Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 8

Khomeini's contact with the US
Following the section "Khomeini's contact with the US" was created, there is some issues:
 * At first, The title of the section should be changed to "the allegation of Khomeini's contact with the US", Because just BBC reveals documents and also the guardian wrote that The Guardian did not have access to the newly declassified documents and was not able to independently verify them as well as In contrast to his later tirades against the “Great Satan”.I think that regardless of changing the title, as wp:weight demanded, there is no need to devote a section just for a report of BBC!


 * Secondly, I think that this sentence does not support by the guardian which wrote that The Guardian did not have access to the newly declassified documents and was not able to independently verify them.Vanamonde93, I wonder if you take look and leave your opinion. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The BBC report on this is based on "a trove of newly declassified US government documents - diplomatic cables, policy memos, meeting records". In other words, this is not based on allegations but on concrete documentation.


 * The Guardian's article title is "US had extensive contact with Ayatollah Khomeini before Iran revolution", so it's clearly supported by the source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem here. The Guardian was unable to verify this, yes, but it's reporting about a BBC source that is itself a reliable source. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Obviously, It seems to violate wp:weight! Devoting 3 paragraphs to just one source!It doesn't even need a separate section.
 * I wonder If you check this source,It pretended it doesn't support these document show that in his long quest for power, he [Khomeini] was tactically flexible; he played the moderate even pro-American card to take control but once change had come he put in place an anti-America legacy would last for decades..Saff V. (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saff V. has removed from the article "According to The Guardian, the US had extensive contact with Khomeini prior to the Iran revolution.", which is backed up by The Guardian article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , why did you remove this material? Due weight is something to be determined via talk page discussion, not edit-warring; and I told you explicitly above that the source was quite adequate for that statement. Please consider your answer carefully, because as I've told you before, you are one mistake away from a page ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit was not for resolving weight issue as well as I wrote in my edit summary, I did it because both sources are not able to verify this and I asked you about that and you answer, "The Guardian was unable to verify this, yes, but it's reporting about a BBC source that is itself a reliable source." I checked it on BBC, there is no material on BBC says that ", the US had extensive contact with Khomeini prior to the Iran revolution". "According to Guardian" is actually misleading. If both sources verify it, I have to change the sentence to."According to the Guardian, a BBC report suggests that...". On the other hand, the next sentence repeats the sentence which I picked up but both sources support it completely. As a result, I removed the sentence which you say "The Guardian was unable to verify this, yes" as well as it is not verified by both sources, has misleading attribution, duplicated, and I asked about that from you, as an Admin.
 * I did not do any edit on the article because of the weight problem, I know that it needs to reach a consequence in TP.
 * I really appreciate for your efforts in this page, But I started a discussion on this section (Khomeini's contact with the US) and told you I saw some issues in the section, you said that "I don't see a problem here", while user:Winged Blades of Godric edited the section because of the copyright violation.Saff V. (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The copyvio issue is a distraction; obviously, copying content is unacceptable, but that has no relevance to the reliability and/or verifiability issue. You raised your concerns on the talk page. I told you that there was no issue with using that source for that statement. By editing the article as you did, you essentially ignored the discussion you yourself had opened; and that's not okay. Furthermore; your objection is that the Guardian didn't see the documents, but the BBC doesn't use the word "extensive"; and that's just silly, because the wording in the Guardian makes it clear they are largely supporting the BBC's claims. Furthermore, your objections apply only to the word "extensive"; there's certainly no room for dispute that Khomeini had some interactions with the US. At the very least, you should have only removed that word, and left the rest of it. I suggest strongly that you do not make further substantive edits before reaching a talk page consensus, because you are losing perspective here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me know you deeply. The removed sentence is, According to The Guardian, the US had extensive contact with Khomeini prior to the Iran revolution.. It is obvious, there isn't any sentence on BBC to support "According to Guardian,...", so we have nothing to do with BBC, But there is another source, I wonder if you bring sentences from Gardion to verify the removed sentence? As you know, the removed sentence is copied from Title of Guardian!
 * on the other hand it seems that I didn't understand your mean by "The Guardian was unable to verify this", Maybe I have to get you permission to removed the sentence. Ok, I will do it. Saff V. (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you don't need my permission; you need talk page consensus. This is particularly true if you opened a discussion yourself. I will be posting a longer reply about the use of sources here shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

