Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MA Javadi (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
2,803 edits
Line 278: Line 278:


== RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article ==
== RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article ==
{{closed rfc top
| status =
| result = There is a rough '''consensus for the proposed change'''. Supporters argue that the verbosity of the section places undue weight on the description as a cult ([[WP:UNDUE]]). Opposers argue that (a) the RfC is ambiguous and/or covers too much ground, (b) too much reliably-sourced material is proposed to be removed, leaving the remaining content potentially overly abbreviated. The supporters respond that the material proposed to be removed/condensed is, by and large, redundant. This RfC does not establish that the two sentences are themselves the endgame result, or that due weight requires one sentence per side{{snd}}I find only that there is consensus to reduce the verbosity and repetition in the description of the cult claims, and that the proposed replacement is ''an'' option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.) '''[[User:L235|Kevin]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
}}






Line 326: Line 332:
*'''Yes''', reading "Cult" repeated times in the article is not useful to the reader at all. A concise summary is all that is needed about this (unless, like Alex said, we want to turn the article into a list of people calling the MEK a cult, which we don't). Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV. [[User:Ypatch|Ypatch]] ([[User talk:Ypatch|talk]]) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', reading "Cult" repeated times in the article is not useful to the reader at all. A concise summary is all that is needed about this (unless, like Alex said, we want to turn the article into a list of people calling the MEK a cult, which we don't). Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV. [[User:Ypatch|Ypatch]] ([[User talk:Ypatch|talk]]) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
* '''NO''' This proposed change does not really seem to be per [[WP:DUE]]. It is actually acting against it. I see a handful of [[WP:reliability|reliable sources]] are to be omitted. Perhaps there should be a rewording, but not at this level certainly.--<samp>[[User:Sa.vakilian|Seyyed]]([[User talk:Sa.vakilian|t]]-[[Special:Contributions/Sa.vakilian|c]])</samp> 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
* '''NO''' This proposed change does not really seem to be per [[WP:DUE]]. It is actually acting against it. I see a handful of [[WP:reliability|reliable sources]] are to be omitted. Perhaps there should be a rewording, but not at this level certainly.--<samp>[[User:Sa.vakilian|Seyyed]]([[User talk:Sa.vakilian|t]]-[[Special:Contributions/Sa.vakilian|c]])</samp> 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


== Problematic sentence in the lede ==
== Problematic sentence in the lede ==

Revision as of 21:11, 28 August 2020

Template:IRANPOL GS talk

Unexplained mass reverts by Kazemita1

@Kazemita1: Please explain, in detail, all of the reverts you did in your last edit. [1] Barca (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BarcrMac: all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy. And yes, Kazemita is also obliged to explain himself here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is like a pattern in this article; they make mass changes with an edit summary which is not covering the whole story. --Mhhossein talk 06:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde: Which edits in particular would you like me to explain? Nika2020 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nika2020: If you made any edits that were reverted, that you still want to reinstate, you need to explain them here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for them. You were reverted at least once that I can see, so unless you agree with Kazemita's mass revert, you have a fair bit of explaining to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I mostly want to understand why Kazemita1 reverted content that is repeated in the article. I had created a talk page discussion about this [2], saying that there were some repetitions in that section:

  • "In the following years the MEK conducted several high-profile assassinations of political and military figures inside Iran, including deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, who was assassinated on the doorsteps of his house on 10 April 1999."
  • "The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998). MEK also assassinated Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."
  • "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
  • "Bomb debris after assassination of President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar in 1981."
  • "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."

Kazemita added back those repetitions, even though I had not received any objections in that talk page discussion. Nika2020 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things you are missing here; first "Shirazi" and "Bahonar" are two different people. Second "Bomb debris ..." is caption of a photo. Also, some of the removals are unnecessary. Third, some of these belong to different sections of the article and mentioned for different reasons. Fourth, admission of guilt should not be removed. In other words when MEK admits to an assassination, it is counted as a valuable historical fact. That is different from reports by third party sources.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kazemita1 Bahonar's death is repeated 6 times in the article. Rajai's death is repeated 5 times. What is your reason for putting these repetitions back in the article? Nika2020 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening, are you? Image captions do not count as text. Also, when a content is repeated in a different section it is for a different reason and thus can be kept. Please, focus on the ones that are in the same section.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 Contrary to your suggestion, I am indeed listening. Taking Bahonar as one of the examples, his assassination is currently mentioned 4 times in the "Assassinations" section alone:

  • "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."
  • "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
  • "The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."
  • "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

I had removed those repetitions while adding other information about the assassination. But you reverted this:

  • "On August 30 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar.""[1][2][3][4]

You still have not explained why you did this revert. Please explain. Nika2020 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Moin 2001, pp. 242–3.
  2. ^ James Dorsey (15 September 1981), "Iran's rebels getting bolder day by day", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 1 June 2018
  3. ^ "Iran: Secret agent was bomber". Associated Press. The Spokesman-Review. 14 September 1981. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
  4. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0.
The only part that I think needs to be rewritten is the last two lines of that subsection as follows:

The rest are necessary information. For example, you may bomb the residence of the president but they may not be among the victims themselves. Also, the first few lines do not explicitly mention MEK's admission to the guilt. That part comes in the end. Kazemita1 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: in this discussion, I have tried to get Kazemita to answer why in his revert [3], they added repetitions back in the article:
  • "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."
  • "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
  • "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."
This is not a content dispute. Kazemita's revert [4] distinctly repeats Bahonar and Rajaei's assassination, and Kazemita will not provide a direct explanation of why he added these repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kazemita1, you are stonewalling here. Redundancy in any article is a problem regardless of POV. At the very least you need to explain why the duplicated material needs to exist in each section, and why it should not be combined. That goes both ways, of course; there's redundancy with respect to material that reflects negatively on the government also. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After further consideration, I found the following two sentences in the "Assassaination" section redundant:
  • "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
  • "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

Please, be sure to keep the sources intact after removing the above mentioned sentences.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Kazemita1: Your suggestion is confusing to me. In an attempt to make things easier, I propose that we put all of the assassination mentions of Rajei and Bahonar into one paragraph:[reply]

  • "On August 30 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar.""[7][8][9][10] The MEK later claimed responsibility for the attack.[5][11]

Do you agree? If not, please make your suggestion of how the text should read Nika2020 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I was talking about:

On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. An active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, was identified as the perpetrator, and according to reports came close to killing the entire government including Khomeini.[7] Kashmiri was a member of the MEK who infiltrated the Islamic Republican Party (IRP) and come up through the ranks, reaching the position of secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. He planted an incendiary bomb in his briefcase that blew up the Prime Minister's office in 1981.[12][13]

At first, it was thought that Keshmiri himself died in the explosion,[14] however it was later revealed that he slipped through the dragnet.[15] The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups, but "assassinations of leading officials and active supporters of the regime by the Mujahedin were to continue for the next year or two."[16]

The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi,[1] Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).[1][2][17][4][5][18]

