivered in Persian/Farsi. From what I read on the Islamic Republic News Agency's website, most of the quotes the American and British are using are identical to that off IRNA's English version of the story. Though, I couldn't specifically locate the 'wipe off the map' quote on that site. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, it was in Persian. And he probably said it. And he is just like they say he is: "diplomatically irresponsible". People like him make life for people like me much harder.--Zereshk 19:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The closes thing I could find to those words being attributed to Ahmadinejad by the IRNA was here: [1]. But anyway, does the phrase, in Persian, have the same strong connotations of nuclear war as it does in English?----Brian Z 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, given the other statements made by officials from Iran. It seems they are downplaying this, saying, while he wishes for the end of the Zionist state, that does not mean he supports Iranian military action against Israel. I think Irishpunktom made the point when he said, 'when the Ottoman Empire was wiped off the map, where it's people annhialated'? --Jakob Huneycutt 15:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The phrase “wiped off the map”, in that exact form, is nonexistent in the Persian language. There are, however, very similar phrases (but they still don’t have the same interpretation). The official Iranian policy has always been an end to the Jewish state; there’s nothing new about that. Officially Iran advocates the one-state solution with a Palestinian leadership (that’s what they mean by “wiped off the map), but at times they have shown some willingness to accept the two-state solution. I think the comments have been somewhat over-amplified to make a case for Iran’s referral to the Security Counsel. Otherwise Iran has been making statements like this since 1979 and anti-Israeli rallies are held there every year. --Aucaman 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In Persian, it doesnt sound so strongly connotated. maybe it's because we've heard such statem,ents said so many times, that they have lost any real vigour. It's turned into one of those slogans that you have to mention each time you go behind a podium in Iran. I think the media is inflating the scale a bit. Iranian statesmen have been shouting the same slogans for years now. It's nothing new.--Zereshk 05:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I guess I sort of suspected that, that "wiped off the map" might not even be a literal translation of what he said. Can you propose and alternate translation of the original Persian into English? Or is his actual comment not availble in Persian? I find it insane that this is not something I've seen discussed in the media, to make a big deal of a particular phrase and not question the translation... --Brian Z 05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope this answers your question. --Aucaman 12:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how Israel is so offended by Mahmoud's comments, considering Ariel Sharon requested the U.S. attack Iran "the day after" Baghdad falls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.13.92 (talk • contribs)

Not funny. The diffenence is, no one called for the genocide of the Iranian people and wiping their country off the map. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No One called for the Genocide of any people. When the ottoman Empire was erased from world Maps, where it's people annhialated too? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying a state is illegitimate is not the same thing as advocating genocide, which is why I started this heading. If Ahmadinejad has explicitly advocated genocide, I would be quite interested to see a source on that.--Brian Z 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)--Brian Z 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the title for the section should be changed to avoid confusion ('Call for the end of Israel' maybe). From what I've read, Ahmadinejad wants the destruction of the Zionist state (Israel), but that does not *necessarily* mean he wants the "destruction" of Israeli Jews or Zionists. Obviously, Ahmadinejad is not very careful about choosing his words (or maybe he deliberately wishes to provoke Israel - no way to really tell). I think he definitely did use the term "wiped off the map" though. Even Al Jazeera quotes him as saying that. So maybe the question is, is the phrase "wiped off the map" substantially different from 'destruction of Israel'.