My two cents
I see you have recently started taking care of things here in this page. It should be a good news for the users having someone looking after the discussions. I know it's no easy to follow the threads, to evaluate various sources and to see who's doing what. Yes I know it's not that easy, but the repeated showing of a ready to pull trigger is not the correct way, I think. You did address many things but also missed many others (two cases I saw were the copyright violations and usage of self-published sources both handled by WBG). You know, the situation of this page, I believe, is not more critical than that of the MEK page, so I know what I am talking about. That said, my suggestion: 'try to work with the editors'! Listen to them and take action/warn evenhandedly. Anyway, sorry for being frank, these are just my two cents and I think my points would make things even better (at least I hope so). Regards. -- M h hossein   talk 14:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I show a readiness to pull the trigger because I have already given the bunch of you more rope than most admins would. If this had been at AE, Stefka and Saff would already have had page bans, if not topic bans. I'm making it clear that I'm willing to sanction them because patience does not equate with leniance; the behavior of most of you in this dispute has been below expected standards, and that cannot continue. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: Was my 7 lines long comment only on trigger? -- M h hossein   talk 20:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're asking rhetorical questions, Mhhossein; do you think "try to work with the editors" is useful advice to an administrator? Or "Take action evenhandedly"? Those are goals all of us have. I repeat, if I didn't think Saff V. and Stefka had useful contributions to make, I would have tbanned them a long time ago. Most admins would probably tell me I'm wasting my time with you all. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: I know this is the goal all the admins should have, but it's not a good point you see yourself needless of receiving such suggestions (I'm sure there are admins warmly welcoming suggestions from users since that would lead to their better performance). I'm in my 6th year of editing here...did you know? Moreover, I even appreciated your presence which was responded harshly. With that mentality, I have nothing more to add here. -- M h hossein   talk 07:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Balancing copyright with fidelity to sources
There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the use of certain sources on this page, involving both copyright and verifiability issues. Since this is frequently a point of contention in difficult topics, I'm going to leave some more general advice here. We are not permitted to copy content directly from a source that isn't in the public domain. This is a bright line that cannot be crossed on Wikipedia. At the same time, content that strays too far from its source is original research, and is likewise prohibited. What this means is that articles need to be based on carefully paraphrased content; what is happening at the moment is that these rules are being used to block additions to this article (mind you, similar things have been done elsewhere by other editors in service of other points of view). The way to paraphrase things carefully is not to fixate on specific words and sentences, but to read the substance of the sources very carefully to understand the basic points they are making. Reading these two sources ( BBC, The Guardian) in this manner, some points are fairly clear. 1) Khomeini was engaged with the US government before coming to power. 2) This engagement was not limited to an occasionaly message (see paragraph about "two weeks of direct talks" in the BBC). 3) This engagement was the result of Khomeini's fear that the Iranian army would pre-empt him. 4) This engagement was previously unknown, and was made clear as the result of declassified documents. 5) The Guardian did not see those documents, but it does not substantively question the BBC's narrative; indeed, in places it endorses it ("documents seen by the BBC’s Persian service show...", "The BBC’s reporting suggests..." etc).  You folks can discuss how much detail is necessary, and how this material should be worded. Indeed, I would encourage such a discussion. But removing all of the material because a specific phrase is not found in the source isn't okay. Demanding extreme fidelity to the wording used in the source is also not okay, especially when we have copyright concerns; what you need to do is work together to find a paraphrasing that is consistent with the meaning of the source without being a copyright violation. Stefka Bulgaria, stepping away from this page is, of course, your prerogative. But stepping away from a page, when you were warned for a type of edit, isn't doing you any favours. I would strongly recommend that you work with the others to come up with mutually acceptable wording; that will instill far more confidence in your motivations than stepping away from a page ever would. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

, thank you for your (rather accurate) observations. I'd like to continue to add material to this article, which is indeed missing many important points, but I feel I have been mistreated here: After the last ANI discussion, you said that concerns should be brought to this forum, and that's just what I did here, and for that I was grouped together with these other editors, again.

Yes, I tried to rephrase text so it wouldn't violate copy-vio (which was then reverted for "not accurately representing the source"); and yes, then I tried to adhere to the source as much as possible, and was then reverted and accused of copy-vio. All this would have been ok if it wasn't for the recent comments to block my account because of me trying to adhere to what's been requested.

There seems to be this mentality that we are either all doing something wrong, or no-one is, and I find that to be a gross misinterpretation of what's happening here. Issues with Iran-related topics had been happening long before I started editing them, and the approach of "let's sanction everyone or no-one just to be even-handed" does not work for me. The next time I add something and it gets reverted by the same editors, I will bring it to your attention, and if one of these editors receives a sanction as a result, then sanctioning me as well just for being involved (or to be "even-handed") would be unreasonable.

Let me be clear, all I'm here to do is contribute through guidelines. I'm not interested in anything else. I have shown in TP discussions that I'm ready to have reasonable debates about content; but if someone removes sourced info from the article when they shouldn't have, that's not my fault, and I'm not ready to get blocked for earnestly trying to add reliable sources/info to some of these pages. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "There seems to be this mentality that we are either all doing something wrong, or no-one is" That's absolutely incorrect. If misbehavior is one-sided, I intend to treat it that way. In this case, both you and Saff V. have made mistakes. They were different mistakes, but they were mistakes nonetheless. In your case, it was the copyvio issue; that's been sufficiently dealt with on your talk page, so I will say no more about it now. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the mistakes and learn us how not to repeat them. As you can see I have started all the discussions so far, I have no problem discussing and receiving opinions of other users. At least on the MEK article, I proved this, but since there aren't too many users involved in the article and my discussion with Stefka is not effective (unfortunately), most of the time we need to the third opinion, so we have to engage you as an admin. In fact, you sometimes have to act as an admin and sometimes as a user. In other words, I want to say that reaching the conclusion on this page is not occurring quickly. For example, an edit made by Stefka ten days ago, we just found out yesterday that there was a copyright issue or How to conclude this debate now. I hope to be clear.Saff V. (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious that I'm not here to violate copyvio. I was trying, to the best of my abilities, to represent sources as accurate as possible so that there wouldn't be any room for complaining by either Saff V. or Mhhossein. I'm not going to point out what Saff V. and Mhhossein are doing here, that should be fairly evident by now, but such tactics are nevertheless preventing the advancing of the article; so no, I don't see myself on the same side of the fence as these editors. Even if we are being warned for different mistakes, like I said, I don't have a "copyvio agenda" here. If that hasn't been made clear in this TP, then that's me losing confidence in how this is being handled/interpreted, which I think would also discourage most editors from continuing to contribute here.

