Chad Brock

Predator Control - Gunning/Shooting/etc.

All references to gunning, shooting, killing and so forth should be change to the correct term for these action with this type of program. The neutral term is "culling".

Culling is: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals  ; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control

Theosis4u (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that "culling", rather than being especially neutral, is more a term adopted by people who assume that this form of population control is acceptable. In other words, it carries a POV like all the others, but the only difference is that it tends to be used by the pro-predator control side. Dragons flight (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's neutral in that it is the accurate, scientific, and legal term for these activities for these programs. Culling programs can include/restrict certain activities - poisoning, shooting by rifle, relocation, etc. One reference to the purposed method is enough in an article without giving undue weight to color it as a POV. Culling is available to expand for those that desire. Theosis4u (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Terms like selective reduction, sanitation worker, and downsizing are all accurate, legally acceptable descriptions. Nonetheless they are preferentially adopted by people who wish to spin the facts they describe in a more positive light. Same for "culling". It's preferentially used by people from one one side of a POV debate, hence it carries POV with it. That's not to say the section can't be rephrased, but your suggestion is akin to writing it in the way the predator control advocates would prefer, which is not the same as writing about it neutrally. Dragons flight (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did state that it would be appropriate to reference what manner the culling program has approved. But to keep repeating violent and negative phrases throughout the article when there are more acceptable alternatives is pushing a POV. Picking terms has allot to do with the audience, we wouldn't use a street term for intercourse in an encyclopedia article even though they imply the same thing. Theosis4u (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single source quoted, nor even in the ballot bill, where the word 'culling' is used. You cull cows from a herd; this is different. You will not find that word used in a single source written about this in the Alaskan papers, etc., or any others for that matter, even the nonsourced ones that I've seen trying to make it sound more appealing. I've never seen anyone even try to pretend that word to be appropriate because it isn't the same. Cows and sheep are not bears nor wolves. Wild animals are not domesticated. When you cull a herd, you separate the better animals out from the rest: you don't fly overhead and shoot one, two, or even the entire pack, . It simply isn't remotely the same thing! The words used in this section are not violent and / or negative, unless you think the terms used by those who advocate predator control programs are, because those are the words that were used, if you read what they (and Mrs. Palin) themselves say. Nor is it slanted. Hunting is not a violent word. Slaughter would be. The section uses neutral terms, not charged nor misleading ones. To call this a culling program would be misleading. If you consider the words shooting and hunting to be violent, which are the negative phrases that would have to be substituted for culling, then what does that say about the actual activity that you have to sanitize it like that? Shooting and hunting ARE the correct words: culling isn't even close! Jolly momma (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your simply wrong, again. Culling is the appropriate term, it has nothing to do with domesticated animals or not. Anyone who simply does a search on "cull culling alaska wolves" will find out your wrong and you lied about the term not being used. Theosis4u (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR!!!!! The word has not been used in ANY source I've found; however, i must admit I don't generally consult pro-hunting propaganda, which you obvviously do. Culling, if you actually look up the meaning, refers to the act of culling animals as I explained above. Do you live on a farm? Do you have farmers in your family? Are you a linguist? If you look at every NON-HUNTING (NON-PROPAGANDA) - propaganda is not a source- written source on this, you will not see that word legitimately used. They are two very different concepts if used properly. I notice you haven't produced it in any legitimate form. DO NOT EVER CALL ME A LIAR AGAIN. Jolly momma (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your simply lying about the appropriate use of the term "culling". I don't know what you've searched for or not in regards to the artilces. But I do know you never included the term culling for this issue otherwise you would of seen my point [unless your lying about that as well]. General Google Search and Google News Search. You'll notice that many sources do use the term - even animal rights activist ones. I did consider your write ups on these articles in "good faith", but your responses to my talking points have removed that assumption. 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosis4u (talk • contribs)

AGAIN, DO NOT EVER CALL ME A LIAR! Considering that you called me a liar, I don't believe your 'good faith assumption', and given the insulting and condescending tone you've given them, I'd say you are not telling the truth. You've been nothing but rude. The word 'culling' has implications that have nothing to do with aerial hunting; and NO, I have never seen it in ANY reference, article, etc. about this subject, and I have read quite a few. I am sick and tired of your rudeness. Words have different connotations and different meanings; as someone who actually has studied language: YOU ARE WRONG! The connotation of that word is NOT the same. You need to stop being so deliberately rude. There is no excuse for it. I worked in fraud for years: the one thing I can't tolerate is a liar. I suggest you alter your tone. If nothing else, You owe me an apology for being so rude, and for calling me a liar. 22:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly momma (talk • contribs)

