Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
El C (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
183,008 edits
→‎Confused: If wishes were horses... I would be petting a lot of horses
Alex-h (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
7,246 edits
Line 693: Line 693:
::::::::[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]]: Thanks so much for your input. Do you have any suggestions avoiding the messy RFCs nearly always aimed at making overzealous trimmings? There's a trend in this talk page. You don't need to discuss the changes anymore. Start a RFC, bludgeon the discussion, increase the number of !votes and there's a 50% chance of winning! In this way, you even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=996965892 don't need to justify] your proposed mass changes. Discussion is being undermined continuously in this talk page. I guess something like [[User:El C|El C]]'s suggestion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=994360039 "a pre-RfC consultation"] should be taken more seriously. I am just saying my thoughts and always need your insights. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]]: Thanks so much for your input. Do you have any suggestions avoiding the messy RFCs nearly always aimed at making overzealous trimmings? There's a trend in this talk page. You don't need to discuss the changes anymore. Start a RFC, bludgeon the discussion, increase the number of !votes and there's a 50% chance of winning! In this way, you even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=996965892 don't need to justify] your proposed mass changes. Discussion is being undermined continuously in this talk page. I guess something like [[User:El C|El C]]'s suggestion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=994360039 "a pre-RfC consultation"] should be taken more seriously. I am just saying my thoughts and always need your insights. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't really intend that as an outright requirement when I suggested that, though in the case of {{u|Stefka Bulgaria}}, maybe it should be...? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't really intend that as an outright requirement when I suggested that, though in the case of {{u|Stefka Bulgaria}}, maybe it should be...? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Like Barca says, Stefka is a good editor and they have been a great contributor to this page. Opposing POV editors might disagree, but IMO he has been a needed presence in this page. Instead of singling out editors (I don't think any editor here has their hands clean, specially Mhhossein), it would be good to have a roadmap worked out so that we can all work better together instead of against each other. [[User:Alex-h|Alex-h]] ([[User talk:Alex-h|talk]]) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
===Confused===
===Confused===
{{admin request|answered=yes}}
{{admin request|answered=yes}}

Revision as of 22:32, 15 January 2021

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

RfC about removing contentious content from the lede

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.
RfC closers are instructed to: ...judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Even after discounting such irrelevant arguments, the disucssion below is almost exactly evenly divided between those editors who wish to remove the disputed text and those that wish to retain it. The arguments on each side are rooted in Core Content Policies which provides no policy-based reason to distinguish between them. Multiple sources have been produced and disputed so there is no clear sourcing basis on which a consensus can be discerned. Taking this all together, the only accurate way to judge this discussion is that there is No Consensus to remove the disputed text. The usual result In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we remove the following from 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]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 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.
  • About the first part of the sentence in question:

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

There is only a single source that passingly mentions "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support." Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources""), this is a major/contentious and WP:UNDUE claim. Besides this passing mention, no other source has been found describing the MEK siding with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

About counter-arguments saying that the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, please note that this is already described in detail in the lede: ("In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.")

  • About the second part of the sentence in question:

"a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

This goes against our WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT policies.

The MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country";[1] and that has also been described as "the largest Iranian opposition group".[2]

Making any contention about the MEK's popularity (within an authoritarian regime that has banned the MEK and that is running a disinformation campaign against it to,[3][4] among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”[5]) would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede).

An actual poll to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran would be very difficult to do; as Ronen Cohen notes: "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."[6] Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth without opposing views; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria quoted a few sources above in a misleading way.
  • He said that Ronan Cohen says MEK's loss in popularity is "difficult to prove". But I found that Cohen says "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war", The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, page 174.
  • He quoted Nader Uskowi saying MEK is the "largest opposition group", but Uskowi is only referring to "opposition outside Iranian borders" (page 174, Temperature Rising).VR talk 15:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to removing this sentence. For the first part of the sentence, WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems the relevant policy for why this should not be there. For the second part of the sentence, the other sources given by Stefka (specially the one about the Iranian regime spending hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portray it as a group without popular support) should be enough to consider this inapropriate for the lead. Idealigic (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefka Bulgaria many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented. For example, three sources were provided for MEK's ties to Saddam pre-1986 at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_33#Different_proposal (edit: I have provided a total of four sources for this claim below). Similarly, I provided fourteen (14) sources saying that MEK's popularity significantly declined due to its collaboration with Saddam. Here they are:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Are there reliable sources that say MEK's popularity wasn't hurt by siding with Iraq? MEK being the largest opposition group doesn't directly contradict this statement.VR talk 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: can you please present the "many, many sources" that say the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presented fourteen (14) sources for the second part of the sentence you want to remove. Here are four sources for the first part:

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

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support.
— Vanguard of the Imam

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

^The meeting referred to by Taheri was a highly publicized meeting that took place in January 1983.VR talk 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VR: I was specific when I asked for (what you referred to as) the "many, many sources" which confirm a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede). Instead, you mention 14 sources that have nothing to do with the question, present 3 sources (none of which say anything about 1983 specifically), and present the one source that's already in the lede about 1983.
Since WP:bludgeoning the process is a recurring problem in these RfCs, I'll get straight to the point:
1) The collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK is already mentioned in the lede. If there are 3 other sources giving inconsistent dates prior to 1986 (which is what you've presented), these can go in the body where they can be contextualised according to their WP:WEIGHT, but in the lede they are WP:UNDUE. More specifically, the problem is that currently in the lede we have an allegation that the MEK collaborated with Hussein in 1983; this is backed by a single source and therefore constitutes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (and is also WP:UNDUE), hence this proposal to remove it from the lede.
2) About the "14 sources" you presented to support "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland": these are not polls or collected data; but rather these are opinions from different analysts. I have presented other opinion/reports that contradict this POV, for example the MEK being considered the Iranian regime's largest opposition group,[21] or Iran blaming the MEK for the recent wave of major protests in Iran, or the following:

  • "After two years of political struggle, the ayatollahs could not tolerate the growing, nationwide popularity of the MEK, and so they unleashed unbridled terror against it in the summer of 1981. The reign of terror has continued unabated. Tens of thousands of MEK activists, men and women, have fallen victim to brutal crackdowns. In the summer of 1988 alone, with a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, some 30,000 political prisoners – primarily MEK activists – were massacred. Most of those arrested and sentenced to death after the 2009 uprising belonged to the MEK. [...] Although it is irrefutable that the MEK enjoyed a constant and formidable presence in Iran, the regime has sought to ignore the MEK in its public positions, as part of an effort to eliminate its archenemy through simultaneous repression and propaganda. Toward that end, Tehran implausibly claims that the MEK lacks popular support and is inconsequential to Iranian affairs."

    [22]

  • "The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”

