This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Could somebody please explain to me how this is encyclopediac?-- Sefringle 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
a couple of days before I bookmarked this page from Chamsky to use it in this article [1] but now it is expired! can someone help to find the original source? -- Pejman47 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
why is ther no mention of ahmadinejads involvment in the taking of hostages a few dacades ago?
Why/How is this related to Ahmadinejad? His name isn't even mentioned in the section, so far as I can tell. If it is relevant, it needs to be rewritten to explain why. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, in yet another attempt to defend Ahmadinejad against accusations of antisemitism, one of his supported has inserted the following original research into the article:
and the are no report on any anti-Semitism towards Persian Jews, and even he donated some money for building a Jewish hospital in Tehran. Even the leaders of Jewish minority of Iran, could criticize him freely for his comments regarding Holocaust. [2] [3]
The articles in question do not actually make the argument that Ahmadinejad is antisemitic, and neither of them state that he donated money to a Jewish hospital. And, as a reminder of policy, WP:NOR stats that something cannot be included in an article if:
This insertion obviously does that. Please don't insert it again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an " electric fence". [1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system."
Responding to post @ WP:ANI: Pejman47, the WP:3RR rule is there so that editors engage in discussions rather than editwar and not a bump in the road that you navigate by slowing down. In addition, I see also worrisome tendency of engaging on original research that seems to be an attempt to advocate a certain viewpoint in violation of WP:NOT. See this as a friendly warning, continuing in this manner will only result in temporarily losing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can get a full translation of Ahmadinejad's speech on 4th April? LeBofSportif 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Is he persian, kurdish, or azeri? or any combination of those? Manic Hispanic 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Concerning this [7], it seems to be an OR association of a supposed Arabic word for poison with the misspelling in that statement. Without a source making that association the inclusion of the translation is OR and is not appropriate for the article. Just wanted to get the opinions of the other regular editors here. The Behnam 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have observed this discussion for a while without comment. I want to make one now.
Zeq appears to be making false statements -- repeatedly. First, the statement that was included in the article "Israel means poison" (in Arabic). Aside from having no relevance to the article, so far there has been absolutely no evidence forthcoming for this statement. When asked for some sort of valid reliable source, none was presented. Others, using dictionaries and going both ways from Arabic to English and from English to Arabic, have been unable to find any such relationship. Finally, Zeq presents a video and claims that the person in it discusses this term. Having watched the Youtube video, never once does she discuss this. Israel is mentioned only once and then in comparison with Jordon in terms of how many people have been killed in conflicts.
It appears to me that Zeq is engaging in a creative form of disruption or vandalism. I recommend that until an actual verifiable, reliable source is provided, that this edit be rejected. I also recommend that not much further time be spent on the issue unless Zeq brings actual, realistic evidence and not links to non-evidence. It is a waste of time and I do not understand why this editor is behaving in this disruptive way. -- Blue Tie 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie: Chill out. If indeed we can not find a source for this than the edit should be rejected. I suggest that you listen to the link I provided and to this link: http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/videos.asp click on the top video link "interview" In this video she describe her childhood in Lebanon and in it she explain the trem "Israel Isreal" - please listen to both until you find it and we will talk at that point. This is my only edit to this article so your claim about "disruptive" is unfounded and even if you disagree with my statement on what base did you say that I did something "repatiavly" no one can do an edit repeatdly when he edit only once so:.... please appologize. Zeq 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
and here is an Iraqi who used the same and called Israel poison - this is in english: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040424/israel_poison_040423?s_name=&no_ads=
This is a common use across the arab world and youtr attempts to deny it seesm to be a problem. Maybe I should edit this article more often. Zeq 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Behnam: You may be right and I confused Sam with Is-Real. Sam (prounced SUM or some but a shoort U) is poison. Isreal is one of the "nicknames" for the devil in Arabic (Shitan is the main word that would apear in a dictionary). You really need to get anArabic speaker (even better than me) to explain it to you. Just like the saying in Arabic "first comes saturday and next comes Sunday" - this seems like a simple sentence but every Arabic speaker know it means: "First we will be done with the jews and than we will go after the chrstians" Zeq 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
OK given one condition: Please listen to the interview with her and decide for yourself what she asan arabic speaker sais about israel Isreal. share your observation with us on talk page and you will decide if to include it in article. I will not add it. Zeq 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The interview is only a ref to the translation. Zeq 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me please weight in on this a native Arabic speaker. "Isreal" means squat in Arabic. It's not even close to any word. Of course, Israel in itself is a "nickname" for the devil. I'm not sure about the etymology of that, but am confident that it predates the Israeli state. Zeq, since you're not fluent in Arabic, it'd be nice of you to take such issues on the talk page first. Feel free to contact me about anything related to the Arabic language. Lixy 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6528881.stm Zeq 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
though Ahmadinejad has stated that he is "not anti-Jew," and that he "respect[s] them very much."[12]
That sounds like some Boratesque satire of Ahmadinejad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.139.124 ( talk • contribs)
Actually, if you follow the reference (#12 at current) you will see that the quotes are there due to those phrases being a direct quote from the BBC article:
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."