Kazemita1 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1: Most of what you suggest is ok with me, but why you are not including "Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."[7][19][20][21]? This is depicted by the sources. You also have not explained yet why you added back those repetitions in the article instead of just adding what you are now suggesting. Nika2020 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Axworthy, Michael (2016). Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190468965. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Saeed Kamali was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Khatami, Siamak (2004). Iran, a View from Within: Political Analyses. Janus Publishing Company Ltd. pp. 74–75.
  4. ^ a b "33 High Iranian Officials Die in Bombing at Party Meeting; Chief Judge is among Victims". Reuters. 29 June 1981. Retrieved 1 June 2018 – via The New York Times.
  5. ^ a b c Navai, Ramita (19 June 2014). City of Lies: Love, Sex, Death, and the Search for Truth in Tehran. Tantor Audio. ISBN 978-1494556136.
  6. ^ Mousavian, Seyed Hossein; Shahidsaless, Shahir (19 June 2014). Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1501312069.
  7. ^ a b c Moin 2001, pp. 242–3.
  8. ^ James Dorsey (15 September 1981), "Iran's rebels getting bolder day by day", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 1 June 2018
  9. ^ "Iran: Secret agent was bomber". Associated Press. The Spokesman-Review. 14 September 1981. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
  10. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0.
  11. ^ Mousavian, Seyed Hossein; Shahidsaless, Shahir (19 June 2014). Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1501312069.
  12. ^ "Iran: Secret agent was bomber". Associated Press. The Spokesman-Review. 14 September 1981. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
  13. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0.
  14. ^ James Dorsey (15 September 1981), "Iran's rebels getting bolder day by day", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 1 June 2018
  15. ^ Michael Newton (2014). "Bahonar, Mohammad-Javad (1933–1981)". Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-61069-286-1. Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished. Various mujahedin were arrested and executedin reprisal, but Kashmiri apparently slipped through the dragnet.
  16. ^ Moin 2001, p. 243.
  17. ^ Khatami, Siamak (2004). Iran, a View from Within: Political Analyses. Janus Publishing Company Ltd. pp. 74–75.
  18. ^ Mousavian, Seyed Hossein; Shahidsaless, Shahir (19 June 2014). Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1501312069.
  19. ^ James Dorsey (15 September 1981), "Iran's rebels getting bolder day by day", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 1 June 2018
  20. ^ "Iran: Secret agent was bomber". Associated Press. The Spokesman-Review. 14 September 1981. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
  21. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0.
Please, kindly write your full proposal similar to what I did above. It appears we are converging. Thank you.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will write my proposal, but first please give an explanation why you added back those repetitions in the article instead of just adding what you are now suggesting. Thank you. Nika2020 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazemita1: you have not answered. Can you please give an explanation why you added back those repetitions in the article? Nika2020 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have you answered Vanamonde's question. So, may I suggest we get back to the civil discussion we had a few lines above?Kazemita1 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazemita1: Vanamonde told me that if I had "I had made any edits that were reverted, that I still want to reinstate, I need to explain them here and obtain consensus".[5] I have explained the edits I want to reinstate, but you have not explained why you added those repetitions back in the article. Since it was you who reverted (not me), you need to explain it. Please explain why you added those repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to quote Vanamonde here:

"all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy."

Let me know when you are ready to get back to constructive discussion. As a quick reminder, I came up with a proposal that removed two redundant sentences. You had responded that you agree with most of my proposal. I guess given the 7 day silence period I can safely assume consensus is reached.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: In this talk page discussion Kazemita1 still has not explained why he added repetitions back in the article [6]. I have explained why I removed those repetitions [7], and Kazemita1 has explained what he thinks should be in the article instead of those repetitions, but he never explained why he added those repetitions back in the article. Can editors just revert things like that without giving any sort of explanation? Nika2020 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been so much pointless argument and stonewalling here that I no longer have any idea what the disagreement is about. If you agree with Kazemita's proposal, or portions of it, please implement that proposal, and then list what further changes you want to make, here. Kazemita and everyone else can then comment on the proposals specifically, instead of about a diff which includes some stuff that's been agree on and other stuff that hasn't. As I have suggested before (this applies to anyone looking to make any change) the more narrow and specific the proposal is, the clearer the resulting consensus will be. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kazemita1: this is my suggestion for the "Assassinations" section:

On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."[1][2][3][4] The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups.[5] The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi,[6] Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).[6][7][8][9][10][11]

Let me know if it's ok with you, Nika2020 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed admission of guilt from the original text. Background on Kashmiri is also removed from the text. You also removed Mujahedeen's further attempts in the future. In doing so, some important sources were also removed. I thought we were going to remove repetitive content.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazemita1: I did remove repetitive content. If you are not ok with this, then please use my version as a starting point to add things you think are missing. Nika2020 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Kazemita stopped answering. What should I do here? Kazemita had reverted and added many repetitions back in the article (which are still in the article), and never explained why. Can I revert this? What are my options if he stopped answering? Nika2020 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nika2020: Kazemita has been blocked. Unless and until he is unblocked, he cannot reply. You may reinstate any edits to which Kazemita was the only one objecting. Any other edits, and any edits you make now, that someone else has objected or objects to now will need to be discussed with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vanamonde. I have reverted Kazemita's edit based on your response. In case someone else wants to discuss further any of this I trust they will let me know. Nika2020 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored some of the undiscussed removals of longstanding materials including assassination of Sadduqi by Ebrahimizadeh and failed assassination of Khamenei. I have also partially restored removals. They are not really redundant. --Mhhossein talk 13:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: After Kazemita was blocked, I received your permission to reinstate any edits to which Kazemita was the only one objecting, but Mhhossein now restored some of those edits again without first discussing or receiving consensus. Isn't that breaking the article's restrictions Shouldn't Mhhossein have tried to discuss or reach a compromise before restoring his version? I had been discussing these edits with Kazemita since May 2019! It takes all the value away from having these discussions if after all this time and getting permission to reinstate these edits, Mhhossein can just revert without making an effort to first discuss or reach a compromise. Nika2020 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nika2020: I have reviewed your discussion with Kazemita. Can you say how my edit is against that discussion? Your desired portions are in effect, as far as I see. However let me know the partts you think is against the consensus. Also, can you say where you have explained the removal of the portions including assassination of Sadduqi by Ebrahimizadeh and failed assassination of Khamenei? --Mhhossein talk 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nika2020: I explicitly told you above that if any other editors objected to your changes, you would have to discuss it with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: The compromise I was working on with Kazemita did not include many of the text that you reinstated back in the article. You just reinstated this without asking anyone. As far as I understand the restrictions in this article (in which text that has already been reverted cannot be added back again without first having a discussion or reaching consensus), that is a violation, this is why I'm asking Vanamonde. Nika2020 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those changes were not discussed by you though they were well referenced and DUE. That's why I re inserted them back into the article. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Can you say how these things you inserted back are "DUE"?:

  • "See also|Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists"
  • "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Nika2020 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mhhossein: your response is requested here. Nika2020 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • MEK is considered by numerous reliable sources as being a major accused party in the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. That makes it a suitable candidate for being used as hatnote above the 'Iran nuclear program' section. As for the Baer's comment, it's DUE and needed since it's in line with the NBC report on the MEK-Israel relationships. Baer is both an author and a politician making his voice valuable for this section. --Mhhossein talk 13:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mhhossein: The article says that "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists." So that is only one source. Then there are other sources saying "A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists." So there is only one source saying this, and then that is disputed by other sources, so where did you get "considered by numerous reliable sources as being a major accused party in the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists"? Also the quote from Baer is only a guess of who the perpetrators could be, which is not evidence-based, only on Baer's POV. How are any of these two things DUE? Nika2020 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you talking about that "well-sourced and convincing investigation last year by NBC News"[8]? The view is both echoed [9]P.131 and supported by other reliable sources like "Some observers also accuse them of helping assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists"P.209. --Mhhossein talk 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mhhossein: Yes, I'm talking about that single investigation by NBC, that's the only investigation about this, so why are you saying "numerous reliable sources"? It's just one NBC report. And the quote from Baer is only a guess of who the perpetrators could be. How are such things DUE?? Nika2020 (talk)
  • Please read my response once again. It's not simply a "single investigation by NBC". The view held in the ""well-sourced and convincing investigation" by NBC news is held by other sources like P.209. The report is echoed by some more reliable sources, as I showed. There's a large difference between a single POV and a POV reflected in multiple sources. --Mhhossein talk 06:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mhhossein: It is a single investigation, it is one investigation by NBC news that has been also published in other sources, but one investigation notwithstanding. Nika2020 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to repeat. 1- It's a "well-sourced and convincing investigation"[10] and 2- the view is independently held by other reliable sources: "Some observers also accuse them of helping assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists"P.209. --Mhhossein talk 04:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members

(non-admin closure) Rough consensus for summarizing the six allegations as proposed. Most of the arguments centered around WP:DUEWEIGHT. I found that Mhhossein's detailed argument was adroitly rebutted by Barca's. Several commenters exporessed that they believe that the various POVs could be represented by the proposed summary. Claims of censorship were unsubstantiated. - MrX 🖋 19:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

  • "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."
  • "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."
  • "In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) As well as this:[reply]

  • "Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused"."
  • "MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."
  • "In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies"

Into this?:

Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses,[12][13] while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.[14][15] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ Moin 2001, pp. 242–3.
  2. ^ James Dorsey (15 September 1981), "Iran's rebels getting bolder day by day", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved 1 June 2018
  3. ^ "Iran: Secret agent was bomber". Associated Press. The Spokesman-Review. 14 September 1981. Retrieved 15 June 2017.
  4. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2013). Iran Under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-04381-0.
  5. ^ Moin 2001, p. 243.
  6. ^ a b Axworthy, Michael (2016). Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190468965. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saeed Kamali was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Khatami, Siamak (2004). Iran, a View from Within: Political Analyses. Janus Publishing Company Ltd. pp. 74–75.
  9. ^ "33 High Iranian Officials Die in Bombing at Party Meeting; Chief Judge is among Victims". Reuters. 29 June 1981. Retrieved 1 June 2018 – via The New York Times.
  10. ^ Navai, Ramita (19 June 2014). City of Lies: Love, Sex, Death, and the Search for Truth in Tehran. Tantor Audio. ISBN 978-1494556136.
  11. ^ Mousavian, Seyed Hossein; Shahidsaless, Shahir (19 June 2014). Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1501312069.
  12. ^ Pressly and Kasapi, Linda and Albana (11 November 2019). "The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex". BBC.
  13. ^ Merat, Arron (9 November 2018). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". News agency. theguardian.com. theguardian. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  14. ^ Manshour Varasteh (2013), Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, Troubador Publishing, p. 100, ISBN 978-1780885575
  15. ^ "Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security: A Profile", A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the Combating Terroism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program, December 2012, p. 26
1) As I already showed, probably you can't just remove the major points reported by multiple reliable sources since they are truly DUE.
2) You can add DUE material per NPOV.
3) Just like the mysterious IP!!! you are probably "misreading" the SpinningSpark's closure. The outcome of the previous "has little bearing on other quotes in the article or any future quotes". --Mhhossein talk 19:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, for the same reasons as in the last RfC about this. These allegations are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK, and we don't include random accusations from the public in encyclopedia articles. A short mention of what each side said is more than plenty, although I would also be ok with removing that too. Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't remove. MEK is a closed group. By not including the information from former members we would have no way to know this group. It is no incident that so many articles about MEK in main-stream media include quotes from former members. I think we can trust Guardian, Intercept, BBC and Washington Post on this matter.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per factual integrity, which is completely missing in these contentious allegations. Nika2020 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Iranians said, ""Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles.". --Mhhossein talk 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man response. No matter how you frame it, these allegations were made by MEK defectors; hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong No: WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The mentioned quotes are now having due weight since they are major points being covered by the high quality reliable sources.
A.

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."

It's a fact that former members have alleged the group has cult-like characteristics and should not be removed. There are plenty of reliable sources for this (P.106, The Intercept and Business insider). Needless to say that the cult-like behavior of the group is extensively reported by the third parties, too. So, the quote is now receiving DUE weight. Same argument can be used for the quote by Banisadr - author and researcher -, i.e. "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct." This is another way of describing the group's cult like behavior.
B.

"In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades."

The ban on romantic relationships inside the group is another statement covered by the reliable sources multiple reliable and credible sources (The NYTimes, The Guardian). It is also supported by third party sources P.89, so the fact that former members talk about ban on romantic relationships is a DUE major view point. Same goes to the sexual fantasies confessions. According to the BBC, "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies".
C.

"Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused".

If it was solely Batoul Soltani, Zahra Moini and Fereshteh Hedayati speaking of the sexual abuse inside the group, I would support removal of the content. But "former MEK members who have escaped the group also report sexual abuse and forced marriages during their captivity" and "over 400 female members of the group had sexual relations with him".
D.

"MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."

Hmm...nothing new. But again the confession of sexual thoughts/fantasies is stated here.
E.

"In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[290][290] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign."

So far, BBC, The Intercept, The Guardain and the New Yourk Times have stated the testimonies of the former members regrading the sessions of sexual thoughts confession. So, this is truly DUE to mention in the article the former members had been forced to confess sexual to commanders. "Brainwashing" of the members is also reported in The Guardian, Vice and The Intercept so this is not a minor view! --Mhhossein talk 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Mhhossein's argument is essentially inaccurate. Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [11], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then these other quotes should follow the same rule. Also this RfC does not propose to remove the quotes, but to summarise them, and that is a fair compromise considering the controversies surrounding them. Barca (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. --Mhhossein talk 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with flat earth theories, this is about a political party and a whole lot of propaganda being used to discredit it, which has included using MEK defectors. The argument here is not to remove all those statements, but to summarise them so that this article doesn't become an attack platform that includes every allegation made by every defector. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument by BarcrMac is that we should not use these statements because they are not "verified". Who should verify these items? We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members. How about taking the MEK's propaganda campaign into account? --Mhhossein talk 13:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly for the sake of not bludgeoning this RfC further, I'm not going to go into the details of how fact-checking works in academia. Also, you can open a RfC about the MEK's propaganda campaign; this RfC concerns summarising a whole lot of unconfirmed allegations so that they are mentioned but do not take up most of that section (which is a fair way to solve the section's current WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT problems). That's the last I'll say here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not summarizing but censoring. Anyway, "We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members." (sources like [12] and [13]). --Mhhossein talk 06:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Side conversation regarding Legobot
  • @Stefka Bulgaria: what is your brief and neutral statement? At around 3,750 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: This RfC is meant to be a follow-up to this recent RfC, where it is proposed that several allegations in the article need to be removed or summarised. Would it be easier that I create several shorter RfCs instead? (the RfCs here tend to be difficult to close, so trying to make things as practical as possible for everyone). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is a follow-on or not is immaterial; nor is the number of topics to be covered. The problem is the total quantity of characters following the {{rfc|hist|pol|reli|soc|rfcid=BE7ED5B}} until and including the next timestamp (05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)). Legobot simply isn't finding that timestamp before giving up and assuming that there is no RfC statement at all. You need to reduce that length, either by cutting it down considerably or by inserting a similar timestamp part-way through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to insert two more timestamps part-way through. Hopefully it'll work this time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's had this effect, which is a great improvement. But you only needed to add one timestamp (Legobot doesn't care about anything after that point), and it should have been approriate to the time that the RfC was started. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the short version solves the problem on both sides. The allegations are kept, but UNDUE details are removed. Idealigic (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Agree with Barca and Idealigic here. POV from MEK members can be shortened so that they are represented in the article without having to occupy a large parts of that section (which would give WP:UNDUE weight). - MA Javadi (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think there is a problem with this RFC. Contrary to the title of "RFC", some of the sentences are not from the speech of the former members of the group, at all. Items No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 consist of the sentences which are not considered as a quotation. It can help the enrichment of the article to express about what the former members are generally thinking concerning the group. Items such as: sectarianism, the prohibition of romantic relationships, and marriage and rape have been mentioned in valid references by many individuals. These items ought to be included according to the criterion of Weight (of these viewpoints which have also been repeated in the references). Not only the suggested sentence doesn't include any of the mentioned items, but also tries to replace the view of MEK. My recommendation is that: each item (e.g. prohibition of romantic relationships) should be discussed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Ahwazi: without exception, these are all allegations from former MEK members. If you're interested in including allegations from MEK members, here is a good book filled with MEK interviews, which we previously opted not to include (not even through summary) per WP:NPOV (which at the time everyone agreed was a good idea). There seems to be a bias here where some editors want allegations included from one side, but not from the other. This RfC proposes a more neutral approach, where we present a summary from both sides. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I'm looking in the sources in this discussion. "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members", "ban on romantic relationships and marriages", "sexual harassments" and reported by former members of MEK. Meanwhile, There are diverse reliable sources which are echoing the mentioned items. My speech is that: we should not condense all of them into "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses." The POV of all the sides ought to be applied with their due weight. For example, BBC is telling: "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies" and you are able to find confession of sexual fantasies in other sources, as well. We ought not only remove them without discussing them point by point. Your recommendation is even making the situation worse than what it was in before. You're changing the former members' POV with the POV of the group itself. So, instead of that, you ought to make a balance between them. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal does provide a balance of POVs from both sides: "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime." (what we currently have in the article is a disproportionate amount of text representing only one side, which is what's creating WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and NPOV problems). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of balance is it? You have condensed multiple notable subjects down to a small sentence. i.e. "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses" and instead highlighted the MEK's POV by offering a long sentence saying there's nothing but the Iranian allegation. This is some sort of POV pushing and should be stopped immediately. --Mhhossein talk 06:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I agree with) the same two points, as I mentioned; I mean: Firstly, the items of DUE, it means: "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members", "ban on romantic relationships and marriages", "sexual harassments" ought not to be deleted; It is better if the mentioned items to be surveyed one-by-one. Secondly, the suggested sentence is not proportionate to the valid sources -- at all. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A report named "People's Mojahedin of Iran" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said that "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign, which is also carried out through former opponents of the regime. As in previous years, the Iranian intelligence service is trying to recruit active or former members of opposition groups. This in many cases is done by threats to use force against them or their families living in Iran."