Issues with adding RSs that contradict an IRI-POV have been happening long before I got involved in this topic, and will continue to happen for as long as admins let it continue. In the meantime, let these editors continue to remove reliable content from these pages. Even after several ANI discussions and numerous warnings, admins are doing nothing to prevent this, so I'll stop taking on this task that apparently I shouldn't have taken on to begin with. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is accusing you of intentionally violating copyright. 99.9% of copyright violations happen unintentionally. They are still a problem, and if they don't stop, they are grounds for sanction. If you are more careful in the future there is no reason to revisit this conversation, because no one (no admin, anyway) is accusing you of having a copyvio agenda. As I said before, disengaging is your prerogative, but pages are usually improved most by editors with different points of view engaging rather than disengaging. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: I get that different POVs are needed to help develop articles, and I would like to give this another try. As you probably know, I've made contributions that go against Mhhossein's and Saff V.'s POV in these articles, and I've lost count how many times they've reported me since I've been involved. I can only account for my edits, so I'd like to make the following disclaimer: I'll assume good faith, exclusively use respected authors/publishers, and avoid copyvio. If you find my editing is nevertheless disruptive in any way, please let me know and I'll just walk away from these articles. What I don't want is to be grouped in the same side of the fence as Mhhossein and Saff V.; I would prefer to concentrate my efforts on other topics before being made part of another one of these catch-22 situations where no matter how much I try, things go south nevertheless. I'm really not here for that. Thanks for hearing me out. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say your contributions went "against Mhhossein's and Saff V.'s POV in these articles" it means you have your own POV, which I assume is natural. So, saying you "don't want to be grouped in the same side of the fence as Mhhossein and Saff V." does not just make sense although I'm not sure what sort of "fence" you are referring to. -- M h hossein   talk 09:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Cult of Personality?
I found Khomeini in "List of cults of personality". Any objections to adding this into the article? (it seems to be missing at this time). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has replied to this, so I will go ahead with adding this to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "This is a pejorative term." You're lending a highly undue weight to a "a pejorative term". -- M h hossein   talk 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , great that you agree that this is a "perjorative term". Even though multiple sources mention the cult of personality built around Khomeini, I only provided a short summary it in this article through RSs (since adding every source/quote that ever stated that there was a personality cult built around Khomeini would damage the article). That doesn't explain why you've removed all the info concerning "personality cult" from the article. Please explain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this term can be used as a "perjorative" term when it's just thrown by some questionable sources specially when there's no de facto cult/personality cult. A quick search shows how UNDUE this claim is. These few sources are not elaborating in what terms he built a cult and no one is addressing the signs of a cult. For instance, you can review the sources covering the cult characteristics of MEK where the authors are detailing the Cultish aspects of the group. Can you realize the difference? -- M h hossein   talk 12:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is what the sources (the one's I've been able to access) say:

1) "This was cult of personality at its most extreme, comparable to that of Khomeini at the height of the Islamic Revolution; of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s; of Mao Tse-tung during the Cultural Revolution; of Stalin during the second world war, and of Lenin, but only after his entombment in Red Square" by Ervand Abrahamian, publisher = Yale University Press.

2) "However, the Iranian Islamic regime vigorously promoted the televisual cult of personality of Khomeini. His entry into global mass media relations was equivalent to claiming an identity for "the modern Iman"." by Chetan Bhatt, publisher = Taylor & Francis

3) "Furthermore, Khomeini, whose personality cult occupies a central position in publications geared for foreign as well as domestic consumption, is described in terms likely to be acceptable to Sunnis" by Emmanuel Sivan, publisher = State University of New York Press

4) "The post-revolutionary era witnessed the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini's personality cult by a variety of methods, reminiscent of similar propaganda about Stalin in Russia, Mao Zedong in China, and Fidel Castro in Cuba." by Barry Rubin, publisher = Routledge.

5) "Meanwhile, life in Khomeini's Iran was repressive, particularly for those who did not subscribe to its fundamentalist tenets. Khomeini encouraged a veritable personality cult by the late 1980s." publisher = ABC-CLIO

6) "He is also accused of fostering a personality cult, and willingly allowing his followers to liken him to the Prophet and the Imams." by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, publisher = Cambridge University Press

7) "Like bin Laden, Khomeini was essentially declaring himself and his movement to the above law, beyond the reach of traditional religious authority. Highlighting this fact were the enormous posters of Khomeini that hung in public places during his reign. This cult of personality is redolent of the historical totalitarian practice of elevating desposts to iconic status. Stalin, Hitler, Mao - each elevated himself into the personification of the dominant ideology. Thus was the cult of the supreme, infallible leader on full display." by Michael Chertoff, publisher = University of Pennsylvania Press

Please explain how these sources are "questionable" and why "personality cult" should not be mentioned in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually none is talking about a de facto cult/personality cult. This term, rarely applied for persons, and can imply various states of admiration or lack thereof inside an organization/cult. It has got a subtle meaning in its different usages by the sources. The case of Khomeini, who was a religious leader, is far more complex than case of the political leaders the sources usually mention (see Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist). That said, I am not going through your every single source, but for the time being, consider that 1 is mainly focusing on MEK and trivially mentions some sort of cult of personality "at the height of the Islamic Revolution". 2 is not saying "cult of personality" was built around Khomeini rather the author is expressing his own POV, i.e. accusing the Iranian media of "promoting [the] televisual cult of personality". Moreover, "declaring himself and his movement to the above law", seen in 6, is literally against the wordings of the constitution, supported by Khomeini, which defines the borders and limits of the leader. To put it in a nutshell, there's no cult-type community with the center of Khomeini. -- M h hossein   talk 13:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Mhhossein has been partially blocked for tendentious commentary and original research, does anyone else have any feedback as to why these sources should not be added to the article? This is what Mhhossein removed from the article; which can either be added back into the article as is, or we can work towards modifying it. Thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be plenty of sources that support this statement. Considering Mhhossein did not have anything to back his revert, I see no reason why this shouldn't be restored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

remove sunni yazid
there is a line in the article, "...parallels between the Sunni Muslim caliph Yazid,..." Why is the word sunni used here? i tried to find transcripts of the speech online and i have found two sources https://www.icit-digital.org/articles/the-afternoon-of-ashura-june-3-1963 and http://www.ibn-tv.co.tz/2011/06/historic-speech-of-imam-khomeini-ra-in-1963/ Where yazid is mentioned but nowhere the word sunni yazid is. I don't know if this is some sort of mischief on the part of some editor but i wish to have the word sunni removed from this sentence because it is offensive and no citation has been given for inclusion of this word. If anyone can find an authenticated translation better than the ones i presented above which clearly say "sunni yazid", keep it otherwise it should not be here. Mhveinvp (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This removal
Why was this removed?VR talk 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Association with radical groups
I have found this book that talks about Khomeini's association with radical Islamic groups; something that's not currently in the article:

"Khomeini liked to portray himself as a man of God, but he associated himself more and more closely with radical Islamic groups that regarded terrorism as a legitimate course of action for achieving their political goals. He had begun his career by supporting Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri, the ayatollah executed in 1909 for his violent opposition to the pro-Western reforms of the Constitutional Revolution. In the 1950s he had associated himself with Navab Saavi, another Islamic radical who went to the gallows after his Feayeen terror group conducted an assassination campaign agains tthe Shah's government in the 1950s."