Ahmadinejad is an asshole, of course, and if people hear "genocide", he has only himself to blame. But I agree, that he did not, in fact, advocate genocide. The distinction between his call, and the US and Israeli calls for 'regime change' in Iran are a matter of rhetorics and culture. And, of course, that the US has shown that it is willing and capable of unilaterally attacking countries on a whim. If Israel called for an attack on Iran, they should not be surprised that Persians call for attacks on Israel, even if the call is no more than empty rhetorics. 81.63.58.220 18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the state of Israel has never advocated the removal of any other state's sovereign status. I think it's safe to say that the aim of Israel in advocating an American invasion of Iran is to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. Is that legitimate? Is there a nuclear threat? If so, can it be eliminated? I don't have a security clearance; I have no idea. But there's a big, big difference between calling for the disabling of a government's supposed nuclear program (which Israel has called for), and calling for the destruction of a state (which Iran has called for). And President Ahmadinejad may not have been as clear about his genocide wish as he has about his state-destruction wish, but his Wikiquote page attributes this sourced quote to him: "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." I propose that one can safely assume that the vast majority of Jewish people worldwide "recognize" Israel, and thus Mr. Ahmadinejad is calling for the "burning" of all Jews. He didn't say any nation or any state or any government, he said anybody, which in my book means "all individual humans". Whether this is metaphorical or literal, and whether he feels they should burn in this physical realm or in a coming afterlife, I don't know. But his feelings about Judaism and Jews seem clear to me. Neither Mr. Sharon nor any other credible Israeli official I can think of have ever made statements like this about Islam, the Arabic people, or the Islamic-Arabic nations. (In fact, I believe there's even an Arabic member of the Knesset.) Anyone who can provide a credible quote to prove me wrong, please do. 71.136.52.38 20:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

sure, he is not a nice man. And he also seems to be stupid. In any case, he has just trashed a decade's effort of Khatami et al to defuse foreign relations. He is the equivalent of a redneck mountain hillbilly suddenly torpedoed into world politics. If anything, he damaged his own country with this. Of course the UN should condemn Iran for the statement. Of course Iran's atomic program should now be more closely scrutinized than ever. In this sense, it may prove well that he did bark before he tried to bite. 62.202.67.175 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

I think this has been somewhat of a mistraslation. "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" does not in any way mean literally burning. I think the translation here is more accurate (especially if you're going to interpret everything literally): "Supporters of Israel will face the wrath of Islamic ummah." --Aucaman 12:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So I finally found a copy of the comment in Farsi on Ahmadinejad’s official website. It literally says something like this:

“There is no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and the wave of spirituality and awakening in the Islamic world, will soon wipe this disgraceful stain off the Islamic world's dress.”

There’s also an English translation on the same website which reads:

“[…] the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.”

So “wipe off the map” seems like a good translation, but one shouldn’t always give it a military interpretation. Sometimes the Bush administration talks about “regime change” in Iran, but only a few think America is going to militarily attack Iran. (Although the same statements were made about Iraq and the United States did end-up attacking Iraq.) Similarly here, I think it would be premature to assume Iran is going to try to militarily take Israel out (either using a ground invasion or a nonexistent nuclear weapon), but the statement should reflect Iran’s harsh antagonism toward Israel, which Iran does not recognize as a legitimate state. --Aucaman 12:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

why should "wipe off the dress" (of a stain) be translated as "wipe off the map"? No maps were mentioned, it seems. He described Israel as a stain on the 'dress' of Islam. Within that metaphor, he said the stain would be removed. This not a geographical metaphor of physically removing an object, but a metaphor of the redressing of some shame or humiliation. Surely, he would consider the 'stain' cleaned off the 'dress' if an Islamic government was installed in Israel? In that sense, this amounts to a call for regime change. Of course it is threatening. But is it as threatening as saying "you are part of the axis of Evil and in need of a regime change", or is it as scary as "we have some new bunker busters we would like to test, and we will bomb your capital into pulp just for the hell of it"? Baad 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Reaffirmation - Call for Destruction of Israel

I can't see any reason for the reaffirmation paragraph inserted today (the one that begins "Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his position on 28 October 2005"). It doesn't add anything new to the story since we already knew his position from the previous stories. Hence, it doesn't make much sense to put it in an encyclopedic article. Am I alone in believing it should be deleted? --Jakob Huneycutt 20:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Significance of his statements

So far Iran has no plan and ability to launch a genocide of any scale, large or small. Iran does not kill its own Jewish people. It does not have WMD so far. To me, "wiping Israel off the map" differs in no way from a typical U.S. right-wing plan of regime change. Moreover, Iran has no teeth. To me, it's nothing but a cheap joke.

It scares the shit out of me to hear U.S. Republicans say "Democracy! Democracy!" All I can hear is "Kill'em! Kill'em!"