    [23]
Sources representing both sides of the argument could all be teased out and contextualized in the body; instead, yourself and Mhhossein have argued that this one-sided POV be left in the lede as an undisputed fact; but it isn't an undisputed fact.
Also some of the sources you've presented are problematic. Trita Parsi, for example is the founder of NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime (the same Iranian regime that's running a disinformation campaign to brand the MEK "unpopular" and a "cult", and the same regime that is using "intimidation tactics" against journalists in the West and also in Iran).
To conclude: (and this is the last I'll say here to prevent further bludgeoing) there isn't official data or polls to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. We have sources saying the MEK remains popular, and we have other sources saying the MEK remains unpopular. What's most concerning is the −disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime to label the MEK unpopular (with Mhhossein removing this information from the article), and the fact that this "MEK is unpopular" POV is being pushed in the lede of this Wikipedia article as an objective truth (when it isn't). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shedding light on a repeated scenario: You have repeatedly repeated the nonsense Original Research that we should be concerned about a disinformation campaign which aims MEK. You have of course received DUE and proportionate replies each time. In this comment, you have made concluding remark talking about "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign". It's quite interesting for others to realize you did pretty much the same concluding remark here (just see "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign" being repeated there). So, my response would be almost the same:"These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign...Using this [your] argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know!". --Mhhossein talk 13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure (or organization). For example, Yasser Arafat says most Israelis came to regard him as an unrepentant terrorist, but the sources given don't cite any poll. There are many other examples on wikipedia where the (un)popularity of a group is supported by reliable sources that don't cite opinion polls. The fourteen reliable sources I cited for MEK's unpopularity are all independent of the Iranian government.
And why is MEK collaborating with Saddam in 1983 an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 was reported in newspapers[2]. Even the MEK's official website admits that Rajavi met the Iraqi PM in December 1982 and negotiated an agreement with Iraq[3]. Because this meeting was publicized in the first days of January 1983, many sources date it to 1982 instead.VR talk 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - The stuff about 1983 is WP:UNDUE because only one source is backing this up, so this should not be in the lead of the article, and the MEK-Saddam cooperation is already in that section anyways. Then the stuff about the MEK's popularity, VR is saying that "there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure", but he is not taking into consideration other sources that say the MEK is a popular political opposition to the present-day Iranian government. To bluntly label a political organization popular or unpopular in the lead of a Wikipedia page, when there are sources that say both, should be taken with caution. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source? LOL! Please follow the previous comments before commenting. Vice Regent clearly showed there are numerous sources for that ([4] and here). --Mhhossein talk 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: I did read all comments very carefully before voting. The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 is not the same as 'In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War' (and the Tariq Aziz meeting with Rajavi is in the article already anyways). The RAND report talks about funding the MEK in 1980, and Terrornomics talks about the MEK receiving financial support 'since 1982'. In the lead there already are many reliable sources about the MEK-Hussein cooperation saying they were involved in the 1980s and 1990s in Operation Mersad, 1991 uprisings, and Operation Forty Stars. The only other unquestionable event before 1986 is the meeting with Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz, and this is already in the article. That leaves only one source to support that in 1983 Hussein funded the MEK, and this is why that is an WP:UNDUE statement for the lead. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clarify it for you for in another way. Please respond: Is mentioning of 1983 the only issue you are pointing to? Since, even your own comment is proving MEK was receiving supports from Saddam multiple times. --Mhhossein talk 12:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment is clear. I don't think I will change your mind no matter what I write so I won't encourage this conversation further. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you did not say if mentioning of 1983 is the only issue you are pointing to. --Mhhossein talk 12:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Per VR Above. There's extensive sourcing that siding with Saddam made them deeply unpopular. It is also not an exceptional claim to make, and I find the citing of WP:EXCEPTIONAL strange. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about a political party becoming unpopular after siding with an invading military force. I also must say I don't see the logic Stefka's objection that sources saying there was collaboration in 1980, 1981 and 1982, don't somehow support the source also saying there was collaboration in 1983. --Brustopher (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brustopher you have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence, not about the MEK's popularity. You have also misunderstood the popularity portion, which is about representing all the sources, and not just a single view. Idealigic (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brustopher is hitting the nail on the head by saying MEK-Saddam collaborations is not a big deal or an exceptional claim. Are all these wall of texts raised by OP aimed to remove 1983? --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, do not make faulty generalizations that don't represent all the sources, least of all in the lead. If the MEK is the biggest opposition to the Iranian leadership, then saying that its appeal has been destroyed in Iran just doesn't make sense. According to the sources, it is unpopular for some but popular for others. When in doubt, like here, best to avoid making generalisations in the lead. The same about dates before 1986, they do not coincide, which can be maybe ok for other sections but not the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*No also per VR. It is strange to cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL for the MEK siding with Saddam and becoming unpopular. I also don't understand why 1983 collaboration with Saddam cannot be in the article. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes thank you Idealigic for explaining, i am changing my vote because it looks like I did misread the proposal. The exceptional claim about 1983 can be in the body, and also the opinions about popularity since in the lead it doesn't reflect all information about this. Bahar1397 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahar1397: You also have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence (there is only one source for the 1983 sentence, and the rfc is about putting this in the body since in the lead it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and that the other sources that talk about before 1986 do not support the statement about 1983). About the MEK's popularity (which is unrelated to WP:EXCEPTIONAL), the debate is that there are sources saying both that the MEK is the most popular political opposition to Tehran's government, and that it's popularity was destroyed after siding with Iraq in the 80s, so determining in the lead that the MEK has remained unpopular doesn't tell the whole story about how Tehran has "spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”[24], how the MEK has remained Tehran's biggest political opposition[25], and how determining the MEK's popularity in Iran is basically impossible because of the nature of the government there.[26]Idealigic (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahar1397: and @Idealigic:, there is not a single source that contradicts the assertion that the MEK had connections with Iraq by December 1982/January 1983 (the meeting in France happened right around New Year's so some sources say 1982 and others 1983 - this is not a contradiction). Yet there are multiple sources that support this claim. So this can't be considered an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim.
Regarding MEK's popularity, the lead already says "It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group". Should we remove that too from the lead? If we remove one of those statements but keep the other then we violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The statement that MEK's popularity was destroyed by allying with Saddam is backed by at least 13 reliable sources.VR talk 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Idealigic:, I took a closer look at this source you cited. The source quotes someone calling MEK the biggest group but simultaneously agrees that their association with Saddam alienated many Iranians. Is this necessarily a contradiction?

“The PMOI’s former association with Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, when the group conducted raids into Iran during the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq war, alienated many Iranians, some of whom see them as “betrayers of the nation” according to Clement Therme, researcher fellow for Iran at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. But Rafizadeh said they remain “the largest and most organized opposition group outside and inside Iran.”

VR talk 22:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: there doesn't need to be other sources contradicting that the MEK had connections with Iraq in 1983. There is no escaping from the fact that only one source talking about a major incident in 1983 incident is WP:UNDUE for the lead. About the popularity of the MEK, this is also disputed in the sources. Saying that POV from one side is the only truth is again POV pushing, specially when Mhhossein removes from the article that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.” Ypatch (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because multiple high-quality sources (both newsorg and academic) stress on this when describing what MEK is. These are only a few examples:

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.

— Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

...the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors.

— "Iranian dissidents in Iraq: Where will they all go?", The Economist, 11 April 2009

Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland.

— Afshon Ostovar (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.

With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq.

— Magdalena Kirchner (2017). "'A good investment?' State sponsorship of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi foreign policy (1979–1991)". In Christian Kaunert, Sarah Leonard, Lars Berger, Gaynor Johnson (ed.). Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781317499701.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.

— Jonathan R. White (2016), Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage, p. 239, ISBN 978-1-305-63377-3

–Pahlevun (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes Pahlevun's !vote provides a number of publications characterizing the MEK as unpopular. Stefka's !vote provides a number of publications saying the MEK's popularity is disputed and also that the Islamic Republic runs a campaign of disinformation to characterize the MEK without popular support. All of this can be disentangled in Perception, but the lead is not the right place. About the 1983 quote, there is only one source backing this so that is unquestionably WP:UNDUE. Alex-h (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alex-h, so why does the lead currently say It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group? Do you also support removing that from the lead and disentangling it lower below?VR talk 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The MEK being considered the Islamic Republic's "biggest and most active political opposition group" is not disputed, but you are encouraged to open a new RfC about that if you think it's needed. Alex-h (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claims that MEK "the largest Iranian opposition group" and MEK is unpopular in Iran are directly contradictory. In fact, Stefka said that in his opening statement[5]. WP:NPOV requires as to present all significant viewpoints covered in WP:RS. If you present one POV in the lead but remove a contradicting POV from the lead, then you are violating WP:UNDUE.VR talk 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained that the MEK being considered the Islamic Republic's "biggest and most active political opposition group" is not disputed, while the MEK being unpopular is disputed. If you keep playing these WP:IDHT games you will lose any form of credibility here. Alex-h (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it is disputed! The NYT calls the MEK "a fringe Iranian opposition group". MEK has also been called "fringe" by CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted inNBC News. And if you are not even willing to acknowledge that an opposing POV exists, then we should take it to WP:NPOVN.VR talk 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that is disputed, then open a RFC about it. This RFC is about different part of the article, so don't bludgeon the process. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alex-h This is about the same POV in the same part of the article (lead). See my explanation in the section below.VR talk 02:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. One passing mention in one source that "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War" makes this undue for the lead part. The same for the popularity statement, there are other sources challenging this point, so to put it in the lead fails the NPOV editing guideline. Barca (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look above, I have presented four sources, not just one.VR talk 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VR please stop repeating the same thing over and over. From the four sources you presented only one source is supporting (in passing mention) that "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War". That means it is undue for the lead part. Also the lead part of the article is not the place give a false conclusion that the MEK is not popular. It does not violate WP:WEIGHT if we summarize the sources according to WP:WEIGHT in the body of the article, something other editors suggested here. Barca (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are three sources that say that mention the Iraq-MEK alliance developing in 1982-83. The reason for the difference in dates is that the meeting between Iraq and MEK happened in December 1982/January 1983, so some sources say 1982, some 1983, and some simply refer to the meeting.VR talk 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in case my position is not clear. The RfC proposes removal of two things:
  • "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War".
I gave four reliable sources for this. It is not disputed by a single reliable source.
  • "[Rajavi siding with Saddam was] viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"
I gave fourteen (14) reliable sources for this and many more can be found. In opposition to this only a few reliable sources have been provided (and even those don't clearly state that MEK is popular). So clearly, the view that MEK is not popular should be given more WP:WEIGHT.
But even if we treat both views (MEK is unpopular and MEK is popular) as equally prevalent in WP:RS, removing this sentence would still violate WP:WEIGHT. This is because the lead mentions the POV that MEK is popular: It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group. Keeping one POV but removing the other violates WP:WEIGHT all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.VR talk 05:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: the mentioned sentence says "vast-majority" of Iranian viewed MEK that is helping Saddam as a practice of treason, and it made the group unpopular-- it does not mention all the people. Other users have named plenty of sources which are verifying this sentence. Hence I disagree with the users who say it's "exceptional". We ought to give these amounts of sources a due weight, and this sentence is considered to be accurate/due. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: Looking at the reliable sources provided in abundance that detail both MEK-Saddam collaboration and the fact that it was viewed as treason, it's never an exceptional claim. Even these sources justify its inclusion per WP:Due weight. POVs should be weighed according to their support by the reliable sources, hence this one is worthy of inclusion.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As per WP:UNDUE especially in the WP:LEAD Shrike (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: The disputed content is consisted of two sentences. Both of them were shown to be backed by plenty of reliable sources and hence WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply here. According to the mentioned sources MEK and Saddam had collaborations over a span of some years. It's interesting that I asked multiple times if their issue was solely with the word "1983" and no one replied (Brustopher also raised similar concerns and my conversation with MA Javadi clarifies my point). MEK-Saddam collaborations is a well-established fact and we don't remove the whole sentence only because of one word. For "treason" sentence, OP argues by WP:Original Research that since MEK is described as "the largest Iranian opposition group" we should ignore the very well-referenced fact that this collaboration is viewed as "treason" or "betrayal" by most of the Iranian people (Pahlevun provided a list of reliable sources for this). I will add some more:
"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
"who see this group as having betrayed them fundamentally by allying with Saddam against Iran during the Iran Iraq War" P.63
--Mhhossein talk 04:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a simple mistake (and fixed it)! The source for In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support actually says By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support. This difference is critical because "by" implies anytime upto and including 1983. This would include 1982 and thus it means there are many sources for this statement. Stefka Bulgaria and BarcrMac, what do you think? I also found this claim in Ervand Abrahamian's book (page 248, Yale University Press):

Third, the Mojahedin's unbashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some of their allies. The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin...

