Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini

Archives
January 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 June 2006 – December 2007 POV January – November 2008

Adjustment of the introduction

The current introduction has:

A controversial figure, Khomeini is remembered by some as "the pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history", [4] and by others as one who ordered a "bloodbath" of thousands of Iranian militants and other political prisoners as a means of purging "moderates" from his government and so protect his legacy from a "détente with the West."[5]

Source 4 is from the introduction of a biography of Khomeini by Hamid Algar, while Source 5 is Abrahamian, who uses the situation to further his attempt to compare Stalin and Mao to Khomeini. Neither of these sources support the "some" or "others" parts of their claims, which is of some concern, but the setting of these two views in opposition to illustrate controversy makes little sense considering the claims made. Algar's statement is only contentious in its use of "the," since hardly any scholar would disagree that Khomeini was an important figure to recent Islamic history, good or bad. Many sources could be rallied supporting this basic idea. Abrahamian's book, on the other hand, forwards a contentious comparison between Khomeini's Iran and Maoist China or Stalinist USSR, and our content appears to be an editor's own summary of Abrahamian's views on the fatwa and counter-radicals. This summary is odd, considering that p. 219 does not describe a purge of "moderates" (a word which does not even appear on the page, yet is in quotes in our article). We need to revise our treatment of this subject.

A quote from the book by Abrahamian on the motivation for killing the leftists in mass:

"... The real answer may lie elsewhere - in the regime's internal dynamics. Peace with Iraq brought Khomeini the realization that he had lost the most valuable glue holding together his disparate followers - some of whom were moderate, others radicals, some reformers, other conservatives, some dogmatic fundamentalists, others pragmatic populists. .... (Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran, by Ervand Abrahamian, University of California Press, 1999 p.218) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet the word you quote is the plural form "moderates," so really you misquote. Worse, page 219 does not say the moderates were purged, so even if the quote was correct, its usage in our introduction was not. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problem, then, is that our article projects controversy about Khomeini by presenting the Algar and Abrahamian material as somehow opposed to each other. There is in fact no inherent disagreement between him being an pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history and him executing militants and purging elements from the government. Furthermore, the relevance of the questionable summary of Abrahamian snippet is not established. If we remove the false element of controversy, would mention of the executions of enemy of combatants and removal of certain people from government merit inclusion in the introduction to the article? Possibly, but to also include Abrahamian's contentious spin (or at least an editor's interpretation of it) would likely be undue weight (for the introduction). Algar's assertion is certainly less questionable, but overall both sources do not seem ideal. If we want a summary of Khomeini's legacy and also a summary of the executions, Rushdie fatwa, and purges, the 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam has an entry about Khomeini by S.A. Arjomand that could be useful. I will remove the flawed controversy construction for now, and later use the Arjomand article to cover the legacy and 1988 incidents in the introduction in a manner that will hopefully not present the same problems. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is your POV. The two are notable sources giving their opinion on Khomeini. They do not have to be in opposition to each other, though it is likely they are. The point is they contrast with each other. One is thinking of the people Khomeini is responsible for having killed, the other with Khomeini's greatness in Islam. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added to the original statement by Algar to make the contrast clearer and give Algar more contentiousness: A controversial figure, Khomeini is remembered by some as "the pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history", the magnitude of whose "achievement" is such that it has "discouraged potential biographers"

Something should be said in the lead about how beloved Khomeini is by so many (predominately pious Iranians of a certain age) but thought by many others (predominately foriegners and educated secular people) to be less than lovable. I'm not sure how many share abrahamian's theory about purging moderates.

You may think that Abrahamian is contentious and that his belief that the mass executions comes from his "comparison between Khomeini's Iran and Maoist China or Stalinist USSR", but that is you non-notable Point-of-View which is not relevent here. Do you have any evidence that many historians doubt Khomeini was responsible for the mass execution of political prisoners in Iran? Or that those killed in mass in 1988 were guilty of minor offense? - since any guilty of a serious offense would have already been executed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"This is your POV" >> The same could easily be said about any proposal or argument you make for the article on this page. Even fixing a typo betrays the POV that you believe in a certain correct spelling for a word, and also believe that Wikipedia should abide by these conventions. I started this section by explaining my POV that the current introduction does not posit the material from Algar and Abrahamian in a way that follows from the sources (both views are contentious but they are not opposing "sides" of a controversy). I'm not sure how you observation that I have a POV on how the article should look based on our sources is relevant to constructive discussion. We should use our POV of the material available to determine which reliable sources on the topic to include and to determine the best presentation of this material (neutral, accurate to the source, coherent, aligned with the rules, &c.), and if we disagree, we present our POV on the article construction to each other on this talk page, and work out a solution or better understanding based upon the cases we've made to each other. None of this violates the rulebook, since we are neither including personal views (i.e. not directly from reliable sources) in the article itself nor devoting the talk page to these personal views, but rather sharing views with mind to improve the article with the article policies in mind. See the tag at the top of this page and its links for more details.

"The two are notable sources giving their opinion on Khomeini" >> I agree wholeheartedly on their notability, but the opinions cited in our introduction are not on the same issue at all. They are not the opposing views of a controversy; Algar contends that Khomeini was an important Islamic figure, while Abrahamian contends that Khomeini killed the prisoners and issued the fatwa to keep Iran away from the West. I contend that the presentation of these views as representing the sides of a controversy is not justified since the sources do not verify a controversy of this dynamic, and I think that we both agree with Wikipedia rules and oppose the inclusion of original research, preferring to base the article's claims and support of claims based directly upon the reliable sources.

