Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Life Under Khomeini

almost overnight this article changed from calling khomeini a women's lib hero

(For many years, breaking the barrier of confinement of the private sphere has been a major source of frustration for advocates of women's rights in Iran. But the Islamic revolution broke the barrier overnight. When Khomeini called for women to attend public demonstration and ignore the night curfew, millions of women who would otherwise not have dreamt of leaving their homes without their husbands' and fathers' permission or presence, took to the streets.) to calling the shah one> trueblood 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back. The anon did not discuss anything and his/her edits are way too POV. —Khoikhoi 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

oops, forgot to sign, anyway, can't stay like that either. freedom of press was preserved but many newpapers were closed down?? which one of the two. this sounds like whitewash. trueblood 10:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) i deleted the sentece about freedom of press, since it sounded too orwellian. i also deleted a word for word quote from a possibly copyright text. actually the above quote... i suppose it is you the put all this stuff based on the reference in. seems farfetched then too call the anon editor pov. the current version does not sound balanced. btw i can not find the contraceptives thing in the reference. did i just not look well enough? trueblood 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

the links 2-6 in this section are just random iran related links that nothing to do with the text as far as i can tell. i will delete them if their is no objection. trueblood 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

i propose to take the picture of khomeini with the child off the section life under khomeini. if another picture is needed, okay, this one seems in this context rather to fulfill the function of propaganda. trueblood 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The nation's first family planning policy, introduced in 1967 under Shah Reza Pahlavi, aimed to accelerate economic growth and improve the status of women by reforming divorce laws, encouraging female employment, and acknowledging family planning as a human right.

Unfortunately, this promising initiative was reversed in 1979 at the beginning of the decade-long Islamic Revolution led by Shiite Muslim spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini. During this period, family planning programs were seen as undue western influences and were dismantled. Health officials were ordered not to advocate contraception. During Iran's war with Iraq between 1980 and 1988, a large population was viewed as a comparative advantage, and Khomeini pushed procreation to bolster the ranks of "soldiers for Islam," aiming for "an army of 20 million. www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm

this is exactly the opposite of what is claimed in the article. i will delete the passage in the article and similarily the weird claim about gender change. trueblood 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

His Last Name

His last name is Mousavi. I am absolutely certain because I have heard Khomeini himself say it at the end of his speech that ordered the execution of Salman Rushdie.Patchouli 04:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

His last name is two part, Mousavi Khomeini. There are many people with Mousavi last night in Iran and adding their town of origin clears up their background more. In his case, he is from the town of Khomein, hence he is Khomeini. Here another example of a person with Mousavi last name but has no connection with Khomeini: Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardebili he is originally from the town of Ardebil in the turkish province of Iran. ~HouHouFF- Sep 8-06

hostage crisis

Some Iranians considered this to be a miracle caused by divine intervention this quote from the article should not be in an encyclopedia, at least not in a political one. trueblood 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Some Iranians think everything from breathing to defecating is a miracle.Patchouli 05:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

??? trueblood 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As you say SOME. And it's like this everywhere. SOME fools don't represent everyone. Persian Savant 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was actually the official statement of the government of Iran that it was a miracle, and to today it is still considered as such. Whether you think it is stupid or not, that's what happeed ~HouHouFF- Sep 8-06

again indian origin

i just deleted the sentence about khomeini's indian origins. there was a link in the article, but it actually did not say anything about his alleged indian parents. as far as i could see the result of an earlier discussion was that, this indian thing is not true.--trueblood 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a paragraph needs to be added to explain how an article in the newspaper that alleged Khomeini of not being a true Iranian and being indian caused huge protests in Iran and many consider it to be what truly sparked the Iranian revolution.

Last part of your last sentence confused me...

But Khomeini's brother wrote a biography about him and in it said that they were of indian origin. You realise that on the flag nothing's iranian? The "allah" is arabic and the emblem is that of freaky similarity to the sikh symbol. At least the colours are the same. But still...

Although his family has been traced to Uttar Pradesh, there is evidence that the family was of Kashmiri origin. See the article on Aga Syed Yusuf Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi for evidence.RashmiPatel 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Parents

I found the name of his parents and grandfathers, none of which are currently found in the article.