VR talk 19:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefka Bulgaria, I took a look at Ronen Cohen source you quote above and found yet another source for MEK-Iraq alliance in 1983:

During 1983, Rajavi began building connections with the Iraqi leadership. This was done through KDPI, who were connected to Saddam Hussein. Iraq and the DPI allowed the Mojahedin to set up bases in the northern part of Iraqi Kurdistan. During the first phase, these bases were used for training and military coaching.
— 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. 60

VR talk 23:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing admin/editor: these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of the overwhelming bludgeoning with confusing claims, to which an easy solution often ends up being closing with "no-consensus" (something that has been happening with most of these RfCs for the past year or so). It will take some time to weight votes/consensus carefully and weed out the bludgeoning, but that's the only way to close this RfC effectively. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, both of the facts that the proposer wants to remove are well sourced as shown by mhosein and others. They're important to the notability of the People Mujahedin of Iran, and therefore should remain in the lead. Moreover, given the larger number of sources that support these statements, this should definitely remain in the lead. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: They are not exceptioanl or undue. This edit attarcted my attention. If we should give weight to independent reliable sources then I see a lot of sources in this discussison speaking about close relationships of Mujahedin and Saddam. Their act of treason is described by neutral and reliable sources as well.
  • The following source may be useful:

"Rajavi's decision to link the council to Iraq, which at the time was embroiled in a war with Iran, is another reason. Although many Iranians had already lost their initial sympathy for the Khomeini regime in Tehran, they considered the linkage of the council to Iraq an act of treason. In June 1986, the French government—under pressure from Tehran—forced Rajavi to leave the country. Along with approximately 1,000 members of the MEK, Rajavi then accepted an offer from Saddam Husayn to move to Baghdad. Since 1982, the MEK has been politically, militarily, and financially supported by the Iraqi regime, and since 1986 it has maintained a 3,000-to 5,000-man so-called "national liberation army" in Iraq. Rajavi alone controls the MEK, which he has organized into a Stalinist-type personality cult centered on himself."(Page 113 and 114)

"The large majority of Iranians inside and outside of the country reject the MEK because of its support for Baghdad during the IranIraq War and its continuing alliance with Saddam" (Page 116) Shiasun (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, remove. Also per Stefka Bulgaria, who explained it well. The MEK siding with Hussein is in the lead already, and the sources provided here for "by 1983" are indeed inconsistent with what they say (and most talk about Rajavi and not the MEK, so it may even be unrelated to the MEK). That is defo WP:UNDUE especially in the WP:LEAD. The sentence is then somehow WP:SYNTHED to say that the Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983 was "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland", so suddenly we are talking about the MEK and not Rajavi, and none of those given sources support that by 1983 the MEK's appeal had been destroyed for siding with Hussein. Too much lack of consistent narrative, not lead material, and MEK siding with Hussein is already mentioned there anyways. Poya-P (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poya-P That last part was actually restored into the article by Stefka Bulgaria. So, Stefka claims the source is misrepresented, then reverts any attempts to correct the misrepresentation. Making a simple edit to that sentence can alleviate any concerns about WP:SYNTH or inconsistency.VR talk 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not remove Pahlevun, VR and Mhhossein have provided many sources for these points. Well sourced points should remain.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes.
  • ""In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support".
The sources about this concern a "meeting between Rajavi and Tariq Aziz", "Rajavi building connections with Iraqi leadership", and the two other sources can be added with "since the 1980s it was involved alongside Saddam Hussein in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."
  • ""[Rajavi siding with Saddam was] viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"
The "NO" votes say this should be given more WP:WEIGHT than the sources saying the MEK is popular, but that is not neutral (NPOV violation) and the sources saying the Iranian regime is spending millions to "portray the MEK without popular support" is also a big red flag about why this should be avoided in the lead. PRDM__9 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha? No where in the page 'No voters' said UNDUE weight should be paid to that portion, rather they support DUE coverage of the content and they present numerous sources for their arguments (see comments by Me, Vice Regent and Pahlevun). Also, comments like yours, which are not supported by reliable sources or policies will be ignored by the closer. We don't do WP:OR here, so the so-called "red-flag" has no place here.--Mhhossein talk 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It should be clarified that the vast majority of sources are saying something while one source is adding that probably the issue is not accurate — even that source does not reject the POV of those majority of sources. According to WP:DUE, it is clear that we should go by the most pronounced voice, i.e. MEK's sidding with Saddam bought them unpopularity.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It is factually and historically correct, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and has been extensively commented on and referenced by numerous journalists, historians, geopolitical commentators, and authors in academia. There is no dispute among experts in the field that the MEK aligned itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, operated from Iraqi soil with Saddam's permission, and lent substantive support to the Iraqi army during its war against Iran. Moreover it's copiously documented that this alone cost the MEK an immense amount of support from Iranians who viewed them as traitors. A search through the Washington Post alone gives multiple mentions alliance with Saddam. Example: [6]
"Historians said the decision to side with Iraq cost the group most of its support inside Iran. At the same time, former insiders said the group grew into a hermitic society controlled by its only surviving leader."
See also, [7] "Rajavi found a friend in Saddam Hussein and began to build up an army in Iraq."
This information clearly belongs in the lede, it's relevant and accurate. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to removal. The content is supported by a wide range of sources so it is not exceptional. To the best of my knowledge, this inclusion is not against WP:NPOV, unless there are other counter point of views which are as strong. No one in this discussion presented counter viewpoints. So, don't remove it please. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to removal. The MEK aligning itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War is already in the lead. Iranians viewing them as traiters is not NPOV and is not telling the whole story. Read the sources. There is no doubt the MEK was and is the main political opposition in Iran even though it is outlawed by the Iranian government. Rondolinda (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rondolinda (talk · contribs) To clarify, what do you support be removed from the lead?
  • 1. [MEK is] considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group
  • 2. [MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians
One of them or both? If you support one removed from the lead but not the other, can you explain why?VR talk 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello VR, to clarify, I support the whole sentence be removed from the lead. Rondolinda (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rondolinda Which sentence? I provided two (and have now numbered them). Do you support removing both of them or only one?VR talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, remove the whole sentence. Rondolinda's reasoning is correct, the main information about Hussein and MEK is already is in the lead, and MEK being considered "traitors" only tells one one aspect of a bigger picture. This would be like putting in the lead of Anwar Sadat that he was considered a traitor for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Yes, some people may have said this, and some sources may have covered this, but this does not represent the full picture of what happened, and putting only one side of the picture is a neutral editing violation. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. TheDreamBoat is a dromant account which comes to the RFCs whenever needed. Previously, he !voted after more than one year of dormancy and the current one comes after around a 6-month-long hiatus. --Mhhossein talk 13:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: if you're going to accuse another editor of being canvassed to this discussion, you should at least ping them. @TheDreamBoat: were you canvassed to vote here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
The {{Canvassed}} template already automatically attaches a ping, Stefka Bulgaria. El_C 19:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— is this about me? @Mhhossein: I was not canvassed to edit here. You don't know my situation or the reasons why I edit when I edit, so please remove this comment right away. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but Your edits are speaking for themselves. After more than 1 year of being dormant you sudenly jump into a RFC followed by another jump after a 6-months-long dromancy. This discussion may also be helpful for the closing admin. --Mhhossein talk 07:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Isn't Mhhossein "poisoning" the RfC process here by making canvassing accusations or linking failed SPIs without providing any evidence whatsoever to support his accusation? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as it looks like VR has provided plenty of sources to support this sentence. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing MEK popularity from lead and WP:DUE

My point about this RfC violating WP:DUE keeps getting lost, so I'll make it here. The lead currently contains two statements on MEK's popularity:

1.

It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group

2.

[MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.