Any objections with adding some of this information in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An author with "deep antipathy to the Iranian regime" does not seem to be a suitable candidate for this collection of challenging POVs. -- M h hossein   talk 15:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I found this other book, The Spirit of Allah : Khomeini and the Islamic revolution, outlining Khomeini's relations with Navab Safavi:
 * Unless I'm mistaken, the full quote about Coughlin's work is "And while Coughlin makes no secret of his deep antipathy to the Iranian government, his treatment of its founder is satisfyingly nuanced".


 * (pp. 98)


 * (pp. 102)


 * (pp. 107)



... and about Khomeini's relationshipt with Sheikh Fazlollah Nuri:


 * Globalisation, Religion & Development (pp. 45)


 * A Social History of Iranian Cinema, Volume 3: The Islamicate Period, 1978–1984 (pp. 159)


 * Social Movements in Twentieth-Century Iran: Culture, Ideology, and Mobilizing Framework (pp.106)

Any problems with including these other sources? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being "nuance" is not changing the "deep antipathy". Your question is vague and too wide. what kind of inclusion do you mean? Anyway, portions like "groups that regarded terrorism as a legitimate course of action", 'it was Nawwab who introduced Khomeini with Akhwan', 'Khomeini's pamphlet was Kasravi's death sentence' etc are totally challenging materials which can not be included solely based on the personal opinion of an author. -- M h hossein   talk 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've provided several sources here. I would hope that if you have a particular objection (aside from Coughlin's antipathetic yet nuanced review of the regime), you would say what that objection is. What is the problem with the other sources I've presented here? If you are saying that this is "challenging material", can you please provide RSs to prove your point? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody else (including ) has replied to my last post here, so I will assume this edit is ok to be added to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I have to ask again, what kind of inclusion are you going to make? Bringing a full quote containing the authors' POVs is not like an improvement to this discussion specially since you are not saying what you're seeking for. -- M h hossein   talk 03:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what I propose: If there are any objections please let me know, otherwise I'll add this to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not received a substantiated objection about this, so I'll assume it's ok to be added. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first part Mohammad Nawab-Safavi introduced Khomeini to Ikhwan and their philosophies, which involved the purification of Islamic society through planned assassinations of "corrupting individuals" seems insufficiently supported by sources. The sources you presented say that Khomeini and Nawab-Safavi were associates, and that Nawab-Safavi did believe in assassinations, but they don't say that Nawab-Safavi influenced Khomeini on the matter of assassinations. And if there's only one source for his own objections to constitutionalism and a secular government derived from Nuri's objections to the 1907 constitution then maybe it should be attributed?VR talk 11:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what the book, The Spirit of Allah : Khomeini and the Islamic revolution, says:


 * (pp. 98)

You may go ahead and correct/re-write/attribute any of my edits; I'm human and not immune to making mistakes. So long you can justify your edits, feel free to modify the content as you see fit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stefka, I just checked the author of that book and it seems he has been accused of many fabrications Amir_Taheri. Take a look at this source. It states connections between Khamenei and Navab Safavi, and connections between Khamenei and Khomeini, but curiously no connections between Khomeini and Navab Safavi. On the other hand, your assertion that Khomeini's agreement with Nuri is supported by other sources.This source for example shows that Khomeini both agreed with Nuri but his views also departed from Nuri in some respects. I'm going to temporarily remove the Navab Safavi stuff (until better sources can be found), but keep the Nuri stuff you added but change the source from Taheri to those published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press.VR talk 15:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Book about Khomeini's implementation of a theocratic government in Iran
Found this book:


 * Understanding Angry Groups: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Their Motivations and Effects on Society. Author: Susan C. Cloninger. Publisher: Praeger.

It has some interesting information about how Khomeini implemented a theocratic government in Iran:


 * Page: 342.















Page: 352-353

Any problems with adding this to the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of this has more to do with the Iranian politics than Khomeini. The source itself says some of these actions were more taken by Khomeini's "close associates" than him. Anyway, what is your proposed wording?VR talk  02:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is about Khomeini's implementation of a theocratic government in Iran, which is about Khomeini. This would be my proposed rewording:




 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Selected POVs, again, from authors should not be misused to reach such a conclusion. Who says Khomeini's Velayat-e Faghih proposal was not mentioned before? The author is trying to say Khomeini promised X but Y happened. This is not true in view of other authors. See, , and . -- M h hossein   talk 03:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein: As long as it's from a reliable source, you can go ahead and include what other authors are saying. I'm asking here if there are any problems including what this particular author is saying. If you have an objection with what this particular author is saying, then you need to say (clearly) what that is, otherwise I'll assume the text is ok for inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stefka, your proposed edit was opposed yet you went ahead and added it anyway? Can you self-revert and seek consensus before adding it? It seems that the material you added is the opinion of one author who is contradicted by others, so at the very least it would need to be balanced before going into the article.VR talk 12:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@VR: please present other sources that contradict this statement and we will work out a NPOV version where all POVs are considered. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stefka, the source here seems to be a professor in psychology, not a specialist in Iranian history or Shia Islam. There are many specialist sources that cover what you wrote but in a nuanced way. Most sources don't consider Khomeini's later ideals to be "democratic", but they argue the situation is far more nuanced. Said Arjomand says Khomeini's later ideals are "neither democracy nor dictatorship", but rather a "third way". Another nuance is stated here, where the author writes that Khomeini believes that a ruler should be appointed by God, but...
 * VR talk 15:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * VR talk 15:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Darwish
On the same page that Darwish accuses Khomeini, she also accuses the prophet Muhammad,