In my own opinion, and consider that for what it is worth, Looking for other insidious reasons lfor the quotation marks before checking the actual source only helps to increase distrust in this difficult article. Thanks. -- Avi 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We have to be very careful about letting personal points of view or unintentional original research slipping in to any article, let alone one as controversial as this. The safest way to prevent that, in my opinion, is to bring direct unadulterated quotes from reliable sources. While paraphrasing is allowed, if it is true to the text, perhaps in articles as high-profile and contentious as this one we should be a bit more careful. -- Avi 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter; direct quotes require quotation marks per every rule of grammar. Further, I am not sure about you, but in a sentence with multiple quotation marks, such as the one in question, my first assumption, and I tend to think most readers' first assumption, is that we are getting a quote. Following through with the reference confirms that. Is their any concern that the BBC article being sarcastic as well, it too puts quotes around "Anti-Jew". And that is simply because it is a direct quote of MA. Here too, we are directly quoting the BBC, and to not have quotation marks is a greivous grammatical error. It somewhat concerns me that people are reading insidious, diabolic, and malevolent undertones into something so grammatically basic and sound. Please, y'all, step back and think about what we are supposed to be doing here. If the sentence was MA claims he is "pro-women's rights" which would be a direct quote of some source, or perhaps MA stated that he is a "devout follower of Islam" where the section in quotation marks is a direct quote of a reliable source, would we even be having this discussion? -- Avi 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that your argument is irrelevant, I believe, in that this is still a direct quote. Direct quotes require quotation marks in all forms of the English language unless they are in paragraph form and set off in blockquote format. I am still surprised that there is any argument on the proper usage of English grammar. Shall we procede to have his initials in lowercase, ala "mahmoud ahmadinejad" because using uppercase may be indicative of a POV that glorifies this man to the point of godliness (ala "Lord", "Him", "Jesus", etc.)? I think that is rediculous, but I find it difficult to seperate the concern about capitalization with that about quotation marks. Grammar is grammar, simply put. -- Avi 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I am very much against any warping of a direct source to fit preconceived points of view. By extension, this has become a slippery slope issue, in that what will be next, will we be subtly changing the paraphrase to fit Pejman's point of view, or your point of view, or mine? There is nothing as pure a reflection of a source than that source's own words. This is even more true here when the quote is actually of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's own words. How can there be any shred of doubt about point of view when we quote the man himself, unadulterated?!?! I am very, very concerned about this now, as I see overtones of whitewashing going on. There is absolutely no good reason to change the words of of Ahmadinejad as brought by the BBC; there is nothing as NPOV and as reliable as the direct quote, and especially as I sense that changing it is being used by some (and I do not believe by you, Benham) as an ideological issue. The use of the quotation marks has nothing to do with satire and ridicule, as was incorrectly supposed earlier; it simply and truly is a matter of English grammar. So yes, I am firmly opposed to any changes to pure text which result from ideological perspectives. Paraphrases are open to interpretation and coloration, and are much more likely to result in edit wars than pure, unadulterated quotation. Perhaps those who find the use of quotations dastardly should ask themselves why they do. I notice that no one has answered my questions above. I will repost them here for y'all's convenience:
Forgive me if I do not respond for a few days, as the second days of Passover are fast approaching and I may not have time to respond before sundown. My silence in no way indicates approval or disapproval of any response; merely my inability to respond. On a personal note, thank you, The Benham, for your continued interest in discussion. -- Avi 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
My questions were an example of reductio ad absurdum. Regardless, I propose the following compromise, bring the entire sentence as "No, I am not anti-Jew…I respect them very much." This way we have the exact quote, yet there are no special quotes around "anti-Jew" so there can be absolutely no possibility of misunderstanding even by those who are not well versed in English grammar. I have made the change in the text. Thoughts? -- Avi 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen "anti-Jew", being used by anyone, ever, except by Borat, until I saw the BBC article. Is it widely used?-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, "semite", in Persian, is sâmi (sâmi ben Nuh), descendant of Noah). Verify it here I would be interested to see the actual transcript.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. I don't know why Jayjg puts those two reasons down; I don't think his word choice was that clever. Even the BBC makes the connection that 'anti-Jew' means 'antisemite' in this situation, and don't see how either of Jayjg's claims apply since nothing about Ahmadinejad's statement appears to further either the strawman Arab argument or the 'Jews aren't semites' notion. I find it even more peculiar that Jayjg attached "obviously" to it. My guess is that there isn't a special word, 'antisemite', in Persian and that 'anti-Jew' is just the way it is said. Of course this could use verification, but in any case the BBC makes this connection as well.