All I've ever seen are the unilateral attack against Iraq by the U.S. In the case of Iraq, a state is invaded without a reasonable excuse and an acceptible government is not established. All I can see is endless tribal warfare caused by the loss of Saddam Hussein and unjustified abuse of prisoners. -- Toytoy 02:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I actually did some research, expecting to turn up the opposite conclusion from what I did (I am not ashamed to say I am a Zionist), but apparently Iranian Jews while suffering some discrimination similar to the level of discrimination minorities have suffered in the US, being passed up for promotions, having to deal with "glass cielings" etc., they have been treated with relative fairness. Although that is relative to how B'ahai and Zorastrians were treated, i.e. Jews wern't murdered and their children weren't kidnapped from them like the two aformentioned religions--don't go thinking the revolution was just and equitable. Here is a Christian Science Monitor article on the post-revolution life of Jews in Iran--Brentt 22:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

since you did the research, you could add this to Persian Jews. 81.63.58.220 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually did add it when he posted this. Seemed like the appropriate place for it and the article was fairly interesting so it seemed worthy of being posted. --Jakob Huneycutt 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: On the decline of Persian Jews

Thanks for your research, Brentt. So far I have not seen U.S. journalists revisiting Iran's Jewish community. To me, the uprooting policy of worldwide Jewish minorities does much more harm than good. Many Jews formerly living in Islamic or Eastern European countries were not, at least, badly persecuted. It was bad to send them to the U.S. or Israel because it only makes the remaining Jewish people's lives more miserable.

If there are many sizable Jewish communities scattered around the world, many countries would be required to treat their Jewish population with the minimum amount of care. It will not be easy to foster hate in a country where people learn to tolerate each other. To me, the post-WWII Jewish migration is worse than the white flight. With white flight, some white people moves back to black neighborhoods; with this Jewish migration, I don't see the possibility for the Jews to move back to Iran. When the harm is done, it's done.

Many Jews are encouraged to migrate to the U.S. and Israel. This practically homogenized Jewish people's idea of the world (us v. them). It also escalates the tension in many troubled areas (many U.S. Irish people are known to be avid supporters of the North Ireland conflict because they are not the ones who suffer). The mass migration of non-endangered Jewish people to Palestinian lands also made the mideast less safe.

If given a chance to migrate to the U.S. or Israel, many people will take it because of money. You don't make so much money in Iran or Russia. The scale of migration does not imply persecution. If given a chance to migrate to New York, many rural Italians or even Germans will take it. The fact that people are fleeing some countries does not necessarily imply anti-Jewish politics. -- Toytoy 06:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are over-over-simplifying and at times, plain wrong ("the post-WWII Jewish migration is worse than the white flight"?? - take a look at Kielce pogrom, for example), but I don't see how this talk even belongs here. Why not the people decide for themselves whether they want self-determination and to live in their own country or not. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are talking about 1946. Do Jews in Poland get killed today? Did they kill them in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? Migration can be a reasonable one-time effort to save lives in substantial danger but it creates lots of problems if some people keep on doing it for 50+ years.

During the 1990s, the Jewish population growth rate was about 3% per year, as a result of massive immigration to Israel, primarily from the republics of the former Soviet Union. (Demographics of Israel)

The breakup of the USSR did not result in mass killing everywhere. These people were just out of socialistic protections. By the way, a good Jewish protection policy shall include return these Jews to their former homes. If you educate them, they will have a better chance to survive in the former USSR. I couldn't remember how to call the Israel immigration law. This policy is simply wrong and harmful to other people. -- Toytoy 08:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I quoted your exact words, didn't I? Again, this is a wrong place to discuss Jewish self-determination. But why begin with Jews? Let's send all the emigrants everywhere to where they came from. May I suggest you tell all those European settlers and their descendants from America and Australia to go back to Europe. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added a POV tag to the section "Call for the destruction of the Israeli state" because much of it reads as though it came from an Ahmadinejad fan site. I am especially baffled by the way it quotes from a Guardian article that cites world and UN condemnation of Ahmadinejad's comments only to use it to imply that Sharon's response was isolated and unsupported; in other words, this is skewed, agenda-driven writing, and it would be good if someone could replace such unencyclopedic advocacy of a single view with a detached evaluation of several. --Zaxios 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you clarify exactly what you are talking about. In the article I read:

"The day immediately following Ahmadinejad's statements, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations and Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In that meeting, all fifteen members condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks."