[1]

Also worth noting this edit that was recently added to the article about two courts in Germany ruling that newspapers there had published "false allegations of 'torture'" against the MEK. Also the article section Disinformation through recruited MEK members, all adds up to a verified disinformation campaign against the MEK through MEK defectors. This is why trimming all these redundant and unconfirmed allegations currently taking large portions of the article is a good idea. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Trimming all these redundant and unconfirmed allegations currently taking large portions of the article" is not a good idea since we are not going to act based on your original research. You say MEK is the target of a misinformation campaign so all BAD things regarding MEK should be removed. This is not a an acceptable argument. Why not considering the role of MEK's propaganda campaign in promoting falsified materials? --Mhhossein talk 14:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Andre Brie. People's Mojahedin of Iran : mission report. L'Harmattan. pp. 16–17.
  • Yes For not making Wikipedia a platform for malicious or scandalous allegations about an opponent with the aim of damaging their reputation. We know that the Iranian regime recruits people that have left the MEK to spread fake information about the MEK (it's in the article). A mention that former members have protested human right abuses is what we need in the article, the rest is a mess of malicious POV quotes. Ypatch (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm open to a re-word, but Stefka Bulgaria's version completely strips all details from here.VR talk 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about Merging "Human rights record" and "Designation as a cult" sections into a single section

After thoroughly reading arguments here I have come to the conclusion that there are poor arguments favoring the merger; "makes better sense", "look very similar" and "the content is related". WP:DUE and WP:NPOV are the most important policies the users referred to. I am inclined to see sources are compelling enough. Hopefully, users may want to resolve the overlaps by re-wording the texts, but there is no consensus for this proposal. Kraose (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” sections be merged into a single section titled "Human rights record and allegations"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - per:
1) Both sections are about the same topic. The "cult-like" allegations mainly derive from human rights allegations (such as barring children or demanding celibacy).
2) Currently both these sections are a mess as they have repeated and overlapping information. Merging them would help to copy-edit it properly.
3) Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read (who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes" and "on what basis").
4) Per NPOV: there isn't a single source that supports the current "Designation as a cult" POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) The sections are of different topics. I have completely explained here.
2) Despite being asked, you have repeatedly failed to determine which portions have overlapping information.
3) This should be resolved via copy editing, not whole removal.
4) What does NPOV has to do with this section name? Also, you were suggested different titles. --Mhhossein talk 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Those two sections currently are an untidy mix of random quotes. The said cult characterizations are coming from the supposed (mis)treatment of its members. That falls right into "Human rights record" territory, so a merge of these two sections would be fitting. Nika2020 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Merge makes sense since the content is connected. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I come to this cold, and may be wrong, but the two sections seem to be about somewhat different topics: being a cult has to do with the way one's own members are treated and human rights violations should deal with how others outside the organization are treated. The suggestion about cleaning up both sections, and perhaps finding that nothing substantial is in the cult section, are other issues. But joining the two sections would seem to me to confuse matters. Jzsj (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jzsj: just to clarify, except for the part that says "Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.", the Human rights record section is about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses. Similarly, the Designation as a cult section talks about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses (the section also includes several other sources basically calling the MEK a "cult" without further explanation as to why). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section is far way different than what you are describing. It starts by a paragraph saying WHY the group is titled as a cult and WHO has given the group this title. It's continued by WHICH reports and sources have made the same argument. Moreover, the section sheds light on WHAT Cultish activities the group is committing. Also, a thorough "explanation as to why" the group is called a cult is provided by RNAD, The Intercept and [The Guardian. We can add more info you're interested. --Mhhossein talk 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the content is related. JohnThorne (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - because the content is related. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - to me the topics look to be similar enough topics that they could be merged into one. Comatmebro (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC is too general and vague: This RFC was started before and the OP was told at the time by the an admin that such an RFC with a "very wide scope" will go no where. Furthermore, I substantiated my objection towards such a merger in details and I don't think the comment should be repeated here. This RFC is too general! Regardless of whether or not the sections should be merged -which my next comment proves should not- the RFC does not say in what terms these two the sections should be merged. The goal of the OP seems to be opening random RFCs (you don't have to pay for it).--Mhhossein talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to merger: The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic. The following sources take the topic of MEK's cultish nature as a distinct subject. I have listed some of the sources:
This is not all. There are plenty of sources using the term "cult" when describing the group. I have provided a list of the sources using such a descriptive term. So, it is clear that the cultish aspect of the MEK had been of the interest to the authors and sources and it shows a section should be dedicated to the subject aimed at shedding light on in what the terms the group is portrayed as a cult. Finally, the argument that some of the materials in the two sections are duplicated is irrelevant to this discussion, since the OP first needs to determine case by case which portions are redundant. --Mhhossein talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the above argument shows that the cultish characteristics of should be given WP:DUE weight by dedicating "a separate section" to it. --Mhhossein talk 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a single reliable source here supporting the claim that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult" and Mhhossein knows this; yet he keeps using this argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria there are reliable sources that say the MEK is "described by the US government as a cult". Is it that you have issue with the word "designation"?VR talk 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic" is a false argument since there aren't any sources saying the MEK was ever designated a cult. We do have sources that say certain people have described the MEK as a cult/cultish/cult-like, and we do have other sources dismissing those claims (such as the same source you linked), but that has nothing to do with any sort of "designation". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: This proposal received consensus back in April, and that consensus was confirmed by an admin. All one has to do is read both sections to see they are related. Both sections describe members making claims of human right abuses, and both describe "cult" claims. The "cult" claims derive from the human right abuses claims, so yes, both sections are related. A merge also makes sense since the current title "Designation as a Cult" is propagandistic POV that isn't supported by sources. Barca (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Would make better sense. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - topics look very similar, they are ok to be merged. Idealigic (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Cult-like behavior has nothing to do with human rights violations. You could have a cult that may or may not violate human rights violations. If MEK happens to commit both, then let it be reflected in the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection by another user: Since this vague RFC had been tried before, I think we should consider the objection by the now inactive user. --Mhhossein talk 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: You already voted on this RfC. You can't introduce votes by Topic-banned users. I have not responded to your comments here so these RfCs wouldn't be drowned with bludgeoning, but please stop all the bludgeoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly NOT bludgeoning. My comments shows the history of the discussion and it reveals how repeatedly you have started this rfc. --Mhhossein talk 12:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein:, SharabSalaam has been topic-banned. This does not change the outcome of any previous discussions in which he participated, but it does mean his opinion carries no weight here. Bringing it up is not very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vanamonde. --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing admin/editor: please note that many RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (often due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight votes carefully and read through these two sections to verify if indeed they are related, but that is the only way to close this RfC adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No; the discussion of "Designation as a cult" (the group of MEK) has been distinguished a lot by reliable sources. This is better to put the subject in a separated section. Among the sources which have been presented at this discussion, (I think) "the source of New York Times (Written by Rubin)" and "the source of Rand" are significant and determinative. These two subjects ought not to be merged together. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No ; the cult stuff really is different from "Human rights record". For example, indoctrination and demanding celibacy are not your typical human right violations but they point to cult-likeness. Those are two different categories, with little overlap.VR talk 04:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES ; both sections are pretty much about the same thing. Indoctrination and demanding celibacy are forms of human right abuses, all in both sections is about human right abuses or different people saying that the MEK committed human right abuses against its members. Also the title "designation as cult" is not supported by any of the sources. It is suggested in this talk page that this article is too long, and here is a good opportunity to start reducing redundancy . Ypatch (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO Concur with users saying the two sections are different in nature - they're really intended to have different functions. Keep them both. I see there are enough content covering the designation as a cult section. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus for the proposed change. Supporters argue that the verbosity of the section places undue weight on the description as a cult (WP:UNDUE). Opposers argue that (a) the RfC is ambiguous and/or covers too much ground, (b) too much reliably-sourced material is proposed to be removed, leaving the remaining content potentially overly abbreviated. The supporters respond that the material proposed to be removed/condensed is, by and large, redundant. This RfC does not establish that the two sentences are themselves the endgame result, or that due weight requires one sentence per side – I find only that there is consensus to reduce the verbosity and repetition in the description of the cult claims, and that the proposed replacement is an option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Shall we summarize the following:

According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a "cult nature"; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was "ashamed" by this statement.

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.

In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".

An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".