"They do not have to be in opposition to each other, though it is likely they are" >> How is it likely? Does killing people prevent him from being an important Islamic historical figure, or even the most important Islamic figure (of recent times)?

"The point is they contrast with each other. One is thinking of the people Khomeini is responsible for having killed, the other with Khomeini's greatness in Islam" >> I think you misinterpret the sources on this point. He could be pre-eminent without killing, or pre-eminent even because of the killing. The killing has certainly led Abrahamian to devote a great deal of historical analysis to Khomeini and his government. More importantly, no reliable source explicitly posits our Algar material in contrast to our Abrahamian material; the contrast appears to be entirely your own and so oughtn't be part of the article itself. This isn't to say that Algar and Abrahamian would not disagree on other issues, or even take different views on the killings, but our current introduction contrives a controversy that does not appear to exist. I am curious, however, as to where exactly you detect a contrast (as I think you simply misunderstand the claims), so perhaps you can explain further (on my talk page).

"I've added to the original statement by Algar to make the contrast clearer and give Algar more contentiousness" >> This does not change the fact that our sources do not (directly) present a controversy between these two particular views. That the two views disagree appears to be a view not taken directly from the sources. Feel free to explain to me your view on my talk page if you so wish.

"Something should be said in the lead about how beloved Khomeini is by so many ... but thought by many others ... to be less than lovable" >> I agree, and I am quite confident that we could find a source presenting this controversy. Our current presentation, however, does not actually describe this controversy, but rather confers upon two somewhat unrelated points a dichotomy that simply does not follow from a reliable source.

"I'm not sure how many share abrahamian's theory about purging moderates" >> If we aren't sure it is a mainstream view, it probably shouldn't be in the introduction. The theory certainly deserves a place in the body of the article.

"You may think that Abrahamian is contentious" >> Um, do you think otherwise? Usually it is good to contend some original points in a book of historical analysis...

"that his belief that the mass executions comes from his "comparison between Khomeini's Iran and Maoist China or Stalinist USSR", but that is you non-notable Point-of-View which is not relevent here" >> This is not an original POV of mine on Abrahamian's argument, but is actually from the description (presumably approved by Abrahamian himself) of his book's comparison:

Abrahamian compares Iran's public recantations to campaigns in Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, and the religious inquisitions of early modern Europe, citing the eerie resemblance in format, language, and imagery.

See here for the full summary. Moving on...

"Do you have any evidence that many historians doubt Khomeini was responsible ..." >> I don't know of any historian that denies his involvement. It is pretty much the mainstream view that he bears responsibility for the move. Of course, people disagree on whether or not the killings were justified, or the purge was justified, but nobody disputes responsibility. We could possibly mention the controversy over this part of legacy, assuming some sources discuss this controversy. Anyway, it is not clear how your questions to me are relevant to this section.

In summary, you have let your own interpretation (that there is a disagreement between saying Khomeini was an important Islamic figure and saying that he was responsible for killings) into the article as a supposed controversy, but no reliable sources directly support the existence of a controversy of this description, so I propose that this contrived controversy be removed. We perhaps can replace it by mentioning the real controversy over whether or not his killings were right or wrong. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the sentence in question

A controversial figure, Khomeini is remembered by some as "the pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history", the magnitude of whose "achievement" is such that it has "discouraged potential biographers," and by others as one who ordered a "bloodbath" of thousands of Iranian militants and other political prisoners as a means of purging "moderates" from his government and so protect his legacy from a "détente with the West."

Where does it say directly or indirectly: "here are two sides in opposition in their opinion of Khomeini." They are contrasting viewpoints. You won't find any comments by Algar about the 1988 executions (which officially never happened), or comments by Abrahamian about how in awe potential biographers are of Khomeini's achievements. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence posits Khomeini as a "controversial figure" with "some" stating pre-eminent figure, &c. "by others" as ordering bloodbath, and so on. This structure suggests that these two sides do not agree with each other on these points; this claim to controversy and disagreement is not explicitly supported by the sources and so does not belong. To lend a helping hand, I contend that the statements only contrast in that they are about different things entirely, rather than opposing or excluding each other (as a true controversy would). In any case the burden of proof is on you; you must show a source explicitly carrying your position in order to justify inclusion (including inclusion in the introduction). Your attempt to cite a (perceived) lack of comment by Algar on the bloodbath or by Abrahamian on the pre-eminence of Khomeini amounts to little more than original research, as no source explicitly tells of this supposed disagreement; you are reaching your own conclusions. Besides, Algar does give cursory treatment of the executions in Section 5: "On July 31, 1988, he wrote a letter to the Imam questioning what he regarded as unjustified executions of members of the Sazman-i Mujahidin-I Khalq held in Iranian prisons after the organization, from its base in Iraq, had made a large-scale incursion into Iranian territory in the closing stages of the Iran-Iraq war." Even this sentence hadn't been present, however, your attempt to contrast two different items to describe Khomeini as a "controversial figure" would remain original research since no source explicitly points out such views as contrasting in a manner illustrating "controversy." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains the two statements don't have to be in opposition to each other. As for the word "controversial," I do not have statements by the two authors using the word "controversy" in connection with Khomeini, nor can I find an argument between them over the issue of Khomeini. Frankly, calling Khomeini controversial is like saying the Shah's reign was "not entirely successful". It's an understatement. But if you want to argue it's original research that must be deleted I will go along with changing it to

Khomeini is remembered by at least one scholar as "the pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history", the magnitude of whose "achievement" is such that it has "discouraged potential biographers," and by at least one other as the man who ordered a "bloodbath" of thousands of Iranian militants and other political prisoners as a means of preventing a "détente with the West."

