This is an archive of past discussions about Ruhollah Khomeini. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
THe top of the page has some rather vulgar language and as I do not know the proper way to format this page, I was wondering if someone could remove the following from the very top of the discussion page
The picture with the caption; "Ayatollah Khomeini in Turkey where it is prohibited to wear a religious turban in government institutions" is named Khomeini_Paris.jpg. Any particular reason for this? --Nevon (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality of Life under Khomeini section
I put the following information for consideration (in case some one cares about neutrality of the article ... )
. If I wanted to write the article, I would prefer to include both negative and positive points to make the article balanced:---
In 1976, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to allow people with hormonal disorders to undergo gender reassignment if they wished, as well as to change their birth certificates to reflect their new gender role. Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, there was no particular policy regarding transgendered individuals. Iranians with the inclination, means, and connections could obtain the necessary medical treatment and new identity documents.[1]
For many years, breaking the barrier of confinement of the private sphere has been a major source of frustration for advocates of women's rights in Iran. But the Islamic revolution broke the barrier overnight. When Khomeini called for women to attend public demonstration and ignore the night curfew, millions of women who would otherwise not have dreamt of leaving their homes without their husbands' and fathers' permission or presence, took to the streets. Khomeini's call to rise up against the Shah took away any doubt in the minds of many devoted Muslim women about the propriety of taking to the streets during the day or at night.[1]
The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed a marked increase of employment for women. This increase was much more than the rate prior to the revolution. Such dramatic change in the pattern of labor force participation might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere. Educational attainment for women, also a product of free education and the literacy campaign, contributed to this increase. In fact, today there are more women in higher education than there are men. The Islamic Republic had adopted certain policies to expand educational levels for women in order to ensure that sexual segregation paid off. These policies were to encourage women to become skilled workers in domains exclusive to women. For example, the government set quotas for female pediatricians and gynecologists and set up barriers against women wanting to become civil engineers.[2]
Khomeini supported family planning, a program through which the government called upon women to distribute contraceptives, as well as organ transplants. [3]Sangak09:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree we need to have something on how the islamic revolution helped women and that Marmoulak should cease deleting any text that puts Khomeini in a positive light. (The part about transgender might be kept short as this is a short encyclopeiac article without room for every last event in Khomeini's life.)
Here is the problem with Sangak's text I found in the talk archives:
these paragraphs are almost verbatim quotes from an article (p.233, 236 Brown Journal of World Affairs, Winter/Spring 2003) which may present copyright problems. In addition it omits passages that explain the real hero of the article is the grassroots women activists of the Iranian revolution who at least sometimes achieved their gains in spite of the desires of Khomeini and his sucessors (example: "Khomeini planned to send women back home to their tradditional roles as mothers and wives," something "advocates of women's rights" would not have approved of).
Another question: the "marked increase of employment" for women is a rise from 21 to 24% over 5 years. Is this so remarkable or different than non-revolutionary countries like Egypt or Jordan?
existing: Khomeini supported family planning, a program through which the government called upon women to distribute contraceptives, as well as organ transplants. [12]
problem: Does not mention that birth control was discouraged in Iran for the first 6 years of the revolution.
Proposed change: Not all of the original goals of the Islamic Revolution were achieved. Early attempts to ban music, family planning, and divorce initiated by women were reversed [19], as was the lowering of the age of majority for girls from 15 to nine years old.
After encouraging couples to have large families, Khomeini reversed course in 1986, when Iran's population growth rate reached 3.2%. [20] Iran now has a nationwide campaign to encourage contraceptive used. [21]. Music was banned in 1979. In 1988 Khomeini issed a fatwa permitting its use again. [22] The age at which girls could be married off or tried in court as an adult was raised from 9 years to 13 in 2002. [23]
This page is much more neutral than the persian version, which is written by a few admirers of khomeini who don't tolerate any discussion even in the discussion section. A certain "hesam" deletes any opposite opinion. I don't think that is why this section is created. Aryo
Meemo: I don't want to sound racist or "anti simian", and I'm sure that what some of you will call me, but unless you are a Muslim, Arabic or Iranian, you are not equipped to comment on this great man. It really appears to me that all of you talk about him according to your political views. Most of you don't know a thing about Islam. I won't sing praises of the man, because I don't have a vast ground of information. But you made him the matrimony of all evil in the world and that does not set will with me. Because it appears that all your opinions generate of the way you consider Islam, not his actions. This I found offensive because I'm a Muslim and I know what a great religion it is. So please to who are called "Lizrael", "Israel" or something similar, please refrain from commenting when your prejudice are so obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.134.90 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
First I propose we delete the above comment, as it doesn't provide any helpful to balancing the page.
