Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 6

What were the circumstances that let to his exile?
The article doesn't say. Dlabtot (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the misplaced literature section that was confusing me. I've moved it to a more appropriate place. Dlabtot (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead of this article is confusing
Lead of the article should contain most important and relevant aspects of its subject as many readers stop reading just here. Khomeini is important and readers come here to know about him because of 5 important points:


 * 1- His role as a leader of the Iran revolution ( later as a ruler ) ,


 * 2- Acting this role(s) as a senior Islamic cleric ( a Shiiat mararjaa, ... ) ,


 * 3- His formulating of a controversial theory that implies a god given right for the clerics to rule the country,


 * 4- His violation of human rights and dictatorship during a decade of ruling in Iran,


 * 5- His anti- Western and radical political positions in foreign policy.

On the Other hand, Khomeini's published books have never been recognized as a turning point in their respected fields by Islamic distinguished scholars or other advocates. Even Velayat-al-Faghih( his surprisingly very brief contribution to the political Islam) has never been cited in an Islamic reference after its publication!. In other words: Khomeini is not a distinguished scholar in the Islam and Shiiat world. Now check the opening of this article: points 4 and 5 are missing and instead Khomeini is introduced as a writer, an elite, a msyticist, even a poet! I recommend eliminating this type of content from the lead of this article and adding a short sentence like this: «Khomeini is Known for both his violation of human rights and anti-western positions during his 10 years ruling in Iran after raising to power in 1979.» AliAshraf.D (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a persuasive argument. I say, do it. Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for more discussions as this article is labeled 'controversial'. I'll make proposed changes within next 24 Hours... any objections?AliAshraf.D (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Khomeini's contribution to Mysticism and Philosophy in the Shia Islam school of thought is considered quite influential. Here are two English sources supporting my arguments:

1. NY Times (Need a free account to view the article): ((As a mystic, Khomeini was an elitist ))

2. Khomeini and the legacy of Islamic mystical philosophy

Kazemita1 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
The following sentence cannot be found in the references assigned to it in the article and therefore falls in the category of original research (The sources are rather primary ones and I cannot find the claim in them directly):

"a decade of his ruling in Iran is marked with extensive violation of human rights"revolution'''" (and I am not going to get into whether this source is reliable or not.)

The same goes with the following sentence in what is claimed to be its source(the italicized text does not exist in the source):

"'Khomeini is widely blamed amongst Iranian elites for his hypocritical approach in raising to power during Iran 1978 Also, in Nassr's book, The Shia Reviaval'', he is not described as an anti-American nor anti-western unlike what is claimed in the article:

"Khomeini is also a popular anti-American, anti-Western figure in recent political history"

The sentence in p. 138 of Nassr's book only says he escalated that feeling; that is all:

"He managed to escalate anti-Americanism"

Even though According to this famous policy of Wikipedia, I am allowed to delete these sentences, I will wait for more discussions as the article is categorized as controversial. Kazemita1 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the concept: 'Original research' dose not imply abstractions or conclusions at least when it comes to obvious and trivial ones. There is no obligation for inclusion of references for 'every' sentence that editors use. specially the lead of the article, which we are discussing here, is not a good place for such a practice. You should give a brief explanation of the whole article here that is not (necessarily) provided by the sources(sentence by sentence).I will undo part of your work after hearing more from the colleaguesAliAshraf.D (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My last edit was not even related to the original research topic. What do you mean by "undoing my part of work"?! Kazemita1 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, It is. Anyway, this is what I'm going to do:
 * A)Removing the irrelevant items (i.e. the paragraph which introduces him as a writer!),
 * B)Revising confusing words and phrases which contradicts with following obvious and globally accepted facts that has been fully described in the article's body
 * •Khomeini has acted hypocritically during Iran 1978 revolution ( i.e. swearing 'NO' to power during the revolution and ...). It is so critical and important and must be mentioned in the opening of the article because the reader should be informed that, from Iranian intellectuals point of view, the people of Iran had not ever contributed (consciously and deliberately) to a revolution against their own rights and souls. Otherwise, he/she may be leaded to a weak argument about the maturity of Iranian people's self-consciousness and civilization.
 * •Khomeini has a huge career of violating(and not 'abusing')human basic rights during his one decade of ruling in Iran, and at least one case of direct responsibility for committing crime against humanity( deliberately ordering massacre of more than 3500 imprisoned people most of them innocent students and youths who have survived from another even larger massacre )
 * •Khomeini is an anti-American, Anti-Western figure in recent politics.

I am familiar with Iran government's official literature as well as many of the editors here. But Wikipedia's pov policy should not be confused with a 'making all happy' one. In the case of such a confusion you better remember this simple fact about demanding people: 'They won't be happy with less than all the shares'.AliAshraf.D (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I do not see any of your arguments in line with Wiki policies I am going to revert your edits. I noticed that you recently joined Wikipedia. I suggest you spend some time reviewing the rules and regulations here. For example, no matter how obvious YOU think a claim is, you still need to be able to verify it through a reliable source. So far, you failed to do that for claims such as "hypocrisy" in politics and being "anti-west". Kazemita1 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding mentioning his contribution to mysticism and philosophy in the lead of the article, as I stated in the previous discussion -which apparently you failed to see- it is considered quite influential. Here are two English sources supporting my argument:


 * 1. NY Times (Need a free account to view the article):((As a mystic, Khomeini was an elitist))