This seems like an awful lot of work to go to to make the article less clear and imformative.

Why don't we just move Algar and Abrahamian to the body? The previous paragraph in the introduction already highlights his impact, and unless we delve into the real controversy (over whether or not the killings were right or wrong), specifically including Algar and Abrahamian's somewhat unrelated views serves little purpose in the introduction other than to make the article less clear and informative. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the body already describes the 1988 killings; and it already describes Khomeini's leadership of the Islamic revolution, his ideas on wilayat al-faqih, and his Political thought and legacy of Khomeini. Without the sentence in the lead you want to delete, that you allege makes the article less clear and informative, the reader could get the impression that Khomeini is someone like Ayatollah Sistani, or Mahatma Gahandi. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect the readers to stop after reading the introduction? The article can remain plenty clear and informative without clogging the introduction with random material selected to satisfy no clear criteria. Since your notion that coupled Algar and Abrahamian together illustrate Khomeini as "as controversial figure" is shown to be original research (if not refuted outright), it is not clear why, using WP:LEAD as a guide, that the Algar and Abrahamian bits should be featured in the introduction instead of any other material from the body. The strange Algar and Abrahamian combination can be excised; the introduction would still make clear that he is not "someone like Ayatollah Sistani, or Mahatma Gandhi." Of course it isn't clear exactly what you mean by that, but to point out the obvious neither of those people became Supreme Leader of a country after a revolution and brought to fruition a theory advocating theocratic rule. These obvious distinctions are already mentioned in the introduction, so there is little reason to believe that he is akin to Sistani or Gandhi unless the reader is ignorant of basic information about those two figures. Again, we do not want to clog the introduction with just any unique facts about Khomeini's life, or else the introduction will fail in its purpose and simply become part of the body. This is why we have guidelines for the composition of the introduction, which dictate that the introduction is supposed to be a concise summary that introduces the topic, not an arbitrary smattering of facts from the body. So, exactly what view are you trying to impress upon the reader, and how does this agenda check with WP:LEAD? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD the lead "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies that may exist." which is what the sentence in question helps to do. I don't have a statement by a notable source saying "the mass killing of the political prisoners in 1988 ordered by Khomeini is controversial," and as I say I am willing to remove the phrase "controversial figure", but Algar and Abramanian are both leading scholars of Iran. Choosing quotes by them in the lead is not "strange." As far as your professed confusion over what the statement Khomeini is not "someone like Ayatollah Sistani or Mahatma Gandhi" refers to - if you think real hard I'm sure you will come up with the correct answer. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the obvious differences between those figures, but I'm not going to make assumptions about what you meant, especially when you could easily describe your aim for yourself. Perhaps you will also reveal what view you are trying to impress upon the reader when you feel ready; I'll be waiting. Anyway, obviously Algar and Abrahamian are scholars on Iran, but I need you to make case to keep these particular items in the lead now that your manufactured controversy is out of the way. As of this time, your argument for the inclusion of Algar and Abrahamian in the lead is broad enough that we could port any number of other details from the body into the lead simply because they are from "leading scholars." The logic of inclusion should be a bit more precise than that, such that most items in the body would not be appropriate for the lead - this is crucial to concision. What makes the Algar and Abrahamian items so special as to merit inclusion in the lead? I stress again that we must not yield to reasoning that would open the introduction to clogging. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a jigsaw puzzle. There are other quotes that could be used that might work equally well, but these two - as I believe I indicated previously - "establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies that may exist." --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How does Algar calling him "pre-eminent" or Abrahamian describing the executions as a "bloodbath" establish context? What context are we using now? The original context of these two items was that of Khomeini as a "controversial figure" but this proved untenable, yet you insist upon keeping them in the lead. This is like leaving the rubble after a building falls instead of clearing it away. Certainly Algar's material attests to his notability, but why we need to pile Algar onto that which is already stated in the previous paragraph about his fame and his innovations is not clear. How is Algar's way of saying Khomeini was important a crucial addition? Furthermore, the executions are generally noted in any biographical account (as Algar and Arjomand both have done), as is the Rushdie fatwa, but Abrahamian's specific interpretation of these events is probably best left in the body as it isn't common to sources, much less summary accounts of Khomeini's life. In other words, the material may not represent "the most important points" about Khomeini. In any case, you'll need to demonstrate otherwise with something more substantial than saying that this is not a "jigsaw puzzle" (ergo we must include whatever BoogaLouie feels is important). Indeed, this IS an encyclopedia, and it is important not to clutter points of secondary importance in the introduction of the article. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "controversy" goes but the fact that two leading scholars have a very different take on Khomeini remains. In the world of wikipedia deletionist legalism the lack of the word "controversy" in scholarly sources may mean there is no controversy, therefore their is no reason to have the two quotes in the lead. In the real world one scholar saying that the magnitude of Khomeini's "achievement" is such that it has "discouraged potential biographers," and another saying it was Khomeini who ordered a "bloodbath" of thousands of Iranian militants and other political prisoners as a means of purging "moderates" from his government and so protect his legacy from a "détente with the West" ... indicates a significant difference of opinion not found in regards to religious leaders like Sistani and Ghani. The quotes help "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" even if you do not find them "crucial". --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we are back to square one, as I had suspected. You continue to cling to your novel notion that somehow these quotes represent "very different" takes on Khomeini, even though you admit that "the two statements don't have to be in opposition to each other" and, more importantly, that a controversy along the lines you have drawn is not to be found in the sources. You continue to defend the inclusions (now without explicitly calling them controversy) based upon your original argument that the quotes demonstrate "a significant difference of opinion" between the authors. Though you may attempt to disregard my straightforward application of Wikipedia policy to keep your creative interpretations out of the article as "deletionist legalism," I contest this smear as plainly inaccurate.