The reference to the last sentence is "Sahih Bukhari 3:48:805". I checked Sahih Bukhari and could find no reference to Mohammed was practicing thighing with Aisha at age six. This is Sahih Bukhari 3:48:805-854. Unlike Khomeini's works, the hadith on Muhammad have been widely translated into English and you can google this yourself. The second part of Darwish's assertion consummated the marriage at age nine is corroborated by some sources (although many scholars have disputed this point, and place the consummation age between 12 to 19). Can you find a reliable source backing up Darwish's first assertion? VR talk 02:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that Sahih Bukhari 3:48:805 is only the source of the fact that Aisha was very young when she married Muhammad (“she is still a young girl who sleeps”), and in that case Darwish would be incomplete (but I do not have access to her entire book and this page is missing from Google Books). In a way she does make a point though: Khomeini was a cleric, if it is true what he says about married children who are younger than nine years old he must have found it somewhere in the scriptures. But we have still to find out what Khomeini said exactly and I don't speak Farsi.
 * As for how Muhammad used to please himself with her adult wives or with his children ones, I would have preferred not to search and not to know that thighing is even a word. And even just the fact that the subject is discussed is disgusting. Anyway, from a quick search this pearl of psychological blackmail emerged – It does not state or excludes that Aisha is involved, but the psychological age of the two wives he talks to must be not too old. It translates as “Be always obedient to me or God will divorce you from me and he will find more obedient wives for me”:
 * Going back to Khomeini, maybe you could have a look at this other video and this reddit discussion about it (which links also to this shiachat discussion). --Grufo (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At-Tahrim is quite a late Surah and may not even be about sex at all, just sayin... not that it's relavant to the discussion in any case. 39.37.135.120 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if both wives were adult and the subject is not sex but the wish to have a walk, it does not look so good. --Grufo (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry if I offended you. But this was literally on the same page we are discussing. My point here is that Nonie Darwish makes a citation and that citation turns out to be untrue. I'm talking from a purely fact-checking perspective. What does that tell you about Darwish's reputation for accuracy?
 * Regarding the reddit, I'm curious at the mention of al-Sistani, Minhaaj al-SaaliHeen. Could it not be possible for Khomeini to be quoting someone's opinion without endorsing it? Could it be that he quotes an opinion in one chapter and then refutes it in another? I have no idea. This is why I insist on reliable sources.VR talk 04:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really offended, but the whole topic seems coming from a dystopic book. As for Darwish, if she referenced Sahih Bukhari as the source for Muhammad's sexual habits she is obviously mistaken, but if she referenced Sahih Bukhari as the source given by Khomeini we need to investigate what Khomeini said exactly and how Darwish referenced Sahih Bukhari. I really have no idea what Khomeini said exactly and whether he quoted anyone else – as I said, I don't speak Farsi. The ideal would be to ask an Iranian who is not too young and who does not endorse the Iranian regime for information. P.S.: I think this discussion should be copied to Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini and continued there. --Grufo (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A straight forward reading of Darwish indicates that she is referencing Sahih Bukhari herself. Also, note that she repeats the allegation of "thighing of Aisha" (page 58) and "thighing of infants" (page 59) twice more without mentioning Khomeini.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeating the allegation is not wrong if the allegation is true, but if the allegation is false even just one mention is wrong. From what I could read the subject is disputed. There is this thing of Aisha washing sperm spots from Muhammad's clothes (Sahih al-Bukhari 4:231-233) that some use as an argument in favor of Muhammad practicing thighing, since he had forbidden masturbation – not necessarily with infants but also with menstruating wives, or basically every time he was not allowed to have regular sex – but I would really prefer not to investigate further about it. I don't need to dig so much into the dirt to be against religions, I am already. --Grufo (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is not if Muhammad practiced thighing with Aisha, its whether Mohammed was practicing thighing with Aisha at age six as Darwish claims. There is no indication of age in the hadith you cited. I have searched Sahih Bukhari and could not find anything that supports Darwish's claim. If Darwish falsely quoted Sahih Bukhari, what does that tell you about her reliability as a source?
 * Also, its highly doubtful that she referenced Sahih Bukhari as the source given by Khomeini. Khomeini is Shia, and Sahih Bukhari is staunchly Sunni.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If she does not check what she writes and only copies and pastes randomly from the internet her reference should be removed from the article about Khomeini. Since though there is quite some likelihood that Khomeini's statements are actually true given the multiple rumors, what I would do is adding a   tag until someone finds a better source. --Grufo (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So are we in agreement that Darwish isn't a reliable source? We can always revisit this discussion in the future. Consensus VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In general I agree with what answered to you (User_talk:Girth_Summit) concerning the same question: “the thing is that we very rarely deem a source reliable or unreliable in such binary terms - in most circumstances, we discuss whether a particular source is reliable for a particular assertion”. So going around Wikipedia and massively remove sources because someone has decided to “mark” them as “generally unreliable” is wrong, and each context has its own balance. Darwish is not a philologist or an academic and she is definitely biased, but she also definitely had a peculiar life, so I believe there might be things on which she could be a reliable source. --Grufo (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a "peculiar life" doesn't necessarily make anyone reliable. I have now shown that Darwish has at best misquoted sources and at worst fabricated content. The citation to her in this article should be replaced with a tag.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a "peculiar life" doesn't necessarily make anyone reliable. I have now shown that Darwish has at best misquoted sources and at worst fabricated content. The citation to her in this article should be replaced with a tag.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

“Having a "peculiar life" doesn't necessarily make anyone reliable.“: No, but it might and it depends on the context. is normally used when the fact narrated is highly questionable. When there is good likelihood that the source is stating the truth instead, as I believe it seems to be the case concerning what Khomeini said, in my opinion is to be preferred. --Grufo (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC) I've copied this comment of from here. I have not removed the original comment.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the marriage of a young girl, Khomeini regards 'satisfaction' of the two sides of the marriage as a pre-condition. Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text:"عقد ازدواج بین دو نفر باید با رضایت هر دو باشد، بنابراین اگر یک طرف را مجبور کنند و یا بدون رضایت او عقد ازدواج را جاری کنند، صحیح نمی باشد."


