Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Vice regent (talk | contribs)
Ypatch (talk | contribs)
Line 121: Line 121:
:{{talkquote|US military officers at the camp have given differing accounts: Brig. Gen. David Phillips said members were free to leave since 2003, while Captain Woodside said it was difficult for members, especially women, to leave."[https://archive.ph/20200216131656/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/world/europe/iran-mek-albania.html#selection-1671.118-1671.134]}}
:{{talkquote|US military officers at the camp have given differing accounts: Brig. Gen. David Phillips said members were free to leave since 2003, while Captain Woodside said it was difficult for members, especially women, to leave."[https://archive.ph/20200216131656/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/world/europe/iran-mek-albania.html#selection-1671.118-1671.134]}}
:I'm also open to other edits and additions.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
:I'm also open to other edits and additions.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
::I see that the version you are trying to restore was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camp_Ashraf&diff=897242397&oldid=897083567 added] by a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kazemita1 banned sockpuppet], who I cannot ping because they cannot edit this page. I don't see anything wrong with TheDreamBoat's edit. How much we decide to expand a topic depends on editorial consensus, and to me this does not need so much expansion. If you want to expand this subject matter further, please explore [[WP:DR]] processes where you can explain why such expansion is necessary. When you do that, I will participate, but for the time being I'm restoring the shorter version. I am also changing "MEK" for "PMOI" and "MKO" to maintain some consistency in the page. [[User:Ypatch|Ypatch]] ([[User talk:Ypatch|talk]]) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:24, 29 December 2021

Deleted content

The content currently being deleted is cited in the sourced reference MEK perations against the Kurds "In 1991, when Iraq's Shiite Muslim and Kurdish populations answered the call of then-President George H.W. Bush to rise up and overthrow Hussein, mujaheddin tanks rode to the dictator's rescue. The Iranian exiles opened fire on Kurds and blocked roads leading south, where Hussein's remaining regular forces had their hands full with the Shiites." Hardnfast (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The opening paragraph of this article says "Camp Ashraf is currently an Iranian refugee camp in Iraq guarded by the United States military[citation needed]." Apparently Iran's Jame Jam television channel reported on July 6 that “American military forces have announced their readiness to hand over” Camp Ashraf to Baghdad, which gives the MEK six months to leave its territory. Is this true? If so, who is guarding Ashraf now? Khoikhoi 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question the use of the word "refugee" because neither the UNHCR or International Committee of the red Cross recognize the residents of Ashraf as refugees. Only the MEK and its related organizations call themselves this. I worked this issue while in Iraq. Individuals who have fled Ashraf and renounced their membership in the MEK have been certified by the UNHCR and regarded by the ICRC as refugees. None of the residents of Ashraf - all adults btw - have UNHRC or Iraqi government refugee IDs or residency permits. They are "guarded" internally by MEK members in uniforms. Outside Ashraf, the Iraqi Army works with local law enforcement authorities to provide security. The US Army brigade that previously "guarded" Ashraf never had presence inside the site nor searched the site for weapons. Zzzdoglie (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not clear why one would call it a REFUGEE camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.116.228 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alledged human rights violations.

I came across this blog post, which by itself isn't verifiable or notable, however the videos are by their nature so.(Editing seems unlikely, only the location where it is still be verified.) part 1, part 2. My edit was (apparently automatically) reverted, please try incorporate something about this, and this as references in the article. See the link to user_talk for more rationale. 88.159.74.89 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people

About how many people reside at Ashraf? It should be in the first sentence or two of the lead section. 500 people? 50,000 people? Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: It is claimed to be about 3534 people as of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.201.53 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

This article is two years out of date.71.108.139.2 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts without explanation

I tried to make a series of improvements to this articles, but they were reverted by LissanX without explanation. I provided my explanations for each edit in my edit summaries. If they need more discussion, we can discuss here, but please do not revert without any explanation. 122.155.9.26 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

In TheDreamBoat editions (especially 1 and 2), major parts of the article have been omitted without a convincing explanation. Contrary to this user's claim, some of the deleted content is not mentioned in any article. For example, there is nothing about Soltani and others. It seems that all edits of this user should be analyzed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just minimised the claims from MEK members. I still left in "Some people that defected from the MEK have made allegations of sexual assault" (with sources), which is what all those claims were about. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You removed content sourced to the Washington Post, National Interest, a book published by the Brookings Institution and The Guardian, under the edit summary of "Copy edit". This is way beyond copy editing, and since you did not justify your removals, I will revert them.
This edit also has the misleading edit summary of "Some copy editing" but goes much beyond copy editing and removes significant amounts of material. Please justify this too.VR talk 03:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the names of the (alleged) victims should probably not be mentioned in this article and instead simply what is accused to have happened should be mentioned. Does everyone agree? VR talk 03:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not a problem if the names are removed, but the issue of harassment itself must be raised. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VR, you say that "the names of the (alleged) victims should probably not be mentioned", but then you mention Batoul Soltai, Zahar Moini, Fereshteh Hedyati. You need to have some consistency please. The issue of the allegations is raised in the article, despite these being allegations by MEK. For this reason it does not need its own section. Mentioning that this happened is enough, and the article is mentioning it. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VR, I see that you also added some opinion pieces, sources that quote other sources already in the article, and a think tank source (for defamatory allegations, which already in itself is a delicate topic). TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the sources I used? New York Times, Washington Post are reliable per WP:RSP. The claims from both these sources were added with attribution. I'm open to further rewording, but I oppose removing these entirely like you've done. Do you dispute the reliability of Brookings Institution? The National Interest source isn't the greatest so we can remove that. Your recent revert is edit warring, and I urge you to follow the WP:BRD cycle.VR talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheDreamBoat, there are a lot of sources that give details of long-term human rights abuses that took place in Camp Ashraf (see for example this source). These took place at various times (by MEK, by Iraqi forces etc). Just as we detail the abuses at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, wikipedia shouldn't shy away from detailing the abuses at Camp Ashraf. VR talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VR, In your edit you used a blog to support "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured."