Smear? I didn't you say anyone in particular was a "deletionist." That's your interpretation I was talking about you. You're engaged in Original Research!!! --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just misused "smear." I probably should have written "characterization." As for your claim of OR, I'll ignore it since it doesn't appear constructive, to say the least. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Violating the spirit of the rule would be, for example, adding a {{fact}} tag to a caption describing this as a baby turkey.

A baby turkey

This is quite different from opposing the inclusion of your own dubious analysis of two scholarly items that even you admit are not necessarily in opposition to each other, and it is clear from your last response that even if we don't use the word "controversial," your original research remains the true reason you wish to keep these items (why else would you defend them by defending your claim that they are "very different" takes?).

Before you continue this incessant soapboxing of your original theory, and your attempts to present it in the article in one way or the other, let me be frank with you: your OR sucks.

Incivility! Is this why you won't log on? Because you have been blocked for incivility in the past? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not yell. How is candor uncivil to you? I was describing your OR. If it was "sucks" that bothered you (some people seem sensitive to this common, jovial colloquialism), I am willing to adjust it to "not good." Will that satisfy you? Will you then be ready to address the actual substance of my arguments instead of beating around the bush? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Our discussion, and your admissions throughout, reveal your OR to be an incredibly inconsistent, nearly speculative non sequitur analysis par excellence. The OR policy exists largely to keep amateur analysis such as your manipulation of the Algar and Abrahamian material out of the encyclopedia articles. You've admitted the views are not necessarily opposed to each other, yet you insist that there is "a significant difference" between the view that Khomeini achieved a lot and the view that he created a bloodbath to keep Iran away from the West. Dude, if anything, the latter vindicates the former! The controversy, the "significant difference," whatever you want to call it, is merely a figment of your imagination, nothing more; it is certainly neither an obvious observation nor the subtle brainchild of brilliant analysis.

My case has all it needs so long as no reliable sources support your claims about significant differences or controversies and the like. The lead remains a place where concision and the major points are most welcome, and without the crutch of your original research these scholarly items don't stand out much from the multitude of other well-sourced quotes in the body. If they do, please demonstrate, but don't use your original research as you did last time, as that actually works against your case by revealing that you are still trying to (implicitly) point out some alleged controversy. You haven't demonstrated any special importance behind placing these items in the lead (without relying on your original research). Letting go of the teddy bear that your original research has become, why not help the lead by relegating these secondary points back to the body where they belong? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Amir Taheri used a source

I notice that this article uses "Spirit of Allah" by Amir Taheri as a source. The reliability of this author has been brought into serious question over a number of issues (see Amir Taheri#Controversies). I propose that his book be removed as a source and replaced with works from more credible writers. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new sentence

OK, while I find your arguements uncompelling, in the interests of compromise and comity I propose we delete the sentences in the lead quoting Algar and Abrahamian and replace them with this:
In the West some others saw him as combining "merciless zeal" with the "guile of a Borgia," responsible for sending many thousands to their death in a "futile eight year war with Iraq," "filling jails and graves with religious and political dissenters," and for replacing the Shah's authoritarian rule with one even "more despotic."
from "The Ayatollah Wrote His Annals in Blood", June 5, 1989, p.A16 It's from the newspaper of record in the United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You propose replacing scholarly material of secondary importance with editorial polemic? Interesting. This would hardly pass WP:RS, much less merit inclusion in the lead; remember, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." Even if implemented properly, choosing an editorial for the lead, much less a rather contentious one such as this, would remain quite questionable and present a real possibility of violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. So no, it won't cut it, but thanks anyway for your interest in "compromise and comity." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet more arguement over sentence in lead

Since the anon 67.194.202.113 (possibly Snkla2) is so exercised about alleged original research in a sentence in the lead I have provided some cited quotes for which some kind of summary of which might be included in the lead. (from: Political thought and legacy of Khomeini#In the West) .... Khomeini's "glowering visage became the virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture" and "inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam." His fatwa calling for the death of secular Musilm author Salmon Rushdie in particular was seen by some as a deft attempt to create a wedge issue that would prevent Musilms from imitating the West by "dividing Muslims from Westerners along the default lines of culture." The fatwa was greeted with headlines such as one in the popular British newspaper the Daily Mirror referring to Khomeini as "that Mad Mullah", observations in a British magazine that the Ayatollah seemed "a familiar ghost from the past - one of those villainous Muslim clerics, a Faqir of Ipi or a mad Mullah, who used to be portrayed, larger than life, in popular histories of the British Empire", and laments that Khomeini fed the Western stereotype of "the backward, cruel, rigid Muslim, burning books and threatening to kill the blasphemer." ... in ... the United States - where Khomeini and the Islamic Republic are remembered for the American embassy hostage taking and accused of sponsoring hostage-taking and terrorist attacks - especially using the Lebanese Shi'a Islamic group Hezbollah .... Here is another quote from the TIME magazine man of the year story that might be used in part: "To Iran's Shi'ite Muslim laity, he is the Imam, an ascetic spiritual leader whose teachings are unquestioned. To hundreds of millions of others, he is a fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal. ... Rarely has so improbable a leader shaken the world." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923854,00.html

Please cease the name-calling (calling me "anon").