What's rude is your insistence on a premise that is wrong even after you've been giving the means to see for yourself. I would expect a rebuttal on that, rather from thin air. Try this one in regards to the use of "culling" for these very programs. By the way, my biology/math professor in Valdea Alaska was one of the states most notable researchers on wolves. Theosis4u (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I did find a dictionary with that reference: however, it is not the preferable way the word is used. Most appropriately, it refers to domestic animals. It can refer to hunting, but not as a strong synonym. I frankly don't care what or who your professor was. I have a M.A. in Latin, and have worked with languages all my life. I'm a stickler for language and word meanings. Hence, my insistence that the word 'cull' properly refers to livestock, which by implication it does. If you want to argue, fine. If you want to pat yourself on the back and say 'yippee, I'm right', whatever. However, in its first, best meaning, it does refer to livestock. Just stop the arguing and rudeness. Either that, or you choose your words and are rude without knowing it. Will you just please pretend that you didn't realize you were being rude and drop it? Jolly momma (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this here in addition to what I wrote below since it properly belongs in this section. I asked several regular hunters, farmers, and fox hunters (I grew up in fox hunting country -they chase, but don't kill them, now) - and they all agreed that your use of the word 'cull' was incorrect in this instance. What you use up there is different than is used down here, apparently. This is not meant to be taken as an attack, which it is not, but just a point that the word is not as commonly used as you suggest. Again, do not become irritated, please. This is only meant to point out a difference in word usage, whether between different philosophies or different parts of the country, I do not know. Jolly momma (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not geographic, my sources show that and a small amount of time researching it will show the term is used globally. Theosis4u (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, that's a bad synonym unless you're trying to use it as a euphemisn for something like aerial hunting, which is what you're trying to do. Those who promote it frequently do just that. However, the word, properly, refers to livestock.Jolly momma (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this simply about whether the word used should be "hunt" or "cull"? At least you all are not arguing about the bridge [grin]. Really now, either is fine, but if an RS mentions population control (which it dos IIRC), then "cull" is better, as it is more specific. I do not see this as a euphemism, but rather just a special case of the more general "hunt". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo are not livestock, but they are culled annually. There are ferocious fights over the quota to be culled, but nobody argues about the term. -- Zsero (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cull properly does not carry the same meaning as in the activity of an aerial hunt, no matter how hunters, or those who support aerial huntering programs, might want it to. Hunting is shooting wild animals with guns, etc; culling is removing domesticated animals from a herd, without the implication of killing necessarily (as in the culling of sheep, etc., by a border collie) for market of some other purpose. It denotes and implies two different activities altogether. Jolly momma (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Those are indeed two different things (although your definition of cull is nonstandardly narrow), but aren't both being discussed simultaneously in the content? So while saying something like "aerial culling" might seem awkward, what about "aerial hunting to cull [predators]"? I think that works quite well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeated assertion doesn't make it so. -- Zsero (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See, e.g., this article, which is not particularly friendly to the cull, but doesn't hesitate to use the term. -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The kangaroos in the article are being killed for meat for people to eat; the wolves, and bears, killed in aerial hunting are not being eaten, simply killed. The wolves' pelts are sold, as are the bear skins, but wolves are not eaten, and the bears, for the most part, are trophies. Again, there is a big difference in the way the word is used. Jolly momma (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, they're not being killed for meat. They're being killed because there are too damned many of them. Only a tiny fraction of the cull is used for meat, a bit more is used for fur, but most of it is left for scavengers.

