Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::: 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 ]. --]]] 23:45, 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 ]. --]]] 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::*As such, are their actually any sources than seriously claim him ethnically "Arabic"? <b><i>]</i></b> 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::*As such, are their actually any sources than seriously claim him ethnically "Arabic"? <b><i>]</i></b> 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.--] 08:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruhollah Khomeini article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
A controversial figure, Khomeini is remembered by some as "the pre-eminent figure of recent Islamic history", 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."
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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," 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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. --Enzuru01:12, 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.
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)
Anthony Harly, "Saving Mr. Rushdie?" Encounter, June 1989, p. 74
Marzorati, Gerald, "Salman Rushdie: Fiction's Embattled Infidel", The New York Times Magazine, January 29, 1989, quoted in Pipes, The Rushdie Affair, (1990)
wright, Sacred Rage, (2001), p.28, 33,
for example the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing see:Hizb'allah in Lebanon : The Politics of the Western Hostage Crisis Magnus Ranstorp, Department of International Relations University of St. Andrews
St. Martins Press, New York, 1997, p.54, 117
Marzorati, Gerald, "Salman Rushdie: Fiction's Embattled Infidel", The New York Times Magazine, January 29, 1989, quoted in Pipes, The Rushdie Affair, (1990)
Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2006), p.138
Marzorati, Gerald, "Salman Rushdie: Fiction's Embattled Infidel", The New York Times Magazine, January 29, 1989, quoted in Pipes, The Rushdie Affair, (1990)
^ Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2006), p.138
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. --Enzuru23:36, 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 Misplaced Pages 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? --Enzuru23:36, 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! --Enzuru00:58, 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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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... --Enzuru22:56, 26 November 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. --Enzuru06:40, 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? --Enzuru19:58, 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. --Elonka23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You can even find sources calling him Indian, but Arab? We'll have better luck finding sources calling Napoleon Russian.--Enzuru08:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
.png)