Into this?:

Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[1][2] “cult-like",[3][4] or having a “cult of personality”.[5][6] Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence.[7][8]

  • Yes - per:
1) WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK: The article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK of redundant "cult" claims that don't add anything.
2) I had previously received consensus to for this, but it was reverted by a now-TBanned editor who failed to address any of the points raised.
3) This proposal is about not repeating "cult" claims constantly, turning the article into "According to XYZ, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to ABC, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to EFG, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; etc..." There is really no need for that, hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK apply to the articles not sections. You have persistently failed to say specifically which portions are redundant. There had never been consensus built for your mass removal (you could not provide a response to my objection). --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: 1) the presented text is considered redundant because it all talks about the same thing (the MEK being a "cult", "cult-like", etc.); hence this RfC proposing to summarise it. 2) Here is the consensus I received for this a few weeks ago, which was reverted by a now T-banned user. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: So that's why you're puzzled; you think it's redundant since "it all talks about the same thing" (we know it's a clearly false description for redundancy or lack thereof since then the whole page is redundant as it all talks about MEK!). As for the imaginary consensus, see my next comments [14]&[15] which you failed to response. --Mhhossein talk 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the current version is very much WP:UNDUE. The material should be condensed to a single sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I also think that the current version is very much WP:UNDUE and should be trimmed which will make for a much better narrative. Nika2020 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the current version is filled with unnecessary redundancy. I agree it needs editing, and the condensed sentence is a good synopsis. Idealigic (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult in the article. A sentence is enough for this. Alex-h (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to mass removal, yes to case by case investigation: Just like the previous RFCs by the OP (RFC-1, RFC-2), and despite being told, this RFC is too wide in scope and vague. It is claimed that ALL the portions of the text in question are redundant and UNDUE and should be removed. This is while the text is featured with third party and governmental reports, official statements and the statements by the authors and the scholars which are all making a major point- a point which is possessed by plenty of plenty sources (here's a list containing some of the sources). Sources like RAND have provided a specialized review of the cult characteristics of the group and sources like The New York Times, The Guardian and The Intercept have provided the meaning of MEK being a cult from a members' prospective. When being described, the sources start by saying MEK is "cult/cult-like" group, or MEK has cult-like characteristics (here's a list of them), which means the cult characteristics of the group is an untranslatable part if the MEK's history. The RFC is very silly; For instance, just imagine the OP is suggesting to remove the infamous Elizabeth Rubin's work (see how the source has been referred to across the world). I don't think this ambiguous RFC should go anywhere. --Mhhossein talk 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Alex-h pretty much said what I had in mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The content has been discussed vastly in the talk page and the conclusion was to keep it as is.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Also agree with Alex-h here. The article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - one sentence is enough for this. - MA Javadi (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the current version is WP:UNDUE. Condensing it into a single sentence would be a good fix. Barca (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: @Vanamonde93: I think the current RFC, like the previous one, is too wide in scope and covers a significant portion of the article without specifying why each part should be removed. Should the users be specific when participating this RFC? I mean should they say why portions should(n't) be removed in a specific manner or it would suffice to make general comments? --Mhhossein talk 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: Actually, the proposal here is very specific. It just seeks to trim a lot of content. Justifying that removal is up to those who are arguing for it. If the case for removal isn't clearly made, then there's likely to be no consensus for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional No, as it removes content that is reliably sourced and useful to the reader. But if we decide to fork out things like "history" and "ideology" from this article for the purpose of reducing its size as I proposed at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Fork_out, then obviously most sections will need to be summarized, including the "Designation as a cult" section. I also agree that the current section would benefit from some copy-editing. Its confusing to see the US gov call it a cult in one paragraph and then call it not a cult in another paragraph. The reader will want to know why this is.VR talk 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is not about "History" or "Ideology" sections, but about the "Designation as a cult" section , which is filled with a redundant list of quotes saying the MEK is a cult (which can be condensed into one sentence). Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Cronin, Stephanie (2013). Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. Routledge/BIPS Persian Studies Series. Routledge. p. 274. ISBN 978-1-134-32890-1.
  2. ^ Buchta, Wilfried (2000), Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, p. 144, ISBN 978-0-944029-39-8
  3. ^ "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group" The Associated Press, June 27, 2014
  4. ^ Elizabeth Rubin (13 July 2003). "The Cult of Rajavi". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  5. ^ Ervand Abrahamian (1989), Radical Islam: the Iranian Mojahedin, Society and culture in the modern Middle East, vol. 3, I.B.Tauris, p. 139, ISBN 9781850430773
  6. ^ Clark, Mark Edmond (2016). "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq". In Gold, David (ed.). Terrornomics. Routledge. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-317-04590-8.
  7. ^ Brie, André; Martins Casaca, José Paulo; Zabeti, Azadeh (2005). People's Mojahedin of Iran. L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782747593816.
  8. ^ Pressly and Kasapi, Linda and Albana (11 November 2019). "The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex". BBC.
  • 'No, many of the items which have been suggested to be deleted in here, are important sentences and DUE. The whole text cannot be considered the same, together. For instance, the following matter that: "What is the report of the government of the U.S. and the politicians of other countries concerning it", it will add useful information to the text. I don't see any specific reason to delete the view of "academics" (It is better to keep "expert and formal opinions"). The views of the former members should be maintained, too, but it ought to be noted that attribution should be done appropriately. Generally, I am against this RFC in this manner. It would be better to be determined (item-by-item) why a sentence should be deleted. Meanwhile, the sentence which has been suggested as substituting, has the problem of "Unsupported attribution" itself. i.e. this question is find in the mind that: the purpose of "certain sources" is exactly related to which sources? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, reading "Cult" repeated times in the article is not useful to the reader at all. A concise summary is all that is needed about this (unless, like Alex said, we want to turn the article into a list of people calling the MEK a cult, which we don't). Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV. Ypatch (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO This proposed change does not really seem to be per WP:DUE. It is actually acting against it. I see a handful of reliable sources are to be omitted. Perhaps there should be a rewording, but not at this level certainly.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic sentence in the lede

This sentence is currently in the lede:

"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

[1]

This is a big claim (specially for the lede), and I find the following issues with this sentence:

1) Besides this source, I cannot find much else on the MEK "siding with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support" in 1983 (the author only makes a passing mention about this).

2) I did find the following 1983 NYT article that says:

"The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the exiled leader of an Iranian leftist group met for four hours today and said afterward the the war between their countries should be brought to an end... The conversations between Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz of Iraq and Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedeen, an organization that includes a guerrilla wing active in Iran, were described by Mr. Rajavi as the first of their kind. He said the exchange of views had been an important political turning point on the regional level and for the world in relation to the Iran-Iraq war. ... A joint statement stressed that Iraq was giving no material or military aid to the People's Mujahedeen and that Iraqi support was limited to common political understanding."

3) The MEK did in fact receive support from Iraq in 1986, which some analysts have said to have "destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland"; but the only thing we know for a fact about the MEK in Iran is that its members are tortured or executed there, so it's easy to see why there is little evidence of MEK support in Iran. There's also Ronen Cohen's view on the matter:

"It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."[2]