As far as I can tell, that sounds alot like overwhelming negative response to Ahmadinehad's actions and speech. Can you please direct me to the part of the article that you are referring to? Avengerx 05:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I re-read the article and now I see what you are talking about.

"Ahmadinejad's call for the "occupying regime" to be wiped off the map was widely and inaccurately represented as a call for the people of Israel to be wiped off the map. The technical root of this mistranslation is that the name of a country can refer to either a government or its people, while a term such as "occupying regime" clearly refers to the government. Claims such as Ariel Sharon's that "a country that calls for the destruction of another people cannot be a member of the UN" [27] Are either deliberately or mistakenly misleading when applied to Iran."

This whole paragraph is misguided, due to the basic fact that he gave this speech at an event called "A World Without Zionism". While I am not the type of person to lump Judiasm and Zionism together, it is foolish to believe that Israel isn't in fact a state concieved by and maintained largely through the Zionist ideology. President Ahmadinejad may have said "regime", but we all know from context and from previous statements that a government change is not what he is interested in. The paragraph I removed was an obvious attempt to justify his statement, and was almost entirely unfounded. If there are any complaints concerning this change, please do what you must and discuss it here. Avengerx 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How exactly do "we all know" that government change is not what he's interested in? He said what he thinks his solution is and what he described was a different government. If "we all know it" but cannot provide a citation, what is it doing in an encyclopedia?

Somehow, I didn't ever catch that being added. I definitely agree that it should be removed (and the 'POV tag' with it once removed). We're not here to either justify or criticize the actions of Ahmadinejad. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the paragraph is entirely useless, since people argue that he called for the state to be removed, not the people of it. I made it shorter and less pov instead "Many believe Ahmadinejad's call for the "occupying regime" to be wiped off the map was inaccurately represented as a call for the people of Israel to be wiped off the map. They point out that the name of a country can refer to either a government or its people, while a term such as "occupying regime" would refer to the government." --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your addition is fine, except I would replace "Many people" with "Some people". Many implies that there is a large base of people who agree with the idea. I would argue that the number of people who think that Ahmadinejad was referring to just the Israeli government as opposed to the country as a whole is quite a small proportion. Avengerx 23:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay this has been fixed. I have also moved that to the other paragraph to keep an organized article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As usual, superb job Anonymous. Avengerx 23:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"their belief that Israel is not a legitimate state."

Anonymous Editor, you keep changing reverting "their claim that Israel is not a legitimate state." to "their belief that Israel is not a legitimate state." As I've pointed out in my edit comments, we have no idea what they believe, only what they claim. We can't read people minds, or pretend that Wikipedia can do it for them. Can you please explain how you know exactly what is going on in the minds of these politicians? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If Iranian politicians have constantly called for the destruction of the Israeli state and made several comments against Israel, that must be what they believe, not only claim. Are you denying that many Iranian leaders have doubted that Israel is a legitimate state? And by the way you changed "their belief that Israel is not a legitimate state." into "their claim that Israel is not a legitimate state." first and then kept reverting to it; so don't blame me. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"That must be what they believe?" Why? That is what they repeatedly claim, but we have no idea what they believe, no matter how many times they say it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why not change this in every article where someone's opinion is shown? Obviously what they will claim is what they believe. Why would they claim something like this if they don't believe it? This argument seems to be over nothing and your "reading minds" comment makes no sense.