Second, my proposals to changes in the article; add a section for Women in Iran (including topics such as contraceptives, marriage ages and the changes in 2002, female employment, and divorce). This article should, of course, touch on the positive and negative. I think that this is a very appropriate article, considering that women make up 50% of the population under Khomeini's rule. I am new to Wikipedia, so perhaps someone else should write it.--Cap. Falcon (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the one at the beginning of the article? It worked for me, and I am using Videolan. It's a very short clip, about 5 secs. I'd suggest that you try Videolan and/or check your machine's sound configuration. Albert Wincentz (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The soundclip on my computer is functional too. Although I don't speek Persian I really doubt that this soundclip pronounces Khomeini's name. It sounds me like "pig grunt". Could someone speaking Persian please record new pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.194.88 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
picture: turkey, or paris?
the caption of the third picture in the "Life in exile"" section states it is taken in Turkey, while the picture itself says it is from Paris. could somebody clear this up? --Sarefo (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the article
Sadly, while I've seen lots of people barnstars I've never one yet for an article. In any regard, thank you to the community for compiling such a comprehensive article on a controversial topic. Point-of-view neutrality on such subjects can be difficult to maintain. Ogre lawless (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes in lead
This article is larded with references to "philosophy." Yes, Khomeini certainly taught philosphy, maybe was even famous among talabeh in Qom in the 1950s and 1960s for such, but the lead should deal with what he was famous for, what he is remembered for. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In the book "Democracy in Iran," Ayatollah's name is: Seyyed Rouhollah Khomeini. I know the page is missing the part "Seyyed." Can someone please check this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBaharroth (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sayyid isn't part of his actual name. It's a title given to Shi'a males who are descendents of the Prophet Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Commonly known as "Ayatollah Khomeini"
Who is this man Ayatollah Khomeini, and what was his relation to Ruhollah Khomeini? ...
Wasn't/isn't Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini known to most in the English-speaking world as "Ayatollah Khomeini"? The article currently doesn't mention this, even though it mentions Ayatollah Khomeini in a couple of places. Also, the article doesn't say straightforwardly that Ruhollah Khomeini was an Ayatollah, only indirectly (marja).
(Time's Man of the Year 1979 – Ayatullah Khomeini) --83.253.251.189 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the first sentence of the lead Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini includes ayatollah and khomeini. And ayatollah and seyyed are both linked to their articles for anyone ignorant of what they mean. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thought I think you are right. I've added this sentence at the end of the lead: Known as "Imam Khomeini" by his supporters and the Islamic government of Iran,[2] he is commonly referred to as "Ayatollah Khomeini" outside of Iran. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Women's rights
'Ayatollah Khomeini issued a special "religious decree" that required that all virgin women prisoners be raped before execution to prevent them from going to heaven.'
I think this a hugely important point; why is this not included? This issue is also highlighted in the book Not Without My Daughter by Betty Mahmoody.
Source: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvact.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.91.115 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
do you have further documentation of this? both the website you provide and "Not Without My Daughter" are pretty biased sources. i have never heard about that fatwa before. it sounds more like slander than fact.
The Persepolis (comic) has a different version of this story. It talks about the execution of virgins being unIslamic, and the Islamic Republic getting around this difficulty by "marrying" the virgins to their executioners before the execution, and letting the parents of the virgins know about the practice by sending them a "dowry" of the equivalent of $5 or so. i.e. adding the insult of rape to the injury of killing political prisoners.
why dont you learn that "enyclopedic content must be verifiable ?