In that same edit you used a think tank source to add that "Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution." (the think tank does not even seem to mention Camp Ashraf).

Then in that same edit you used this opinion piece to write that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured.

Then some of the sources that are reliable, don't support the content they are used for. For example, NYT source doesn't say anything about Batoul Sotani (and that's not an isolated case)

These are very serious accusations, and you are using think tank and opinion pieces, or sources that don't support the content. I am concerned that you don't see this. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed very serious accusations, all the more troubling since all 4 of them are baseless.
  • TheDreamBoat wrote: VR, In your edit you used a blog to support "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured."
    • Response: My revert used this source (published in the Washington Post and authored by Jason Rezaian himself) which says The few who were able to escape told of being cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured. WP:RSOPINION allows for using opinion pieces as long as they are attributed, which they are in the case.
  • Thedreamboat wrote: In that same edit you used a think tank source to add that "Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution." (the think tank does not even seem to mention Camp Ashraf).
    • I just did a search on the pdf of the source and "Camp Ashraf" is mentioned 21 times in the source, including on the page that is cited: Women are numerous in the People’s Mujahideen e Khalq and made up at least one-third of the Camp Ashraf residents. All of this helps explain the unusual phrasing in a 2009 U.S. State Department annual on terrorism, which describes this group’s ideology as “a blend of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism." Defectors from MEK and some experts portray the organization as a cult —with disturbing recruiting methods, Mao-style self-criticism sessions, and total organizational control over sex and marriage.
    • As for whether the source is reliable, I asked you before if you thought the source was unreliable but you didn't give an answer. Can you tell me if you think it is unreliable? Here are the authors of that source, you may examine their qualifications yourself. Both authors appear to be connected to various academic institutions.
  • Thedreamboat wrote Then in that same edit you used this opinion piece to write that"the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured.
    • See first point. WP:RSOPINION allows using opinion pieces with attribution and that statement was qualified with "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked...".
  • Then some of the sources that are reliable, don't support the content they are used for. For example, NYT source doesn't say anything about Batoul Sotani (and that's not an isolated case)
    • One of the inline citations at the end of the Batoul Sotani allegations is The Guardian article, which says says Batoul Soltani joined the MEK in 1986 ...Soltani alleges that she was forced to have sex with Massoud Rajavi on multiple occasions, beginning in 1999. She says that the last assault was in 2006, the year that she escaped from Camp Ashraf and a time when Rajavi had not been seen in public for three years. When we spoke recently, Soltani accused Maryam Rajavi of helping Massoud to abuse female MEK members over the years.
Finally, the reason I reverted you, is because you removed a significant amount of sourced content under an edit summary that did not adequately explain issues with the content. When you were asked on talk to explain, your response was again inadequate. I'm open to rewording the content as I've said previously.VR talk 17:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, "TheDreamBoat" must create a consensus on the talk page. Also, Brookings is valid enough. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ahwazi thanks for restoring the longstanding version. As per above, I would like to summarize these two paragraphs as:

A 2009 US-government commissioned report,[1] based on interviews within Camp Ashraf,[2] stated that the MEK had characteristics of a "cult" and had controlled its members (including sexual control), confiscated their assets, subjected them to forced labour, sleep deprivation and physical abuse, and limited their ability to leave.[1][2] Similar allegations were made by Human Rights Watch (based on interviews with former members),[3] Elizabeth Rubin (who visited Camp Ashraf in 2003),[4] and Jason Rezaian.[5] The MEK rejects these claims as Iranian propaganda.[6]

The Guardian interviewed women who escaped from Camp Ashraf. They alleged being coerced into sexual relationships by Masoud Rajavi, sometimes with Maryam Rajavi complicit in these sexual assaults.[2] They also alleged being forced to undergo hysterectomies at Camp Ashraf hospital.[2]

If there is agreement, I can go ahead and implement that. I also want to point out that the article currently goes into excruciating detail about Iraqi government abuses against Camp Ashraf residents. So why can't the article cover MEK's abuses at the same location? VR talk 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can also add this:

US military officers at the camp have given differing accounts: Brig. Gen. David Phillips said members were free to leave since 2003, while Captain Woodside said it was difficult for members, especially women, to leave."[1]

I'm also open to other edits and additions.VR talk 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the version you are trying to restore was added by a banned sockpuppet, who I cannot ping because they cannot edit this page. I don't see anything wrong with TheDreamBoat's edit. How much we decide to expand a topic depends on editorial consensus, and to me this does not need so much expansion. If you want to expand this subject matter further, please explore WP:DR processes where you can explain why such expansion is necessary. When you do that, I will participate, but for the time being I'm restoring the shorter version. I am also changing "MEK" for "PMOI" and "MKO" to maintain some consistency in the page. Ypatch (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Goulka, Jeremiah; Hansell, Lydia; Wilke, Elizabeth; Larson, Judith (2009). The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum (PDF) (Report). RAND corporation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 February 2016.
  2. ^ a b c d Merat, Arron (9 November 2018). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ Rubin, Elizabeth (13 July 2003). "The Cult of Rajavi". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
  5. ^ Rezaian, Jason (24 March 2018). "John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  6. ^ [3]

Leave a Reply