I propose keeping the source, re-writing this sentence, and moving it to the body. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait...move it to where? In face of numerous sources stressing MEK sided with Saddam (for any reasons) why are you suggesting such a suggestion? MEK's helping Saddam is a significant landmark in Iran-MEK conflicts making it lead-worthy item, thanks to dozens of the sources covering it. Is the 'financial' issue your solely problem? --Mhhossein talk 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources if you're still doubtful:
  • "The group later broke with the regime and sided with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when more than a million Iranians died"P.532
  • "...the move towards saddam hussein was allegedly an attempt by the MEK an attempt by the MEK to maneuver against the government, with the goal of acquiring arms, training facilities, and financial resources."P.67
  • "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.
  • "According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran. In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received "protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land".[16][17]
Should be enough for now. --Mhhossein talk 13:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MEK collaborating with Iraq during the 1980s is already in the lede and is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the sentence about 1983 and the MEK's appeal in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick search and could not find much else either. What is your proposed rewrite? - MA Javadi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1983 peace communique between Rajavi and Tariq Aziz is already in the article, and "Certain sources have cited the MEK's collaboration with Saddam Hussain as diminishing the MEK's standing inside Iran. According Ronen Cohen, although the MEK’s relocation to Iraq may have diminished its support in Iran, this is hard to assess "because of the nature of the government in Iran" is also in the article, so I just propose moving the following to the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section (following the time sequence of events):
"According to Afshon Ostovar, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in 1983."[3]
Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the involvement between MEK and Hussein is already in the lead, and the other stuff about support in Iran is controversial. You can put the Ostovar quote in the body. MA Javadi (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided some reliable sources talking about MEK receiving financial support from Saddam after 1980. So, receiving financial support after 1980 seems undisputable. --Mhhossein talk 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about MEK's involvement with Saddam in the lead except "In response [to the 1986 expulsion from France), it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."
I'm open to a re-word, but it should mention the effect that MEK's collaboration with Iraq against Iran had on MEK's relationship to Iran. MEK's unpopularity in Iran is regularly mentioned by news sources: Reuters, Al_Jazeera, MiddleEast Eye, Newsweek - some of these sources do tie the unpopularity to MEK-Saddam ties. So this does belong in the lead. Also, the body doesn't talk about the funding so Mhhossein you should add that to the body.VR talk 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mhhossein's sources don't say anything about Hussein and MEK in 1983, and since the MEK receiving support from Iraq in the 80s is already in the lead section, I also think you can put Ostovar's quote in the body and remove that sentence from the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me also is ok to reword and move in the body since "In response [to the 1986 expulsion from France), it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." is in the lead already. As it has been said in past posts, there isn't a poll in Iran to determine the popularity of the MEK there, so the effects of MEK association with Iraq needs to be mentioned but it is better explained in detail in the body since this is a complicated statement. Barca (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out above, that MEK's unpopularity in Iran (at least in the past due to its ties with Saddam) is well documented.VR talk 23:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Ostovar, Afshon (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.
  2. ^ Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-1845192709.
  3. ^ Ostovar, Afshon (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.
I agree that this can be moved to the body. Also the MEK popularity in Iran, which is just POV that is not backed by any survey or poll of any type. Ypatch (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to the body. The Iraq information is already in the lead, and lead is too long anyway (and was tagged as such yesterday). The popularity is also impossible to say with any certainty, so needs explanation (in the body). Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde: in this TP discussion, I proposed rewording and moving a sentence that's currently in the lede and putting it in the body. 5 users have approved, 1 editor has partly approved, and another editor has not approved. Do I have a majority consensus here to go ahead with this edit? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEK's receiving financial support from Saddam after 1980 seems an indisputable fact that is supported by reliable sources (see my sources in my previous comments under this topic). We don't count the comments since consensus should be make with arguments raised by the users and I invite you to take a look at the poor arguments in support of your proposal. I don't see User:Vice regent accepting such a move to the body (am I right VR?). As for the unpopularity of the group, besides the currently used sources, VR introduced some fresh sources further supporting this (Reuters, Al_Jazeera, MiddleEast Eye, Newsweek). So, as far as I see your major objection is that the year '1983' should be edited. --Mhhossein talk 04:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Information about MEK-Iraq collaboration is already in the lede; this has been stressed by all the arguments saying this sentence should be moved to the body (including my own). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein seem to be talking about two different things. The only sentence in the lead about this would be (after the proposed removal) In response [to 1986 events], it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. That's it. There's nothing else. However, at least one source documents Saddam-MEK ties dating back to 1982. So the remaining sentence would be misleading.VR talk 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria I'd prefer if you actually addressed arguments than to count votes as wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. I presented several reliable sources attesting to MEK's unpopularity in Iran, but several users dismissed them out of hand because they were not polls. That sounds like a strawman argument. If reliable sources do indeed talk about MEK's unpopularity, at least in past due to their Saddam collaboration, that would belong in the lead and the body.VR talk 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think most/all editors addressed why the sentence should be kept or removed from the lede. I'm not "counting votes"; there is undeniably a majority of editors supporting what I have proposed in this TP discussion. As far as I understand it, that's a majority consensus, so I feel it's a fair question to ask. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments given aren't convincing at all: The popularity is also impossible to say with any certainty and the MEK popularity in Iran, which is just POV that is not backed by any survey or poll of any type. As you can see below, there are a tonne of reliable sources that say MEK became unpopular in Iran because of its association with Saddam.VR talk 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Here are 10 sources on MEK being unpopular due to its alliance with Saddam:

  • "But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors." Guardian
  • "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians." Reuters
  • "Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians." Newsweek
  • "The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy [Saddam Hussein]." Jason Rezaian in the Washington Post
  • "And to make up for a drop in popularity tied to its alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the group started recruiting Iranian economic migrants in the Middle East under false pretences..." MiddleEast Eye
  • "During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process." BBC News
  • "That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said." Al-Jazeera
  • "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." Business Insider
  • "...most Iranians regard the MEK as traitors aided by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war or, at best, a sadistic cult." Globe and Mail
  • "And one of the reasons they have virtually zero public support in Iran these days is that they're seen as traitors having fought on the Iraqi side in the Iran-Iraq war." Paul R. Pillar in NPR

VR talk 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out several times in this talk page that showing any form of support for the MEK in Iran can lead to a death sentence by the IRI, so this is a complex topic to say the least. This is why I proposed teasing it out in the body where it can be better explained, and the majority of editors in this talk page discussion agreed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article is a complex topic. If we were to remove all complex topics from the lead, we would have no lead left.VR talk 10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have got accustomed with Stefka Bulgaria's Original Research throughout this TP. In this case, he has taken ONE source for dismissing a tone of sources saying something else. --Mhhossein talk 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different proposal

I propose removing this:

In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[52] In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris.[48][53] In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to remain steadfast in their support for the MEK

and replacing it with this

During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, received funding from him and moved its base to Iraq in 1986. MEK and Iraq jointly invaded Iran twice in 1988, first in Operation Forty Stars and then in Operation Mersad, in which the MEK razed an Iranian town to the ground. Subsequently, the Iranian government executed thousands of MEK supporters held as political prisoners. MEK's collaboration with Iraq caused it to become unpopular in Iran.

My proposed version captures most of the same information more concisely.VR talk 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: Thanks but, I think two points are being missed here. Merely saying MEK became "unpopular" afterwards is in fact downgrading MEK's military attacks being viewed as "treason by the vast majority of Iranians".
"Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians."Newsweek
"Today they are seen as traitors by much of the Iranian public." University of Chicago Pres- P. 78
"...turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public."NYBooks
"But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors."The Guardian
Also, MEK did in fact three major invasions to their own soil - Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars and Operation sunshine ([18]). Thank you. --Mhhossein talk 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about this

During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, received funding from him and moved its base to Iraq in 1986. MEK and Iraq jointly invaded Iran multiple times in 1988, first in Operation Forty Stars and then in Operation Mersad, in which the MEK razed an Iranian town to the ground. Subsequently, the Iranian government executed thousands of MEK supporters held as political prisoners. MEK's collaboration with Iraq caused the group to be viewed as "traitors" by most Iranians.

I didn't mention Operation Sunshine as I'm not sure if its notable. Maybe create an article on it? Let's see what others say. Happy to change the wording further.VR talk 22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stefka Bulgaria: I'm not seeing a clear consensus here for a large change. The only point that hasn't been substantively contested is your concern with the fragment about financial support from Saddam to the MEK in 1983. Aside from that, there seem to be a fair number of sources being provided that support the current text. Arguing that the degree of support for the MEK inside Iran isn't knowable is in fact original research. If reliable sources comment on their support within Iran, Wikipedia's article needs to reflect that. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know Vanamonde. I'll gather the sources in the article about this and start a RfC; may be the best way to show what I'm trying to say here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source says,

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.