Most sources that I found give his mother's name as just "Hajar". The Iran Chamber Society also has information about his family. -- Kjkolb 09:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of talk that his father was a british fellow by the name of William Richard Williamson, and his mother was an Indian lady from Kashmir.

list of murders

i object to the recent changes, the list of murders and particulary the picture of the woman. if more criticism on khomeini is needed, or crimes of his regime need to be described surely it can be done in a less sensational and polemic way. it would also be more efficient and convincing. needs better references than just one to a islam hate site (holy crime) too. please improve or i will just delete the whole lot... trueblood 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some facts are objectionable. However, censorship is not the way to go.--16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

no, i am not speaking about censoring content, more about style.trueblood 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Change in the "Political thought and legacy" section

Proposed change, replacing this sentence:

Throughout his many writings and speeches, Khomeini consistently promoted his vision of a theocratic Islamic society, guided by the morality and ethics of the clergy.

With this:

Throughout his many writings and speeches, Khomeini's views on governance evolved. Originally declaring rule by monarchs or others permissible so long as sharia law was followed, [1] Khomeini later adamantly opposed monarchy, arguing that only rule by a leading Islamic jurist would insure Sharia was properly followed (velayat-e faqih), [2] before finally insisting Sharia rule could be overruled by jurists if necessary to serve the interests of Islam and the "divine government" of the Islamic state. [3]

Leroy65X 13:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to put my name earlier)

Change in the "Family and Descendents" section

Proposed change, replacing this sentence:

Khomeini's grandson Seyyed Hassan Khomeini, son of the late Seyyed Ahmad Khomeini, is also a cleric and the trustee of Khomeini's shrine; his grandson Hossein Khomeini, son of Seyyed Mustafa Khomeini, is a mid-level cleric who is sympathetic to American neoconservative and pro-Israel interests (he has lectured at the American Enterprise Institute) and is strongly against the system of the Islamic Republic (see [1]).

With this:

Khomeini's grandson Seyyed Hassan Khomeini, son of the late Seyyed Ahmad Khomeini, is also a cleric and the trustee of Khomeini's shrine. Khomeini's grandson Hossein Khomeini, son of Seyyed Mustafa Khomeini, is a mid-level cleric who is strongly against the system of the Islamic Republic and has been quoted as saying
Iranians need freedom now, and if they can only achieve it with American interference I think they would welcome it. As an Iranian, I would welcome it. [2] [4]

P.S. Old findarticle.com link is dead. Does anyone have any evidence of pro-zionist sympathies of Hassan Khomeini? I could not find any. I will wait a week for comments before changing the sentence.

--Leroy65X 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Death and funeral

The article mentions "During the funeral, Tehran fell into absolute chaos" I added citation is needed cuz if it can't be provided I think it should be revised. I was there during that time and I very much remeber what happened. Although the country was in the state of shut down, there were little signs of disorganization or chaos for that matter. All the armed forces were on full alert and we did not hear of anything that constitues 'chaos' It is true many people were pouring into Tehran to pay their respect, but it was not something out of the ordinary in that part of the world. The transition of power went quite smoothly and there was no sign of coup or revolution. ~HouHouFF- Sep 8-06

welayat-e-faghih

To my knoweldege, Khomeini was not the theoretician of welayet-e-faghih (rule of religious cleric) idea and only had partial role in it. The main theoretician was ayatolah Montazeri who was expected to be the next leader after Khomeini for a while.

Virtually every book on the Islamic Revolution I have read credits Khomeini and his 1970 Islamic Government lecture series in Najaf as the foundation of the theory of velayet-e-faqih as rightful ruler of the Islamic state, (and in fact the world). --Leroy65X 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
They weren't fimiliar with this scholar term. Khomeini was the first person who said Islamic Jurist should establish government and rule on the basis of welayet-e-faqih. But this doesn't mean he was the first theoretician of welayet-e-faghih . Because we should remind welayet-e-faghih doesn't mean rule of religious cleric. The majority of Shi'a jurists believe in limited form of it which include Judiciary and observation but not legislation and executive power. Some of them believe in illimited welayet-e-faqih. It means jurist have the Islamic legitimate right and authority to do whatever Shi'a Imams do in social and political life.--Sa.vakilian 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Life In Exile

Some redundant or tangential info on welayat-e-faghih, the dali lama, etc. has been taken out of Life In Exile section. I hope everyone will agree it reads better now.