But you are an anon. Anon is a standard term for anonymous editors. Why don't you just log on and I can call you by your editing name? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But we're both anonymous. You could be considered more anonymous than me since there is no geolocate, &c. for you as there is for me. In any case what need is there to call me "anon" every other time you address me? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, some of the material seems viable, though of course we wouldn't use as much detail. I'd just like the lead to note the role that the hostage crisis and the fatwa had in creating his controversial/negative image in the West, and I think this new material could be used to create a simple statement to this end within Wikipedia guidelines. Would you prefer I propose a new sentence, or would you rather go first? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to your work. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph in lead

Beloved by many Iranians, both his return from exile and funeral were the occasion for emotional outpouring by millions. Abroad he was also famous - though not regarded nearly as affectionately - remembered by many for his support for the 444-day long hostage-taking of several dozen American diplomats and embassy workers, and his death threat fatwa against British citizen Salman Rushdie. He was named 1979 Man of the Year by TIME magazine, in an article using words such as "fanatic" "frightening" "malignly" "irrationality," to describe him and his impact, while another observor called him "the virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture" who "inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam" during his reign. Khomeini is usually known as "Imam Khomeini" inside Iran and "Ayatollah Khomeini" outside of Iran. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

thought not regarded nearly as affectionately isn't in an encyclopediac tone, methinks. --Enzuru 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to understate it so as to avoid any hint of POV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would, "Abroad he was infamous to many for his support for the..." be POV? Because it's true, he is infamous in the West, not famous. --Enzuru 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just get rid of the "affectionately" bit because it sounds awkward; the negative image is clear enough from the Time quotes. They will speak for themselves, though right now they seem a bit too indirect. Now our understanding is that this will replace the Algar and Abrahamian duo contested above, right? And that similar material from a paragraph about his theological impact will be removed to avoid repetition? The following is my revision:

Beloved by many Iranians, both his return from exile and his funeral were occasions of great emotional outpouring for millions. Abroad he gained infamy for his support of the hostage takers during the Iranian hostage crisis and his fatwa calling for the death of British citizen Salman Rushdie. The "virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture", Khomeini was named Man of the Year in 1979 by TIME magazine, and became known outside of his supporters as a "fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal" who "inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam" during his reign.

67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. --Enzuru 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's OK w/me. My one hesitation is I would like to have mentioned the mass executions of 1988 in the lead, because in human rights terms they are much more significant than the fatwa and hostage taking, but since they are also much less well publicized you can't really say Kheomini is famous/infamous for them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, sources either emphasize the conflict with Muntaziri or the actual killings, but both do not seem to receive enough note to comfortably reside in the lead. It should be alright though; these facets are covered in the body and I think most people read more than the introduction. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I execute the replacement? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support it. --Enzuru 05:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK w/me I guess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is done. Thanks for talking it out. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Isn't he Arab!!

i know he is iranian (nationality) but his family from arabic origin --Bayrak (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a sayed, but not Arab. In fact, his family spent quite some time in British India. --Enzuru 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

because that i write his origins from arabs.. Saadah are arabs --Bayrak (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No Seyeds are not Arabs. Most of them even are fair skinned and light haired.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, typical obsession with fair skin. I've seen sayeds from Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, India... they are often dark-skinned as well as light-skinned, and don't look anything like each other. But I suppose aren't aren't the real ones, right? Every sayed says the sayed from another country isn't real. --Enzuru 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying he is a sayed is sufficient. It's not like his family moved to Iran from Lebanon a generation ago. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

His family was not from Lebanon.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A Sayyid claims to be in the lineage of Mohammad. This is not necessarily true. There is little reason to believe that all Sayyids are in fact descendants of Mohammad. Worldwide, special lineages can be fabricated, and the Sayyidism of the Islamic world is no exception. I'm not saying that his claim is fake, but rather that we are not in place to conclude that he has Arab origins simply because he is considered a Sayyid. Find a reliable source that describes his family as Arab, and then we may be able to discuss this issue again. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't much of a real suggestion, this user has tried to make several people on Wikipedia who are seen as Persian as Arab, simply for speaking Arabic sometimes. And geez, the Sayed thing is like the caste system now. Light skinned, super powers (one sayed told me they could fly and couldn't be burned by fire), and so forth. South Asian ones are the worst too, where a sayed woman can't even marry a sayed man. The funniest thing I've heard by far is supposed Pashtun sayeds, except to be a sayed your father has to be one, and to be a Pashtun your father has to be one. How the hell does that work? --Enzuru 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently having light skin makes you non-Arab... anyway, I thought that to be Pashtun the main requirements are talking Pashto and acting Pashtun. Of course the Pashtuns would have to accept you as such. A sayyed really told you that sayyeds can fly? Did he demonstrate? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's up with this light skin thing. Anyway, the three requirements are that your father is Pashtun, that you speak Pashto, and that you follow Pashtunwali, so yeah, those are the two other requirements. And he didn't demonstrate, but he did work at Burger King and hadn't been burned by the grill yet from what I know! --Enzuru 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On Shi'ah chat sites, literally half the discussions are people trying to debunk insane Sayyid cults (in re: above) & cet. the Ogress _smash! 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about the Pashtun, Arab, Turkish or Indo-Pakistani seyeds. It is obvious who are the Iranian Seyeds. Not Arabs, which ever claim you accept it does not make them Arab--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they aren't Arabs, that wasn't my point. --Enzuru 05:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Saadah are descendants of prophet Muhammad and prophet Muhammad is arab so they are arabs.. --Bayrak (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you take no heed of the discussion. You are trying to push original research into the article. I present to you an ultimatum: if you find reliable sources explicitly describing his family as Arab, we can mention it in the article. Otherwise, cease to push this idea. Hopefully we will not hear any more of this, as no scholar would suggest that he becomes Arab by virtue of claimed descent alone; even if it were reliably traced, this would say nothing of his actual cultural affiliation. Any further attempts will confirm that you are trolling, and in light of your other edits on Wikipedia, you may end up being labeled a troll who does not respect our policies and guidelines. People like that receive treatment for their condition; if you really care about editing here, you will make a sincere attempt not to be one them. So, take it or leave it, but further trolling will inevitably result in a block for disruptive behavior. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I won't be as harsh, he never stops this until we stop talking to him. And when we do sometimes he'll make the edit. So... --Enzuru 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