Do you think that they would be lying and that instead they actually believe that Israel is a legitimate state? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Every article that does use this kind of language should be changed, to their "claim", or "assertion", etc. What we know is what they say, but we have no idea what they believe. Politicians (and people in general) say all sorts of things, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which of the things they say they actually believe; I'm certainly not going to try to figure out what they believe, or if they're lying or not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying these Iranian politicians constantly say that Israel is not a legitimate state, when actually they could be lying and believe that it is legitimate? Why would they say that? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making strawman arguments for me. I'm pointing out that we don't know what politicians believe, only what they say. Unlike you, I refuse to speculate. Also, could you please quote the specific section you are bringing to make your claim, in your recent citation? It's not clear what you are referring to. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You are speculating. You are bringing the idea that these Iranian politicians constantly say that Israel is not a legitimate state, when actually they could be lying and believe that it is legitimate. That is just what you meant in your last messages. Something along the lines of "what they claim is not what they believe."--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm not speculating about anything. I know they have claimed that Israel is not a legitimate state, because the newspapers have reported it. I don't speculate about what they believe, because I have no idea what they believe, and I've certainly never said what you posted above. It is you who keep saying that they might be lying. Please don't "rephrase" my words to mean something they don't mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But do you seriously think that there is a chance that they believe that Israel actually is a legitimate state while they claim differently? If not then what is the point of changing the wording? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this - this has nothing to do with what I believe. Rather, it has to do with encyclopedic standards. Wikipedia cannot make claims on behalf of politicians - it cannot claim to know what they believe, or think, or love, or hate, etc. Rather, it can only report on their actions - what they have "stated", "claimed", "asserted", etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's really much of a difference between "belief" and "claim" here. I think "belief" in the context it is used is taken to mean "public belief"; or in other words, what they've claimed. Either way, if it's really that controversial, I think the word "contention" is probably the most precise choice, so that it would read "... to bring focus to their contention that Israel is not a legitimate state." --Jakob Huneycutt 19:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No call for the destruction of Israel

A translation of the speech is available. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement." To wipe a regime off of the map is not the same as to destroy a country, especially since "wipe of the map" coincides with an American idiomic expression that may or may not translate the same in Farsi. To translate a call to wipe a regime off the map into a call to destroy a state is not supported by any facts, especially any facts available to a reader of the article. According to the times translater, there was a call to wipe the occupying regime off the map. if "we all know" he means destroying the country of Israel then we should find a cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

I hope someone helps with the translation, but why would Iran mingle in Israel's internal politics? I wonder what "regime" they are talking about: are you saying this how they express their dissatisfaction with the Likud and support the Avoda? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The same reason Ghana mingled in South Africa's internal politics. Because they did not consider the political system legitimate. But this is all outside of the facts of the article. There is one source that claims to be an actual translation of what he said and he said "occupying regime" and there is no source that is an actual translation that claims he said "Israel", and to say "Israel" would be uncharacteristic of Iranian leadership. Given that, I don't see any grounds for the editors of this article to interpret, without any support, his call for the regime as a call for the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Take you issues to Ghana or South Africa. Iran does not have a right to mingle in Israel's internal politics. Even Saeb Erekat got it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's say that's true and let's say that Iran does not have the right to mingle in Israel's internal politics. Does that give you the license to rewrite Ahmadinejad's speeches? If he called for the occupying regime to be removed from the map, what allows you to recast that as a call for the destruction of Israel? Assuming he was wrong to make that statement, what is the problem with letting the reader decide based on what he actually said rather than your interpolation of it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Look, Wikipedia articles take no position on who has a right to do what. I don't believe for a minute that Dr. Ahmadinejad was simply demanding that a different party win the next Israeli election--but if he had been, that would certainly be a different thing from demanding the destruction of the Israeli state, completely independently of whether he had the right to do it. --Trovatore 06:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The destruction of Israel, which is ambiguous as to whether that refers to the destruction of the state or the people of Israel is a different thing from the removal of the Israeli regime from the map. The removal of the Israeli regime from the map is a different thing from the election of a different political party within the existing political system. Of the three, Ahmadinejad said the second, not the first and not the third. Based on what should the encyclopedia article assert that he said the first?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