VR talk 22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we currently have in the lede:

"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"

is backed by a single source, and therefore WP:UNDUE for the lede. Even if there is another source saying 1982, it is still undue for the lede. This could be place in the body of the article, but not in the lede per WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a consensus yet for that either. An RfC may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder Stefka Bulgaria alleges tries to imply there are no other sources for that while at least one source is provided by me:
  • "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.
More sources cab be found for this infamous Saddam-MEK collaborations in 1980s. --Mhhossein talk 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there about 1983; which is what this discussion is about. 1980s stuff is already in the lede and in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say which portion is specific to 1983 and does not belong to other dates? The portion saying MEK received financial support? The portion saying MEK is viewed as a traitor? Other portions? --Mhhossein talk 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran clerical government and MEK supporters

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [19] I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the problem with the strong statement which is not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [20] I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the problem with the strong statement which is not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: but the sources do support that the "Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters." Here are some more =

  • "Iran executed a man on Sunday for links with the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI)" REUTERS
  • "The three defendants in the case, all of them in their twenties, have been accused of affiliation with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) which Iran has designated as a terrorist organization but have always denied the charges." RADIO FARDA
  • "The authorities launched a bloody purge of supporters of the MEK, also known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), and Mr Rajavi fled to Paris." BBC
  • "Thousands were executed simply for their support of the PMOI" INDEPENDENT
  • "According to Amnesty International, following the post-June 2009 election protests, the authorities arrested several people who had relatives with a past or current association with opposition groups, including the MKO. As recently as 2014, the authorities executed Gholamreza Khosravi, convicted of helping the group, on the charge of “enmity against God” in a case that was marked with serious due process violations. On May 7, the National Council of Resistance, the political wing of the MKO, published the names of 18 other “supporters” who they say have been arrested over the past few months." HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
  • "These ongoing enforced disappearances and the continuing uncertainty concerning the fate of their lovedones and the location of their remains have caused anguish to the families.Their pain is compounded by several additional factors: the ongoing bans that they face on conducting mourning rituals and commemorations; the deliberate desecration and destruction of sites where their loved ones are believed to be buried in mass graves; the knowledge that those who ordered and carried out the executions continue to get away with their crimes; and the persistent threats, harassment, intimidation and attacks that they face for daring to demand truth and justice. These cruel practices, which have caused great suffering and harm to victims’ families for decades, including serious injury to their mental and physical health, violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The article is also full of sources saying the clerical government in Iran targets MEK supporters. What is the problem with adding this? Barca (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the Iranian government targets and has targeted MEK members is a fact, but I see some issues with the sourcing and the wording. The sourcing issues are that many of your sources refer to events more than 10, even 30 years ago, whereas your wording is in the present tense. The lead already contains Iran's infamous execution of MEK members in 1988. With regards to wording, the MEK is a terrorist group in Iran and so the targeting of MEK members should be mentioned in that context (in fact, one of the sources you presented does just that). Assuming we can find sources for "present" targeting, might I suggest the following wording:

Iran has banned MEK as a terrorist organization and targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters.

VR talk 03:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian government considering the MEK a terrorist organization is in the lead already. @Mhhossein: the Reuters artice is from 2014 and the Radio Farda artice is from 2019, so the sources confirm that the Iranian government still executes and imprisons MEK supporters. why can't we add this then? Barca (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your sources saying MEK members are being continually targeted or lack thereof. I suggest you add something the two sides are taking actions. MEK, for instance, is accused of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and having role in the recent upheavals in Iran. --Mhhossein talk 14:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Mhhossein reverted [21] my edit where I added in the lead sources showing that the "Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters." but Mhhossein seems to be refusing to acknowledge what the sources are saying. Is Mhhossein stonewalling here again? Barca (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't just add sources, did you, you added content that you didn't have consensus for. Discuss it here first, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: we have discussed it and the content I added is taken from the sources I added. Mhhossein is saying that he does't see the sources saying MEK members are continually targeted, but the sources show otherwise. If you don't want me to ping you about this anymore let me know and I will not, but refusing what is in reliable sources doesn't seem to be a good way of developing the article. Barca (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BarcrMac: Can you please explain how the two sources you use are good enough for the text you added? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: in my edit [22] I added 4 sources:

  • [23] Washington Examiner article from 2017 about the Iranian government torturing some MEK supporters
  • [24] The Guardian article from 2019 about "Albanian police say they have discovered an Iranian paramilitary network that allegedly planned attacks in Albania against exiled members of an Iranian group [MEK]"
  • Book that says inside Iran, the strength of the MEK is uncertain since many of its supporters have been executed, tortured, or jailed. ["Cohen, Ronen (August 2018). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6): 1000–1014']
  • Book that says the MEK is "a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad". ["Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.]

When Mhhossein rejected these sources, I added more =

  • "Iran executed a man on Sunday for links with the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI)" REUTERS
  • "The three defendants in the case, all of them in their twenties, have been accused of affiliation with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) which Iran has designated as a terrorist organization but have always denied the charges." RADIO FARDA
  • "The authorities launched a bloody purge of supporters of the MEK, also known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), and Mr Rajavi fled to Paris." BBC
  • "Thousands were executed simply for their support of the PMOI" INDEPENDENT
  • "According to Amnesty International, following the post-June 2009 election protests, the authorities arrested several people who had relatives with a past or current association with opposition groups, including the MKO. As recently as 2014, the authorities executed Gholamreza Khosravi, convicted of helping the group, on the charge of “enmity against God” in a case that was marked with serious due process violations. On May 7, the National Council of Resistance, the political wing of the MKO, published the names of 18 other “supporters” who they say have been arrested over the past few months." HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
  • "These ongoing enforced disappearances and the continuing uncertainty concerning the fate of their lovedones and the location of their remains have caused anguish to the families.Their pain is compounded by several additional factors: the ongoing bans that they face on conducting mourning rituals and commemorations; the deliberate desecration and destruction of sites where their loved ones are believed to be buried in mass graves; the knowledge that those who ordered and carried out the executions continue to get away with their crimes; and the persistent threats, harassment, intimidation and attacks that they face for daring to demand truth and justice. These cruel practices, which have caused great suffering and harm to victims’ families for decades, including serious injury to their mental and physical health, violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

That is 10 reliable sources saying that the Iranian clerical government has been continuingly targeting MEK supporters, which Mhhossein is rejecting. Barca (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barca, not all of your sources say the same thing. Some of your sources say that Iran executed MEK prisoners in 1988, a well-known fact that is already in the lead, but don't talk about today. Secondly, I proposed a wording that I thought would present the facts you wish to present in their appropriate context. Do you agree with that wording? If not, why not?VR talk 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEK's designation as a terrorist organization by the Japanese government

This revert made me go through those discussions of 2019. As far as I I can see User:Ryk72[25] showed the group had been once designated by the Japanese government as a terrorist organization. The explanations should be added to the group's history of designation. --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the Japanese Government websites, it appears that MEK (as ムジャヒディン・ハルク) was added to the list of terrorist organisations (aligned to UNSCR 1373) on July 5, 2002 (平成14年7月5日) (See:[26] & attached list[27]) and removed from the list on March 24, 2013 (平成25年5月24日) (See:[28]). Let me know if any questions. - Ryk72 talk 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the listing and delisting should be added.VR talk 20:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryk72: thanks for the info. I remember some users saying this might be some kind of hoax; do you think the sources are strong enough to determine we're not adding WP:UNDUE/WP:HOAX information to the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a hoax. The concern raised in that discussion was that we had included Japan in the same list as Iran & Iraq - indicating that Japan currently designated MEK as a terrorist organisation. Given the removal in 2013, this is, of course, verifiably not true - though, given that it was previously true, does not rise to the level of a "hoax". What is verifiably true is that Japan did (from 2002 to 2013) include MEK on their list of designated terrorist organisations (per UNSCR 1373). - Ryk72 talk 00:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up, Ryk72. I will add this to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEK capturing Mehran in 1988

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [29] Are you saying the MEK did not capture Mehran in 1988? Also the version you added does not have a source. Barca (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary please: "read the source once again 'Iranian rebels based in Iraq said they withdrew from the town of Mehran after a three-day offensive, in which they reported capturing military hardware they estimated to be worth $2 billion.' " There's not statement of fact as you tried to pretend. As for the citation, as far as I see, there's no difference between the version before your edit and the version after my edit. --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: This is what is in the AP source =

  • "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."
  • "Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters."

That is AP saying the NLA captured Mehran, with even one of their correspondents going to the site.