Many users have used sources that say MEK is Iran's biggest opposition group to say that phrase #2 is disputed, including Stefka Bulgaria,[8] and Idealigic,[9]. In fact, Nika2020 said If the MEK is the biggest opposition to the Iranian leadership, then saying that its appeal has been destroyed in Iran just doesn't make sense. All of this implies that #1 and #2 are contradictory POVs. But WP:DUE requires us to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So removing #2 while leaving in #1 is a clear violation of WP:DUE. And removing any mention of popularity might violate WP:LEAD which asks us to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. If there is such a big controversy over MEK's popularity then we have to cover it in the lead.

Finally, #2 does represent a significant viewpoint, because it has been covered in many, many sources.

Sources that say MEK-Saddam alliance made it unpopular with Iranians
  • "Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland."Afshon Ostovar (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.
  • "...the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors.""Iranian dissidents in Iraq: Where will they all go?", The Economist, 11 April 2009
  • "the Mojahedin’s decision to set up bases in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and fight against Khomeini from that side of the border turned out to be fatal for their sympathy amongst the Iranian people, who considered this national treason." page of 47 of Master's thesis "The Iranian Mojahedin´s struggle for legitimacy" at University of Oslo
  • "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 group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.Jonathan R. White (2016), Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage, p. 239, ISBN 978-1-305-63377-3"
  • "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
  • "More important, most Iranians disdain the MEK because it sided with Saddam Hussein in the bloody eight-year war between Iraq and Iran," Hamid Biglari in Foreign Affairs magazine
  • "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
  • "They don't have a following in Iran; in fact, they are widely detested for siding with the regime of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war." said by Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council
  • "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
  • "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
  • "...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
  • "With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq."Magdalena Kirchner (2017). "'A good investment?' State sponsorship of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi foreign policy (1979–1991)". In Christian Kaunert, Sarah Leonard, Lars Berger, Gaynor Johnson (ed.). Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781317499701.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  • "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."Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  • "While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran." Sandra Mackey "The Iranians", page 372

VR talk 02:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR: That MEK is considered as "Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group" is a disputed as far as I know. For instance, take a look at this UN report:
"There are two major groups in Iran which oppose the present regime, namely the MEK and the monarchists. The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime. Monarchists operate several television stations in different countries and are actively involved in disseminating information criticizing the current Iranian regime."
--Mhhossein talk 22:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is disputed. But WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be presented and WP:DUE tells us that a prominent viewpoint in WP:RS must be given "prominence of placement". So it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to remove one prominent viewpoint from the lead but leave the opposing prominent viewpoint there.VR talk 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes VR that's it, but looking at the discussions it seems Stefka Bulgaria et al. are changing their minds from time to time. First they said it's exceptional, now they say it's SYNTH (LOL!). --Mhhossein talk 07:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing VR's and Mhhossein's concerns (part 1)

VR and Mhhossein have a history of complaining that their concerns are usually not addressed in these RfCs, so for the sake of not bludgeoning this RfC further, I'll address their concerns here as brief and to the point as I can:

This RfC proposes removing the following from the lede:

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

Two main reasons have been presented for endorsing this removal:

1) We already have in the lede that the MEK was

“involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

2) The sources presented talking about a MEK-Saddam Hussein collaboration in 1983 and prior are inconsistent (many talk about Rajavi and not the MEK per se, and most of the sources simply don’t support what's currently in the lede). It has been proposed that these sources be summarized in the body since in the lede they are WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH for the statement in question.

Here is a list of the sources presented for supporting this statement, and why they are problematic:

  • "Third, the Mojahedin's unbashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some of their allies. The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin..."[Ervand Abrahamian's book (page 248, Yale University Press)]
(This talks about a meeting between Rajavi with Tariq Aziz and analysts suspecting that Iraqi money funded MEK projects; it would be WP:SYNTH to say this source asserts that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”.)
  • "During 1983, Rajavi began building connections with the Iraqi leadership. This was done through KDPI, who were connected to Saddam Hussein. Iraq and the DPI allowed the Mojahedin to set up bases in the northern part of Iraqi Kurdistan. During the first phase, these bases were used for training and military coaching."[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. 60]
(This talks about Rajavi starting connections with Iraqi leadership and Iraq allowing the MEK to set up bases in Iraqi Kuristan; it would be WP:SYNTH to assert this source supports that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”.)
  • "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran."Rand report
(It would be WP:SYNTH to say this source supports that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”)
  • "Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein."[Terrornomics By Sean S. Costigan, David Gold]
(This consists of a single mention in the whole book that doesn’t support “...in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”)
  • "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."[Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards]
(This consists of a single mention in the whole book about Massoud Rajavi siding with Saddam Hussein by 1983 which doesn’t say anything about “financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran-Iraq war”.)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First you forgot this source (WSJ) that I mentioned above:

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.

This is also the first time in the RfC that you've brought up WP:SYNTH concerns and we should get an outside opinion at WP:NORN. But would you agree that a slight rewording of the sentence would eliminate any such concerns:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had openly sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war and received financial support from him...

VR talk 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That source is an opinion piece by an author known for ontroversies and fabrications; so best to avoid that one. About your other suggestions, I'm not interested in bludgeoning this RfC more than it already has been. All points have been addressed, and as it was explained to you already, a RfC "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog.". Let an experienced editor/admin close this already before it drags into "a mess that nobody can follow anymore" territory. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria you raised concerns about WP:SYNTH for the very first time on December 6. Prior to that no one in this RfC had talked about SYNTH. But just one hour after raising that concern you said "let an experienced editor/admin close this". WP:Communication is required. There has been no discussion over possible SYNTH. Now, what is your opinion on the small modification I proposed above?VR talk 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Others have presented objections to removing this from the lede besides my WP:SYNTH argument. The reality is that the quote voted to be removed:

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

remains WP:UNDUE for the lede: only a couple of sources support "by 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support", and neither of them say anything about "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." (the sources that talk about the MEK losing popularity in Iran refer to the MEK collaborating with Hussein - something that's is already in the lede - and not about Massud Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983).
I hope I have been clear here. Please let someone close this already. I won't respond to any more pings. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria I have tweaked the text to more closely reflect the source, so that should no longer be a concern. We can reword "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam" to "MEK's alliance with Saddam" etc.
Solid WP:RS have been provided for all the following facts: by 1983 MEK and Iraq had a relationship that consisted of Iraq giving money and material support to MEK, MEK giving intelligence to Iraq, and Rajavi and Iraqi Deputy PM had met and formed an agreement (Jan 1983). Three of the sources say Rajavi had "sided" with Iraq by 1983, which is what is already there, but I'm open to a different wording.VR talk 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another source:

As it went into exile, MEK’s willingness to side with Saddam’s Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war disturbed its already diminished cadre. During a key 1983 meeting between Masud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz, an alliance was forged.
— Ray Takeyh, Council of Foreign Relations,[10]

VR talk 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing VR's and Mhhossein's concerns (part 2)

This RfC also proposes removing the following from the lede:

"[MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

Iran is unfortunately one of the worst censored countries by their governments (see Censorship in Iran). The regime in Iran has outlawed the MEK there, so to wiki-voice in the lede of the article "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." would be a gross misrepresentation of all the RSs.

(Above) VR made the argument that removing this would be a "violation of WP:DUE" because we need to "represent all significant viewpoints", but he is suggesting we only represent the sources arguing that the MEK is unpopular, he is not asking that we also include the sources that argue the MEK is popular (which have been provided throughout this RfC) or the sources saying that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI [MEK and portrayed it as a group without popular support”].

For that reason, this is a problematic statement for the lede that would be better teased out and explained by all viewpoints in the body. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, I'm in favor of the status quo (and against your proposal), because currently the lead presents both viewpoints. You want to remove one viewpoint but not the other. Doesn't that violate WP:DUE?VR talk 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone who voted in this RfC has already made their positions clear, including myself. I have addressed both yours and Mhhossein's concerns, and now it's time for an experienced editor/admin to close this RfC, so I won't comment here further for the sake of that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous reliable sources are provided for "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" you are saying it's being wiki-voiced? --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stefka Bulgaria: You say the following sentence is disputed:

Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians

Can ONE of you say which sources have disputed this? In what terms is it disputed? --Mhhossein talk 07:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is still open. Who would have thought? Likewise I think this question should be replied. They say it's disputed but what are the sources against it? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Ali Ahwazi and it seems there are more things to be discussed yet. Stefka Bulgaria you need to reply this question. --Mhhossein talk 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the numerous votes/comments in the RFC explaining why this sentence is problematic for the lede of the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one asked for why the sentence is problematic. Please, bring ONE source saying "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians" is disputed. I am assuming you are failing to support your position by reliable sources. No where in this RFC it was shown the this sentence is disputed. --Mhhossein talk 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria If you have missed this comment. --Mhhossein talk 12:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, read the RFC's comments. Nobody is saying this is disputed or unsupported by sources. I've said this should be removed per WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT: If we have sources saying the MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country"[27] and also that the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign against it[28][29] to, among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”[30] then saying they're considered "traitors" in their own country would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede). As Ronen Cohen notes: "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."[31] Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Like Nika2020 said, this is a "faulty generalization". In another RFC closed last year here, the closing admin said "It would also be quite possible to give neither figure in the lede, and just describe the controversy in the body text, although nobody in the discussion even considers this. I don't know why not." So we are here trying to take such advice on board, and put controversial generalisations in the body (along with POVs from other RSs, so it's better contextualized there). Also, this text is talking about Rajavi siding with Hussein and not the MEK per se, which is even more problematic for the lede and needs to be better explained in the body. I doubt you'll be happy with this or any explanation I give, so I won't be responding here anymore hoping that someone will close this RFC. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a thorough response. --Mhhossein talk 13:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will address your comment segment by segment:
  • #1-The first five lines your comment (from "For the last time,..." up to "As Ronen Cohen notes:"...because of the nature of the government in Iran."[5])
In this segment, you are combining materials from multiple sources, some of them being news sources, "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is a clear a SYNTHESIS and should be avoided. As you already said. "Nobody is saying this ["Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians"] is disputed or unsupported by source." So, no synthesis please. Moreover, WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT is not applied here because there's no counter viewpoint against the the disputed content in the scholarly or news sources.
  • #2- The rest of your comment (from "For the last time,..." up to the end).
In this part you are referring to "faulty generalization". Actually, no generalization is done. There are vast amount of scholarly sources saying Saddam-MEK's collaborations led to MEK being called traitor (which you said is not disputed anywhere by no one). This text is so strongly supported by the various sources, be it scholarly or not, that is never problematic for the lead. Finally, if your issue has now condensed to the level of 'names should change', then it shows you are now accepting the issue is generally not refutable but the details should be changed. So, again, "faulty generalization" is just a baseless pretext.--Mhhossein talk 13:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Newsweek
  2. ^ Temperature Rising: Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Wars in the Middle East. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2018. ISBN 978-1538121726. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  3. ^ Iran’s Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times
  4. ^ Confronting Iran
  5. ^ "Iranian opposition abroad finds new voice amid protests".
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ "Who are the Iranian dissident group MEK?". BBC News.
  8. ^ "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian.
  9. ^ "U.S. Removes Iranian Group From Terrorism List". National Public Radio.
  10. ^ "Iran's Opposition Groups are Preparing for the Regime's Collapse. Is Anyone Ready?".
  11. ^ "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.
  12. ^ 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...
  13. ^ 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)
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ 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)
  16. ^ "MEK's violent past looms over US lobby for regime change in Iran". Al Jazeera. 2018-03-29.
  17. ^ Jason Rezaian (2018-03-24). "John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him". Washington Post.
  18. ^ Sasan Fayazmanesh. The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment. Routledge. p. 82.
  19. ^ 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)
  20. ^ Ali Harb. "How Iranian MEK went from US terror list to halls of Congress". Middle East Eye.
  21. ^ Temperature Rising: Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Wars in the Middle East. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2018. ISBN 978-1538121726. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  22. ^ by IVAN SASCHA SHEEHAN
  23. ^ Arab News
  24. ^ [1]
  25. ^ Temperature Rising: Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Wars in the Middle East. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2018. ISBN 978-1538121726. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ Newsweek
  28. ^ Iran’s Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times
  29. ^ Confronting Iran
  30. ^ "Iranian opposition abroad finds new voice amid protests".
  31. ^ 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.
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.

Mhhossein please also answer this

@Mhhossein: also please explain why you have removed:

1 "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division"[1] (You say "it promoting the POV of MEK. Who says it was heavy?". The author is saying "heavy", so why do you think it's promoting the POV of MEK?)

2"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.[2] (No information in the article about Kerand and Eslamabad being 'liberated' from regime's troops)

3"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.” [3] (MEK and Jassim's testimonies about this are not in the article)

4"In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."[4] (I read [11] your answer about this but still can't understand why you think this should not be in the article)

5 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."[5] (are you now saying you removed this by mistake and this can be put back in the article?)

6 You restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses."[12], which is supported by one source, with edit summary "is not an exceptional claim- it's not a big deal". Can you please explain when WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applied and when is not? Idealigic (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be snarky, Idealigic, but when do you plan to respond to my questions to you? I pinged you in a question on Nov 1,[13] then I reminded you again on Nov 10,[14]. No problem if you got busy, but give others the same consideration. Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:DEADLINE.VR talk 21:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VR: Voting in a RFC (where I have already explained my vote and also where I'm not interested in engaging in bludgeoning behavior) is one thing, and removing information from the article is another very different thing. @Mhhossein:, can you please respond to the 6 points in this section? Thank you kindly. Idealigic (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your comment in question advocated removing certain content from the lead and Mhhossein is also advocating removing content from the article. Both Idealigic and Mhhossein need to answer questions clearly about content they don't want in the article.VR talk 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: do you consider these also to be unnecessary details, or should Mhhossein answer for these edits he did? Idealigic (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking a position on any specific content; rather, I'm making a general observation that the article covers allegations and counter-allegations in far too much detail. Which ones are removed or kept is for talk page discussion to determine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: but what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did to the article, like here for example? Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ping him again, maybe he missed the first one. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Idealigic: I wonder you are saying "what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did". It's nonesense. Just look at the level of my contributions:
1:- The level of causalities is already covered. Given those details, I don't know why an extra descriptive phrase should be included. It hurts the NPOV of the page, I believe.
2:- "Liberation" is a ridiculous word scare quote in this context. Were those cities captured by Iran and then liberated by MEK? Of course not. LOL! By the, this comment shows you need to take 'Wikipedia:Competence is required' very seriously. Islamabad-e Gharb is already mentioned (is it not similar to Eslamabad?). So, you can add the name Karand to "It seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb."
3:- The Iraqi official's claims are cited to Rjavi! ("Rajavi makes statement. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 0835 GMT. 19 June, 1988. and Chemical Warfare Denied. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 1344 GMT. 19 June, 1988.") Moreover, AFAIS, this claim goes against thoes of '"The Combination of Iraqi offensives and Western intervention force Iran to accept a cease-fire: September 1987 to March 1989" (PDF). The Lessons of Modern War – Volume II: Iran–Iraq War. Center for Strategic and International Studies.' and 'Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.'
I will respond the rest very soon. --Mhhossein talk 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, thanks for responding, but please stop making allusions to CIR here. If there are competence issues severe enough that something needs to be done about them, please ask for assistance from uninvolved administrators. And I'll save you some time by telling you there's no substantive competence issues here, just battleground mentalities and a lack of commitment to NPOV. Idealigic, please respond to Mhhossein's comments about the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: 1:- In the article the level of casualties are given as a quote from Rajavi, "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added. The report in dispute is saying the MEK inflicted "heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division". The difference is that this is a report by something other than Rajavi's account, but you first said you removed it because it was "promoting the POV of MEK", and now you say "The level of casualties is already covered." I don't wish to engage in battleground behavior, but the report in dispute seems like a reliable account by a reliable source that provides information from something other than Rajavi's words (which can be interpreted as just a primary source).

2:- "Liberated" is the word used by the neutral and reliable source, not by me. What we have in the article now is that the MEK "seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb", and you seem to be ok with that POV, but when we add a different POV from another reliable source you remove it saying it's a "scare quote". We could have both POVs in the article, wouldn't that would make things more NPOV?

3:- Why is it wrong to add an account by the MEK leadership in an article about the MEK? The MEK are making the claim that “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”, why are they not entitled to present their version of the event? Idealigic (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1:- I realized, on the second thought, that the phrase "heavy" is the author's POV but I still am not seeing in your comments why an extra descriptive should be added. So you think Rajavi's account should be replaced by Omar Al-Hassan's?
2:- No, as I said "liberated" is a scare quote and should not be used. Moreover, I explained how it's meaning is not matching the context. Moreover, I have no idea about that longstanding text (did I say it's a scare quote? I does not seem to be such, I think).
3:- Who said you can't use the Rajavi's account? The only issue is that you can't use them as a fact (it should be used in an attributed manner). --Mhhossein talk 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein:
1:- "Inflicting casualties" could mean 1 or 2 people. "Inflicting heavy casualties" means many people. This one word provides better description, why would you want to leave it out? I would use both Rajavi's and Omar Al-Hassan's account - "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division, which according to Masoud Rajavi resulted in the killing of 2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment captured"
2:- Where does it say that "liberated" is a "scare quote"? One source is saying "seized and razed to the ground", and the other source is saying "liberated". We have two reliable sources saying two different things. Why not include both POVs (in an attributed manner)?
3:- So you are now ok to add Rajavi's account if we attribute it to him? Idealigic (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: I see you are active in other talk page discussions, so could you please also respond to the points here? (it has been more than 2 weeks since you don't respond about points 4,5,and 6). Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Idealigic, number 6 does not seem like an exceptional claim and is covered by multiple WP:RS. It is mentioned explicitly here and here, and alluded to here. Are there any sources that dispute it?VR talk 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1: We don't need to stress on the causalities more than enough. Rjavi's account is enough I think and it should be attributed as it is now. In any case, we have to counterbalance it with the claims/denial of the Iranian side, if there's any. Of course, you can say much more details in the page dedicated to the operation.
2: "Liberated" is a scare quote in the source (see the wiki page for scare quote). Check it out. Is "seized and razed to the ground" a scare quote too? I don't think so. But this is not the only problem since I explained how the usage of word "liberation" would be awkward in this context (nothing was liberated by MEK in that operation simply because MEK had no control over the area before the operation).
3: The source for the Iraqi official statement is "Rajavi makes statement. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 0835 GMT. 19 June, 1988. and Chemical Warfare Denied. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 1344 GMT. 19 June, 1988." We can as Vanamonde if he can kindly say this can be attributed to Rajavi. Moreover, I could not find this statement by the Iraqi official in other sources.
4: I have explained here that the EU sanction should be inserted briefly with counterviews. For instance Iran has denied the role of the Iranian diplomat and this Reuters source describes the move as being "symbolic".
5: I said I had no objection against its inclusion. But does it add something untold? Check it before inclusion.
6: Responded by Vice regent.
--Mhhossein talk 12:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: can I insert point 5 and point 3 (in attributed manner) back to the article? Also Mhhossein is saying that he removed point 4 because it "should instead be inserted briefly with counterviews". Couldn't he have just done that himself instead of removing that information? Idealigic (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to build consensus before adding new things. What are your proposals? --Mhhossein talk 17:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Idealigic, a specific proposal incorporating Mhhossein's responses would help. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: here it is my specific proposal.