So when you say he wasn't calling for "the destruction of Israel", i.e. "the country" of Israel, he probably didn't mean that the whole country should be actually physically removed from the world? I.e. He wasn't saying it should be geologically and geographically destroyed? So your saying he was simply saying that the whole nature of the current Israeli political system should be changed? Because it almost seems as if your contention is that he "only" meant the latter. If thats what your saying then I should probably point out that I don't think anyone interprets it any other way. Calling for "regime" change is what all but people with certain mental disorders, that cause them to interpret things literally, are likely to be interpreting it. He's calling for the destruction of the particular governmental system of Israel, which is how most people interpret this. I don't see what your issue is. --Brentt 07:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. What's your issue? The words actually used were that a regime should be wiped from the map. You seem insistent that the heading not reflect the words actually used, but your interpretation of the words. Why not reflect his words. If most people would interpret your interpretation as what he said, why not just use what he said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Common sense must prevail, both in editing and in titles. He called for the descruction of Israel, there is no support for your title change, and you have violated the WP:3RR. Please revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Common sense" means its not subject to discussion? I think the support for the title change is the available transcript which uses the words I offered for the title. I mean why not at least try to make an argument?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

I'd like to consolidate this thread here: Is there anyone here who argues that "Call for the destruction of Israel" is more accurate than "Call for the Israeli regime to be wiped off of the map". If the aim is to be as sensationalistic as possible then "interpreting" his words for the reader may be called for. But if the aim is to accurately reflect what happened, and a translation is available, I think the title should reflect the words that were used. Where is the argument that the title should not reflect the actual words that were used?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

You've made a controversial change here which has received no support; please get support for this kind of change first. I'm about to report this, so this is your last chance to restore the original title. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You really do not believe in discussion. You're going to have to suit yourself, but there has to be a reason you do not like the new title. Spell it out. Let's talk about it. Given that Ahmadinejad did not use the words "destruction of Israel" why is it so important to you that "destruction of Isreal" be the title? If the words he actually used mean the same thing, what is your attachment to words he did not use? I still expect a consensus to form and language that everyone can accept will be produced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

"Israeli regime" and "wiped off of the map" is POV rhetoric that is non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia uses neutral language that conveys meaning. If you believed in discussion, you would restore the previous title, and await agreement on your changes before making them. Show good faith by doing so, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Regime" and "wiped off of the map" are the words that were used in the speech being described. If they are rhetoric, they are the rhetoric of the speech that is being discussed. "Destruction of Israel" is also rhetoric, but not Ahmedinejad's rhetoric. Even if its rhetoric you'd prefer Admadinejad had used. Do you agree or disagree with the title being "October 26, 2005 speech to 'World without Zionism' conference" or something similar? I consider that completely neutral and more descriptive. I see that as much less POV than "destruction of Israel". If you disagree, what is your reasoning?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

One compromise I would like to suggest is just titling this section "October 26, 2005 speech to 'World without Zionism' conference". Any takers?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Practically whe entire world (including even the unreformed UN and the PA) understood and condemned his speech. Why sugarcoat it? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure using his exact words is sugarcoating. Why would a reader not understand as well as you do? Can you add some details to your argument? A reader can condemn his actual speech the same way everyone else in the world did. Why instead present the reader with your pre-interpreted version of his speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

As of right now, the destruction of Israel language has been restored with an assertion that the regime language is "severe POV". Here in the discussion I have not even seen an argument that the regime language, which was the actual language of the speech, is POV, just an assertion, once, that was challenged and undefended. I think this can be resolved intelligently. All of you "destruction of Israel" advocates can type just like I can. I'm asking you to defend your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

I am asking for one of three things at this point: 1) A reason the "destruction of Israel" is *more* accurate than "Israeli regime off of the map" given that the second is closer to Ahmadinejad's actual words or 2) A reason we cannot avoid this issue by giving a plain descriptive title such as "Speech to 2005 World without Zionism conference" or 3) another suggestion for a title that we can all agree is not POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Ahmadinejad is calling for the complete physical removal of the State of Israel, its inhabitants and infrastructure: "Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, reignited the controversy provoked by his recent calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map" yesterday by casting doubt on the historical authenticity of the Holocaust and demanding that an alternative Jewish homeland be established in Europe." He is also a Holocaust denier: "Although we don't accept this claim,...", which in Germany and in other countries is a criminal offence. Whyerd 06:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1663440,00.html

The quote you produce does not say he called for the complete physical removal of anything. An encyclopedia can provide information and allow the reader to make inferences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