This really shouldn't be that controversial. If he had explicitly said "I am not an antisemite" he could have been trying to operate on the strawman argument, as in "I am anti-Jew, but not anti-Arab, so therefore I am not an antisemite", but his words were 'anti-Jew', which in English equals 'antisemite'. Also, I don't see at all how this is about 'Jews aren't semites', since he doesn't talk about Semites. I don't believe it is an actual 'phrase' like it is in English, and his usage isn't about English implications and insinuations. Jayjg, I think you are worrying too much. The Behnam 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Benham, while it may be a matter of absolute certainty that Anti-Jew=Anti-Semite, in my own opinion, I think that using direct quotes in controversial articles is preferable, where the text does not threaten to overwhelm the article. May I have your opinion on the compromise I provided? -- Avi 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the citations in the "Family planning and population policy" section are different than that the ones in the other sections? If not, may I change them? Thanks, Dictouray 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Could somebody please explain to me how this is encyclopediac?-- Sefringle 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
a couple of days before I bookmarked this page from Chamsky to use it in this article [1] but now it is expired! can someone help to find the original source? -- Pejman47 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
why is ther no mention of ahmadinejads involvment in the taking of hostages a few dacades ago?
Why/How is this related to Ahmadinejad? His name isn't even mentioned in the section, so far as I can tell. If it is relevant, it needs to be rewritten to explain why. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, in yet another attempt to defend Ahmadinejad against accusations of antisemitism, one of his supported has inserted the following original research into the article:
and the are no report on any anti-Semitism towards Persian Jews, and even he donated some money for building a Jewish hospital in Tehran. Even the leaders of Jewish minority of Iran, could criticize him freely for his comments regarding Holocaust. [2] [3]
The articles in question do not actually make the argument that Ahmadinejad is antisemitic, and neither of them state that he donated money to a Jewish hospital. And, as a reminder of policy, WP:NOR stats that something cannot be included in an article if:
This insertion obviously does that. Please don't insert it again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an " electric fence". [1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system."
Responding to post @ WP:ANI: Pejman47, the WP:3RR rule is there so that editors engage in discussions rather than editwar and not a bump in the road that you navigate by slowing down. In addition, I see also worrisome tendency of engaging on original research that seems to be an attempt to advocate a certain viewpoint in violation of WP:NOT. See this as a friendly warning, continuing in this manner will only result in temporarily losing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can get a full translation of Ahmadinejad's speech on 4th April? LeBofSportif 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Is he persian, kurdish, or azeri? or any combination of those? Manic Hispanic 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Concerning this [7], it seems to be an OR association of a supposed Arabic word for poison with the misspelling in that statement. Without a source making that association the inclusion of the translation is OR and is not appropriate for the article. Just wanted to get the opinions of the other regular editors here. The Behnam 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have observed this discussion for a while without comment. I want to make one now.