"Hichi"
Looking at the YouTube just posted of Khomeini being interviewed, it looks to me like the interpreter said Khomeini said "No comment. Nothing. Do not ask the question". Where does the mystical interpretation in the next sentence in the article fit in? "No comment" is simple enough. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Cannot agree. Khomeini was considered an Iranian nationalist par excellence - battling to retore Iranian pride and culture and independence. He was the opposite of the allegedly obsequiously pro-American shah who let 10s of thousands of American technicians in the country. For him to say "no comment" upon a return to the land of his birth after 15 years in exile is not "simple enough." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
MOST BIASED ARTCLE
This article has been written by agents of mullahs of Iran!
Khomeini was worse that Stalin!...he even banned western music!....he broke all the promises he made such as free gas & electric, freedom of expression etc...
Islamic regime amputates limbs, stone those who have committed adultery, they kill those who convert from Shia Islam to any other religion! they killed up to 30,000 Iranian political prisoners in 1988
this article is pathetic! Shame on Wikipedia!
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU DELETE MY COMMENTS, I WILL RE-WRITE IT! - 82.198.235.242 | 12:30, 2008 September 22
Yes, I too believe this article is biased. The article is flooded with lines praising him and almost no criticisms of his policies are mentioned in this article. Khomeini has even been called a murderer by some because of his policies towards some minority religions (bahais), and also his harsh laws as well as his implementation of torture. This article definitely needs a rewrite by someone who has the time; it would be hard to find someone to do this considering the length of this article. This article does not have acceptable content for a supposedly "neutral" encyclopedia.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The article does mention the 1988 executions
In the 1988 massacre of Iranian prisoners, following the People's Mujahedin of Iran operation Forough-e Javidan against the Islamic Republic, Khomeini issued an order to judicial officials to judge every Iranian political prisoner and kill those who would not repent anti-regime activities. Estimates of the number executed vary from 1,400 [3] to 30,000.[4][5][6]
I just added a paragraph to the lead about his controversial-ness.
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;" [7]and by others as one who ordered a "bloodbath" of political prisoners as a means of purging moderates from his government to protect his legacy from a "détente with the West."[8]
Hope that helps --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I know there is lots more to be said about the Imam's controversial-ness then what I wrote but the lead has be kept short. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Cricitism of Khomnini's religious writings by Azar Nafisi
I've added a quote and some cites on the issue of Khomeini's fatwas on sex with children and animals and so on. I realize some will find this offensive but it is an issue with his critics and is relevant to his story. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but Azad Nafisi is not a very good source, specially when she is accused of making things up. Also, I have heard of some fake versions of Tahrir Al-Vaslie that has things about Zoophilia in it. For discussion about sex with children, go to the Tahrir Al-Vasile article. To top it all, both of these acts are illegal according to Iran's laws, so it cannot be a fatwa in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.253.137.10 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what that version in the article was intended to be, but it's apparently vandalism - روح الله موسوی خمینی seems like the correct version. Shimgray | talk | 17:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Anon 68.251.188.63 has some problem with Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri being called a moderate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&diff=248765397&oldid=248732508
The source stating Montazeri was a moderate is the same one who believes the cause of the mass executions was a desire to smoke out the moderates and so purge them from power in Iran -- Ervand Abrahamian, an authority on Iranian politcal history. Not everyone agrees with him and not everyone agrees with Hamid Algar that Khomeini was "the pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history". The two represent contrasting opinions of what makes Khomeini and his legacy the source of controversy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, saying his family claims descent from the the seventh Imam is not a question of his claim, it's a statement of fact, a NPOV statement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I provided a link to the wrong place and meant to direct you here. Sorry for any confusion.
"Claim" may be misused because it often suggests that a speaker is not being truthful. Standard journalistic words are "said" and "stated". Since genealogy is being discussed, a proper verb would be traces.--68.251.188.63 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll go along with that. "traces" is probably better.
this entire section is based upon unreliable polemic sources (homa, gemsofislam, nafisi), except for non-reference commercial link. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
Indeed, in a 1980 article for The New York Times, entitled "Bantam's Khomeini Book Stirs Dispute; 'Wrong and Inflammatory' Question of Interpretation Basis for English Text Hired by Bantam 'Acting Responsibly,' Says Jaffe" Robert Blair Kaiser writes that:
Two Middle Eastern experts are questioning the fairness of a Bantam paperback entitled "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini." They contend that parts of it are not authentic and say that they are appalled by its publication because it presents a distorted view of Islamic culture.