Thanking the islamic revolution made by AYATOULLAH AL KHOUMEINI.

The islamic revolution,show me the truth of AHL ALBEIT peace be upon them.I became a shiite thank to ALLAH first, and to the Islamic revolution made byRUHOLLAH ALKHOMEINI. I ask god to protect IRAN,and my Imam KHAMINAYI.

And what does that have to do anything to do with this discussion? Tell me if I'm mistaken, but I belive nothing. Also My belief is that most people with thier heads screwed on right don't go around thanking a dictator, murder, and oppressor of freedom.24.6.213.203 02:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) an american

Rearrangement

I rearranged this article so I gathered all about his works after revolution under " 4 Supreme leader of Islamic Republic of Iran". It includes:

   * 4.1 Return to Iran
   * 4.2 Hostage crisis
   * 4.3 Islamic constitution
   * 4.4 Iran-Iraq War
   * 4.5 Rushdie Fatwa
   * 4.6 Letter to Mikhail S. Gorbachev

--Sa.vakilian 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Life under Khomeini

I put POV tag because this part just expresses oppositions' viewpoints.--Sa.vakilian 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If we want to make this part neutral, we should add something about "Jihad Sazandegi"(Construction of rural areas and etc), "Nehzat Savad Amoozi" (teaching illiterate people) and so on.--Sa.vakilian 03:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I introduce some of them:

  • University Jihad:[3]
  • Construction Jihad:[4]
  • Literacy Movement:[5]
  • Imam Khomeini Relief Committee: [6]

Please be just in writing this part. I think he tried a lot to do what he promised to Iraninans. In some cases he was successful like construction of rural areas and in some cases was not like removing poverty. Some of his promices are immpossible. Some have bad effect like free telephone, heating, electricity. He was faithful to his promises in some cases like independency of Iran and he couldn't be faithful in some cases because of sanctions and imposed war. Women situation become better not on the basis of western standards but they became more literate and they accessed to health system more than Pahlavi era. So please don't write unjust sentences like "While Khomeini was unable to follow through on these promises".

Also ha did some wrong policies like encouraging people to have more childern when the country couldn't bear the increasing of population.

The situation of oppositions was not worse than Pahlavi era, although the country was going to civil war during Khordad of 1360(1981).It is disputed who shoot the first bullet Islamic Republic or opposition specially MEK. The situation of democracy was absolutly better because there were real parliment and presidential elections even during war and representatives critisized Khomeini several times, though he had charismatic authority on them.

Although the people became poorer because of war and sanctions and wrong economic policies but at least he lived like the lower class and the poverty doesn't bothered people when they saw their leader's live similiar to them. --Sa.vakilian 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I hoped -- While Khomeini was unable to follow through on these promises, many far-reaching changes did come to Iran -- would read as non-judgemental, but I think your change is probably better. --Leroy65X 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one will object to: While these promises remain unfulfilled, many far-reaching changes have come to Iran. --Leroy65X 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation of democracy was absolutly better because there were real parliment and presidential elections even during war and representatives critisized Khomeini several times, though he had charismatic authority on them.