No, it should not be noted that the president of Iran has no power to declare war.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the Head of State for the Iranian republic. To write off his comments dismissively with the notion that he wields no power is intellectually dishonest. An ambassador wields no actual power either, but when he speaks, you listen, because he is the representative of his government. His comments are the equivalent of the Queen of England strongly recommending that France should be glassed with the United Kingdom's considerable nuclear stockpile. Kade 18:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it "irrelevant" when the US and other "Western" nations are accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons with the intent to use them? There is nothing "dismissive" about it. Obviously he is still an important "representative of his government" - but that doesn't somehow support your argument in favor of deleting this factual information from the article. From your last sentence, it sounds clear that you are simply arguing in favor of your own POV. Wikipedia is not a personal platform. The facts are there, and people are supposed to draw their own conclusions. --Jakob Huneycutt 20:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jacob. The article should show that although Ahmedinejad threatened to "declate war", he has no power to and that this is only a threat. This must be added in this case to show that his was only threat and not an command. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the President of the USA does not have the power to declare war either (that power being in Congress) but I don't think a similar threat spoken by America's President would be dismissed in the same way. So while stating the Iranian President lacks power might be technically correct, I think it understates the threat, while leaving out his lack of power overstates it. So, while I'd agree to leave it in, I'd also suggest a suitable qualification. Maybe note that it's possible to have "military action" or "armed response." without "declaring war" - The US is not currently technically "at war" according to congress, for example, but not many would know the difference MartinRe 09:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The President of the United States can take military actions without Congressional approval and is the Commander-in-Chief of the Military. The Iranian President has neither of those powers. Moreover, it's arguable that de facto, the President of the US has gained the power to declare war (but that is just an argument). Either way, the two aren't really analogous since the POTUS does have a lot of war-making and war-directing powers while the POI has none. --Jakob Huneycutt 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad is the head of GOVERNMENT, not state. The head of state in the Islamic 'Republic' of Iran is Ali Khameni (titled 'Supreme Leader').

Whitewashing of MA's Holocaust denial

... is unacceptable: Reacting against Iranian leader’s reported Holocaust denial, Annan points to facts IRAN: AHMADINEJAD'S HOLOCAUST DENIAL SPARKS INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM Iran Leader's Remarks Draw Ire From Saudis Ahmadinejad draws ire of Saudis, Iranians, West over Israel remarks Annan shocked at Ahmadinajad casting doubt about the Holocaust

For those who removed it, face the facts. If you don't like it, send him a letter or start a blog. Whitewash won't work here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The words he used are there. Adding your interpretation that he was engaging in Holocaust denial is not adding information, it is adding your point of view. The idea that it is unacceptable not to add your point of view goes against what an encyclopedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Split inside Iran?

It can be said that Ahmadinejad's statements caused a split inside Iran, with Tehran's centres of power plunged into a spin of contradictory briefings, with hard-liners -- including the commander-in-chief of the Pasdaran, the speaker of the Majlis, the secretary-general of the Supreme National Security Council and the powerful minister of intelligence and security backing Ahmadinejad.

We need a source for this and if it is true, and this split was caused primarily specifically by the speech at the Zionism forum it should be put back where it was. Otherwise it should be put somewhere else, such as its own subsection somewhere. "Spin of contradictory briefings" especially needs a source at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Also, the statement from Khatami that is presented as "on the contrary" does not contradict the Iranian statements in support of MA. It is additional information that is sourced so it should stay in but it should not be presented as if it disproves the other statements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.248.103 (talk • contribs)

Public Speaking: Politiking or something more serious?

His comments delivered at public forums makes one ask: Is he playing to his allies or making ligitimate threats. Given the news media coverage, plus his relative inexperience at national politics makes this an important question to be considered. Damon Seath

I have not heared of any attacks on Persian Jews in the last time? Some people in the radio say that there is a stron anti Israel anti Zionism point in the speaches, but not an anti semitic one. If he really wants to move against the Jews he has plenty in Iran which would be an easy target for an "violent mob". stone

Clarification

I'm moving this to the talk page because it isn't clear whether Ahmadinejad is saying this or someone else is. The source is in Farsi. GabrielF 04:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In his mind, any answer to these questions, positive or negative, would be in favor of his idea on "illegitimacy of State of Israel".[2]