If the wolves' pelts are all being used, then what's your problem with it? Is killing an animal for its fur somehow less valid than doing so for its meat? -- Zsero (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, my problem is with the word usage. Your article suggests that it's a great many more than a fraction that are being killed for meat. We are talking about the use of the word 'cull'; do kangaroos move around in large numbers (I think they do, or am I wrong?). The animals killed via aerial hunting are not in packs, but chosen at random because a plane is flying overhead. Culling is choosing the animal for removal from the whole, unless you want to insist you do it on the spur of the moment because you have it in your sights overhead. Culling in your article, and the practice of aerial hunting, are NOT the same in theory or in practice. In this case, it would be a euphemism. Jolly momma (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The kangaroo cull is millions of animals. How much kangaroo meat do you think is eaten, worldwide? It's an exotic food served at a handful of gourmet restaurants. Some more is used for pet food, but still most of the kill is not used. You're drawing arbitrary distinctions. The wolves in Alaska are being killed for the same reason as the kangaroos in Australia — because there are too damned many of them. And the word for that is "culling". -- Zsero (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the wolves in Alaska are killed to promote the moose and caribou herds for hunting, not because there are too many of them. Jolly momma (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the moose and caribou herds are too small, that means by definition there are too many wolves. Moose and caribou are a resource for which we compete with the wolves. If there are too many wolves there aren't enough prey for us, so we cull the wolves down to an acceptable number, leaving more prey for us to hunt. If there weren't too many wolves then we wouldn't need to shoot any, because we could take all the prey we wanted and so could they. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo populations have exploded because their natural predator, the Tasmanian Devil, has been exterminated. That is the opposite of what is being done here. The wolf is the predator, not the prey, which is what the kangaroo is. When you remove predators, you have an explosion of prey animals, as we do here with white tailed deer. People killed the wolves and cougars who preyed on the deer: now there are millions of deer who starve. The Bush administration may not even protect the few Eastern cougars remaining because they insist they're released pets, which makes those seen by eyewitnesses dismissed by people unwilling to protect them, even though there have been reported sightings since they supposedly became extinct. As a result, we will continue to have an overpopulation of deer until something is done. Please look at these sources: [[1]] [[2]] The section about aerial hunting even points the problem with overpopulation of prey out. Do they hunt kangaroos from airplanes in Australia? Jolly momma (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Tasmanian devils are from Tasmania, as the name implies. They're far from extinct, but they have nothing to do with the huge kangaroo herds, which are on the mainland, not in Tasmania. I'm not aware of any kangaroo culling in Tasmania. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply relating what the source I used above stated (facts about Kangaroos, see above). That's why I put it there. Apparently the point is that without the Kangaroo's natural predators, whatever they be, the population has risen, though not in the numbers you suggested. It also suggested that Kangaroos are killed for meat. However, it is useless to belabor the point. Jolly momma (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

People have been arguing about whether the terms "gunning", "shooting", "killing", and "culling" (and perhaps other that I've missed) are "correct" or "appropriate".
Obviously all of these terms are correct in some contexts.
In the context of shooting wolves from helicopters, obviously all of these terms are "correct".
As to whether any of these terms is "appropriate", that's a judgment call (just because many people use a term, or government agencies use it, or animal-rights groups sometimes use it, does not automatically make it "appropriate".)
As to whether there are there are "too damned many" wolves, moose, caribou, hunters, politicians, people discussing this, whatever, that also is a judgment call (we can discuss the expected results of large numbers of critters, but we can't say whether this constitutes "too many".) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

opening statement should be replaced

“with her newness to the national spotlight, Palin's political positions continue to be determined. Some say that Palin has governed from the political center,[1] while others say her positions represent far-right politics.”

Should be replaced by:

“The following are the political positions of Sarah Palin on an assortment of issues.”

I have already replaced it and someone has put it back. Being left, right or center is a matter of opinion. Wikipedia supposed to be a place of information not a place of debate.

State the facts and let the reader decide. OxAO (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit update: Noted: someone changed it with out their opinion. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on opening statement:

Palin started politics in 1992 Obama started politics in 1996. Why is Palin stated as new in politics and Obama is not?

OxAO (talk)

Rick Steiner Statements And Objectivity?