 * 2. Khomeini and the legacy of Islamic mystical philosophy


 * I can understand it to be a little surprising for you, that such a thing is coming from a political activist like Khomeini. However, that goes back to prior to revolution when he was not yet involved in politics that much.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please! Don't talk about Wiki policy when you are violating it by attacking me and calling me an amateur then reverting my work!(what I'm going to undo it): Two sources that I have cited are dedicated to Khmeini's hypocrisy and the body of article [| For exapmle here] is full of comments and references showing Khomeini's unique way of leading a revolution (keeping people in darkness and pretending what they expect and ... ). It seems you have problem with the phrase 'Khomeini's hypocritical approach in rising to power"... It hearts? O.k. I'll change it. But buy a dictionary and search for 'hypocrisy' and choose another name for what Khomeini did. I couldn't, you try!
 * Wiki is not just a place for 'quotation' from arbitrarily chosen sources ... I have mentioned it before. Editors are not quotation robots, they are educated, intelligent, volunteers who make conclusions and abstractions. It is a very embarrassing way of discussing topics. We are not a punch of fools. Your hero has a somewhat dark and dirty profile ( committing massacre is a dirty point in people's profile ) and it is not natural to be introduced as an elite! You are pushing ...
 * Your so called 'sources' show that Khomeini has some weak contributions to Islamic mysticism and DO NOT SHOW anything about this to be a remarkable characteristic that made him famous or even has escalated his fame. WE ARE NOT A PUNCH Of FOOLS!AliAshraf.D (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you "conclude" or "abstract" something from a source that is not actually included in it and it is based on your own understanding or work, it is called original research and it is not allowed in Wikipedia. Other than that you are not allowed to use blogs as sources. For example this one.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, what did you mean by "WE ARE NOT A PUNCH Of FOOLS!" or "It hearts?"Kazemita1 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, using editorial judgement about sources is not original research. Please review WP:NOR. Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * May I ask you to be specific on this case. The source says, "Khomeini managed to escalate anti-Americanism". Our friend puts in "Khomeini is also a popular anti-American, anti-Western figure in recent political history". I do not know if you can call that editorial judgement.
 * So in this case 'anti-Western' should be removed, although it would probably better to find another source to support it, which probably wouldn't be difficult. Look, I don't know much about the man - I came to this article to learn.  I am still watching it on the off-chance someone will fill in the gap that I noted in the section above. Dlabtot (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or let me know if the source talks about a subject close to hypocrisy that made my friend jump on the conclusion that "Khomeini is widely blamed amongst Iranian elites for his hypocritical approach in raising to power". (By the way, is there such a thing as raising to power in English language?)Kazemita1 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Concentrate on the article instead of calling me a beginner or checking my spelling
 * No. A text composed of Conclusions and abstractions ( with any ratio of compression) is not called research as long as it doesn't (substantially) reflect the author's reasoning which is the main characteristic of any kind of research. Do you really need examples?!
 * After all, and at the moment, we have a revised opening for the article (we had it as well, basically before your last attack) which you can no more dispute by your abuse of original research policy, thus your whole discussions are irrelevant. Choose another weapon and comeback or be happy with your share for the time being and sit back(recommended), wait, you should have some consultations: Make a hard copy of the article, check it with them and see whether it is tolerable or they want all of the shares? In the second case you can ask their majesty to prepare a formal propaganda for Imam Khomeini and you can issue it to Wikipedia ... Don't worry about me and people like me: They can find and assassinate us anywhere across the world.AliAshraf.D (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AliAshraf.D, you are engaging in personal attacks. Please refrain from further insults.  Engage in civil discussion without the dramatic displays or you may be blocked from editing for disruptive behavior.--v/r - TP 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I detect no insults or incivility in the comment to which you are replying. I would like to remind you, however, that false accusations of incivility are themselves considered to be disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

O.k. It's true. I've gone a little far. But take care, Khomeini is not a trivial subject. I suggest to keep a closer eye on it and observe more complicated disruptive behaviors such as the organized behaviors that prevent editors from improving the article and keep it (at least its opening) as a formal advertisement issued by Iran government. AliAshraf.D (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After User:Kazemita1's self-disclosure on WP:ANI that he is from the US, I independently verified. He is from the US, I even know the city and state.  Your assertion that he is with the Iranian government is blatently false.  I give you my strongest assurance of this fact.  Desist in your insistance that he is with the Iran government.--v/r - TP 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved reader of these comments I would like to point out that no such assertion was made. I would advise all parties to concentrate on the content of the article and refrain from commenting about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm an uninvolved editor too and having gone through the AN report a few days ago and all of the linked the relevant diffs, I am fairly sure an assertion was made and that such government connections could be used to arrange for an assassination.--v/r - TP 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you provided a diff in which no one made any such assertion, nor do I know why you pointed me to an AN notice that no administrator responded to. Are you going to apologize for your false accusations or not? Dlabtot (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No administrator responded to? Did you check whether the only person to respond (me) was an administrator before you showed your lack of ability to research a subject before opening your mouth thus proving my last statements?  An assertion was made, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore as I've already pointed out the evidence and your only response is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--v/r - TP 13:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is like the scenario where the defendant himself pleads guilty and the lawyer is still arguing and asking the judge to apologize! (check the above for AliAshraf.D's statment "O.k. It's true. I've gone a little far.")Kazemita1 (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lineage
I was told by a journalist in Iran recently that the Khomeini museum, or a section of it, in Tehran was shut down after his family and descendants objected to the false lineage and ancestry that were being displayed there.

It appears that the official accounts of his ancestry are quietly disputed by his family.