the fake sayed...

if he is not arab he will not be real sayed also he knows arabic very well Bayrak (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many non-Arabs sayeds, or at least those who claim to be. There is no way of proving or disproving sayed lineage currently. In fact, the largest claimed sayed populations are probably in Pakistan and India, sometimes claimed to be a continuation of the caste system. --Enzuru 06:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

so he is not sayed..?? very strange --Bayrak (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He is considered a sayed, that's what I'm saying. There are non-Arab sayeds, like Khomeini. --Enzuru 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak, are you saying that all sayeds are arabs since they are decended from the Prophet and the Prophet was an arab? BoogaLouie|BoogaLouie]] (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

yes that what i am trying to say all of them are from arbic origins since they are decended from the Prophet mohamedBayrak (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make you an Arab. If your great great great great grandfather was Irish, and everyone in your family was Arab, are you Irish? And you never answered me, does an Arab who speaks only English become an Englishman? --Enzuru 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru is right. It doesn't make you an Arab. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that instead of engaging in these types of debates, that we stick to what the sources say? It's not about genealogy or language, it's about what is written about the topic in reliable sources. --Elonka 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• As such, are their actually any sources than seriously claim him ethnically "Arabic"? The Scythian 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can even find sources calling him Indian, but Arab? We'll have better luck finding sources calling Napoleon Russian.--Enzuru 08:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

his family origins go back to Quraysh tribe i will try to find some sources --Bayrak (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider coming in fresh to this, i don't know all the background to this dispute. But it seems that there is a lot of agreement above. Khomenei's "seyedship" implies/indicates that he has some Arab lineage. I don't think any reasonable person would contest this. Right? However Bayrak, this does not make him an "Arab." He self-identified as Iranian, grew up with persian as his primary language, in persia/iran etc... Remember, Bayrak, "Arab" is not a racial category, but a cultural-linguistic one. There are lots of turks, iranians, and europeans with some arab ancestry, but that does not make them "arab" (anymore than the turkish, iranian and european ancestry of many arabs makes them anything else but arab). Well, I hope this helps (not naive though).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to sources. If Bayrak has reliable sources which refer to Ruhollah Khomeini as Arab, they may be worth reviewing. If there are no sources, it's not worth discussing. --Elonka 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead neutrality

Since we came to an agreement about the lead, can we remove the tag suggesting that it be checked for neutrality? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that refer to the entire article? --Enzuru 19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, "article or section." I'll make it clear. Indeed the article isn't quite neutral; though I rooted out a few unreliable sources there are still more, and there are may also be some legitimate sources not being used or presented quite right. The lead was difficult enough to resolve, but perhaps someday the rest of the article can be improved as well. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I find that what can be helpful here, is to get rid of the "all article" tag, and just go for inline tags. Specific ones that may be useful:

• {{fact}} - Adds [citation needed]
• {{POV-section}} - Adds banner with "The neutrality of this section is disputed"
• {{disputed-inline}} - Adds [disputed]
• {{pov-statement}} - Adds [neutrality disputed}
• {{lopsided}} - Adds [opinion needs balancing]
• {{vc}} - Adds [unreliable source?]
• {{vs}} - Adds [verification needed]

That way it helps focus exactly where the problems are. If someone can fix the problem in a reasonable amount of time, then the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement about the tag, a discussion thread can be started at the talkpage. If no one's fixing it, and there's no discussion about it within a reasonable amount of time, then the questionable statements can simply be changed or deleted. Hope that helps, --Elonka 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. The main non-neutral section ("Life under Khomeini") is already tagged with POV-section, and its main problems appear to be use of sites like holycrime, daneshjooyan.org. iranhrdc.org (the specific reference is dead in this case), and the drawing of conclusions from primary sources (such as Tahrir al-Vasileh or the radio broadcast about melons). There is also, of course, the material I removed non-RS from earlier, leaving fact tags; unless these items can be backed up with RS we can simply excise them. Though the section has good material (describing changes to life under Khomeini, such as dress codes), it largely being used as a coatrack for material about persecution of Bahais and different types of Islamic radicals (such as MKO). Much of this is not based on proper sources, and more importantly, the section presents a picture of life under Khomeini focused upon the negative experience of a few rather than general trends applicable to the majority of Iran. At the last point, checking the usage of the legitimate references (such as Bakhash) may be useful, but mostly I'm concerned about non-RS sources, improper use of sources, and a distracted presentation aimed more to list grievances than to comprehensively describe life under Khomeini. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"the section presents a picture of life under Khomeini focused upon the negative experience of a few rather than general trends applicable to the majority of Iran."