I question the use of the growing quotes from Rick Steiner that are used on the page after reading these: Rick Steiner: Sarah Palin's record on environment is abysmal & Sarah Palin and Global Warming: Alaska Prof. Says Palin Misrepresented State Findings on Endangered Polar Bears…and Tried to Cover It Up . Theosis4u (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two more sources by Steiner:

• While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling
• THE COASTAL COALITION: Proposal to Establish a United Nations Global Habitat Conservation Fund

Theosis4u (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailout

Palin's quote from the Couric CBS interview in the Bailout section cites 3 different sources. One of those sources is the CBS website, but that source does not have the quote that's cited in the article. Citing a single quote should not reqire 3 seperate sources. If Palin really did say what's in the quote, then why does the CBS website with the transcript not contain the quote that's in the article? And why does one quote require 3 seperate sources? If the quote is real, then it should be on the CBS transcript, and it should only require one source, not three. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the unregistered user who fixed it! I like your changes. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Public Life

Misquote

The quoted text "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum [but] I am a proponent of teaching both" appears to have gotten mixed up somehow as the text before the "[but]" was given in an interview the day after the "I am a proponent" according to the source.

I suggest replacing the first sentence with something like the text below, which is mainly from an earlier revision, to correct the mistake and give context (leaving the second sentence on not having litmus tests as is).

While running for Governor of Alaska and asked about the teaching of creationism along with evolution in public school science classes, Palin answered: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". When interviewed the next day, she stated that while open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

DeanKeaton (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

God has sent me

The "God has sent me ..." quote seems to reflect a private belief. I'm not sure that it belongs here. DeanKeaton (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The last two paragraphs of the section report criticism of Palin in a way that doesn't seem to add much, especially as the sources are not prominent, and in some cases is pure speculation. I think the article would be improved if they were just deleted. DeanKeaton (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-life", anti-abortion

Zsero has taken it on him/herself to reinstate the term "pro-life" after 81.109.13.2 corrected it to "anti-abortion" in the stem cell section. The neutral term, appropriate for an encyclopedia, is "anti-abortion". As political framing, "pro-life" is inappropriate here unless it is intended as a direct quote from Eskimo Nell Mrs. Palin, in which case it should appear in quotes. Otherwise it should be removed and replaced by 81.109.13.2's edit, n'est-ce pas?

For guidances here, WP's own pro-life article is, amazingly, worth reading. E.g.: "The Associated Press encourages journalists seeking a neutral tone to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion." And: "The English-language edition of the Vatican Gazette encourages journalists seeking a papal tone to use the term 'the heinous murder of cuddly, darling lickle babies that might have grown up to be totally ignorant about politics, world affairs and statesmanship, thus depriving humankind of the perfect candidates to lead the most dangerous nation on earth when everything starts going to Hell in a handbasket.' " — Writegeist (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you start putting "anti-abortion" then I'll start changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion". As for the AP using "abortion rights", they don't use "gun rights" do they? If "gun control" is neutral, then so must be "abortion control". The only way out of this mess is to stick to the widely-accepted terms for each side. -- Zsero (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Prolife" is a technical term. Obviously it doesn't mean having a Consistent Life Ethic, but it doesn't really mean anti-abortion either, because 1) it's possible to believe that abortions are bad while still believing that abortion is a personal decision, and 2) Prolife also includes a number of other beliefs, primarily the belief that a foetus is no more or less than a really really small human being. Best to leave things as is. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa Zsero, hold dem dar ponies cowboy! (Or cowgirl.) I did not say that I would "put" anything. I just explained which phrase I thought the more correct for this here incyclepeedja, in the hope of eliciting an intelligent response or two. Nevertheless "pro-abortion" is correct also, by the same token, as you surmise; but I thought it unnecessary to, er, labor the point. I trust you will "put" it.

As for that gun rights/gun control herring, all red with fishy embarrassment, you should know that in the deliciously idiosyncratic English language what's sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander. I do like a bowl of well-mixed metaphors with the after-dinner Cognac, don't you?

I don't believe in leaving the status quo undisturbed when it's so very clearly erroneous. — Writegeist (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a change that retains "pro-life" and adds "anti-abortion". — Writegeist (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel"

Regarding this edit by Zsero, I note that AIPAC refers to itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". But I agree that it's probably best to avoid using "pro-Israel" in its common meaning of "supporting the most hawkish elements of the Israeli government, whether that is the best for Israel itself or not". J Street doesn't buy into that and calls itself "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement". —KCinDC (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't think we need to characterise organisations that are wikilinked, especially if they're well-known anyway. We don't include a potted description of the ACLU or NARAL or the NRA every time we mention them. It's just unnecessary; if the user doesn't recognise the name, or just wants to learn more about it, they can follow the link. That's what it's for.