3 "while according to Massud Rajavi, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”.

4 "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities involving an Iranian diplomat who is said to have been involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

5 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

If you you agree with this proposal, then i will add this to the article, and if not, please let me know your counter-proposition. Idealigic (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proposal. I think the following need to be resolved:
3. Where's that "while" coming from? I think it's an example of editorializing. Also, I'm not sure if it can be attributed to Rajavi (Vanamonde didn't respond to my query).
4. It is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Your version is wikivoicing the allegation that Iran was involved in terrorist activities. Also, denial from the Iranian party should be added. I would suggest something like "In 2019, EU placed sanctions against on two Iranian individuals and an Iranian intelligence unit over alleged attacks against MEK in Europe. Iran denied any involvement saying these are accusations aimed at damaging EU-Iran relations."
5. Take care of that "while" (MOS:EDITORIAL). Can you say what the source says?
--Mhhossein talk 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I have given a specific proposal incorporating Mhhossein's responses, like you said I should do. I also asked Mhhossein to give his proposal if he didn't like mine, but he didn't give a proposal, he just keeps rejecting my proposal. Idealigic (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think you're both being rather difficult, but if he doesn't agree, and no one else will respond, start an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Idealigic in case of #4, Mhhossein specifically gives you a counter proposal, so why are you saying but he didn't give a proposal?
And Mhhossein, in #5 of Idealigic's proposal he is not using the word "while" (he uses it in #3 not #5). Can you give a counter proposal to #5, Mhhossein?VR talk 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde: In fact it's not a matter of disagreement. I gave a specific proposal (#4) and am ready to reach a compromise over it. I don't know why Idealigic alleges I had not given him my suggestion! As for #3, there's a concern over a synthetic contrast as a result of using "while". Also, I am not sure if the attribution used in #3 is correct. Idealigic fails to reply to these. As for #5, it was my fault, I mistakenly thought there was a "while" there, but thanks to VR's point there is no concern with #5. --Mhhossein talk 13:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Al-Hassan, Omar. Strategic Survey of the Middle East. Brassey's. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-08-037703-2. Retrieved 17 October 2020.
  2. ^ [The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile The Mojahedin-eKhalq and its Struggle for Survival by James A. Piazza in Domes Digest of Middle Eastern Studies]
  3. ^ [The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile The Mojahedin-eKhalq and its Struggle for Survival by James A. Piazza in Domes Digest of Middle Eastern Studies]
  4. ^ by Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz)
  5. ^ Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.

Undue weight given to anti-HRW views

In the section #Human rights record there is mention of a report by the HRW named 'No Exit', and while there is little said about the content of the report (cases are only briefly named, with zero depth), there is an extensive coverage of opposition to the report, which comes from a political arena (from parliamentary advocates of the MEK) rather than human right activists.

The article currently reads:

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[437] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[298]

The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[438] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[438] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[439] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.[294]

Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report.[440]

There are several issues here:

  1. As you can see from above, HRW positions is written in less than 5 lines, 118 words, 759 characters (in green) while the anti-HRW views is in more than 7 lines, 192 words 1,181 characters (in red). This is not even a false balance, the latter view is clearly given an undue weight. This WP:NPOV problem should be solved.
  2. The part it says Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities is NOT what the source says. I thoroughly read the article by Patrick Kingsley, in which he says "After I left, the group put me in touch with three former American military officers who had helped guard an M.E.K. camp in Iraq after the American invasion." It later adds "But other records and witnesses gave a more complex account... Capt. Matthew Woodside, a former naval reservist who oversaw American policy at the Iraqi camp between 2004 and 2005, was not one of those whom the M.E.K. suggested I contact. He said that in reality American troops did not have regular access to camp buildings or to group members whose relatives said they were held by force. The M.E.K. leadership tended to let members meet American officials and relatives only after a delay of several days, Captain Woodside said. “They fight for every single one of them,” he said. It became so hard for some members, particularly women, to flee that two of them ended up trying to escape in a delivery truck, he recalled." Looks like a one-sided story, and a cherry-picked narrative, from what the source says.
  3. The book used for the view of General Phillips (not surprisingly the same official that was put in touch Patrick Kingsley of The New York Times) is published by New Generation Publishing, a leading UK book publisher dedicated to self publishing your book, and is a violation of WP:SPS for this controversial article. That being said, the opinion of Phillips is already cited twice in the article (only one time under his own name), and while it is rebuffed by another official. Pahlevun (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for suggestions for any of the three points raised above. Pahlevun (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pahlevun: Thanks for being so precise. I think there should be some cleanings.--Mhhossein talk 04:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should clean up that whole section, keeping only the main points. I will propose something shortly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of clean up / summary style of text concerning Human rights information

I propose a summary style of the following text:


In 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki told the MEK it had to leave Iraq, but the MEK responded that the "request violated their status under the Geneva Convention". 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.[1] According to Time magazine, the MEK has denied aiding Saddam in quashing Kurdish and Shia rebellions.[2] In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports[by whom?] of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[3] In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981.[4]

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[5] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[6]

The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[7] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[7] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[8] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.[9]

"Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report.[10]

In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". The United Nations spokesperson defended Kobler and his allegations, stating: "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq.[11]

Hyeran Jo, in her work examining humanitarian violations of rebel groups to international law, states that the MEK has not accepted International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits to its detention centers.[12] According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK controlled their people most importantly by "abuse of women".[13] According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp.[14] Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".[15]

Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. 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".[16][17] 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.[18] MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[9] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"[19]

Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses,[20][21] while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.[22]

In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.[23][24]

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."[25][26] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[27][28] “cult-like",[29][30] or having a “cult of personality”,[31][32] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[33][34][35]


Into this:


Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice accused the MEK of committing human right abuses in the early 1990s against the Shia uprising,[36] an accusation the MEK denied.[37] Other MEK defectors have also made allegations of human right abuses.[38][39][21] In 2004, Amnesty International said it continues to receive reports[by whom?] of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[40] In 2018, Amnesty International presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents.[41]

According to Christopher C. Harmon, MEK defectors and some experts say the organization carries out "Mao-style self-criticism sessions, and total organizational control over sex and marriage."[18] The MEK have denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[9] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"[42][22]

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps". The report described interviewing former MEK members who were held in Abu Ghraib prison. Their testimonies included incommunicado and solitary confinement, beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that, according to defectors, in two cases led to death.[43] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[6] A 2007 edition of he U.S. Department of State country reports, said that upon entry into the MEK, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".[44] According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in camp Ashraf.[45]

The MEK and four European MPs, named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), published a counter-report in September 2005 stating that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses".[7] Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[7] Brigadier General David Phillips and other former US military officers also disputed the alleged human rights violations.[46][9] In February 2006, Human Rights Watch released a statement saying they had "investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted".[47]

In July 2013, Martin Kobler accused the MEK leadership of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". A United Nations spokesperson said "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq".[48]

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."[49][50] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[51][52] “cult-like",[53][54] or having a “cult of personality”,[55][32] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[56][57][58]

In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had been publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court also ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.[59][60]

My proposal aims to keep the major points while removing redundant/repetitive/trivial text.