I've had to remove that section several times. I'm not sure why Mr. Booga Louie supports its inclusion, my edit summary has explained the fairly clear-cut reasons for removal, but he has brought the section back without elaboration. Homa, gemsofislam, the non-reference to the website selling the alleged sayings of Khomeini... these are easily out of the picture. Nafisi's book, though popularly used in curriculum to exploit the guise of expertise to turn the masses against Iran's government and ultimately support aggression to "save" Iranians by destroying their country and independence, is only a memoir; a memoir is not exactly a reliable source. Additionally the claims in the memoir have been seriously challenged by well-qualified individuals for its distortions and fabrications, so it really ought to be out of the picture. Using a memoir is questionable as it is for a biography, much less a memoir that has been questioned by experts. I think the section should be removed. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
deleting anything about "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini"
What exactly are the complaints of the two scholars Edward Said and Jaffe about the "fairness" of the book (Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini) anon 67.194.202.113 wants to ban from wikipedia? Edward Said says the book was `too obviously an incitement to ridicule, whether one agreed with Khomeinin or not` and that the book `was designed to show how primitive and maniacal the man is`" i.e. they don't say it is wrong.
"Dr. Zonis said he had told Mr. Jaffe that the second half of the book was not actually written by the Ayatollah, but only endorsed by him. `At least three other ayatollahs,` Dr. Zonis said, `have endorsed the same work, which should be understood as a kind of handbook on ritual pollution.`" (quoting "Bantam's Khomeini Book Stirs Despute", New York Times March 28, 1980)
What he means is the book is based on a sort of template that Khomeini adds to. The "endorsement" is simply that the sayings are in the book that has his signature, though they originated with another ayatollah.
Unfortunately for Anon 67.194.202.113's belief the quotes from the book are unreliable, there is another much more reverent source for many of the quotes, a translation: Resaleh Towzih al-Masa'el, also Risaleh Towzih al Masa'il aka Questions Clarified), is available in English, translated by J. Borujerdi, with a foreword by Michael M. J. Fischer and Mehdi Abedi, Westview Press/ Boulder and London, c1984. In the book many of the same quotes as in
"Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini" can be found.
Anon 67.194.202.113 is certainly entitled to his reverence for the Imam Khomeini and his conspiracy theories of why Nafisi wrote what she wrote, but this is an encyclopedia and we can't censor material based on reverence and conspiracy theories. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
We IP users are actually less anonymous than you, Mr. Booga Louie. My main objection to the Sayings source was that it wasn't a real reference, in that it was simply a link to a commercial website selling the book and had no page numbers. However the other IP found some articles revealing that this book has also been questioned, so it is probably best kept out. Besides, the usage would be primary source, as it is unlikely that a book by Khomeini himself would introduce his remarks in a critical context. By the way, if I recall the review I read correctly, Borujerdi's translation has also been criticized (I may even have the review saved on my computer for reference) for some apparently deliberately bad translations. It wouldn't work as criticism by itself anyway. As for your straw man representation of my arguments against using Nafisi, I guess I'll just remind you that the main problem is that of Reliable Sources, as this is an alleged memoir that has been criticized by several experts for blatant anti-Iranian distortions. Hardly should such a source be used in a biography, especially for a person of importance like Khomeini. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Edits on the Islamic Constitution
It is widely accepted that few Iranians outside of Khomeini's circle were awared of his plan for rule by Velelat-e-faqih, because Khomeini had told the public he did not want to rule:
` The religious dignitaries do not want to rule` Declaration from the Iranian daily Ettelaat, October 25, 1978 Quoted in The Shah and the Ayatollah : Iranian Mythology and Islamic Revolution, 2003 by Fereydoun Hoveyda. p.88. ... was just one of many disclaimers that he, Khomeini, wanted to take power himself.