2. In this particular case, it seems to me that the reason for including the description was in order to wikilink to a contentious article. -- Zsero (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(a) Thank you KCinDC for bring this to the talk page. I should have done that myself.

(b) In response to Zsero: The recent dispute on the Israel lobby in the United States article (since you call it contentious) started about 4 days ago and is being addressed via discussion on that talk page between 5 editors. I expect it should settle down in a few more days as we figure out the best way to deal with a number of recent changes to its contents. Articles undo minor disputes all the time, such as the constant churn on this Sarah Palin article. It isn't appropriate to just start removing links to an article just because of a recent dispute, this is Wikipedia after all. --John Bahrain (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero's point 1. AIPAC is well known enough, and people can follow the link if they don't know it. Also, I don't like describing it as pro-Israel since there are plenty of people who are opposed to AIPAC but consider themselves pro-Israel. —KCinDC (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The language is "a pro-Israel" lobby. I do realize there are different perspectives as I wrote a significant part of the article on the dovish J Street group. --John Bahrain (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to just start removing links to an article just because of a recent dispute. It's not as if this phrase had been there for a long time and was suddenly removed. I removed it as soon as it had been added, and it seems to have been added only for the purpose of linking it to that article. You still haven't said why we should treat AIPAC differently than we do every other well-known lobby group, such as the ACLU, NARAL, the NRA, etc. -- Zsero (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that it doesn't belong because it was recently added? I don't think you've been paying attention. I originally linked the phrase "pro-Israel lobby" originally back on September 11 (see here [3]) and for the record I didn't even add the phrase "pro-Israel lobby", I merely linked it to the appropriate article. I think you protest too much. Also, you argument about not including descriptions along with the formal names of organizations does not hold if you read the article, the whole article is filled with them, such as "the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac", or "Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group." --John Bahrain (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin: "Iran...would seek to wipe [the Israelis] off the earth"

Zsero has twice deleted edits that give context to Palin’s statement that "Iran...would seek to wipe [Israel] off the face of the earth." This colorful language derives from a translation from Ahmadinejad’s Farsi quotation of Khomeini. The translation as Palin gives it is contested by Farsi scholars. The edit (in bold below) wikilinks to a section of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel that covers this. This is the second edit to this effect deleted by Zsero.

Here, shown in bold, is the edit in situ:

• "Palin said the United States would naturally consult with Israel on such matters, but added that it was Israel's right 'to fight against a regime like Iran who would seek to wipe them off the earth' (see: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel) and that 'It is obvious to me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.'"

Absent the context, namely Ahmadinejad’s statement and the disagreements about its translation, Palin’s statement appears as a statement of fact. I think this is misleading and inappropriate to an encyclopedia.

In a discussion on Zsero’s talk page he/she takes the line that Ahmadinejad’s original statement is irrelevant: "All that matters in this article is what she said."

My view is that as Ahmadinejad’s original is the direct progenitor of Palin's remark, and as the (commonly assumed) meaning implicitly attributed to it by Palin is contested by Farsi scholars, knowledge of the dispute about its true meaning is indispensible to an informed read of Palin’s words. The requisite information is to be found in the section of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article to which I linked in the edits that were censored by Zsero.