Zeq appears to be making false statements -- repeatedly. First, the statement that was included in the article "Israel means poison" (in Arabic). Aside from having no relevance to the article, so far there has been absolutely no evidence forthcoming for this statement. When asked for some sort of valid reliable source, none was presented. Others, using dictionaries and going both ways from Arabic to English and from English to Arabic, have been unable to find any such relationship. Finally, Zeq presents a video and claims that the person in it discusses this term. Having watched the Youtube video, never once does she discuss this. Israel is mentioned only once and then in comparison with Jordon in terms of how many people have been killed in conflicts.
It appears to me that Zeq is engaging in a creative form of disruption or vandalism. I recommend that until an actual verifiable, reliable source is provided, that this edit be rejected. I also recommend that not much further time be spent on the issue unless Zeq brings actual, realistic evidence and not links to non-evidence. It is a waste of time and I do not understand why this editor is behaving in this disruptive way. -- Blue Tie 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie: Chill out. If indeed we can not find a source for this than the edit should be rejected. I suggest that you listen to the link I provided and to this link: http://www.americancongressfortruth.org/videos.asp click on the top video link "interview" In this video she describe her childhood in Lebanon and in it she explain the trem "Israel Isreal" - please listen to both until you find it and we will talk at that point. This is my only edit to this article so your claim about "disruptive" is unfounded and even if you disagree with my statement on what base did you say that I did something "repatiavly" no one can do an edit repeatdly when he edit only once so:.... please appologize. Zeq 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
and here is an Iraqi who used the same and called Israel poison - this is in english: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040424/israel_poison_040423?s_name=&no_ads=
This is a common use across the arab world and youtr attempts to deny it seesm to be a problem. Maybe I should edit this article more often. Zeq 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Behnam: You may be right and I confused Sam with Is-Real. Sam (prounced SUM or some but a shoort U) is poison. Isreal is one of the "nicknames" for the devil in Arabic (Shitan is the main word that would apear in a dictionary). You really need to get anArabic speaker (even better than me) to explain it to you. Just like the saying in Arabic "first comes saturday and next comes Sunday" - this seems like a simple sentence but every Arabic speaker know it means: "First we will be done with the jews and than we will go after the chrstians" Zeq 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
OK given one condition: Please listen to the interview with her and decide for yourself what she asan arabic speaker sais about israel Isreal. share your observation with us on talk page and you will decide if to include it in article. I will not add it. Zeq 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The interview is only a ref to the translation. Zeq 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me please weight in on this a native Arabic speaker. "Isreal" means squat in Arabic. It's not even close to any word. Of course, Israel in itself is a "nickname" for the devil. I'm not sure about the etymology of that, but am confident that it predates the Israeli state. Zeq, since you're not fluent in Arabic, it'd be nice of you to take such issues on the talk page first. Feel free to contact me about anything related to the Arabic language. Lixy 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6528881.stm Zeq 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
though Ahmadinejad has stated that he is "not anti-Jew," and that he "respect[s] them very much."[12]
That sounds like some Boratesque satire of Ahmadinejad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.139.124 ( talk • contribs)
Actually, if you follow the reference (#12 at current) you will see that the quotes are there due to those phrases being a direct quote from the BBC article:
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."