I will post information on Khomeini and democracy with citations and will do my utmost to be fair and accurate --Leroy65X 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You make this part verifiable by adding some riable sources, but it is not sufficient to make this part NPOV. It should represents the achievements too. --Sa.vakilian 12:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is after khomeini took over, the economy actually deteriorated. Note that sources affiliated to the islamic regime cannot be used in this article since they are filled with fabrications. Khomeini promised better economy but he delivered poverty by his radical policies. In terms of ruthlessness, Khomeini was no less determined and violent than the Shah had been. Thousands in Iran were killed because they did not fit in with or approve of his religious state. He alienated the educated Iranians by imprisoning and executing the university students, who were mostly affilated to secular political parties at the time, and by suppressing any opposition movement harshly. Consequently uneducated and incapable individuals were given key roles which resulted in economic mismanagement in all levels. The situation of freedom of speech and democracy did not improve. It is true that Pahlavi's regime was not a democratic regime but neither was(and is) the Islamic Republic. Shah was the dictator back then and now it is the supreme leader, the only thing that has changed is the title. At least during the pahlavi era the candidates of parliament and the candidate for prime minister didnt have to go through a filter apointed by Shah. Now, we have Council of Guardians that won't allow anyone who is not 'loyal to the regime' be a candidate. I am no fan of the Pahlavi regime but the reality is that the revolution was a change for the worse. - Marmoulak 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC).
If that's "the point" why do the deletions you made have nothing to do with democracy in Iran or mistreatment of the opposition?
  • That tens of thousands of cassets of Khomeini's speeches were came into iran before the revolution
  • That "many far-reaching changes have come to Iran." after the revolution
  • That "millions of Iranians poured out into the cities and streets to mourn Khomeini's death in a "completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief."
... are documented, uncontroversial facts ("sourced material" I think you say on wikipedia) that come from independent sources. They are not from "sources affiliated to the islamic regime." (Amir Taheri in particular is the quintessential westernized Iranian.)
Please reconsider this edit war M. Marmoulak. --Leroy65X 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My response was an answer to those who praise Khomeini without knowing about what went on during his reign. I erased the phrase "tens of thousands" and "millions" because wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for epics and glorifications. Now, unless you have sources that contain an estimate of the number of cassetes that were disributed back then or number of people who mourned Khomeini's death, just using a plural noun will do. "completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief" phrase is again not encyclopedic material and belongs to propagandas and epics. Unless you have reliable reports by neutral sources(I doubt there are any since the Islamic Republic is a very close regime and wont let stats to get out) you cannot change the article. Amir Taheri whoever he is, is another Iranian like me and is entitled to his opinion but can in no way be considered any more reliable than any other average Iranian. Now, if I were to insert my own opinion in the article, this article would be a whole lot different but since I respect Wikipedia's rules, although I believe this article does not presents the real khomeini, I wont insert anything unless I have a source which contains facts not somneones biase opinion. - Marmoulak 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

You make this part verifiable by adding some riable sources, but it is not sufficient to make this part NPOV. It should represents the achievements too. --Sa.vakilian 12:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about it. it may take a few days --Leroy65X 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Added some achivements today. --Leroy65X 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


problem with Opposition with White Revolution

there is large hunk of text taken directly from the "Ted Thornton History of the Middle East Database" and another from "The Myth of the White Revolution: Mohammad Reza Shah, 'Modernization' and the Consolidation of Power" A. Ansari. This is easy to find because the footnotes are linked to the original, but as the edit pages says: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." --Leroy65X 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material by Marmoulak from Life under Khomeini

My response was an answer to those who praise Khomeini without knowing about what went on during his reign. I erased the phrase "tens of thousands" and "millions" because wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for epics and glorifications. Now, unless you have sources that contain an estimate of the number of cassetes that were disributed back then or number of people who mourned Khomeini's death, just using a plural noun will do.

No the plural noun will not do. "Millions" is a quote from the source and describes the number at the funeral.--Leroy65X 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief" phrase is again not encyclopedic material and belongs to propagandas and epics.

