Stefka Bulgaria (talk | contribs) →Cult of Personality?: Mhhossein, please explain |
|||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
::{{tq|"This is a pejorative term."}} You're lending a highly undue weight to a "a pejorative term". --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
::{{tq|"This is a pejorative term."}} You're lending a highly undue weight to a "a pejorative term". --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::{{u|Mhhossein}}, great that you agree that this is a {{tq|"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. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 12:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
:::{{u|Mhhossein}}, great that you agree that this is a {{tq|"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. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 12:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:26, 15 April 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
New sanctions
Trump has announced new sanctions against him. [4]--Auric talk 18:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody:
- America: places sanctions on a man who died in 1989
Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Anti-communism category
Albeit I did add Adolf Hitler and Margaret Thatcher to this category, since then I've realized that I don't really think specific people should be added to this category. Yes, they were staunchly anti-communist, but maybe something like Critics of Marxism could better fit? Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Staunch anti-communists seem to be most closely connected to the Anti-communism cat. I think the more nuanced Critics of Marxism is less relevant — a bit too scholarly and not mainstream enough. El_C 18:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Pov issue
@Stefka Bulgaria: the edit include the pov issue and undue weight problem. while it was mentioned that "Revolutionary Tribunals" had been the part of campaign to cleanse the society
in this source, or in another source it was brought that Khomeini retorted that they were accused but were in factguilty
, Abrahamian described that the aim of creation of the "Revolutionary Tribunals" was to continue implementing their version of the Shari’a, which is just pov of him and gives undue weight to article, because some sources (as I gathered) are opposite of it. Saff V. (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just included a quote from a reliable source and author (Ervand Abrahamian is an Iranian historian). I think the statement is perfectly valid. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: Not only I did not say anything about the reliability of Abrahamian source, but also I am going to point to wp:due which demand that
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints (based on their weight) that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
. As I brought material from other sources, there are various viewpoints about "Revolutionary Tribunals" but you just mentioned Abrahamian's idea.Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)- @Saff V., if you've found material from other sources, just add them to the article. As long as they meet WP:RS, then they will be ok for inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: Not only I did not say anything about the reliability of Abrahamian source, but also I am going to point to wp:due which demand that
what is the relation
@HistoryofIran: Please read carefully the edit summary, I did not say anything about the reliability of the source. I did not see any relation between 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations and Khomeini? I wonder if you could explain it.Saff V. (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I very well read your summary, and I never implied that you questioned the reliability of the source. They are clearly related as they have something to do with his reforms. Look, I'm not here to constantly hold your hand and explain things to you - WP:COMPETENCE, I've lost count of how many times I've linked this to you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I need your insight here, recently new section titled Homosexuality has been created in the article, but there is some material has nothing to do with the Homosexuality , for instance,
these courts executed over 100 drug addicts, prostitutes, homosexuals, rapists, and adulterers on the charge of "sowing corruption on earth
orIn February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations
. It is the first issue with that.
- Secondly, the source of these two claims
Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations
is this book that the author referred the claim to another book. It is more interesting that in the footnote 31 of the later book, p.292 , the author has used email exchanges as a source of information! Can we rely on this and include material with such an unreliable source? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is also a good New York Times source that includes a direct interview with Khomeini that we can include in this section. I will try to include it later today. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is any thing about the death penalty for homosexuality ordered by Khomeini in the interview published by New York Times. Please be more careful! In other hand the interview was recorded on 12 September 1979, how can this so close source to the event support the death penalty for homosexuality? Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- The section is not only about the death penalty for homosexuality, but homosexuality as a whole under Khomeini's rule. Please stop asking me to "be more careful" for adding reliable sources to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is any thing about the death penalty for homosexuality ordered by Khomeini in the interview published by New York Times. Please be more careful! In other hand the interview was recorded on 12 September 1979, how can this so close source to the event support the death penalty for homosexuality? Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is also a good New York Times source that includes a direct interview with Khomeini that we can include in this section. I will try to include it later today. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I need your insight here, recently new section titled Homosexuality has been created in the article, but there is some material has nothing to do with the Homosexuality , for instance,
- Saff, your POV is showing (again), please consider your words more carefully and stop causing something out of nothing, it's getting rather boring at this rate. This looks a big case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as well. This is what occured under Khomeiminis leadership, whether you like it or not. Last but not least, you have been told by various users in the Reliable noticeboard that the source is reliable, end off. HistoryofIran (talk)