In my own opinion, and consider that for what it is worth, Looking for other insidious reasons lfor the quotation marks before checking the actual source only helps to increase distrust in this difficult article. Thanks. -- Avi 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We have to be very careful about letting personal points of view or unintentional original research slipping in to any article, let alone one as controversial as this. The safest way to prevent that, in my opinion, is to bring direct unadulterated quotes from reliable sources. While paraphrasing is allowed, if it is true to the text, perhaps in articles as high-profile and contentious as this one we should be a bit more careful. -- Avi 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter; direct quotes require quotation marks per every rule of grammar. Further, I am not sure about you, but in a sentence with multiple quotation marks, such as the one in question, my first assumption, and I tend to think most readers' first assumption, is that we are getting a quote. Following through with the reference confirms that. Is their any concern that the BBC article being sarcastic as well, it too puts quotes around "Anti-Jew". And that is simply because it is a direct quote of MA. Here too, we are directly quoting the BBC, and to not have quotation marks is a greivous grammatical error. It somewhat concerns me that people are reading insidious, diabolic, and malevolent undertones into something so grammatically basic and sound. Please, y'all, step back and think about what we are supposed to be doing here. If the sentence was MA claims he is "pro-women's rights" which would be a direct quote of some source, or perhaps MA stated that he is a "devout follower of Islam" where the section in quotation marks is a direct quote of a reliable source, would we even be having this discussion? -- Avi 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that your argument is irrelevant, I believe, in that this is still a direct quote. Direct quotes require quotation marks in all forms of the English language unless they are in paragraph form and set off in blockquote format. I am still surprised that there is any argument on the proper usage of English grammar. Shall we procede to have his initials in lowercase, ala "mahmoud ahmadinejad" because using uppercase may be indicative of a POV that glorifies this man to the point of godliness (ala "Lord", "Him", "Jesus", etc.)? I think that is rediculous, but I find it difficult to seperate the concern about capitalization with that about quotation marks. Grammar is grammar, simply put. -- Avi 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I am very much against any warping of a direct source to fit preconceived points of view. By extension, this has become a slippery slope issue, in that what will be next, will we be subtly changing the paraphrase to fit Pejman's point of view, or your point of view, or mine? There is nothing as pure a reflection of a source than that source's own words. This is even more true here when the quote is actually of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's own words. How can there be any shred of doubt about point of view when we quote the man himself, unadulterated?!?! I am very, very concerned about this now, as I see overtones of whitewashing going on. There is absolutely no good reason to change the words of of Ahmadinejad as brought by the BBC; there is nothing as NPOV and as reliable as the direct quote, and especially as I sense that changing it is being used by some (and I do not believe by you, Benham) as an ideological issue. The use of the quotation marks has nothing to do with satire and ridicule, as was incorrectly supposed earlier; it simply and truly is a matter of English grammar. So yes, I am firmly opposed to any changes to pure text which result from ideological perspectives. Paraphrases are open to interpretation and coloration, and are much more likely to result in edit wars than pure, unadulterated quotation. Perhaps those who find the use of quotations dastardly should ask themselves why they do. I notice that no one has answered my questions above. I will repost them here for y'all's convenience:
Forgive me if I do not respond for a few days, as the second days of Passover are fast approaching and I may not have time to respond before sundown. My silence in no way indicates approval or disapproval of any response; merely my inability to respond. On a personal note, thank you, The Benham, for your continued interest in discussion. -- Avi 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
My questions were an example of reductio ad absurdum. Regardless, I propose the following compromise, bring the entire sentence as "No, I am not anti-Jew…I respect them very much." This way we have the exact quote, yet there are no special quotes around "anti-Jew" so there can be absolutely no possibility of misunderstanding even by those who are not well versed in English grammar. I have made the change in the text. Thoughts? -- Avi 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen "anti-Jew", being used by anyone, ever, except by Borat, until I saw the BBC article. Is it widely used?-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, "semite", in Persian, is sâmi (sâmi ben Nuh), descendant of Noah). Verify it here I would be interested to see the actual transcript.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ ♥ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. I don't know why Jayjg puts those two reasons down; I don't think his word choice was that clever. Even the BBC makes the connection that 'anti-Jew' means 'antisemite' in this situation, and don't see how either of Jayjg's claims apply since nothing about Ahmadinejad's statement appears to further either the strawman Arab argument or the 'Jews aren't semites' notion. I find it even more peculiar that Jayjg attached "obviously" to it. My guess is that there isn't a special word, 'antisemite', in Persian and that 'anti-Jew' is just the way it is said. Of course this could use verification, but in any case the BBC makes this connection as well.
This really shouldn't be that controversial. If he had explicitly said "I am not an antisemite" he could have been trying to operate on the strawman argument, as in "I am anti-Jew, but not anti-Arab, so therefore I am not an antisemite", but his words were 'anti-Jew', which in English equals 'antisemite'. Also, I don't see at all how this is about 'Jews aren't semites', since he doesn't talk about Semites. I don't believe it is an actual 'phrase' like it is in English, and his usage isn't about English implications and insinuations. Jayjg, I think you are worrying too much. The Behnam 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Benham, while it may be a matter of absolute certainty that Anti-Jew=Anti-Semite, in my own opinion, I think that using direct quotes in controversial articles is preferable, where the text does not threaten to overwhelm the article. May I have your opinion on the compromise I provided? -- Avi 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the citations in the "Family planning and population policy" section are different than that the ones in the other sections? If not, may I change them? Thanks, Dictouray 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)