• Absolute poverty rose by nearly 45% during the first 6 years of the Islamic revolution and on several occasions the mustazafin have rioted, protesting the demolition of their shantytowns and rising food prices. Disabled war veterans have demonstrated against mismanagement of the Foundation of the Disinherited.
• 1992 March - Protest by disabled war veterans against the mismanagement of the Foundation of the Disinherited. (Mackey, Sandra, The Iranians : Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation by Sandra Mackey, New York : Plume Book, 1998, p.361)
• 1992 May 30 - Protest by squatters against demolition of shantytowns in Mashhad. government buildings set fire, including city's main library with rare Qur'ans. (Mackey p.361)
• 1993 January - Mob attacks on grocery stores in protest against rise in subsidized milk prices (Mackey p.362)
• 1995 April - Akbarabad shantytown on the edge of Tehran explodes in protest over bus fare increases. 30 people die. (Mackey p.366)
• "Provoked by a sharp decline in oil prices and deteriorating economic and social conditions, in April [1995] the protests reached the outskirts of Tehran, where rioters, `armed with clubs and stones,` shouted `Down with the Islamic Republic! Down with Khamanei!` (Brumberg, Reinventing Khomeini, (2001), p.218)
• "The rial, which had already fallen from 7 to the dollar before the revolution, to 1749 to the dollar in 1989, plummeted to 6400 to the dollar in 1995." Abrahamian, Ervand, History of Modern Iran by Ervand Abrahamian, Columbia University Press, 2008, p.185
• According to economist Bijan Khajehpour, as of the mid 1990s, "the majority of the middle-class families sold off their assets to survive economically" and "... the average Iranian is much worse off today than he or she was 20 years ago. Economic hardship is undoubtedly the main source of discontent with the Islamic revolution." (source: "Iran’s Economy: 20 years after the Islamic Revolution" by Bijan Khajehpour, from: Iran at the Crossroads, edited by John Esposito and R.K. Ramazani, New York : Palgrave, 2001, p.112, 120)...

As we rewrite the article and contemplate all the wonderful things the Imam has brought to Iran, let us not focus our energy on close inspection of wikipedia regulations to think up reasons to delete facts from the article that others ... do not need to know about. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, we are talking about Life under Khomeini. Khomeini died in 1989. Most of your examples refer to life during the mid-1990s. Need I explain more?

You're absolutely right, they should be in a legacy section not a life under section. -BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, unless a reliable source explicitly describes it as his legacy, we won't include those items, for to do so reeks of original research, used to hang grievances and place blame on Khomeini without the explicit backing of reliable sources. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind those relevant points, assuming they are general trends and explicitly tied to Khomeini (rather than the war or the revolution or anything else). For example, your item that actually falls within Khomeini's lifetime (Absolute poverty rose by nearly 45% during the first 6 years of the Islamic revolution) would need to be tied specifically to "Khomeini" in order to be relevant to his biography.

That's odd. You didn't mention anything about the lack of information explicitly tied to Khomeini in your earlier complaint. It was all about avoiding the negative experience of a few rather than general trends applicable to the majority of Iran. It is my duty to point out that the Imam was the Supreme Leader of Iran following the revolution, and such a important post conferes great responsibility for what happens in the country. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the slight change is the result of my realization that, with this section, we hanging up a bunch of items in his biography simply because they occurred while he was Supreme Leader. I sometimes revise my view or approach in response to new evidence or new paths of thought - don't you? Regardless of your perceived "duty" to point out items to the end that he has "great responsibility" for them, well, let's just say that no product of this will be acceptable unless it aligns with the reliable mainstream narrative. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to remain in the biography article (rather than in a history article about Iran during the 1980s), Khomeini needs to be tied directly to any item by the reliable source, otherwise we are using the fact that Khomeini happened to be ruling to associate some trend with him. This article will not be used as a coatrack for things that you believe "the Imam has brought to Iran" by virtue of ruling Iran while they occurred, or in the case of your miraculous examples, things that occurred some years after his death. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to blame Khomeini for the cited problems would be like blaming George Washington for Watergate, the Great Depression, or the Iraq War. Polemics don't belong in the article, and there should be a high burden of proof if you can't use common sense.--70.224.16.81 (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

edits to Life under Khomeini

I'm going to make some edits to the Life_under_Khomeinisection issues where there seems to be a consensus. i.e I'm going to shorten the minorities section and remove comments about life in Iran after Khomeini --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about edit by 69.208.133.204

69.208.133.204 ed summary says: how is rioting in 1992 relevant here? every country has poverty. this looks more like we are trying to tie anything negative that we can to Khomeini.
He tagged the section

As he and baby turkey have pointed out events happening in 1992 can't really be put in a section titled Life under Khomeini since Khomeini died in 1989. On the other hand it's pretty safe to say that what happens in a country with a constitution/governmental system overseen by supreme leader Khomeini and created in revolution led by Khomeini is relevant to an article about Khomeini.
Poverty and rioting by unhappy poor is especially relevant because the Ideology of Iranian Revolution was about helping the poor. One of the reasons Khomeini felt Islamic government was necessary was to prevent "encroachment by oppressive ruling classes on the rights of the weak," and plundering and corrupting the people for the sake of "pleasure and material interest," (from p.54 of the book Islamic Government)