- @Saff V.: History books are always written based on less reliable primary information. The reliability derives not from the original source, but from the author's responsibility to verify it, and from the publisher's repsonsibility to fact-check what they are publishing. As such, I see no reason to discount this source, unless another equally weighty source has challenged that assertion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: thanks for comment but how about the source of this two claims exactly, it is the email clearly.Saff V. (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Saff V.: History books are always written based on less reliable primary information. The reliability derives not from the original source, but from the author's responsibility to verify it, and from the publisher's repsonsibility to fact-check what they are publishing. As such, I see no reason to discount this source, unless another equally weighty source has challenged that assertion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:Thanks for the comment, The footnote is "Afary, Janet and Anderson, Kevin: Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islam. Chicago 2005, p. 161". At that book the footnote for these two claims is "Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran). For a discussion of this issue, see Sanasarian 2000 and various issues of the journal Homan (1999–2001). For more information on the Iranian GLB movement, see the website for Homan: The Group to Defend the Rights of Iranian Gays and Lesbians, www.homan.cwc.net. For literature on Iranian lesbians, see www.geocities.com/khanaeyedoost. According to Duran, “homosexual assault is frequently used by the police of repressive regimes, such as the SAVAK during the reign of the Shah of Iran or its successor, SAVAMA, the dreaded security organ of the Khomeini government” (1993, 187)."Saff V. (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that second source (Afary et al) looks quite reliable to me. That should be the one that is used. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saff V. also forgot to mention that he took this to WP:RSN already where he was told repeatedly the source was reliable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that second source (Afary et al) looks quite reliable to me. That should be the one that is used. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:Thanks for the comment, The footnote is "Afary, Janet and Anderson, Kevin: Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islam. Chicago 2005, p. 161". At that book the footnote for these two claims is "Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran). For a discussion of this issue, see Sanasarian 2000 and various issues of the journal Homan (1999–2001). For more information on the Iranian GLB movement, see the website for Homan: The Group to Defend the Rights of Iranian Gays and Lesbians, www.homan.cwc.net. For literature on Iranian lesbians, see www.geocities.com/khanaeyedoost. According to Duran, “homosexual assault is frequently used by the police of repressive regimes, such as the SAVAK during the reign of the Shah of Iran or its successor, SAVAMA, the dreaded security organ of the Khomeini government” (1993, 187)."Saff V. (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:sorry to bother you by various pinging, but in Afra authors mentioned in the footnote that "Some of this information is based on an e-mail exchange with Goudarz Eghtedari (Iran)."at least doesn’t it need attribution?Saff V. (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Khomeini's wife
I've found several sources that say Khomeini's wife was "Batul Saqafi, a ten year old daughter of an ayatollah."[1][2] This seems to contradict with what's currently in the article. Any insights on this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: Should deffo be added somewhere, also see this btw [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is not anything about Batul Saqafi in the provided source. As wp:UNDUE demanded, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". A plenty of sources confirmed his only wife was Khadije Sqafi.Saff V. (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saff, they have the same last names - they're the same person. Khadijeh Saqafi was known by more than one name. She was indeed his only wife, which means that the 10 year old girl was her, which the other source also confirms. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The more I read about Khomeini, the more I'm finding the article is missing a lot of significant information. Will start to add some of it, but feel free to comment if I've gotten something wrong. Thanks Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saff, they have the same last names - they're the same person. Khadijeh Saqafi was known by more than one name. She was indeed his only wife, which means that the 10 year old girl was her, which the other source also confirms. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is not anything about Batul Saqafi in the provided source. As wp:UNDUE demanded, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". A plenty of sources confirmed his only wife was Khadije Sqafi.Saff V. (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I propose the following text based on the available sources:
Some sources claim that Khomeini married Sagafi when she was ten years old,[1][2][3] while others claim she was fifteen years old
.[4]
Objections? (@Winged Blades of Godric:?) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Thomas M. Leonard (2005). Encyclopedia of the Developing World. Routledge. p. 909. ISBN 978-1579583880.
- ^ Diane Morgan (2005). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. Praeger. p. 165. ISBN 978-0313360251.
- ^ Ervand Abrahamian (2005). Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. UNIV OF CALIFORNIA. p. 8. ISBN 978-0520085039.
- ^ [3]
Decision which they were made at Khomeini’s time
The source belongs to a self-publishing company and not an expert author was used by Stefka who concern using self-publishing source. Anyway, the current text which is Under Khomeini's age of marriage turns to nine years old for girls, and down to fifteen years old for boys
. I am going to say, there is a lot of decisions which were made in Khomeini's time, but Khomeini's article in Wikipedia is not true place to mention them. Is it?In other words, it is an article (1, 2, 3 ) proved when Khomeini was the leader and he did not play serious role to make them. @Vanamonde93: can you give your opinion?Saff V. (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saff V., I provided a number of sources that back up these statements, not just that one. You should have just removed the source you had an issue with, and not the other well-sourced material that you removed from the article. About adding more context to Khoemini's decision-making in the matter, Vanamonde93 already gave you a final warning about removing text just because you think it's missing information: "If the completeness of the material was an issue, the appropriate response is to add the missing information. If the reliability of a source is an issue, the correct response is to replace it, or at the very least, to request a better citation via a tag." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saff V., you also removed this " source from the article, which clearly supports the statement you removed in your following edit (
"marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.”"