`Our intention is not that religious leaders should themselves administer the state,` Khomeini told Le Monde newspaper "in one of his last interviews before leaving Paris (October 25, 1978).(p.14 of The Last Revolution by Robin Wright c2000) (source: Benard and Khalilzad, The Government of God)
`The 'ulema themselves will not hold power in the government. They will exercise supervision over those who govern and give them guidance.` -- Khomeini in conversation with a journalist from Reuters (26 October 1978). (The Constitution of Iran by Asghar Schirazi, Tauris, 1997 p.24)
Q: Will you occupy a post in the new government?
A: `Neither my age nor my inclination and position would allow me to do something like that.` -- Khomeini in conversation with a journalist from Associate Press (7 November 1978) (The Constitution of Iran by Asghar Schirazi, Tauris, 1997 p.24)
"A day later (8 November 1978) he gave virtually the same answer to a reporter from the United Press and added that he had already stated this many times. "In his interview, speeches, messages and fatvas during this period there is not a single reference to velayat-e faqih." There are many to the 'Islamic state,`' "but he never specified precisely what he meant by that term." (The Constitution of Iran by Asghar Schirazi, Tauris, 1997 p.24)
Even before the stakes were so high, Khomeini "rarely mentioned doctrinal issues, especially his highly controversial concept of velayat-e faqih," according to Ervand Abrahamian who went through the Ayatollah's public pronouncements in the 1970s. "Some of this lay allies later complained that this avoidance had been part of a devious clerical scheme to dupe the public," [Liberation Movement, Velayat-e Motlaqah-e Faqih (The jurist's absolute guardianship) (Tehran: Liberation Movement Press, 1988), quoted in Khomeinism : Essays on the Islamic Republic by Ervand Abrahamian, p.30 ].
Insiders too were taken by surprise.
"... some of Khomeini's lay advisers, such as Sadeq Qotbzadeh, were ignorant enough of the concept that they were completely bewildered when they heard it for the first time months after the revolution," according to Abrahamian [Personal communication from Dr. Mansur Farhang, the former Iranian representative at the United Nations to Ervand Abrahamian quoted in Khomeinism : Essays on the Islamic Republic by Ervand Abrahamian, p.30 ].
Hamid Algar, a British-born convert-to-Islam and Khomeini supporter, who translated Khomeini's lectures on velayat-e faqih, asked an unnamed "prominent member" of Iran's ruling Council of Islamic Revolution sometime in early 1979 whether the principle of rule-by-jurist would be used in the new Iranian Islamic Republic. Algar says he was told: "Imam Khomeini had not been heard to speak about velayat-i faqih for a long time; and it was highly unlikely that he himself still believed in the necessity or the legitimacy of this principle." [Hamid Algar, `Development of the Concept of velayat-i faqih since the Islamic Revolution in Iran,` paper presented at London Conference on wilayat al-faqih, in June, 1988, quoted in "The Rule of the Religious Jurist in Iran" by Abdulaziz Sachedina, p.133 in Iran at the Crossroads, Edited by John Esposito and R.K. Ramazani]
According to Asghar Schirazi, after Khomeini arrived in Iran he made little or no mention of velayat-i faqih for months, despite the fact that work on a new constitution had already begun. This constitution had a "Guardian Council" to veto unIslamic legislation in addition to a normal democratically elected president and parliament -- but Islamic jurists were in a minority even in this council. There was no Islamic jurist (faqih) "leader," and no mention of velayat-e faqih. [The Constitution of Iran by Asghar Schirazi, Tauris, 1997) p.22-3 ]
This sentence should not have been deleted"
Nor did the new provisional constitution for the Islamic Republic, which revolutionaries had been working on with Khomeini's approval, include the post of supreme Islamic clerical ruler.
The article shoudl also indidcate that VF meant not just clerical rule but Khomeini rule. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.
If the material can be reliably sourced and the source of the material can be provided, then there shouldn't be much of an issue.--68.251.188.63 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Iran hostage crisis section edits
This section has been rewritten by 68.251.188.63. (could you perhaps log in when you do these edits??) and it needs work. Something needs to be said about the 1953 coup but the article has already talked about the overthrow of the Shah.