--Wool Bridge (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would love to know more about his lineage. I only heard that some of his ancestors used to live in India for a while. I know a group of Iranians still live there (to date). Any finding (along with sources I mean :) ) are appreciated.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The new opening for the article
My editorial changes has resulted to a new opening for this article which is compliant with major Wiki policies (most importantly npov and verifiable) and by no means it may be labeled original research (as Kazemita suggested in previous section about my first version of the changes). Lets review it briefly:
 * •paragraph 1: Khomeini is introduced as a political/religious Iranian leader.(as previous)
 * •paragraph 2: His position as a Islamic-Shia senior cleric is emphasized.(as previous with little change)
 * •paragraph 3: Illustrates a picture (as neutral as possible )of his roadway to power and his contribution to the contemporary concept of Islamic governance. (revised)
 * •Paragraph 4: Reflects human rights related criticisms around Khomeini as well as his anti-American and international figure.(revised)
 * •Paragraph 5: Mentions his charisma and his official prefix (Imam), in Iran. (as previous just being merged)

As one may observe, while this opening remains loyal to the body of the article, it is a concise and proper introduction for whom do not have much time to read the whole.
 * Please be careful about editing this part of the article and discuss your changes before(recommended) or after applying them. I will undo arbitrary and careless edits otherwise.AliAshraf.D (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you not edit war to apply any sort of ownership of the article or the lead.--v/r - TP 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then please check the history and make a judgement about the act of 'edit war'. If it looks like a war, hereby I offer ceasefire on my part. But this article is announced controversial and editors have been asked to follow the procedure that I have double mentioned. I don't say "Nobody has right to change the lead, it's mine". AliAshraf.D (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you can make suggestions for how it should be maintained, but you can't decide on your own how it will be maintained. I am concerned that you said "I will undo arbitrary and careless edits otherwise" and what your definition of 'arbitrary and careless' actually is.  Keep in mind that the only excuse to blatenly violate WP:3RR is for blatent vandalism (zero good faith at all) and unsourced negative BLP material.--v/r - TP 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but regarding AliAshraf.D's statement: "as Kazemita suggested in previous section about my first version of the changes" I see no changes compared to your first version!Kazemita1 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1- I have removed my editorial judgment expressed in term 'Hypocrasy'

2- I have merged the story of Khomeini's unique approach to leading a revolution (hiding his core ideas ) in his contribution to the concept of Islamic governance and so giving him an excuse (his critiques were able to find a copy of his work before joining him ).

3- I have removed the term 'Anti-western' which was under dispute.

4- I have 'softened' the paragraph involved with Khomeini's violation of human rights and commitment of crimes against humanity as a pov of critiques (while it is no more a pov but an undisputed historic fact). And our friend, can't see any difference ...

By the way, what is your exact objection to the lead in its current situation, Kazemita? (I mean its situation before your 'undo'). I have extensively discussed the importance of each paragraph, and irrelevance of claims such as Khomeini being a writer, etc. AliAshraf.D (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some samples of the issues I find thru a brief look at your edit:


 * You mention "In January 1970, during his speeches ... ", as if he was a public speaker. This is while the source that you yourself pointed to talks about a series of lectures in a cleric school taught to a group of students.
 * Minor edit accepted. AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, 'has written' is not used for dead people like the way you used. If you fail to show proper grammatical skills do not expect people to keep your edits.
 * You mention "like other senior shi'a clerics has written many books, but is most famous for his political role."
 * Accepted. English is not my primary writing language I'll try more and remain open to criticism forever and any grammatical edits on my work is welcomed. AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Second of all, he was a famous Greek philosophy and Mysticism teacher way before he was a political activist. He used to teach philosophy in Iranian cleric schools when it was either banned or frowned-upon. Many Islamic cleric's (even to date) do not endorse Greek philosophy and/or mysticism and Khomeini's act to follow up on those was considered quite bold and progressive during those days. You cannot just undo the edits in that matter.
 * Rejected! he is not and never had been famous for these stuff, ... In most independent researchers and historians point of view, Khomeini experienced a kind of ban (in a very limited period) because of his adventurism and thirst for power which was not tolerable by Boroujerdi (the unique 20th century undisputed marja of Shi'a)and not his involvement in some philosophical or mystic habits (it never resulted to an outcome, worth mentioning). Your claim about [following philosophy and mysticism] being considered quite bold and progressive is just a journalistic tale made up by Khomeini followers and just a few weak sources have been influenced by such a propaganda. If you pay a penny for such tales, you can consider mentioning them elsewhere, and if you insist on telling them in the lead, then you should consider reflecting the other perspective as well due to npov. AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you the admin's advice that you do not own this article (no one does) and your rhetoric of accepted/rejected is only regarded as your own personal opinion; not a final verdict.
 * Those are abbreviations and do not ask for banning me from his/her majesty please. Nobody will be banned just for such a style of expressing himself in a talk page.AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, unless your arguments are based on reliable sources they do not sell in Wikipedia. and I do not care even if you were from the same country as Khomeini. You need to bring evidence for every word you put in the article, like the following:


 * 1. NY Times (Need a free account to view the article):((As a mystic, Khomeini was an elitist))
 * This is a journalistic review with this theme: Khomeini was not simple. And without any expertise in the field of mysticism the author uses your favorite phrase.AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. Khomeini and the legacy of Islamic mystical philosophyKazemita1 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * and this is an article that I couldn't access more than its first page but surprisingly observed it to be enough: Apparently the author tries to decode notes claimed to be written by Khomeini on the margins of a 19-th century book which is claimed to be found accidentally by an anonymous student who bought it from another anonymous itinerant vendor in 1984 (5 years after his rising to power) and were totally forgotten because Shah's SAVAK had confiscated his papers five years after his excile (15 years before the surprise) ... no comments.