You reverted this to a version with no sources. We can attribute the part about the equipment, but I don't see why this can't be in the article, specially since your version doesn't have any sources. Thank you for your reply. Barca (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of citation my edit did not make any changes - see the version before your edit and the version after my edit. If your main concern is citation please let me know which portion needs references. Also, pay attention to my '04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)' comment. You can't push MEK's estimation as such strong facts. --Mhhossein talk 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: AP is saying the NLA captured Mehran, why can't we add that to the article? Barca (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where does AP say the city was captured by MEK? --Mhhossein talk 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: I already posted this. This is what is in the AP source =
  • "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."
  • "Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters." Barca (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BarcrMac. Yes I noticed them but they say MEK attacked Mehran for sure and that they crossed the border with the aim of capturing the city. However, I don't see any supporting clues showing it was indeed captured. --Mhhossein talk 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: The AP article writes that "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran". The city was captured by the NLA. Then there is this other article by Time magazine [30] "The fanatical legions of the Ayatullah Khomeini suffered another embarrassing defeat last week, this one apparently inflicted by their countrymen. In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills. Western reporters brought to the battle scene confirmed that the rebels had captured 1,500 Iranian prisoners, as well as tanks and artillery." Will you let this information be added to the article now? Barca (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac: I would suggest avoid saying it was captured. Your new source say it was seized. Do they have pretty much the same meaning from military viewpoint? There would no problem if they are the same. Also the source is not the best one we can rely on. Just see how it describes the outcome as being "embarrassing". Can you find a better source? Find your sources so that we can finalize the wording. --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein What is the problem with adding a Time magazine and also Associated Press source that says "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran"? Both sources are reliable. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see my response in my previous comment? It seems to be a fact that they indeed crossed the border and attacked the city. Do your sources say the 'captured' the city? --Mhhossein talk 11:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: According to the sources,
  • "In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills." by Time Magazine
  • "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran" Associated Press
I would put in the article something like "In 1988 the National Liberation Army took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Do you have an issue with this? MA Javadi (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too long

Mhhossein I think the lead of this article is too long and I disagree with this edit of yours. I do have specific ideas to trim it and I'll present them below over time. I presented an idea above (thanks everyone who has offered me feedback). Another immediate suggestion is this:

Replace

It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government.... It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.

with

It seeks to replace the current the current Iranian government with itself, and is regarded as the biggest and most active Iranian dissident group today.

VR talk 13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't see what the problem was with the original wording and the original described it better. Barca (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original wording was redundant and the new wording is shorter. My edit was purely stylistic, with no POV added or removed, so I don't understand the revert.VR talk 02:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEK popularity in Iran already covered in the article

Vice regent, this that you added about MEK popularity is in the article already (i.e. 'perception inside Iran') and some sources such as this one by Trita Parsi is not a good source for this article. I am reverting your edit, but if you feel I missed any important points that are not in the article already let me know and we can have a talk about it. Barca (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac I didn't see that. Anyway, there isn't much overlap between what I added and what's there. Most of what I added is not in the article, and certainly not in the right place. For example, it makes sense to make a mention of unpopularity due to Iran-Iraq war in the section that's on the Iran-Iraq war. Similarly, reliable sources connect drop in popularity to certain human rights violations - that's not in the section you mentioned but should be mentioned somewhere. Also, why is Trita Parsi's article in The New York Review of Books not reliable? The publication seems to have been called "scholarly" and "intellectual" at The New York Review of Books#Critical_reaction.VR talk 02:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same information in different sections is a problem that has been talked about in this talk page a lot. We are trying to present the article's information more concisely, not trying to overflow it with repetitions. Barca (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with your concern with repetitions, but there's also the idea of presenting information in its proper context. I'm sure we can work out a solution that strikes a balance between both.VR talk 22:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting what you removed here. I think much of what you removed is not already in the article.

As MEK attacked Iran in coordination with Iraqi forces, the organization grew unpopular in Iran.[1] Supporting Saddam Hussein at a time when Iraq was indiscriminately bombing Iranian cities damaged the organization's reputation.[2] The MEK came to be viewed as "traitors" by most Iranians for aiding the enemy.[3][4][5][6] Many Iranian's dislike of the MEK has been described as "intense".[7][8] As of 2018, news reports continued to describe MEK as unpopular due to its past ties with Saddam.[9][10][11][5]

MEK's alliance with Iraq also hurt its foreign relations. In 1994, a United States Department of State report described MEK as having "little support in Iran and little credibility outside" and an "anti-American stooge of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein."[12]

The MEK instituted several measures to make up for this decline in popularity. In the 1990s, the MEK leadership prevented defections by ordering its members to divorce their spouses, lest family obligations divert their attention.[4] It separated children from their parents, so that if a parent ever left the MEK they would lose contact with their children.[13] It also started recruiting Iranian economic migrants under false pretenses, promising them jobs to Western countries, but instead taking them to MEK training camps.[14]

VR talk 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What context do you feel is missing that isn't already in the article? Barca (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section you're referring to is nowhere near the People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Conflict_with_the_Islamic_Republic_government_(1981–1988). That's the period in which support for MEK plummeted dramatically, both inside Iran and even outside Iran (in the US, for example). Also much of what I posted above is not already in the article.VR talk 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently closed RfC

This is quickly turning into a relitigation of the RfC, and in any case this isn't the place to challenge a closure. The closer has been asked to explain their statement, and they have done so. The next step in the process would be to ask for a review at WP:AN. I would recommend against that, because I see no reason why this was an unreasonable closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MrX I noticed you recently this RfC Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RfC_about_more_allegations_from_former_MEK_members as "Rough consensus for summarizing the six allegations as proposed". I see about 6 in favor and 4 against (including me). To clarify my view, I'm in favor of summarizing the content but not as proposed by Stefka. It seems this edit removes most if not all references to MEK controlling sexual thoughts even though this widely covered in WP:RS (BBC news, The Guardian, New York Times, NYRB, Vice, Salon, Haarez, Foreign Policy). I don't see consensus to this.VR talk 12:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ "Who are the Iranian dissident group MEK?". BBC News.
  2. ^ "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian.
  3. ^ "U.S. Removes Iranian Group From Terrorism List". National Public Radio.
  4. ^ a b "Iran's Opposition Groups are Preparing for the Regime's Collapse. Is Anyone Ready?".
  5. ^ a b "Trump's Plan B: Iranian regime change". The Globe and Mail. Once listed as a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities, most Iranians regard the MEK as traitors aided by Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war or, at best, a sadistic cult.
  6. ^ Mitch Prothero. "US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will attend a meeting linked to a terror cult that has murdered 6 Americans". Business Insider. That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein...
  7. ^ Jeremiah Goulka, Lydia Hansell, Elizabeth Wilke, Judith Larson. "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq" (PDF). RAND Corporation.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ William O. Beeman. The Great Satan Vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. University of Chicago Press. p. 78.
  9. ^ Trita Parsi (2018-07-20). "Why Trump's Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult". The New York Review of Books. Siding with Saddam in that long and devastating war, which was estimated to have killed more than 300,000 Iranians, turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public. Nothing has happened since then to change this view of the MEK inside Iran. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
  10. ^ "MEK's violent past looms over US lobby for regime change in Iran". Al Jazeera. 2018-03-29.
  11. ^ Jason Rezaian (2018-03-24). "John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him". Washington Post.
  12. ^ Sasan Fayazmanesh. The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment. Routledge. p. 82.
  13. ^ Trita Parsi (2018-07-20). "Why Trump's Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult". The New York Review of Books. But the more politically irrelevant the MEK became, the more extreme and cultish it got...If the adult members tried to leave the MEK, they would completely lose touch with their children. To this day, there are scores of MEK members who dare not leave the terrorist group for this very reason. And there are countless children of MEK members who dream of one day being reunited with their parents. I know several of them. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
  14. ^ Ali Harb. "How Iranian MEK went from US terror list to halls of Congress". Middle East Eye.
@Vice regent: I have to stand by my closing. I looked at the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy to arrive at my assessment. I did fully understood your comment in the RfC. The total quantity of sources for combined individual allegations were did not make the case. Of course, you are free to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you wish to further challenge my closing. Concerning the edit by Stefka Bulgaria that occurred after my closing: it seems like a faithful implementation of consensus, but it's not relevant to my role as closer. Any anomalies can be sorted out by further dispute resolution, or if there is a behavior issue, it can be taken to a noticeboard or WP:AE for review. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: why do you feel total quantity of sources for combined individual allegations were did not make the case?VR talk 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to mention that it surprised me to see "rough consensus" I myself explained clearly concerning how the proposed summary isn't consistent with Neutral Point Of View; No one gave a suitable reply to my objection. Meanwhile, I mentioned that some main topics had to be kept. This closure is not suitable. @MrX: Did you just count the votes? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These RfC's seek an uninvolved and experienced editor to close a controversial discussion, which is what MrX has gracefully has done for us here. Even though the outcome was not what you wanted, a consensus has been reached in this RfC, so it's time to move on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrX: I wonder if you could elaborate on your concluding remarks where you said BarcrMac, now blocked, "adroitly rebutted" my comment. This is while he was confusing "major points" with the "proved points". He did not replied to my comment so "adroitly" seems to be far from reality. Do you think the articles should solely include proved points (as BarcrMac states)? --Mhhossein talk 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APeople%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=975498240&oldid=974749510

Leave a Reply