 * Translation by me: "The marriage between two should be accompanied by the satisfaction of the two sides. So, if one is enforced to marriage or the marriage is done without seeking the satisfaction them, the marriage is not correct."

Khomeini further clarifies the marriage. He explains that the for a girl (or boy) to grant permission for marriage, they 1) should have reached 'puberty', 2) should be 'Rashid' - (This means, besides being matured, he/she should grown enough so that he/she recognizes good and bad). Again, Imam Khomeini's portal provides [http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c76_15149/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%B4_%D9%88_%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AE/%D9%81%D9%82%D9%87_%D9%88_%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%88%D9%82/%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC_%D8%AF%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%B1_%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B1_%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84_%D9%88_%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AE%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B5_%D8%AF%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%B1_%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B1_%D9%86%D9%87_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84_%DA%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%9F_%D8%A8%D9%87_%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1_%D9%85%D9%86_%DA%A9%D9%87_%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86_%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84_%D8%A7%D8%B2_%D9%87%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%DA%AF%DB%8C_%DA%A9%D9%88%20... the original text] as such:"برای انجام رضایت به ازدواج، باید دو طرف عقد (مرد و زن) بالغ و رشید باشند، بنابراین اگر دختر دارای رشد نیست نمی توان او را به عقد دیگری درآورد"


 * Translation by me: "For satisfaction of the marriage parties to be sought for doing marriage, the two sides should have reached puberty and should be Rashid. Thus, if the girl is not grown enough, she can't be married to a man."

I am ready for further keeping on this discussion, if its need. Finally, I suggest avoid basin this discussion on such a bogus source -just see the title- when we have access to more reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have written a message to you in the other discussion. We should choose a place where to discuss and avoid duplicate messages. --Grufo (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and, since the discussion is specific to Khomeini, lets talk here.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no difference for me, I will keep on the discussion here. -- M h hossein   talk 12:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a biographic article. If every one add the religious fatwas which looks important for him/her, the article will soon turn into a religious text. Thus please move such issues to a sub-article and do not add them except for most notable and particular cases. This is common for every biographic article. -- Seyyed(t-c) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. If a particular fatwa from Tahrir al-Wasilah has never been covered by a reliable, secondary source then it will be hard to argue that its mention is WP:DUE here. So unless a reliable, secondary source can be found there's not much point in continuing this discussion.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE
I think this addition is WP:UNDUE. Please discuss on talk per WP:BRD. As the only quotebox in the article it makes it seem Khomeini's most notable actions were his fatwa on Rushdie, yet that is far from true. Khomeini's most notable actions relate to the 1979 Revolution, the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iran-Iraq War.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Explain: why? Persecuting Rushdie was one of Khomeini's most notable accomplishments and his most frequently-quoted pronouncements, as well as "one of the most significant events in postwar literary history". GPinkerton (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From what perspective is Khomeini's fatwa on Rushdie "Khomeini's most notable accomplishments"? I'm sure most Iranian historians would regard his role in the revolution and creation of the Islamic Republic to be far more notable accomplishments. The lead also gives those accomplishments far more space.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So? The views of Iranian historians are neither here nor there; this a global encyclopaedia so should represent a global perspective. Other than his seizing power itself and the various wars resulting from it, the Rushdie affair is among the most significant global impact Khomeini had. If the present formulation of the lead lacks this information, it should be added. We have an illustration of a bootleg copy of the book in Persian - why is the inclusion of this image due? Shouldn't the space be better devoted to the man's own words? GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's an assessment of the Dear Leader's achievements in the Oxford Dictionary of World History:
 * The source from which the material is quoted contains only two quotations from the Dear Leader; this is by far far the longer. GPinkerton (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GPinkerton, it was a pretty significant event globally (related to Khomeini that is), this is the kinda stuff even mentioned in schools when the subject of religion and fatwa is mentioned. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is that book on GoogleBooks. A search for "Khomeini" turns up 5 entries. Besides the instance mentioned by GPinkerton, every other mention of Khomeini is in reference to the 1979 Revolution, Hostage crisis or the Iran-Iraq War. Rushdie or his book don't seem to have an entry in the book.
 * A History of the Modern Middle East mentions Khomeini in the context of the revolution and Islamic Republic, but no mention of Rushdie. Reinventing Khomeini: The Struggle for Reform in Iran also doesn't appear to mention Rusdhie. Most works on Khomeini do mention Rushdie, but not nearly as much as the discussion of his role in the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 * A Critical Introduction to Khomeini mentions his notable actions (including Rushdie fatwa) before concluding "Notwithstanding its discontents and adversaries, the Islamic Republic serves as the ultimate legacy of Khomeini." VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * None of this goes any way towards refuting the fact that the Rushdie fatwa is one of Khomeini's most notable proclamations. No-one is saying it's the most important thing he did, but it's one of them. Isn't it telling that I can quote the entire entry under Khomeini's name and fully half of it is devoted to the Rushdie persecution and the ayatollah's fatwa. GPinkerton (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * None of this goes any way towards refuting the fact that the Rushdie fatwa is one of Khomeini's most notable proclamations. No-one is saying it's the most important thing he did, but it's one of them. Isn't it telling that I can quote the entire entry under Khomeini's name and fully half of it is devoted to the Rushdie persecution and the ayatollah's fatwa. GPinkerton (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:QUOTEFARM recommends not using the quote "to explain a point that can be paraphrased". The quote about Rushdie doesn't contain anything that can't be paraphrased. Its a pretty straightforward order to kill Rusdhie. Quotations recommends using it for "a unique phrase or term created by a given author". Here is an example of Khomeini coining a unique phrase that would be hard for us to paraphrase in English. In accepting the ceasefire of the Iran-Iraq war he said,