 * And you call these sources?! sources that show Khomeini is an elite rather than a populist politician ?! Are they enough to claim Khomeini's contribution to mysticism a noticeable and comparable one?! AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim you got this is from page 158 of Moin's book. However, what I see on this very page here is quite different from your 'editorial judgement':
 * You mention "[clerical authority proposed by Khomeini] was strongly rejected by other major Shi'a clerics [5]"

"Khomeini's theory of the Islamic state attracted much praise from supporters and vigorous criticism from his opponents." and then the author mentions 'ONE' marja who openly opposed him.
 * Firstly, above quoted statement, illustrates that his theory was just praised by his followers (mostly low grade clerics with strong political emotions), Secondly 'ONE' is quite a lot when we are counting Shi'a marjas(those days there existed just a handful of them).Finally in Shi'a clergy's world when 'ONE' marja vigorously  rejects a theory it should be considered strongly rejected. Check Moein again and find that no other marja or senior cleric had ever encouraged Khomeini for his theory at the time( khomeini himself, stopped discussing it and remained silent about it in his lectures. Even after his rise to power, he never published another contribution to this concept until his death). Khooi rejected his idea in a very harsh way, but even not as vigorous as him, Hakim, Shariatmadari and  Golpayegani have rejected it . These facts obviously result: Khomeini's expansion of the classical theory of Velayt-e-Faghih was basically rejected by 'all' major clerics and was just praised by his religious/political followers. Moin's book is no more than a biography, biographers tend to exaggerate about their subject or feel some sympathy about it,  but any editor after reading this book can make a very obvious judgement about this. Now, tell me Kazemita, Is it fair not to mention the rejection of Khomeini's idea by other majorclerics? Although I think one can consider the reaction to this theory as an as strong as possible negative reaction in Shi'a clergy, if the word 'strong' seems to be too strong, may be it was better to eliminate it, again as a minor edit. AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your original research. However, unless you bring a reliable source, ONE will remain ONE and not equivalent to MOST or MAJOR.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * let's enhance our English(obviously I need this more than you): MAJOR <=>  Of greater importance, stature or rank'' stop quarreling for the god sake! By the way, where lies the relevance of my simple edit to OR?! You are bombarding me in a populist fashion: counting on the ignorance (in this case the haste) of readers instead of trying to enlighten or to convince me or anyone else.AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You introduce him as an anti-American figure based on the article in Time magazine. In the Times article the only places it talks about anti-Americanism is as follows:

"Primarily because of the intimate U.S. involvement with the Shah, Iran has turned so anti-American that just about any Washington attempt to influence events there is likely to backfire; certainly none of Iran's contending factions can afford to be thought of as pro-U.S. Iran needs a demonstration that the U.S. has not the slightest wish to dominate the country. The U.S. must try to contain the spread of Khomeini-inspired anti-Americanism in the Middle East."

In Moin's book on the page that you refer to it talks about "escalating anti-Americanism".

Because of the above, I suggest changing the edits from 'BEING' anti-American to 'INSPIRING' anti-Americanism. There is much less name calling involved and is much closer to what the sources say.
 * Accepted. but I think when a religious leader or a political leader escalates anti-Americanism he/she is rather an anti-American and it gets worst when it comes to one who had both etiquettes.AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding (when you said accepted). Please, continue to commit to the venerability/No-Original-Research policy of wikipedia and avoid personal opinions as much as you can.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your sentence: "Critics complain that Khomeini had gone back on his word (or outsmarted secular, Islamic modernists and even traditional Islamic Iranians, depending on your point of view) to advise, rather than rule the country."

First of all, editors do not initiate a dialog in a Wiki article like what you do(bolded above).
 * Welcome to my world. I prefer to do so and I couldn't find any rule prohibiting this. Any recommendations and edits are welcomed either.AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Second of all, since not all critics believe the same way as you mention, about outsmarting the secular politicians, you should transfer this part of the article to the body rather than the lead so that multiple points of view can be stated. Kazemita1 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rejected. There is not a rule that declares the lead as a Make all happy club. npov states that you should reflect different perspectives and it doesn't imply remaining quite about published knowledge just because of the existence of different povs and the lead is not an exception. In fact, the most important point about people like Khomeini (that any article about them must consider in his first paragraphs) is their state of being under dispute, remaining quite about this fact deeply confuses the reader. If you think my style of reflecting the dispute around Khomeini's hypocrisy is not a well formed one, just make another edit that can lead the reader to the fact that there exists a dispute around his political approach to power, and his followers are proud of his smartness and cleverness while others complain about hypocrisy (in other words and hypocritically speaking, a common practice in Iranian politics: his going back on his word).
 * I'll do some edits in next days to fix this and until then, I'm ready to discuss more.AliAshraf.D (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out npov. I am not saying you should not mention your point of view; just do not push it in the lead when there are strong opposing views. Kazemita1 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not my pov. let's check some POVs:
 * Iran Government's official pov: Khomeini was an unprecedented elite, write, philosopher and faghih who did his job which resulted to current political situation in Iran and any other interpretation of him is not allowed.
 * Historians and academicians: Khomeini was a religious leader who engaged in politics while did a minimal effort justifying his engagement theoretically.
 * Iranin opposition: Khomeini was a hypocrite who fooled most of the people of Iran by hiding his intentions about clerical authority and abused his position as a religious leader.
 * I just do not care about the bold part of Iran Government's propaganda. Dose it mean to you that I am violating the rules? And your edits: how far they remain just and in what extent they are fair? Who is pushing? AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Keeping the Theory of Clerical Authority a Secret
The sentence: "since then (until 1980) he and his aids preferred to keep their continued loyalty to the theory as a secret" was no were to be found on page 478 or page 479 of Abrahamian's book. Abrahamian only mentions that Khomeini, when addressing the public used to use a softer version of his theory of clerical authority. But he also mentions that he would openly talk about it in clerical school and therefore that could not be a secret. I will therefore edit this sentence as follows:

"though he never mentioned it in public until after revolution." Kazemita1 (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OBJECTION. As I have argued before (and you can find on WP:NOR) editors are not limited to just quoting articles, but lets have a quotation from Abrahamian's book (You forgot my citation from Hamed Elgar)"... Khomeini did not publicly refer to his work on Islamic Government; Instead his entourage later disclaimed this work, arguing that it was either a SAVAK[Shah's intelligence agency] forgery or the rough notes of a student listener. Nor did Khomeini commit himself to precise proposals and specific plans .... 'Imprecision was a way of life' for {Khomeini and} his entourage. Instead Khomeini talked in generalities of throwing out the imperialists,[etc] ... Thus Khomeini intentionally propagated a vague populist message and refrained from specific proposals ... '..."  Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions Page 479

1- Obviously Khomeini and his followers had carefully kept their continued loyalty to his idea about Islamic governance and clerical authority as a secret and obviously they did it intentionally to fool (or outsmart) seculars, traditional Islamists, leftists, democrats and the people of Iran as a whole.