Zsero and I have discussed this on his/her talk page, to no avail. It’s time to open it up to wider discussion. (Sorry, forgot to sign this when I posted it.) — Writegeist (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A-jad's precise language would only matter if Palin had referred to that speech. She didn't. She said Iran wants to destroy Israel. Writegeist writes as if A-jad's speech were the only reason anyone would think that, so that she must have been referring to his speech. But that's not the case. There was plenty of reason to think Iran wanted to destroy Israel before A-jad's speech, and there's plenty of reason since then, including the fact that his own office claims he did say it in that speech; that claim alone is valid evidence of Iran's intent, whether or not he actually said it. That's the context in which Palin made her statement, so the controversy over the precise translation of one phrase in one speech by someone who hasn't even got his figurative finger on Iran's figurative button isn't relevant here. -- Zsero (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep one thing in mind - This article is about what Palin's political opinions are and not whether they are factually or morally justified. The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel already provides a very detailed argument on both sides as to what Ahmadinejad actually said. It does not need to be repeated here. If Palin discusses this issue further, or a mainstream media source directly challenges her on this issue, then it deserves a citation - but otherwise trying to make this argument using other wiki articles or news articles written before Palin made this statement would probably be considered original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Z: "She said Iran wants to destroy Israel." Where did she get that idea? Same place you and everyone else did: a translation from Farsi of Armydinnerjacket quoting Khomeini. Until this translation spread around the world nobody was making wild accusations that Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" or "off the face of the earth" or off whatever else they could think of that has a face. IRIB admitted it was a mistranslation, and corrected it. But it had been seized upon by NYT et al., who gave it huge prominence and disseminated it globally through umpteen news cycles. Jewish-American and Zionist pro-Israel propagandists studiously ignored the correction in order to sustain the convenient myth that Iran is hell-bent on a second Holocaust--convenient as the primary justification for the US-Israeli stance re Iran that we see today. Iran's stated desire is for the Israeli regime to disappear, along with its brutal suppression of the Palestinians; not for genocide. This position has been repeated ad nauseam by Armydinnerjacket and various Iranian government officials. Yet the fear-mongering disinformation campaign about Iran wiping out Israel persists. Your censorship of even so much as a link to the article about the controversy perpetuates the disinformation by keeping the reader in ignorance of the origin and context of Palin's accusation.

H: "...detailed argument...as to what Ahmadinejad actually said...does not need to be repeated here." Agreed. I do not advocate repeating it in the article. I advocate providing the reader with access to it. — Writegeist (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to hold strong views on this issue, as demonstrated the polemical language you have used in the above entry. However, I'm glad we both agree on one thing - Ahmadinejad wants the state of Israel to cease to exist. The only point of debate is whether or not he wants this to occur through military means or by economic/political means. Either way, Palin's statement that he seeks the end of Israel's existence (although not in those exact words) is correct.

However, we should put this aside. Getting back to my original point, adding a link to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel without a mainstream source is original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia. In addition, you cannot include original research simply because, as you have described them: "Jewish-American and Zionist pro-Israel propagandists" do not agree with your point of view.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

"Polemical"? Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word. My entry contains no aggressive or hostile language.

Wanting "the state of Israel to cease to exist" is not the same as wanting to wipe it off all those faces. MA may well want the state of Israel to cease to exist for all we know. (He has expressed a desire for the Israeli regime to disappear.) However SP does not say MA wants Israel to cease to exist. She says Iran would want to annihilate Israel, i.e. to be the instrument of Israel's annihilation. Big difference. SP's statement comes directly from the falsely reported and globally mythologized statement by the twerp Armydinnerjacket:

• "He prophesies that Israel will 'vanish from the map' (although he did not say, as falsely reported, that he would wipe Israel off the map)." -- Israeli author Uri Avnery, in his disarmingly honest new book "Israel's Vicious Circle", Pluto Press 2008, ISBN 9780745328232.

It's understandable that the WP MA and Israel article should tread lightly on the subject of MA's statement by presenting its meaning as a subject of debate. But it's absurd to go on pretending here that "Palin's statement that he seeks the end of Israel's existence (although not in those exact words) is correct" when, au contraire--as has been stated by IRIP and by MA himself, and as has been explained by numerous Iranian government officials as well as numerous disinterested Farsi scholars and now also, even, by an Israeli commentator--it is false.

Actually some of what the Zionist propagandists say about Iran fully endorses my own point of view. But in this instance they see fit to misrepresent the truth--a point of view I do not share. And in that, at least, you are correct. — Writegeist (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

At least you admit that Ahmadinejad wants Israel to cease to exist. However, even if we accept that the "wipe Israel off the map" translation was inaccurate, Ahmadinejad has still made the following statements (all of which are referenced in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article:

• "[The Palestinians] are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."
• "You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."
• "Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

Given his use of the above language, I find it very difficult to believe that he only seeks a peaceful end to the Jewish state. When people argue that Ahmadinejad is a peaceful guy, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I have no doubt that if another world leader was constantly making similar statements about another nation, nobody would be arguing that they are only seeking a peaceful remedy.