again it is a quote from a reputable biography of Khomeini by a respected non-IRI journalist, Baqer Moin. --Leroy65X 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, phrases like tens of thousands and millions are not the usual encyclopedia material and Baqer Moin whoever he is cannot be used as a reference since biased opinions of people cannot be used in wikipedia. For example Ali Reza Nourizadeh is far more reputable person than Baqer Moin and he believes that funeral of participation of people in funeral of khomeini was not spontaneous but orchestrated by the regime and people were actually paid to participate in Khomeini's funeral. But this is his POV although very close to reality I am not going to put this in the article. - 74.98.42.188 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
You don't know who Baqer Moin is, you don't know who Taheri is but you've decided they're biased? What is the criteria for bias? Writing or saying anything that could be interepreted as favorable to Khomeini? The books quoted (by Moin and Taheri) are probably the two major Engligh language biographies of Khomeini. Assertions and the use of the terms "bias" and "POV" is not proof of bias or non-neutral POV. In this case it is a smokescreen. --Leroy65X 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I didn't know who Taher was and naturaly as an educated Iranian I assumed that he can't be a prominent person and after I googled his name, it turned out that I was right. What Taheri writes in his articles is his own interpretation of events often mostly inaccurate. I was reviewing his articles and encountered one of his article recently published in Canada's National Post, A COLOUR CODE FOR IRAN'S 'INFIDELS', which turned out to be a figment of his imagination and utterly false.
That someone has made an error (assuming he did make one) in one of dozens of columns they've published doesn't make them an uncredible source. That Khomeini cassettes flooded Iran before the revolution is not a controversial claim. --Leroy65X 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It actually is a trend of mr. Taheri to talk out of his behind without having any evidence for what he writes. He is not a collector of facts but rather a fictionist who often makes things up to stir up his articles.
"Taheris is a fictionist" or "Taheri talks out of his behind," is a good example of an opinion. A couple of days ago you didn't know who he was and now you're pontificating on his "trends" --Leroy65X 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Baqer Moin once again cannot be used as a source here. What he wrote in his book is his own POV . Ali Reza Nourizadeh is far more reputable and reliable than likes of Moin and Taheri but as I have said several times the Islamic Republic is a very close regime and nothing is certain about it. - Marmoulak 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC).
Again, it is not up to you to proclaim that someone is "biased" and giving "their opinion" anytime some fact annoys you. That there were millions of grief-stricken mourners at Khomeini's funeral is also not a controversial fact. There were many witnesses to it who were not fans of Khomeini. --Leroy65X 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
As you said it yourself, it is their opinion hence not qualified to be inserted in Wikipedia.
No I did NOT say it was their opinion. If they said Khomeini was a wonderful man or did great things for Iran, or something like that, it would be an opinion. They are talking about number of cassettes and the state of a crowd. --Leroy65X 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence for the sentences you are trying to insert in the article and I think it's you who is annoyed by the facts about his idol, Khomeini, in this article and is trying to make him look better than what he really was. By the way, I was an eyewitness to Khomeini's funeral.
I doubt that highly. --Leroy65X 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
there were many people mourning his death but I doubt any eyewitness could tell how many people were on the streets that day, nobody really knows the number thats why the phrase 'Many People' will suffice. The funeral was certainly not 'spontaneous' or 'unorchestrated', free food coupons and other goods were given to those who would get on the bus to participate in the funeral. - Marmoulak 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of Kayhan, Iran's main daily newspaper for seven years before the revolution.--Leroy65X 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Keyhan, what a reputable source!!!. You are either a pro-IR (hezbollahi) person or not Iranian, either way you are ineligible to comment on this matter. Every Iranian knows that Keyhan is a propaganda machine for the regime and is filled with fabrications. - 74.98.42.188 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
read the post. it was BEFORE the revolution. --Leroy65X 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said he IS the executive editor-in-chief of keyhan, my bad. - Marmoulak 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC).


Now, if I were to insert my own opinion in the article, this article would be a whole lot different but since I respect Wikipedia's rules,

you are not respecting wikpedias rules. Kindly do not delete these additions again --Leroy65X 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The one who is not respecting Wikipedia's rules is you. You are violating NPOV, stop inserting propaganda in this article. - Marmoulak 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

although I believe this article does not presents the real khomeini, I wont insert anything unless I have a source which contains facts not somneones biase opinion. - Marmoulak 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to see what was deleted here is a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&diff=84176812&oldid=84094269 --Leroy65X 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this discussion is getting anywhere since you are apparently here to spread propaganda rather than contributing to this article. - Marmoulak 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

NPOV POLICY:The neutral point of view:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject...