Thoughts/objections/support? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is not a proposal. You need to elaborate on your points including those so-called "redundant/repetitive/trivial text"s. Why do you think they should be removed (with details)? --Mhhossein talk 07:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give the discussions/consensus building process their due time to develop. I first throw the idea out there to see if I get any initial feedback, like you here asking for more details, or perhaps others saying this is overall a good/bad idea, etc. I will elaborate on my points, but stop making absurd accusations against me for initiating these discussions, like you've done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no accusation in my well evidenced comment. Moreover, please be careful not to just "throw" absurd ideas of mass trimmings with zero attempt at showing why a vast amount of longstanding text should be removed. I already explained how this method would is against the betterment of the page. --Mhhossein talk 06:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say is a method for "betterment of the page" that we all can follow? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Anthony H. Cordesman, Emma R. Davies (2008), "Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.)", Iraq's Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, Iraq's Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, vol. 2, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 635, ISBN 978-0-313-35001-6
  2. ^ At Tehran's Bidding? Iraq Cracks Down on a Controversial Camp By Rania Abouzeid, Time magazine, retrieved 11 October 2019
  3. ^ Further Information on UA 318/03 (EUR 44/025/2003, 5 November 2003) "Disappearance" / fear for safety /forcible return New concern: fear of execution/unfair trial (PDF), Amnesty International, 20 August 2004, retrieved 11 June 2017
  4. ^ Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's 1988 prison massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity (PDF), Austria: Amnesty International, retrieved 4 December 2018
  5. ^ No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps (PDF), Human Rights Watch, May 2005, retrieved 11 June 2017
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference hoc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c d "People's Mojahedin of Iran – Mission report" (PDF). Friends of Free Iran – European Parliament. 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 June 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2006.
  8. ^ Tahar Boumedra (2013), The United Nations and Human Rights in Iraq, The Untold Story of Camp Ashraf, New Generation Publishing, pp. 16–23, ISBN 978-1-909740-64-8, I directed my subordinate units to investigate each allegation. In many cases I personally led inspection teams on unannounced visits to the MEK facilities where the alleged abuses were reported to occur. At no time over the 12 month period did we ever discover any credible evidence supporting the allegations raised in your recent report. (...) Each report of torture, kidnapping and psychological depravation turned out to be unsubstantiated.
  9. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference NYT_MEK_Albania_2020Feb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Statement on Responses to Human Rights Watch Report on Abuses by the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Human Rights Watch, 14 February 2006, retrieved 11 June 2017
  11. ^ Louis Charbonneau (16 July 2013), Mohammad Zargham (ed.), "U.N. envoy accuses Iran group's leaders in Iraq of rights abuses", Reuters, retrieved 11 June 2017
  12. ^ Hyeran Jo (2015). Compliant Rebels: Rebel Groups and International Law in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. p. 288. ISBN 978-1-107-11004-5.
  13. ^ Cohen 2009.
  14. ^ Foreign and Commonwealth Office (March 2011). Human Rights and Democracy: The 2010 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0101801720.
  15. ^ Anthony H. Cordesman; Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, p. 334, ISBN 978-0-313-38088-4
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ R. Pillar, Paul (13 November 2018). "The MEK and the Bankrupt U.S. Policy on Iran". nationalinterest.org. National Interest. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  18. ^ a b Harmon & Bowdish 2018, p. 170.
  19. ^ "Who are the People's Mujahedeen of Iran?". Fox News.
  20. ^ Pressly and Kasapi, Linda and Albana (11 November 2019). "The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex". BBC.
  21. ^ a b 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.
  22. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Security 2012, p. 26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ "Iran's Fake News Campaign Suffers A Heavy Blow". Tsarizm.
  24. ^ "Volksmojahedin Iran & FAZ". Freitag.de.
  25. ^ "Iranian dissidents plot a revolution from Albania". Japan Times.
  26. ^ "An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?". BBC.
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ 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
  29. ^ "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group" The Associated Press, June 27, 2014
  30. ^ Elizabeth Rubin (13 July 2003). "The Cult of Rajavi". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  31. ^ 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
  32. ^ a b 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.
  33. ^ Arab News
  34. ^ IntPolicyDigest
  35. ^ National Interest
  36. ^ Anthony H. Cordesman, Emma R. Davies (2008), "Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.)", Iraq's Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, Iraq's Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, vol. 2, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 635, ISBN 978-0-313-35001-6
  37. ^ At Tehran's Bidding? Iraq Cracks Down on a Controversial Camp By Rania Abouzeid, Time magazine, retrieved 11 October 2019
  38. ^ R. Pillar, Paul (13 November 2018). "The MEK and the Bankrupt U.S. Policy on Iran". nationalinterest.org. National Interest. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  39. ^ Pressly and Kasapi, Linda and Albana (11 November 2019). "The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex". BBC.
  40. ^ Further Information on UA 318/03 (EUR 44/025/2003, 5 November 2003) "Disappearance" / fear for safety /forcible return New concern: fear of execution/unfair trial (PDF), Amnesty International, 20 August 2004, retrieved 11 June 2017
  41. ^ Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's 1988 prison massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity (PDF), Austria: Amnesty International, retrieved 4 December 2018
  42. ^ "Who are the People's Mujahedeen of Iran?". Fox News.
  43. ^ No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps (PDF), Human Rights Watch, May 2005, retrieved 11 June 2017
  44. ^ Anthony H. Cordesman; Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, p. 334, ISBN 978-0-313-38088-4
  45. ^ Foreign and Commonwealth Office (March 2011). Human Rights and Democracy: The 2010 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0101801720.
  46. ^ Tahar Boumedra (2013), The United Nations and Human Rights in Iraq, The Untold Story of Camp Ashraf, New Generation Publishing, pp. 16–23, ISBN 978-1-909740-64-8, I directed my subordinate units to investigate each allegation. In many cases I personally led inspection teams on unannounced visits to the MEK facilities where the alleged abuses were reported to occur. At no time over the 12 month period did we ever discover any credible evidence supporting the allegations raised in your recent report. (...) Each report of torture, kidnapping and psychological depravation turned out to be unsubstantiated.
  47. ^ Statement on Responses to Human Rights Watch Report on Abuses by the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Human Rights Watch, 14 February 2006, retrieved 11 June 2017
  48. ^ Louis Charbonneau (16 July 2013), Mohammad Zargham (ed.), "U.N. envoy accuses Iran group's leaders in Iraq of rights abuses", Reuters, retrieved 11 June 2017
  49. ^ "Iranian dissidents plot a revolution from Albania". Japan Times.
  50. ^ "An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?". BBC.
  51. ^ 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.
  52. ^ 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
  53. ^ "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group" The Associated Press, June 27, 2014
  54. ^ Elizabeth Rubin (13 July 2003). "The Cult of Rajavi". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
  55. ^ 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
  56. ^ Arab News
  57. ^ IntPolicyDigest
  58. ^ National Interest
  59. ^ "Iran's Fake News Campaign Suffers A Heavy Blow". Tsarizm.
  60. ^ "Volksmojahedin Iran & FAZ". Freitag.de.

RAND report

I find that there is exceeding detail in the article attributed to the RAND report that could be summarized/merged with other information already in the article:

  • "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war."

  • "The RAND Corporation policy report on the group suggests that between 1979 and 1981 it was the most popular dissident group in Iran, however, the former reputation is diminished to the extent that it is now "the only entity less popular" than the Iranian government."

  • "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds.

  • "As RAND Corporation policy reported, MEK supporters seek donations at public places, often showing "gruesome pictures" of human rights victims in Iran and claiming to raise money for them but funnelling it to MEK.

  • "The High Court ruled to close several MEK compounds after investigations revealed that the organization fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits for children of its members sent to Europe."

  • "after finding no "verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran""

I propose summarizing this information and removing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims; this is my proposal:

  • "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution".Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. It also required members increased devotion to the organization and its leaders."

    (I propose moving this to the section Ideological revolution and women's rights, where the "Ideological revolution" is discussed).

  • "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds.

  • "According to a report by RAND Corporation policy reported, the MEK has engaged in fund raising, some of which have been found to be fraudulent."

Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fair enough proposal. Go ahead. Alex-h (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alex for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Stefka, are you saying all of the claims you removed are WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Because multiple RS can be found for at least most of the claims you propose removing.VR talk 18:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that some were WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and some were just bloating details that could be summarised into main points (conforming to summary style and to WP:DUE). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this summary. The main points have been kept. Idealigic (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria so which ones do you think are WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I find the recent edits don't preserve all the main points.VR talk 21:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefka Bulgaria I don't find this removal[15][16] to be justified. Can you answer above which of the information is exceptional?VR talk 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice regent Why don't you find that edit to be justified? Shouldn't we be using summary style in the article like Vanamonde said? Barca (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't accurately summarize the content removed and it moves it out of the relevant section. For example, this edit removes completely MEK luring people into the organization under false pretenses and then trapping them. This is mentioned in many scholarly sources, so this content is no WP:EXCEPTIONAL.VR talk 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the idea here is that there is a lot of text being drawn from a single source (we've had much shorter sentences removed on the basis that they we taken from a single source); and we should indeed be editing in summary style. Can you please provide the other scholarly sources you mention? we could then determine a more suitable summary based on multiple sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These removals look far more than a summarization. They are not even exceptional. The recruitment methods along with other removed points from the RAND report should not be removed.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Stefka Bulgaria I asked you which claims were exceptional, but you haven't specified them. So at this point your EXCEPTIONAL argument is unsupported and your edit should be reverted. As for sources about MEK luring members under false pretenses here are some scholarly sources:

...members from Iran who were lured to Iraq under the pretense that they were seeking job opportunities with a company based in the West. Prospective employees would usually first be brought to Turkey for job interviews, where they would then be told that their formal interview would take place at the company’s main office in Iraq, where the final decision would also be made on their employment. Upon their arrival, they would be informed that the company they were in contact with was in fact the MEK, their passports would be confiscated, and their indoctrination into the MEK would begin.
— Terronomics, p 71-72, Routledge

{{talkquote|The composition of the Mujahedin was rather varied as a result of numerous recruitment drives...Many were lured to Iraq under false pretences, such as the prospect of employment, study or resettlement.|source="From internment to resettlement of refugees: on US obligations towards MeK defectors in Iraq" (PDF). Melbourne Journal of International Law. 15 (1).
There are also many news sources that talk about this, but I think scholarly sources deserve higher weight.VR talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that MeK fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits, the RAND report cites two sources:

  • Krikorian, Greg, “Response to Terror; Five Tied to L.A. Case, Germany Alleges; Crime: Police Charge Suspects with Cheating the Government of Millions, Which Reportedly Went to a Group the U.S. Classifies as a Terrorist Entity,” Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2001, p. A4.
  • Moni, Karim Haggi, Dossier of Facts on the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, The Netherlands: Iran Peywand Association, 2003.