According to this dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polemical), the word polemical means: 1. (of or pertaining to) a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc. I admit that polemical may not have been the best choice. I think the word loaded would be better used to describe your language. By the way, "Loaded" in this context, means: "charged with emotional or associative significance that hinders rational or unprejudiced consideration of the terms involved in a discourse." Your claims about "Jewish-American and Zionist pro-Israel propagandists" are certain emotional and controversial (at least in my opinion) - especially since many Jewish-Americans contribute to Wikipedia.

Anyways, we probably shouldn't discuss this on this talk page any further. The purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

But getting back to my original point, this article is only supposed to deal with what Palin's political positions are, not whether they are right or wrong. I think we're done here. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Your quotes do not support your defence of Palin's statement. The first cites god, not Iran, as the agent of the Zionist regime's destruction (not, please note, the destruction of the Israeli state). The second just says the Zionist regime (not the Israelis state) is coming to the end of the road, and makes no reference to any outside agency. The third also says the Zionist regime (not the Israeli state) is past its sell-by date. None of these support the argument that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. The argument is false.

You say "...this article is only supposed to deal with what Palin's political positions are." Palin's accusation that Iran "would seek to wipe [the Israelis] off the face of the earth" is not a political position, it is a propaganda statement. A smear. However her stance that it is "Israel's right to fight against a regime like Iran" is a political position. You point out that this is an article about Palin's political positions. Therefore the sentence should be edited thus: "Palin said the United States would naturally consult with Israel on such matters, but added that it was Israel's right 'to fight against a regime like Iran'." As surely you will agree. Writegeist (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It very difficult to believe that people who openly and repeatedly call for the annihilation of the "Zionist Regime" have nothing but peaceful intentions for the "Israeli state." Iran openly funds and supports organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, which do not simply seek an end to Israel's control of the West Bank, the Shebaa farms and Gaza Strip but also openly call for the Israel's destruction (Leaders of both groups routinely chant "death to Israel"). It is very reasonable to conclude that people who openly and repeatedly call for the annihilation of the "Zionist Regime" also seek the end of the Israeli state. It's not a huge leap, especially when Ahmadinejad continually uses this sort of language. Based on Palin's statement, it is not a stretch to reasonably conclude that she believes that Iran seeks Israel's destruction. That is a political belief and position. Unless you can prove that Palin is being deliberately meretricious or disingenuous with her statement, then it is a political position. Since Wikipedia gives biographies of living people the benefit of the doubt, you will have to prove that Palin is deliberately spreading information that she knows is false (and someone else's opinion doesn't count.)(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm removing some (edit-warring) material that's not relevant to improving the article, per WP:Talk. It includes my reply to the above. (Consequent to my reply, Hyperionsteel altered the above.) Writegeist (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist wrote: Z: "She said Iran wants to destroy Israel." Where did she get that idea? Same place you and everyone else did: a translation from Farsi of Armydinnerjacket quoting Khomeini.

That would imply that before A-jad opened his mouth nobody thought this. Which is ridiculous. The Arab coalition has wanted to wipe Israel out and massacre its Jewish population since 1948, and with the Khomeini revolution Iran joined that coalition and adopted that goal. Everybody knows this. The only thing noteworthy about A-jad's speech is that he actually said it out loud and didn't try to hide it; and if he didn't actually say it, his office's claim that he said it comes to exactly the same thing.

Oh, and what exactly does it mean to wipe out the Israeli "regime" but not the state itself? That would only make sense if Israel were ruled by some sort of junta, which could be removed and the state freed to run under some other government. If the Iranian regime were removed, Iran would continue to exist; but the Israeli government is freely elected, so it is the state. How could one destroy it without destroying the state? -- Zsero (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Arab coalition has wanted to wipe Israel out and massacre its Jewish population since 1948, and with the Khomeini revolution Iran joined that coalition and adopted that goal. Everybody knows this."

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately spewing Zionist-extremist propaganda onto this talk page is not relevant to improving the article. Shalom. Writegeist (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Telling the truth about antisemitic genocidalists is precisely the point here. -- Zsero (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time trying to have a rational, informed discussion with the kind of person who supports demeaning Asians with the racist epithet "gooks"and who refers to the Arab world with an ignorant racist slur. — Writegeist (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Please keep this at the bottom of the page for easy access. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)