A vital component: good research:

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later. The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

I think we should notice at WP:NPOV. As I understand we should write formal "viewpoint" of Islamic republic in this way: "According to IRIB or IRNA for example 10 billion people participated in Imam Khomeini's funerall." and viewpoint of opposition in this way:" According to MEK radio for example nobody participated in Khomeini'funeral".
I think in this case POV doesn't mean finding only neutral resources but it means reporting everything from all of the formal viewpoints because it's too controvercial .--Sa.vakilian 06:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have proposed several times, since there is no reliable data on this matter, using plural nouns and phrased like 'many' will suffice. - Marmoulak 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Words like "many" are unclear and should be avoided. We should use the exact quotations from all of the major viewpoints and don't censor each of them.--Sa.vakilian 02:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Leroy65X 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case 'Many' is the best word to be used, since none of the sources you mentioned (IRIB & MEK) give a proper description of the event, it is pure propaganda and not suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest using the phrase 'Many' adding that no proper estimate of the number of mourners is available. - Marmoulak 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

I am putting info from a story from the New York Times on Khomeini's funeral. If you decide the New York Times is IRI propaganda there's no hope. --Leroy65X 23:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I need to see the content of your references, only putting the name of an article or a book wont be enough. A statement like "educational opportunities, literacy rates, access to health care have improved in Iran" needs to be backed by official reports from reputable international organizations. Apparently, you have inserted a paragraph mixed with facts and fiction. Statements like "many took comfort in the fact that their "Imam" lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle" is obviously POV material (I am guessing yours), this statement is utterly ridiculous, it raises questions like, who are these many people!!, how do you know that "they took comfort in the fact that their "Imam" lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle", did anyone actually went to Iran and asked 'many' people that are you comfortable with the fact that you are poor and you are living in an Islamic Republic??!!, what number exactly is many?, who asked them this question?, who says that the statement "Khomeini lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle" is a fact?. I don't think it can get more clear than this, you have been constantly trying to insert propaganda in this article and I have caught you several times, let it go, Wikipedia is not the place for it, create a personal website and put your POV there. - Marmoulak 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC).
I propose this sources. Some of them are dependent organizations. Others are Khomeini's order.
  • University Jihad:[7]
  • Construction Jihad:[8]
  • Literacy Movement:[9]
  • Imam Khomeini Relief Committee: [10]

You can find some others if you search the web.--Sa.vakilian 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow!, you actually managed to find some of the top propaganda websites of IR. I wasn't able to read the whole thing since the first sentence knocked me down: "After the glorious triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the most important and vital need of the new holy system was to replace the pure and original Islamic culture following the style of the Holy Prophet (SW) with the so -called legacy of the last regime." Great job!!!. - Marmoulak 19:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish you read all of the text. I know it's not neutral. Theses are a formal documents that shows Khomeini has orderd to establish some organization and we can use them just to show this and not else. Please be cool and just. --Sa.vakilian 03:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued deletion of sourced material by Marmoulak

For anyone interested in seeing what was deleted here is one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&diff=85791653&oldid=85772021

On the bright side, educational opportunities, literacy rates, access to health care have improved in Iran, [5] (although this was not a departure from trends under the Shah). Despite the fact that new laws specifically guaranteed women's legal inferiority to men, employment for women expanded. For example, UNESCO found a higher proportion of women in 1986 on teaching staffs of universities in Iran then in the Western country of West Germany. [6] And although the standard of living of the Mustafeen not only failed to improve but dropped markedly with the revolution [11], many took comfort in the fact that their "Imam" lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle, and according sources such as the New York Times [7]

Here is another

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&diff=next&oldid=85794938

An estimated three million Iranians poured out into the cities and streets for his funeral in what the New York Times described as "hours of frenzied mourning." [8]

The text gave quotes, gave sources. Maybe the someone can quibble over the "many took comfort in the fact that their "Imam" lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle" but not quotes from the new york times or unesco yearbook.