In response, many sources point out the enduring impact of this metaphor coined by Khomeini,

VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! Amazing! He must have picked up some foreign idioms during his long and well-deserved exile! "coining a unique phrase that would be hard for us to paraphrase in English" Is English not your first language? It might be a neologism in Iran but in the rest of the world a poisoned chalice is an idiom of such antiquity it's a cliche. The Dear Leader, far from "coining a unique phrase", is listed in the phrase's own Wiktionary article, somewhat below Shakespeare's first recorded use (in English) just under four centuries prior. If your suggestion by including this irrelevant material is that the quotation from the ayatollah's fatwa is somehow less important than his translation of a hackneyed linguistic trope into Farsi I'm afraid you failed to evince my sympathy! GPinkerton (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkteron, I don't think Shakespeare's "poisoned chalice" is the same as Khomeini's "drink poison". Shakespeare's idiom means "Something which is initially regarded as advantageous but which is later recognized to be disadvantageous or harmful". By contrast Khomeini's usage means something that is humiliating in the short-term term, but better in the long-term. So Shakespeare would regard it wise to avoid a poisoned chalice, Khomeini clearly thought it best to drink from it. Different things. Finally it is really unnecessary for you to ask me rhetorically Is English not your first language?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary for you to try to puff up the ayatollah by claiming his non-original phraseology is more significant than his global calls for holy murder. So, come up with a real argument for this highly notable text's exclusion from the page. Your objections so far are quite spurious. GPinkerton (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did point out that WP:QUOTEFARM recommends not using the quote "to explain a point that can be paraphrased". The Rushdie fatwa is well paraphrased and ther quote adds nothing additional. By contrast the poisoned drink quote is actually "a unique phrase or term created by a given author" per Quotations. Finally, please try to be WP:CIVIL.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This comment by GPinkerton goes against his viewpoint. The Oxford Dictionary of World History emphasizes on "Islamic revolution" much more than the rest. Moreover when a source explains how Khomeini's comment became "a metaphor for caving in under pressure", it is not acceptable to ignore this by Original Research. -- M h hossein   talk 13:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Prithee, what original research? How does the Dictionary giving half its word count on the Dear Leader to his persecution of a novelist goes against his viewpoint [sic]?
 * That "a poisoned chalice is an idiom of such antiquity it's a cliche" and that Shakespeare used it before are original researches which are certainly ignored in face of reliable sources saying otherwise. As for the contradictory comment, the Dictionary mentions the most important info with regard to the subject in the first line(s). -- M h hossein   talk 11:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's a well-known fact. What is OR is your irrelevant assertion that Khomeini coined the phrase, which neither source claims and which could not be more irrelevant to the fact of the fatwa scandal for which Khomeini is rightly notorious. GPinkerton (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

More scholarly source
Can a more scholarly source be found for this addition? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Marital rape
I'm partially reverting this edit for two reasons. The first is that it appears Khomeini is interpreting Quran 2:223, not stipulating any punishments (or lack thereof) for marital rape. In that sense he seems to be saying "a wife must obey her husband sexually", not "a husband shall not be punished for raping his wife". There is a difference.

Secondly, and more importantly, this appears in Khomeini's work dating to the 1960s-70s. At that time most of the world didn't recognize marital rape as rape (see Marital_rape_in_the_United_States). This is important context that would need to be included.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pure whataboutism seasoned with OR. I'm reverting your whitewash. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please mind WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, I reverted, now its time to discuss.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your problem this time? How are you going to claim this is not in the source cited? You can read the source, your can try and understand it, but you do not have a monopoly on deciding how Wikipedia present this issue. Present reasonable objections, not logical fallacies and sealioning. GPinkerton (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As I told above this is a biographic article. If everyone adds the religious fatwas which looks important for him/her, the article will soon turn into a religious text. Thus please move such issues to a sub-article (Religious views of Ruhollah Khomeini) and do not add them except for most notable and particular cases. This is common for every biographic article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That article does not exist and would appear to be a POV fork. GPinkerton (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Darwish, once again
continues to insist that Nonie Darwish is a reliable source on the topic. This is ridiculous and there was consensus against Darwish's reliability at RSN.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm finding BLP violations such as misquotes on the Nonie Darwish article. Let's clean that one up and then see where the community stands about Darwish being RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree that Darwish is obviously a flagrantly unreliable source that should not be cited for anything, let alone extraordinary claims about prominent heads of state that hundreds of academic books and articles have not seen fit to assign any credibility to.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ditto what TheTimesAreAChanging said. If there were truth to these allegations then there would be reliable sources covering it, without relying on a screed by an islamophobic counter-jihad speaker.Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ruhollah Khomeini - Jamaran, 1988.jpg
 * Women meeting with Khomeini, 1 April 1979.jpg

child sex in khomeini's mind
http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_31451/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87_%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%87_%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%AE%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C_%D8%B3_/%D8%AC_2/%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8_%D9%86%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%AD