). Why? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)- @Stefka, Can you say what is the source of these material?
One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power was to lower the age of marriage from eighteen to nine years old for girls, and down to fifteen years old for boys. Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.” “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”
You have to pick up self-published source and material belongs to it. As well as I look at this source and could not find anything to supportadded material by Stefka. It's better to provide the material of the mentioned book to support his edit . Please don't warn me to remove RS from the article while the source of this sentence {tq| One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power was to lower the age of marriage from eighteen to nine years old for girls, and down to fifteen years old for boys}} which you reverted is self published source.Saff V. (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Stefka, Can you say what is the source of these material?
- Saff V., you also removed this " source from the article, which clearly supports the statement you removed in your following edit (
- Okay, dial it back immediately, both of you; mudslinging here isn't the way to resolve this. Stefka, regardless of what Saff V. has done, using an SPS isn't okay; people have been tbanned for it. The burden of ensuring the reliability of a source you use is on you. The other source isn't necessarily unreliable; but I don't have access to the source. Stefka, can you provide a quote? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, let me know if you can access these references (which were all included in the article):
"One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power was to lower the age of marriage from eighteen to nine years old for girls, and down to fifteen years old for boy"
:
"Under Khomeini, child marriage was allowed once more, with the age of marriage being reduced from 18 to nine for girls (revised, after protests, to 13) and 15 for boys. New laws encourage polygamy and prevented women from leaving abusive husbands. The husband’s right of unilateral divorce was reinstated. New policies encouraged temporary marriage as ‘morally sanctioned substitute for Western dating’, with trial ‘sigheh’ marriages recommended for high-school students, and sex workers being invited to enter short-term marriage contracts with returning war veterans"
"Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.”
:
"In many of his works Khomeini himself strongly recommends pre-menstruation marriage as "a divine blessing." "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house," he write in Tawzih al-Masayel"
"Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house."
:
"Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period "a divine blessing," and he advised the faithful: "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house."
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- But this source was not used at this revert. As well as the reliability of source belongs to Encounter Books which known for publishing conservative authors should be checked. In addition, the second quote belongs to page 35, not 34!Saff V. (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll just keep to the point in the hopes of avoiding the usual confusing bludgeoning: Saff V. removed the following from the article:
"One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power was to lower the age of marriage from eighteen to nine years old for girls, and down to fifteen years old for boys."
"Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.”
"“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”"
As I showed in my previous edit, all these statements were backed by RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the sources provided here on the talk page are adequate for the content they were used for, although that tidbit about the age of marriage being raised after protest should be included for neutrality. Stefka Bulgaria, these are the sources you should have provided at the outset. The Xulon source isn't acceptable, and further use of such sources may be grounds for sanction. Saff V., can you explain why, in this diff, you claim to be removing content cited to an SPS, even though you are also removing additional information at the same time? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Doesn't this and this diff show that I did add these sources at the outset? I also removed the Xulon source once I saw it was self-published. Having said that, I'll be more careful with checking for self-published sources.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:, In this diff I just pikced up this material
"One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power "/Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she begins menstruation was a “divine blessing.” “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”
backed by SPS. - Stefka reverted my edit while this statment "One of Khomeini's first acts when he took power" does not support with any of provided sources!Saff V. (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- How about the use of goodreads as source into the article?!Saff V. (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saff V., that's not good enough. You removed two pieces of content in this diff. One of them had other sources supporting it, and the SPS wasn't even used for that content. Do that again, and you are looking at a page ban, at the very least. Both of you: I am absolutely sick of the whataboutism in this thread. Another editor's mistakes are no excuse for your own; and trying to use them as such is an indication that you shouldn't be editing such a contentious topic. I am very close to giving both of you a page ban just for that behavior, and I will be monitoring this discussion to see that it doesn't get off the rails again. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:I didn't deliberately remove this source material. I was checking this edit. But I didn't realize another source was added. I am sorry and I know I have to be more careful. In another hand, you say about stefka's edits that The other source isn't necessarily unreliable; but Amir Taheri's work is self-published.Saff V. (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:, In this diff I just pikced up this material
- @Vanamonde93: Doesn't this and this diff show that I did add these sources at the outset? I also removed the Xulon source once I saw it was self-published. Having said that, I'll be more careful with checking for self-published sources.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There is some material has nothing to do with the article:
- There is no relation between Homosexuality and
these courts executed over 100 drug addicts, prostitutes, homosexuals, rapists, and adulterers on the charge of "sowing corruption on earth"
while the section is includedSoon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality
ORAyatollah Khomeini affirmed in 1979 that the execution of homosexuals (as well as prostitutes and adulterers) was justified in a moral society as the amputation of the gangrenous flesh.