Marmoulak also deleted the POV label. --Leroy65X 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While I hate to take this drastic step I see no other way to deal with continued vandalism by Marmoulak that to POV the article. --Leroy65X 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have presented absolutely no acceptable source for the material you have inserted. for example the statement, "On the bright side, educational opportunities, literacy rates, access to health care have improved in Iran" is a very broad statement that needs reliable reports by reputable Internationl organizations to back it up. A single book written by a single person, can in no way be used as a source for such a broad statement, it gets worse when the book is an unknown one. You have inserted the statement, "An estimated three million Iranians poured out into the cities and streets for his funeral in what the New York Times described as "hours of frenzied mourning."", and you claim that the source is newyork times but thats not enough, you have to link to the article that contains this statement or else we wouldn't know if you are telling the truth. Statements like "many took comfort in the fact that their "Imam" lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle" is purely POV and reeks of propaganda, it raises questions like, who are these many people!!, how do you know that "they took comfort in the fact that their "Imam" lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle", did anyone actually went to Iran and asked "many" people that are you comfortable with the fact that you are poor and you are living in an Islamic Republic??!!, what number exactly is many?, who asked them this question?, who says that the statement "Khomeini lived an austere and non-materialistic lifestyle" is a fact?. I don't think it can get more clear than this, you have been constantly trying to insert propaganda in this article and I have caught you several times, let it go, Wikipedia is not the place for it, create a personal website and put your POV there. - Marmoulak 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC).
Marmoulak: I think you misunderstand the meaning of verifiability. It's wrong to think only neutral text and global organuzatuons are NPOV and reliable source. IN historic article any articles any officials document are reliable, of vourse the source should be mentioned. For example an official document from SAVAK or Islamic revolution gaurd is more reliable than BBC and other public media. I remind you we can't and don't want to write an article just on the basis of global organuzatuons are NPOV sources viewpoint. But we want to write all of the viewpoint. One of them is the viewpoint of Islamic republic of Iran. It's a "Point of View" and if we don't pay attention to it we never reach neutrality.--Sa.vakilian 03:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. BBC is definitely more reliable than any official document affiliated to IR regime. If that was the case, articles in wikipedia would get enormously long and anyone with an agenda would just insert propaganda in articles by simply attaching the phrase "According to" to the beginning and a propaganda source to the end of the paragraph. We have thousands of websites on the internet containing totally opposit and conflicting information about Khomeini, What you are saying is against whatever Wikipedia stands for. - Marmoulak 01:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
Marmoulak: It is not up to you to demand editors and writers jump through increasingly high and small hoops if they want to add anything to an article. You are not the one to decide that the two major English language biographies on Khomeini are "unacceptable" , or that one of the most widely-read english-language books on Iran and its history (Iranians by Mackay) is "unknown". Or that the eyewitness of the American newspaper-of-record is not good enough (the estimate of three million mourners is directly from the New York Times story.) Now you declare two different sources for a fact (the number of mourners at Khomeini's funeral) not good enough, you've come up with a new requirement: an internet link to the source - a source about an event 20 years before the internet was widely used. If there is a newpaper on the face of the earth with links to its articles of 1979 I haven't heard of it. (There are paid databases. Look them up if you think I'm lying.) You don't even respect your requirement of "reliable reports by reputable Internationl organizations to back it up." You've deleted statistics I posted from the 1989 UNESCO Statistical Yearbook not to your liking. If this isn't bad faith I don't know what is --Leroy65X 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly have the right to question any editor's insertions within the framework of Wikiepdia rules, so does any other user.
Since when does wikipedia require all statements in all articles have as a source a linked document from an international organization? There would be next to nothing on wikipedia if this was a rule ... rather than an excuse for a vandal to remove anything a certain person thinks even mildly complementary of Khomeini. --Leroy65X 22:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's citation policy clearly states: A citation or bibliographic citation is a reference to a book, article, web page, or other published item with sufficient details to uniquely identify the item.[12]. The source you are presenting does not present any detail or complementary source to back the statement up. Of course, not "all statements in all articles require to have as a source a linked document from an international organization, most dont. But certainly matters such as global and national statistics need to be backed up by a scholarly research done by reliable sources. Once again, Wikipedia is not the place for propagandas. - Marmoulak 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
UNESCO found a higher proportion of women in 1986 on teaching staffs of universities in Iran then in the Western country of West Germany. (source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook, 1989, pp. 3251 (Iran), 3258 (Germany))
Here's "global and national statistics .... backed up by a scholarly research done by reliable sources" ... which you delete under a smoke screeen of blather about "propaganda" because of the positive light it shines on the IRI --Leroy65X 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the most popular information source on the internet. So making sure that the articles in wikipedia are neutral is one of its most important tasks, this task (and all the other tasks in wikiepdia) are done by its users. If anyone could simply insert information in wikipedia without backing it up by proper references, wikipedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia but rather a weblog for people to write their personal opinions. Such huge allegations as "On the bright side, educational opportunities, literacy rates, access to health care have improved in Iran" need more than just the name of a book written by an unkown person. If you have the newspaper then scan it and show me the picture, it is your responsibility to prove the correctness of your claim. I reverted changes that were mostly POV material now there might have been some degree of truth to it but thats not enough to keep them from being reverted. - Marmoulak 01:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
You can't change the fact that User:Marmoulak is absolutely right. I just wanted to add something. That even if the education has improved, come on, 27 years have passed it should IMPROVE.
Funny. what Marmoulak deleted said that: was not a departure from trends under the Shah
On the bright side, educational opportunities, literacy rates, access to health care have improved in Iran, [9] (although this was not a departure from trends under the Shah). ... --Leroy65X 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just look at the economy of before Khomeini and after Khomeini and you'll see what is improving. Also marmoulak is right to ask a reference on Internet for such claims. 3 Millions on streets? Maybe I was living on moon when that happened.
look it up New York Times Historical Index. Lots of US public libraries have it. There just aren't internet links to many old newspaper articles. Leroy65X 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And yes BBC (even though they are not always right) is more thrust worthy than any IR agency. The IR always tends to make thing favorable toward itself. Just watch 30 minutes of IRIB news and you'll see that Iran has discovered the cure for HIV. --Arad 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Literacy rates did not improve. Forced indoctrination improved, tampering with independent news reports improved, tampering with textbooks improved after the Islamic Cultural Revolution. If Mohammad Reza Pahlavi were left alone, the literacy rates would have been much higher. The mullahs actually blunted the growth.