Khomeini has a theory in his book Tahrir al-Awsiya that says that sex with an infant is not a problem in some cases. This view and his theory should be mentioned in his article Gol995 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Unless there are reliable sources that indicate that this is significant then probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This particular tidbit has been rarely found in a few other Islamic sources, and is therefore not specific to him (it is also a minority view which isn't accepted as "encouraged"). The only sources this is talked about in are polemical sources. So no, this shouldn't be discussed in his page.TuaamWiki (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You have the date wrong
Someone who knows how to edit wikipedia needs to look into this but i'm pretty sure that Ruhollah Khomeini was born in 1902 not 1900 and was 86 when he died not 89 This feels like kind of an important mistake that should really be fixed 222.154.123.187 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let us have your reliable sources and we'll take a look at them. Britmax (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the tabeer of seeing a dead in dream ?
Please answer 112.79.153.189 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You may have to rephrase the question. I don't understand it at all. Britmax (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert
according to the source I provided, Khomeini ordered attacks against Iranians protesting the new government in the 1980s ("On that day, about half a million Iranians went on a silent demonstration against the Republic. The Revolutionary Guards, following Khomeini’s orders, opened fire on the demonstrators and turned the scene into a bloodbath."). Similar information is also in the section "Suppression of opposition" (in the article). Why the revert? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because my ability to divine all that from the edit summary " + added material " is rather limited. Britmax (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Divining is usually not necessary when one looks at the source + the added material, but i will still try to use better description in my edit summaries. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ruhollah
What does this name?

Khomeini is a town/city where RK comes from, but what does Khomein mean? MountVic127 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Minorities under Ruhollah
Hi Louis Aragon, hm, it was a sourcible phrase on minorities in the section about minorities. We can also find a wording together. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As for me I do not like to use block quotes, but he actually addresses in the phrase many minorities and not only to Kurds. Else the section could also be named on Kurds. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're trying to say. Based on what I can see, you cherry-picked a section of the material from the sentence written in the source and omitted the rest (you only selected the Kurds, Baluchis, and Lurs part whilst omitting the Persians and Turks part). Furthermore, you were reverted, yet you reinstated your desired revision once again. You have to reach WP:CON first on the talk page, and only then you can insert the content. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The actual quote from the source: "Sometimes the word minorities is used to refer to people such as Kurds, Lurs, Turks, Persians, Baluchis, and such. These people should not be called minorities because this term assumes there is a difference between these brothers." Once again, how come you only selected "Kurds", "Lurs" and "Baluchis", yet omitted "Turks" and "Persians"? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion right after you reverted me. You can not template me, refuse to respond in a discussion and claim your version as the correct one. You mention the omission of the Turks and the Persians, would you agree the phrase to be included if they were mentioned as well? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Persians and Turks have countries, where they (officially) constitute a majority, while Lurs, Baluchis and Kurds do not have that. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "I opened a discussion right after you reverted me."
 * No Paradise Chronicle. Fortunately, all diffs are recorded on Wikipedia, so you can't pull stuff from thin air. Yeah, you created a talk page section, but no less than 7 hours later you already reverted me as you tried to reinstate the content you originally added. That's WP:GAMEing and a violation of WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:WAR and WP:CON:
 * 22:52: 14 August 2022: Paradise Chronicle adds cherry-picked content from the Oxford source.
 * 23:21: 14 August 2022: Paradise Chronicle is reverted
 * 23:24: 14 August 2022: Paradise Chronicle is issued an DS:IRP adivisory notification
 * 00:00 15 August 2022: Paradise Chronicle creates a talk page section
 * 07:40 16 August 2022: Paradise Chronicle, no less than 7 hours after the creation of the talk page section, violates WP:WAR and reinstates the same biased content Edit summary: " don't see an issue, see talk".
 * 12:35 16 August 2022: Paradise Chronicle posts a retaliatory DS warning on LouisAragon's talk page
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "...refuse to respond in a discussion"
 * Where and how did I refuse to respond? Sorry, but if you think you are allowed to form your own rules where other editors (with busy lifes) are "ought" and "obliged" to respond to you within a fixed short time period, you are sorely mistaken.
 * "and claim your version as the correct one."
 * I don't "claim" anything; these are verifiable, factual arguments based on the original Oxford source as well as sound usage of Wikipedia's policies. Its very simple. Wikipedia doesn't accept WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Also FYI; you can post all kinds of retaliatory "warnings" on my talk page you want. I expected someone who had been topic banned very recently due to making edits within the very same topic area (DS:KURDS) to thread more cautiously. Alas I was apparently mistaken. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Also Persians and Turks have countries, where they (officially) constitute a majority, while Lurs, Baluchis and Kurds do not have that."
 * Ehm sorry, but we can't misinterpret/cherry-pick parts from sources just because we want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also just curious; which country in the world is the "Persian country"? Last time I checked, Iran is multi-ethnic. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "You mention the omission of the Turks and the Persians, would you agree the phrase to be included if they were mentioned as well?"
 * If the source is to be used, which in turn appears to quote Khomeini, then the "Turks" and "Persians" have be listed too. According to the source, Khomeini referred to the Turks and Persians within the same supposed context of minorities. I'm willing to make a WP:BOLD edit, per the source, if you agree, in order to get this fixed. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Lets expand an article together.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With go for it I meant to agree to you making the bold edit. But then I was thinking about having to add Persian myself with which I had to struggle a bit, as Persians are the majority in Iran. Maybe you have a similar conclusion maybe not, important is I have a source where Khomeini speaks about minorities and some of it could be added to the article, if anyone then opposes the wording they could adapt it to their preference instead of reverting it. And per the several comments further up in the discussion I began, I was never topic banned in the English wikipedia much less recently nor in the topic area, so I guess whoever assumes I was meant, they are mistaken.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just made the edit. Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To add the differences right after the quote of the portrayed peace between Persians and Kurds is a fair description. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! - LouisAragon (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Photograph change
Was there a reason why the photograph of Khomeini was changed?

I admit the first one didn’t look crisp, this one looks like the film was overexposed. There’s a halo effect when I look at the new photo.

Why change? BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)