I propose the text in question be sumarized and put in the legacy section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but we're still probably best leaving it up to reliable sources to tie these figures to Khomeini. This might actually be possible to find, but things like gemsofislam shouldn't be used since they are not reliable. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevancy should be established by the source, not by the editor.--134.68.77.116 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

edits made to

I've made some edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khomeini#Emigration_and_economy to remove post-Khomeini material. Does anyone still think it is "straying from the topic"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It could use a bit of formatting, but I removed the tag since it seems to be more well-sourced and on-topic. If you could use objective measurements from reliable sources instead of somewhat polemical quotes from somewhat questionable sources this wouldn't be as much of an issue. This would probably make a stronger case anyways. Anyways, happy editing!--68.248.152.92 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, I deleted The guy is not beloved by most Iranians! as "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased description of Operation Ajax

The description of Operation Ajax as a "coup d'état" is biased. Operation Ajax was an action to suppress an uprising against a decision by the Shah to replace a popular prime minister, a power which the Shah had under the Iranian constitution at the time. Thus, the article would be more accurate in stating that the Revolutionaries viewed Operation Ajax as a "coup d'état." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.35.189 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

reliable source? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

There is some material by an Alan Peters (nom de plum) and others asserting that Khomeini was the son of the extraordinary British convert to Islam, William Richard Williamson. As there is no consensus as to what his actual surname was during the Shah's time (Mustafavi according to Taheri, Musavi according to Wikipedia, something else according to Moin, & Hindi according to others), it seems probable that evidence of this Williamson or other Western lineage was erased by the Islamic Republic after he came to power. There is no mention of his Kashmiri mother let alone brothers running businesses under their British surname. Obviously Iranians would not have comprehended the Williamson connection and would have imagined the worst. During Khomeini's first uprising in the 1960's some journalists researching Khomeini, were astounded to discover that there were no records or files under any of these names. There was simply, no such person as Ruhollah Khomeini.
Moreover, as a Musavi or descendent of the Imam Musa Kazim, his lineage should have been recorded in Al Azhar university in Cairo and it is not. Can any exiled journalists, Amir Taheri, Baqer Moin et al, show some documentation (not from the Islamic Republic) that shows Khomeini as whatever? I guess even if it came to that, forging an old style birth certificate (with a lion and sun emblem) would not be difficult for the government of Iran, but getting the Al Azhar in Cairo to show something of his lineage would be more convincing. --Wool Bridge (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Give us some relieable sources and we can make a sectoin on conspiracy theories. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

sean connery

we should add some info related to his look-alikeness on sean connery, definitely, it's on the rules, important facts go on the trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.19.39 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Beloved by millions of Iranians

Is this phrase actually necessary? What does it add to the article that the next sentence "Khomeini was a "charismatic leader of immense popularity" fail to add. I suggest we remove the phrase because it is entirely the wrong tone for an encylopedia article.Theresa Knott | token threats 08:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which source it is originally from, but during the recent edit war I added another New York Times article to show that it is neither original to Wikipedia nor the invention of Khomeini's propagandists. I also added the "charismatic leader of immense popularity" from Encyclopaedia of Islam in case the IP was genuinely concerned about RS... which, of course, he wasn't, representing instead the familiar MPOV attitude I described on my talk page.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "necessary," or "wrong tone for an encyclopedia article." Since Khomeini's reputation is mixed, we inevitably must describe multiple, opposing POVs in order to take an NPOV. The evaluation of his popularity is hardly "propaganda," as a cursory glance at the sources should demonstrate, and our presentation of it certainly isn't, considering the negative opinions covered in the same paragraph, so it is not clear why we should dilute our description of one POV while leaving the other POV untouched. The tone is that used by RS; we have simply describe both sides without endorsing any. If there is an issue of WP:UNDUE, please elaborate, as I simply do not see it. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that he was a "popular leader" but I don't think we need to use the term "beloved" just because the source does. The problem I have with the word is it is subjective. Popularity is easy- you can count the number of people who show support and if that number is above a certain percentage of the whole then he is "popular". But beloved? How do we assess that? Just because once source says he was doesn't mean it's true. It's a subjective term. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What about removing the phrase but keeping the source (adding it to the next sentence). Or rewriting it as Describe by "Philip Shennon of the New York Times as "beloved by millions" to at least inform the reader's that this was one mans opinion not that of Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again it is not clear why we should give this RS exceptional treatment. We already use a footnote to cite Shennon, and as there is no clear reason to distance ourselves and even cast doubt from this assessment (or that of Arjomand, or that of TIME, &c.), I see no reason to single this out as "one mans opinion" simply because he chose the word "beloved" instead of "immensely popular" or some other variant. If the reader questions our use of the source, he can check it using the citation, and he will find that "beloved" is not original research but rather the assessment of a reliable source. Furthermore, there is always the honored tradition called "reading the whole paragraph" to see that Wikipedia carries the views of detractors as well. If Shennon, as a journalist, described the great magnitude and scope of Khomeini's popularity instead than covering it up or downplaying it, why shouldn't we? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Overviewing the paragraph again, it would seem that we do not go over the fact he was controversial in his in own country, as well as popular in some other Muslim countries. I think we make a somewhat artificial domestic and foreign divide. However, I don't know the magnitude of those who disliked him in Iran, it could be WP:UNDUE, especially considering the Iranians that are the best in English are the ones who fled the country after the revolution anyway. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality against him

The article is against him and saying bad stuff about him. It seems to be written by people allied with the U.S.A. government who hate him. He is not bad. He is very nice and good.99.247.0.42 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, yea the CIA is editing wikipedia. Get a clue. --66.158.232.98 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)