On top of so-called persecution of Islamists who should have been persecuted for being scoundrels, now there is religious persecution. No letting Islamists impose Islam was "persecution". No paying the clergy money for sermonizing was persecution.

Any one who dares to say anything is accused of "fighting Islam and God". --71.107.197.2 22:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

On New Article Patrol I ran across Ahmad Musavi Hindi, a small paragraph about Khomeini's grandfather. There doesn't seem to be enough there to warrant a full article, so I am recommending a merge. --Elonka 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

imam and origin

guys, khomeini isnt an imam, i just deleted that part off his title...whoever put that doesnt understand shia islam, and yes he is indian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.151.28 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 December 2006.--Fgol 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)fgol, december 3rd 2006 1009PM

i would like it if the wikipedia staff would remove the title "Imam" from khomeini's page, it doesnt work out and it's a disgrace to Shia Islam Fgol24.68.151.28 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead.--Sa.vakilian 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Trimming Inaccurate Verbage

This article is already very long so I'm going to delete the following:

The White Revolution of 1963 was a turning point in the political viewpoint of Shi'a religionists. The clergy had supported Shiite monarchies since the time of the Safavids, and this was the main source of the monarchy's legitimacy. The Shiite clergy advised them, and the shahs did not enforce religious rules which restricted or threatened religious life or religious institutions, and defended the Shiite religion in Iran. Through the modernizing programs of the Pahlavi dynasty however, the Shiite public and clergy perceived a transformation of the Iranian monarchy into a modern dictatorship that placed restrictions on religious life.

I submit the White Revolution was much less of a "turning point" than many of Reza Shah's policies, that Reza Shah's legitimacy came from his military success and power. --Leroy65X 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)