Main article: Iran hostage crisis
The U.S.'s 1953 coup of Iran's democratically elected government had been conceived and executed from the U.S. embassy in Tehran.[72] Amnesty International reported that Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on January 16, forced the Shah to leave Iran after 37 years of rule.
On 22 October 1979, the autocratic Shah of Iran, installed by the United States in its 1953 Iranian coup d'état, was admitted into the United States for medical treatment for lymphoma. There was an immediate outcry in Iran and on November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students seized the United States embassy in Tehran, taking 63 Americans hostage. Soon thereafter, the revolutionary forces transformed the government into an Islamic republic. After a judicious delay, Khomeini supported the hostage-takers with the slogan "America can't do a damn thing against us." [73] 53 of the hostages were held prisoner for 444 days, an event usually referred to as the Iran hostage crisis. On February 23, 1980, Khomeini proclaimed Iran's Majlis would decide the fate of the American embassy hostages, and demanded that the United States hand over the Shah for trial in Iran for crimes against the nation. Although the Shah died less than a year later, the crisis continued. In America, the hostage taking was seen as a violation of long-established international law and arroused intense anti-Iranian feeling.[74][75] In Iran, supporters of Khomeini named the embassy a "Den of Espionage", and publicized the guns, espionage equipment and many volumes of official and secret classified documents they found there. Others explain the length of the imprisonment on what Khomeini is reported to have told his president: "This action has many benefits. ... This has united our people. Our opponents do not dare act against us. We can put the constitution to the people's vote without difficulty, and carry out presidential and parliamentary elections." [76] The new theocratic constitution did successfully pass its referendum one month after the hostage-taking, which did succeed in splitting its opposition -- radicals supporting the hostage taking and moderates opposing it.[77][76]
What is the point of the current Criticism section ?
The current section has this claim in it :
"After mocking a fatwa by Khomeini dealing with "the problem of sex with chickens" and who may consume a sodomized chicken"
Can ANYONE find a reliable source quoting Ayatollah Khomeini ? I am finding NOTHING whatsoever even after vigorous googling.
Removed the section, will remove it again unless someone finds a reliable source quoting him saying anything about a sodomized chicken. Only in his Resalah he has stated that no one should eat the meat of a sodomized horse,donkey and a couple of other animals that does not include chickens. While someone might have found in his mind to ask about chickens for the hell of it and getting a mocking response from Ayatollah Khomeini, as long as there is not a source that covers that fatwa, I am going to remove the controversy section. Period.81.31.164.246 (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As I put it in the Edits by anon section, to use a memoir is questionable as it is, much less a memoir that has been seriously challenged by experts for its gross distortions and inaccuracies. The BLP rule seems to be for living people, but considering his fame and reverence, the same principles should apply. Besides, if the sources are bad, the sources shouldn't be used. It does not matter what article. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, BLP stands for biography of living persons. Khomeini is dead.
Second if you can find nothing on chickens, then that is grounds for deleting mention of chickens, not the whole criticism section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The other items were even less appropriate than Nafisi, as has already been explained. Frankly this sort of criticism is better home in the backwater of crude "opposition" polemic websites prevalent throughout the internet than in an encyclopedia. I wouldn't mind seeing some legitimate criticism of his rule of the jurist theory though, considering that not all clerics agreed with his theory. I am not sure that would be best under literature section though. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
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" [9]
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.
"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,"[10] 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."[11]
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,"[12] 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."[13]
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[citation needed][original research?][dubious – discuss][neutrality is disputed] 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.
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)
I'm just going to go ahead and delete the introduction part that reads:
The Ayotollah was a sick man and ruined the beuty of Iran. He over threw the Manarchy with lies and killed a countless amount of people along the way. The people of Iran can not oppose him, or even speak their mind, or they will be tortured and killed. My family has had personal experiences with his evil, but luckily we refuged to the U.S., god bless. I hope we will come to our senses and overthrow this maniac and bring up a new government, but it can only be done with the help of U.S. and Europe. He destroyed relations with the U.S. Before, the U.S. and Iran had a very strong tie, like they do with China today." It's here if you need it I suppose. Mindoverturtle (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
^Soraya Tremayne, Anthropology Today, Volume 22, Number 3, June 2006, pp. 1-2(2)