2- It is widely criticized in several sources from academic and journalistic ones to weblogs, forumes, jokes, ... as a hypocritical behavior and your edit have eliminated all of these and referring to the so-called referundom you have totally hidden the nature of his political behavior. With all respects, I will edit your work at this very moment AliAshraf.D (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Grammatical note: It is 'With all "due" respect', not 'with all respect'.
 * 2. The phrase "his followers" is nowhere in the sources and you are adding it based on your own research.
 * Are you kidding? AliAshraf.D (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. The 'so-called' referendum (that you are mis-spelling by the way) is from a reliable source (NYU), whether you like it or not. Kazemita1 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral ... but according to the same source this was criticized and banned by major political forces and neutrally speaking it was no more than a so called referendum. AliAshraf.D (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then what? This is it?! What about hypocrisy? It was enough for you to slaughter the article's lead, changing it to a advertisement banner? AliAshraf.D (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing
A Wiki article is neither a blog nor a research paper:

((some of his followers tend to emphasize on his carrier as a religious writer, but he is most famous for his political role which is claimed to be part of his position as a marja while such an integration is disputed by both secular and orthodox Islamic figures.))

The above passage will be removed. Going forward, do not contribute anything unless you can back it with a reliable source.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respects, according to NPOV dispute "... calling someone a 'POV-pusher' is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully ..." I wonder whether your claim is made 'careflly' or not but one should check and make a judgement.


 * In above sentence I'm just doing my job as an independent editor of an encyclopedic content who is committed to mentioning different points of view on a controversial subject. Asking editors to cite their work is a good practice but when it comes to obvious assertions (like one I have made above) it is better to help improving the article by adding such a source instead of quarreling and 'removing', unless you may think my assertion is false and there is nobody who at any opportunity insists on mentioning Khomeini's carrier as the author of 40 books trying to introduce the man as a writer, philosopher, etc.  or there exists no traditional Islamic or secular source that denies the relevance and importance of Khomeini's intellectual work. Do you really think so?! A passive alternative is to tag the contents that need citation ... . This is the spirit of Wikipedia and any collaborative environment. Neither We are presenting on a forum nor have come here to practice our dialectic abilities (at least in such a naive and pretending way). AliAshraf.D (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The more you write in the discussion page, the clearer it becomes that you are unfamiliar with Wiki policies. For example in the above passage you mention: "unless you may think my assertion is false".

For your information, in Wikipedia, we do not talk about true or false; we talk about verifiable or non-verifiable:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Kazemita1 (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikipedia expert, Verifiable dose not mean Verified nor Proven it just refers to a potential, an experienced editor helps verifying assertions made by other colleagues in cases he/she feels a citation is needed, or simply asks for such citations in case of limited time or knowledge, Unless he/she believes that the assertion under consideration is false, in this case, he/she comes to the talk page and initiates a dialogue(recommended) or just makes a change or both. Coming to an article and destroying it, in the name of verifiability is not a common practice! You have changed the lead of the article to an advertisement banner and we have just this excuse?! Is it enough to deconstruct the article because you think the above assertion is Unverifiable? By the way I was assumed to be accused of PoV Pushing and now what? Are you sure about being experienced in collaborative and not dialectic jobs? AliAshraf.D (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, AliAshraf.D, on biographies of living people it is actually practice to remove contentious information that is not verifiable with significant reliable sources. When it comes to BLPs, contentious material should be removed and then discussed.--v/r - TP 14:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, This article is not a BLP ( Khomeini is the most important historic figure in Iran's contemporary politics who died in 1989 ) and I do not believe that the content under consideration can be labeled not verifiable it just lacks appropriate citation and I believe it would take no effort to add such a citation. At the moment I have not retrieved the sentence and have no obligation to cite sources ... all I'm seeking is a collaborative attitude instead of quarreling and seeking excuse for deletion and slaughter.


 * You found nothing else to issue a comment about? I'm facing the worst forms of disruptive edits one can imagine and your highness are worried about BLP rules?AliAshraf.D (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to remind everyone to review WP:V. Specifically it says
 * This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation
 * So if you add anything that could be considered by anyone as controversial please add a source. I would also like to remind everyone to review WP:BITE.
 * Concerning the topic at hand, AliAshraf.D if is true that I believe it would take no effort to add such a citation. please go ahead and do so. That will prevent editors from removing your inclusions. Eomund (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eomund, I was about to mention WP:V.--v/r - TP 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the sentence under consideration is removed and I have not retrieved it and do not intend to do so at this very moment. I'm just showing how far we are from a collaborative attitude: While Kazemita is aware of the verifiability of the passage, instead of cooperating by adding sources or asking for such sources he not only removes it in the name of verifiability but also walks around the lead and reverts any thing that he finds, to keep its weak and ambigious situation (discussed heavily above) unchanged by preventing any form of cosensous. To justify his edits Kazemita repeatedly announces me a beginner who is not aware of primitives like verifiability, etc. AliAshraf.D (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've come here to respond to a 3O request that was logged for this article, however it's not clear out of the four editors involved in this section which two are the original participants. I've removed the listing for the time being on the basis firstly that there appear to be more than two editors involved (which is beyond the scope of 3O) and secondly that I've not been able to find a clear section defining the dispute and the views of each side.