- Does anyone can explain to me what has nothing to do this sentence
In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations
with Khomeini? - As well as this sentence
According to Robert Spencer, "this practice continues to this day, despite the severe injuries girls often incur from early intercourse and childbirth."
, Are we allowed to bring all of the effects of laws that were made at Khomeini's time?Saff V. (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think
"Khomeini then created the "Revolutionary Tribunals". According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeini encouraged the clerical courts to continue implementing their version of the Shari’a. As part of the campaign to "cleanse" the society[156], these courts executed over 100 drug addicts, prostitutes, homosexuals, rapists, and adulterers on the charge of "sowing corruption on earth."[157]"
does not fit into that subsection and would better be moved to another suitable place. --Mhhossein talk 09:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)- Don't sources specifically say that this pertains to Khomeini's orders once he took power? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Saff V., this is what the source says: "Soon after coming to power in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March 1979 there were sixteen executions for crimes related to sexual violations"
. In other words, this is clearly related to Khomeini. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It is just law not order of Khomeini
As to law of the marriage age, I am going to say, there is a lot of decisions which were made in Khomeini's time, but Khomeini's article in Wikipedia is not true place to mention them. Is it? In other words, it is an article (1, 2, 3 ) proved when Khomeini was the leader and he did not play a serious role to make them. It is an article of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which was adopted by referendum on 2 and 3 December 1979.Saff V. (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- His actions, which should be mentioned in his article. End off. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please do not end sentences with the infantile "end of" (sic) or for that matter "period" here. A discussion is not over because you stamp your foot and say it is. Britmax (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read what's been going on this article and others. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please do not end sentences with the infantile "end of" (sic) or for that matter "period" here. A discussion is not over because you stamp your foot and say it is. Britmax (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Tahrir al-Wasilah
@Winged Blades of Godric: you called this section as a TRASH.Do you agree with moving the following material of the section to Tahrir al-Wasilah? How about removing?
In his book, Tahrirolvasyleh, Khomeini wrote about his views on sex, "specifically sex with a nine-year-old child and how much to pay or not to pay for damaging the child’s vagina, or whether to marry or not to marry her as a ‘Siqueh’ (a temporary wedding)." Khomeini said in an official statement that “A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by Sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. The girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives…. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.” In a different statement, Khomeini said that “it is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of waning."
Saff V. (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
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 {{:|According to The Guardian, the US had extensive contact with Khomeini prior to the Iran revolution}} 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)
- 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)- @Vanamonde93: 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)
- @Vanamonde93: Saff V. has removed from the article
- Saff V., 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)
- @Vanamonde93: 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)
- @Vanamonde93: Let me know you deeply. The removed sentence is,
- 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)
My two cents
@Vanamonde93: 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. --Mhhossein 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? --Mhhossein 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. --Mhhossein talk 07:48, 5 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: Was my 7 lines long comment only on trigger? --Mhhossein talk 20:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Opting out
My intentions in this article have always been to add content that it didn't have. In the process of doing this, I have been (I feel, unjustly) associated with something I didn't want to be associated with. For that reason I won't be editing this article further. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Disputed edit by Stefka
The content which was added during in this edit doesn't support by the source. It is disputed. Please see this discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_79#Ruhollah_Khomeini. @Vanamonde93: Can I removed it?Saff V. (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I know I just said above this section that I'm opting out, but just to show that I didn't make this up, the following quote is on page 90 of the source:
"As Ayatollah Khomeini famously affirmed in 1979, the execution of prostitutes, adulterers, and homosexuals was as justified in a moral society as the amputation of gangrious flesh."
page 90. Unless another of my previous edits needs my feedback, I won't be participating further in this TP. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Copy right violation
@Diannaa: I have founded some copy right issue in the article such as:
- this material
Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations.
which was inserted during this edit is copied from this source. - Another one, this
Khomeini defined transsexuality as a disease that can be healed by means of an operation
is copied from this source in this edits (1, 2). - And close paraphrasing at this edit from this source.
I wonder if you check the article because it can be included some other copyright violations that I didn't see them. Thanks.Saff V. (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hiya @Diannaa:, if you let me, I'll gladly rewrite those copyright issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 4 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).
@Stefka Bulgaria, Saff V., Mhhossein, and HistoryofIran: 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)
@Vanamonde93:, 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)
- @Stefka Bulgaria:
"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)- @Vanamonde93: 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)
@Vanamonde93: 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)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: 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. --Mhhossein talk 09:57, 7 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)
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". --Mhhossein talk 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)- Mhhossein, 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? --Mhhossein talk 12:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, great that you agree that this is a