 * All is not lost, however. If you are still having trouble resolving this dispute, I recommend you look into making use of a Request for Comment (RFC). This will expose the problem to a broader audience of editors than 3O and should help solicit more responses that can help you reach consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article
The lead of the article have been under heavy discussion here due to a general dispute between me and user: Kazemita1 and now it is time to reach a consensus. Third party opinions are welcomed. AliAshraf.D (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the lead of an article about a figure such as Khomeini is not a trivial subject and its being under dispute is so natural. Here, I am trying to give a brief and unbiased explanation of the dispute:

My friend, Kazemita1, tends to keep the lead in a state that dose not harm anyone and to accomplish this (impossible, I think ) mission constantly puts basic WP policies like WP:NOR, WP:V on the table and even accuses me of pov-pushing because of my bold edits that ignores Iran government's official propaganda and literature which I believe is supported by a very narrow spectrum of sources and should not be weighed too much.

I have tried to resolve the dispute by discussing the whole structure of the lead as well as details, through this talk page but we have not reached a consensus.

From a methodological point of view:
 * ♦ Kazemita1 thinks remaining loyal to the sources implies using their exact words or phrases but I think there is no such an obligation specially when it comes to editing the lead of an encyclopedic article where you have to abstract and conclude a lot.
 * ♦ There exists a confusion between  verifiabile  and  verified ( Kazemita1 constantly asks for citations and removes everything when finds an uncited material).
 * ♦ Kazemita1 is not ready to accept when a political figure is heavily criticized and accused for issuing order to massacre he is accused of crime against humanity because there is no court verdict or when almost all independent sources refer to populism and hypocritical approach to political power, one should not use such labels or even reflect the story because (Kazemita thinks) the article will be  biased in favor of a point and against another.
 * ♦ I do not believe that Iran government's official propaganda can be considered more than a tiny minority view and I have not found any independent reliable source that defends or denies Khomeini's direct responsibility in the slaughter of thousands of political prisoners or extensive human rights violation or introduces him as an harmless elite or a straight forward political leader, etc. thus I do not hesitate to reflect all major characteristics of the subject which are accepted globally (though may hypocritically and occasionally be denied by parts of Islamic extremism which absolutely should be considered a minority view )
 * ♦ I do believe in Wikipedia's experience concentrated in the treasury of its policies. The thing is, I have not its keys to use and justify my arguments, I just believe there exists such keys. AliAshraf.D (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I don't (yet) have any specific comments regarding the lead, I would direct all participants to WP:LEAD which has good information on what the lede section should and shouldn't contain. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarise the body of the article - there shouldn't be anything other than superficial information (birthdates, full names, etc) in the lede that isn't covered in more detail in the body itself. Note also that as Ruhollah Khomeini is deceased, the unique provisions of WP:BLP don't apply here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * TechnoSymbiosis, Thanks for the comment. I have no problem with the rule you mentioned but I would like to remind the fact that the article under consideration is not in a well formed state at the moment and I think no editor (including myself) would work on the body without keeping an eye on the lede. If It is considered to be a rigid rule that one should first insert some details in the body and then an abstract in the lead, I'm ready to do so in cases that such details are not presented thoroughly (being honest, such cases exist) but I afraid resolving it wont lead us to a compromise. AliAshraf.D (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My comments:

1. Regarding your assertion: "This expansion of the theory strongly rejected by one marja and faced objections by estabished parts of Shi'a clergy while praised by his mid-range and more political followers". The bolded sentences are no where to be found in the reference. The reference does not weigh the supporters and opposers the way you did. Here is what the source says:

((khomeini's theory of the islamic state attracted much praise from supporters and vigorous criticism from his opponents. His major and most dangerous critic in Najaf was the Grand Ayatollah Kho'i))
 * First: Obviously it attracted praise just from his supporters ( the same source has specified them as mid-range scholars a majority of them his students). As one may imagine, 'enemy' in Khomeini's terminology means other scholars. Note: According to Abrahamian the work was kept as an internal Idea and even was disclaimed officially in public.
 * Second: Khoei is not simply Khoei. Khoei means established Shi'a clergy.
 * Third: according to Moein, Abrahamian, etc. It was not just about Khoei, no other senior cleric ever praised his idea, they even didn't remain silent ( what in a normal dispute is a common prctice amongst them) and rejected it in various ways, (the list includes all Marjas other than kKhomeini himself!).
 * Fourth: Actually, Kazemita1 you are repeating your favorite [The sentence is] no where to be found in the reference phrase. I simply think it is not an obligation. AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you save everyone's time and mention the sentence in the source that talks about opposed by estabished parts of Shi'a clergy while praised by his mid-range and more political followersKazemita1 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Regarding passage describing his books: "Khomeini was a marja ("source of emulation", also known as a Grand Ayatollah) in Twelver Shi'a Islam and like other senior clerics had written many books and was the lecturer of several collected essays most of them religious related."

I explained heavily above on his avant-garde teaching of Greek Philosophy and Mysticism in cleric schools. That has to be included in the above passage, since unlike what you claim, most marja's do NOT have any contribution to mysticism and philosophy. You may refer to the following English and non-English sources. 
 * As I have replied previously, it is just a tale made by his followers. Mysticism and Greek philosophy( actually derived versions of it) have been and are being studied for centuries in Hozas (Islamic Universities). To put an end on your claim: Khomeini had never been a student of any school other than Hozas ( there did not exist such a place at all) and it is so paradoxical to call his teaching of these stuffs avant-garde because to teach something one should study it first and one can not study a forbidden material in religious disciplines. unless you can show us  a series of innovative contributions to the field being so important that can characterize him, please let this tale remain rested in Iran government's tabloids.
 * Regarding your so called sources: On this talk page, I have made an assessment on what you have cited above, and showed they are not capable of supporting such an aggressive assertion. Obviously, In the religious related contents,  Khomeini showed nothing more than a regular Marja (A strong view point dose exist claiming worst: He did far less than appropriate for the position). AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I leave it to other readers to decide what following sentences from my first two sources mean:

1. As a mystic, Khomeini was an elitistKazemita1 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This source is not appropriate for the job: announcing Khomeini a mystic takes more than writing a journalistic overview with a theme of "Khomeini was not easy"! AliAshraf.D (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This source is used by you many times in the article. If you say it does not do the job for this task, how do you want me to believe it does the job for YOUR citations?!Kazemita1 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Irfan [mysticism] revisited (refering to Khomeini) Kazemita1 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * b.Although an academic article but not a reliable one:It is not cited in by other researchers.
 * b.The whole article suffers from weak documentation: It is dedicated to a book which is claimed that was found (4 years after Khomeini's rising to power) by an anonymous student who bought it from an anonymous man accidentally and it seems to have notes on its margins that are said to be written by Khomeini. According to the story, the book was stolen 15 years before the surprising recovery from Khomeini's library that apparently he had leaved behind 5 years ago when he was exiled from Iran!AliAshraf.D (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The author, Dr. Alexander Knysh is a professor at University of Michigan. The paper is published in Middle East Journal. I am not going to argue with you about your statement of "weak documentation".Kazemita1 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting an ambiguous sentence from a professor is not enough, to make such a big claim that Khomeini had any significant contribution to the development of Islamic mysticism one should be able to show a trend within advocates and well known critiques specialized on the specific subject who have been cited by each other several times. AliAshraf.D (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like your concerns about "documentation" are resolved. Regarding the so-called "ambiguous sentence", I just remind you that sentence is saying Khomeini reinvented mysticism(Irfan revisited). The other sentence from Moin's book is saying he is considered a superior Mystic(as a mystic he was an elitist).Kazemita1 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

3.Regarding passage of criticism: "Khomeini is criticized for his direct responsibility in committing crimes against humanity during 1988 massacre of Iranian prisoners."

It is true he ordered the execution of those prisoners and you can find me mentioning in my edits in the form of "Khomeini is criticized for his direct responsibility in 1988 massacre of Iranian prisoners". But listing the prisoners does not give you authority to use a well-defined legal term such as "crime against humanity".
 * OBJECTION: 1- I have not JUST cited a list of prisoners. My cited sources (plus a lot of uncited ones) specifically blame Khomeini and his regime for The Massacre.AliAshraf.D (talk)
 * Massacre, or non-massacre, the title "crime against humanity" cannot get credit by the way you feel about. It needs a source to back it up.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar with the story: In the end of Iran-Iraq war, a Communist opposition group that used to be active in Iran and had many prisoners in Iranian jails, and was then being supported by Iraq, attacked the borders of Iran. Once Iran crushed their attack, Khomeini is quoted to have ordered the head of prisons to tell the Communist prisoners to choose between death or denouncing their communist belief and at least verbally stopping the sympathy with the group. Many of those prisoners obviously did not denounce their beliefs and were executed. To date, the regime is criticized because of this decision by many Iranians, including my own parents. However, my point is, neither me, nor AliAshrafD cannot just copy an official legal title such as "crime against humanity", without a source that actually assigns it to Khomeini. That is all.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [The incident is described here: 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. "Communists" is a little misleading. As the article says: "The majority of the prisoners killed were supporters of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, although thousands of supporters of other leftist groups, including the Fedaian and the Tudeh Party of Iran (Communist Party), were also executed." --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)]
 * Thanks for the Original Research while it is not accurate enough to be published Because: 1- They were not just Communists(the main majority were Muslims) 2- It was not due to the war as most of the prisoners were jailed for more than 7-6 years (survivors of another much worst massacre in Khomeini's era), Khomeini used the war just as an excuse (a bad one as it was a total madness) 3- Khomeini is not quoted to tell anything, Actually they have published his handwriting clearly ordering the massacre, and a lot of other omitted or modified facts.


 * Indeed that story I narrated above is original research and that is exactly why I would never write it in the article. You seem to have missed the point(that big claims like "crime against humanity" need sources that points them specifically).Kazemita1 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When there exists a proven handwriting in which a Supreme Leader has specifically ordered an act of mass murder plus a lot of sources who blame the man of ordering massacre and when there exists no reliable source that even denies the story, an editor should conclude that the person under consideration is one of the people who are accused of committing crime against humanity, you can check the definition of the term. AliAshraf.D (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now lets come back to our job as the editors of an encyclopedic content: WP is not a collection of URLs nor a portal, it adds value to the human Knowledge by producing usefull content for people who need guidance in their research. Now imagine a researcher who intends to collect and classify a list of people who in recent history are accused (and not necessarily found guilty in a court) of commiting crimes against humanity (say to defend them), well, what should s/he do? Dose s/he have a right to search WP and being directed to this article? The biography of a man who is widely blamed for his (published order) that ended in killing of more than 3500 political prisoners, a man who during his leadership in Iran, at least (optimistically speaking) 50,000 other people have been executed? If I omit the label "Crime Against Humanity", how should our hypothetical researcher reach to this article? My friend, Kazemita1, sweet or beater, Classifications and using well-defined terms is our job.AliAshraf.D (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked the article of crimes against humanity. There was no sign of Iranian government or Khomeini. I am afraid, you cannot just assign someone a label based on your own research. You would need to provide a source that directly calls Khomeini's order to be an example of "crime against humanity".Kazemita1 (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It definitively clarifies:"inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice" and massacre is systematic by nature and the one Khomeini ordered was too systematic to be classifed otherwis. WP's article also quotes this legal notice from Roma Statue "... An individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or engages in one such offense against only a few civilians, provided those offenses are part of a consistent pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.)..." If you are re-mentioning the lack of a filed case against Khomeini it is just because he is deceased and while the legal definition of the term has been under development in the last century, in 1989, when he committed the crime, the international institution was not matured enough. You can Just check the volume of sources ( although not all of them reliable) that use the label for what Khomeini did by simply doing This Search. It returns up to 126000 pages (similar ones omitted!).  [User:AliAshraf.D|AliAshraf.D]] (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've notified WP:WikiProject Islam and WP:WikiProject Iran of this RFC, as they both have this article listed as High importance on their respective scales. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've notified WP:WikiProject Islam and WP:WikiProject Iran of this RFC, as they both have this article listed as High importance on their respective scales. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Question
It would be nice if the text in dispute was spelled out. Is this it?:

In January 1970, during a series of lectures, Khomeini expanded the theory of velayat-e faqih'', (clerical authority) to include theocratic political rule by the Islamic jurists,, This expansion of the theory strongly rejected by one marja and faced objections by estabished parts of Shi'a clergy while praised by his mid-range and more political followers. . Since then until 1979 (after the revolution and establishing their power in Iran), neither Khomeini nor his aids referred directly to their continued loyalty to the idea of clerical authority in public and kept it as a secret, they went as far as disclaiming the published notes of his lectures, arguing it was forged by his enemies. In 1979, they started a promiscuous campaign and inserted their idea in new Iranian constitution law and granted an unprecedented power for the Supreme Leader. . It was then put to a referendum and expanded even more, 10 years later, under Khomeini's supervision few weeks before his death and passing power to his successor. '' . 

Khomeini is criticized for his direct responsibility in committing crimes against humanity during 1988 massacre of Iranian prisoners. and violation of human rights in Iran during a decade of his ruling.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the answer is yes, I have to say I think a lot of it should be in the body of the article (for example "This expansion of the theory strongly rejected by one marja and faced objections by estabished parts of Shi'a clergy while praised by his mid-range and more political followers") not the lead. I also have to say that while the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners was a very bad thing, I have to agree with Kazemita1 that it should not be called a "crime against humanity" without any WP:RS saying so. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To have a glance on the depth of the Khomeini's direct involvement in torture and murder look at Abrahamian,Ervand Tortured Confessionsor Afshari,Reza Human Rights in Iran: Abuse of Cultural Relativism both authors are very respected academic historians, the first one deserves to be recognized as the most important one in terms of contemporary Iran history and (guess what?) their names appear in the top of the list of signatories of "Crimes Against Humanity in Iran" campaign plus a huge number of respected names. Is it enough or I have to check all of 160000 links I have found relating to the subject and add more and more to convince people that 1- The crime is happend 2-It is monitored and 3- It is labeled appropriately ? AliAshraf.D (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The campaign date shows 2007 or 2009 when Khomeini had been dead for decades by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.64.245 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the passage about what should be put in the lead: I do agree to put details in the body and abstracts in the lead as I have replied before, but our friend, Kazemita1, pushes for a no conclusions, no abstractions approach and forces me to put as much as details here. Let's resolve the main debate and then think about what should be put where. AliAshraf.D (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have my blessing BoogaLouie. Plus, AliAshraf.D has not yet proved where in his source we can find about "established parts of Shi'a clergy" or "mid-range and more political followers".Kazemita1 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Crimes against humanity are well defined, and these acts fall clearly and unequivocally into that category. Moreover Dark mentions three  places where the oppression of Bahiis is cited as genocide. While neither term is a part of natural language, instead having technical legal meanings  from their first use, nonetheless the first is sufficiently close to it's popularly understood meaning that I can see plenty of reason to use it. Nonetheless clarity can be improved by using instead the phrase " Ordering the execution of thousands of prisoner in the 1988...."    Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Two comments on Rich's statement.


 * One: The book talks about the revolutionary government (before and after Khomeini) and not Khomeini himself, where it says "Khomeini and post-Khomeini revolutionary government has been to destroy".


 * Two: The same page (linked above) clearly states the act of the aforementioned government in killing the B'hai followers, falls in the category of genocide; not crime against humanity.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I was careful to distinguish between genocide and crime against humanity, although the distinction cited from Glaser, if read aright makes genocide a special case of crime against humanity, where the motivation for the acts is based on a desire to extinguish a group in whole or part, rather than a distinct phenomenon. For more on definitions of genocide see the article.
 * Moreover I was not making the case that that these acts were of necessity ones that could be brought personally to Khomeni's door, others will have information on that, but that there were references stating that "the Khomeni and post-Khomeni revolutionary government" (not the pre-Khomeni and post-Khomeni revolutionary government as you seem to imply) at the very least were, in a separate incident or incidents, guilty of genocide. ("Scholars Kuper, Whitaker, and Harff and Gurr") These references may well be worth  following up.  A question of which term to employ to describe the nature of Khomeni's actions in ordering the deaths of thousands is quite reasonable, and I would suggest (and did suggest) that those actions fit the phrase "crime against humanity" in its technical sense and also in its commonly understood sense, which means we are neither in danger of confusing international lawyers nor our average reader.  Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Just a brief reminder that the ordering the deaths of thousands of prisoners is a completely different subject than what happened to B'his in Iran. The prisoners who were killed belonged to a communist militia group (MEK) that were jailed after Iran's revolution(and their death command later came from Khomeini after the remainder of their militia group attacked the borders). However, B'his were under oppression/genocide ever-since the faith emerged into existence back in 1850(refer to this Wiki article for further info, e.g. execution of Bab, and expelling Bahaullah and etc.) way before even Khomeini was even born.

After all, I tend to agree with this sentence of yours were you mention: Nonetheless clarity can be improved by using instead the phrase " Ordering the execution of thousands of prisoner in the 1988...." Kazemita1 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have been asked for comments here but I find the summary of the dispute too general to offer much in the way of helpful feedback. In very general terms, I agree - and suspect everyone agrees - that the article should offer reliably sourced criticism of the subject and not be limited to the Iranian government's official history.  Beyond that I need specifics in order to comment. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I find myself in the same situation as Alex, I have been asked for comments here but I am unclear as to what I'm being asked to comment upon. That said, all sides of an issue or viewpoint supported by factual information should be given equal merit and/or discussion in any given article. Let the readers decide for themselves which viewpoint to side with. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)