So such a claim can't be regarded as exceptional.VR talk 18:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological revolution and women's rights

I propose summarising some of the text in revolution and women's rights since there seems to be a lot of excessive details about marriages and divorces (mostly coming from a single source):

"Shortly after the revolution, Rajavi married Ashraf Rabii, an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood". Rabii was killed by Iranian forces in 1982. According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution". On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. It also required members increased devotion to the organization and its leaders. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani’s younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."[1] Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."

This is a mess and needs to be summarised. Any feedback/suggestions as to what we could summarise it to would be great. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent Do you wan to work with me on fixing this section through summary style? Just please remember that summary style requires some kind of summary. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria, yes absolutely! Do you want me to propose something?VR talk 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please propose something. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent will you propose something? or should I? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria seeing how you didn't approve of my summary below, why don't you go first this time?VR talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of clean up / summary style of text concerning "Ideological revolution and women's rights"

I propose summarising this mess of redundant and repetitive text:

"According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK "declared that God had created men and women to be equal in all things: in political and intellectual matters, as well as in legal, economic, and social issues".[2] According to Tohidi, in 1982, as the government in Tehran led an expansive effort to limit women’s rights, the MEK adopted a female leadership."

"According to Ervand Abrahamian "the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions"."[3]

"Shortly after the revolution, Rajavi married Ashraf Rabii, an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood".[4] Rabii was killed by Iranian forces in 1982. On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani’s younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."[1] Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."[1]

"According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war.[5] During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization, an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."[6]

Into this:

"According to Tohidi, in 1982, as the government in Tehran led an expansive effort to limit women’s rights, the MEK adopted a female leadership. Ervand Abrahamian notes that the MEK "declared that God had created men and women to be equal in all things: in political and intellectual matters, as well as in legal, economic, and social issues". Abrahamian also notes that "the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions". Massoud Rajavi married Ashraf Rabbii (an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood", but she was killed in 1982 by Iranian forces). On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu (Maryam Rajavi) as his co-equal leader, announcing that this would give women equal say within the organization. According to a report by RAND, Rajavi's ideological revolution required an increased study and devotion to the MEK leadership, which led to a shortfall of volunteers."

My proposal aims to keep the major points while removing redundant/repetitive/trivial text.

Thoughts/objections/support? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain sentence by sentence why the removal should be carried out.--Mhhossein talk 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein thank you for your input. I'm proposing a summary style of this text (meaning removing redundancies/POV/trivialities and keeping the most important points so that we can clean up the section). If there is a particular text that I removed that you'd like to keep, please indicate why you think it needs to be kept. From my end, the text I removed was deemed trivial/unrelated to the MEK (a lot of it was about relationships between the leadership and not the MEK per se). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, your explanation is too vague given your proposed wholesale removal of content. Please go based on sentence by sentence basis. Otherwise I am going to propose a restriction banning the users from such mass removals (which has already made the whole TP an endless vortex). Let everyone know, in details, why each sentence has to be removed. --Mhhossein talk 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein what do you mean by "Otherwise I am going to propose a restriction banning the users from such mass removals "? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This means that users HAVE TO respond to every single change they make. You can't just say all of these are "trivial/unrelated to the MEK" without even showing how and why. --Mhhossein talk 06:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein please note that Wikipedia is a voluntary project; we're here because we want to make a better online encyclopedia, that's all. You can ask for further clarification about a proposed edit, but there is no need to make "restriction banning" threats. I was nothing but cool to you here, so there was no need for that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "restriction banning" notion is not a threat, rather a due scheme which I am thinking on devising to "to make a better online encyclopedia". --Mhhossein talk 06:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that you'll be "banning users" that you don't agree with is a threat; and it was uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: making threats is not how consensus is built in talk pages. @Stefka: can you give more detailed explanation why you request this text reduction? Idealigic (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ a b c Abrahamian 1989, p. 251–253.
  2. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 233.
  3. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 233–234.
  4. ^ Ervand Abrahamian (1989), Radical Islam: the Iranian Mojahedin, Society and culture in the modern Middle East, vol. 3, I.B.Tauris, p. 181, ISBN 9781850430773
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference RAND was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Barker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Summarize intelligence campaign

Stefka Bulgaria Would you like to help me summarize the section People's Mujahedin of Iran#Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK I would like to preserve all the facts in that section while reducing the number of words and removing redundancies.VR talk 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would be glad to help; should I propose something? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start small and work paragraph by paragraph. Here's a simple one. Summarize this:

According to terrorism specialist Yonah Alexander, in May 2005 Iran's Ministry of Intelligence ran a disinformation operation against the MEK by deceiving Human Rights Watch into "publishing a report detailing alleged human rights abuses committed by MEK leadership against dissident members. The report was allegedly based upon information provided to Human Rights Watch by known Iranian MOIS agents who were former MEK members working for the Iranian Intelligence service."

Into:

According to Yonah Alexander, Human Rights Watch was deceived when its 2005 report that accused the MEK of human rights abuses was based on testimonies of former MEK members working for Iran's Ministry of Intelligence.

VR talk 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria if there is no objection I will assume there is consensus for this edit and go ahead and make it.VR talk 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VR, if we're starting to remove certain author introductions such as "terrorism specialist", then we should also do that to the many other such author introductions in the article; do you agree? About your proposal, I think we could do better on the overall syntax/clarity. Let me draft a proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We would have to evaluate author introductions on a case by case basis. Which other examples do you have in mind?VR talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

Removal of well-sourced content

This removal is reverted since the table is already categorizing the content as "other designations". For the benefit of the users, Australian consolidated list include "all persons and entities who are subject to targeted financial sanctions under Australian sanctions law" and are subject the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Also, this source clearly says "The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime." --Mhhossein talk 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: Neither Australia or the United Nation has designated the MEK a terrorist organization (or anything similar). Without resorting to WP:OR, please explain how the text you added in Designation as a terrorist organization fits in that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those countries are not being introduced as designating MEK. You can see the table uses a different qualifier for these items. --Mhhossein talk 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: That's exactly the reason why I removed it from that section: those statements have nothing to do with the MEK being designated as a terrorist group. We can add the MEK being placed in a "Consolidated list" by Australia and the United Nations saying the "MEK was involved in terrorist activities" in another section; those statements are misleading where they currently are. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a subsection of the current section "Designation as a terrorist organization"?VR talk 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "designation" here; yet this was added to "Dessignation as a terrorist organization". This obviously does not belong to that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table is clearly detaining the designation. What's your suggestion? --Mhhossein talk 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

Stefka Bulgaria can you explain this revert? I changed the wording to reflect the source better as per WP:V. Do you disagree with that? If you agree that my wording is closer to what the source is saying, than your revert is a blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Admins have previously taken a very strong stance against any misquotations of sources.VR talk 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question says

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support...Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed MKO's standing in its homeland.
— Vanguard of the Imam, page 73-74

I wrote:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support. Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.

Stefka reverted it to

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

But just yesterday Stefka themselves said that the source talk about the MEK losing popularity in Iran refer to the MEK collaborating with Hussein - something that's is already in the lede - and not about Massud Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983. It makes zero sense to keep a wording in the lead that is not quoting the source properly. @Vanamonde93: and @El C: because this article is under special restrictions. Note that TonyBallioni once boldly removed a WP:V violation citing WP:IAR (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_34#Removal) after L235 told them about it.VR talk 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VR, continuously editing text which is part of a lengthy RfC is only creating new issues, opening new discussions, and making the RfC almost impossible to follow. Like I said in my edit summary, please stop editing this text until that RfC has concluded. If you want to focus on WP:V violations, Mhhossein put in the article "...armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded", which is not supported by any of the sources. Why don't you ping admins about that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make false claims anymore. I just reverted the edit. --Mhhossein talk 06:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: Yes, MA Javadi removed that from the article because it was not supported by the any of the sources (thus failing WP:V), and you put this back into the article. Why did you do that if that statement isn't backed by any RS? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria: Your edit will be reverted if you have no policy based justification for your revert. VR has justified his edits; FYI:
"Again I looked at the source, page 73 and the author doesn't say "against the Iranian Armed Forces". So I removed this as per WP:V"[17]
"I took another look at the source and the decision being referred to by Ostovar is that of fighting, so I made that clear. I also gave the quote so others can see that this adheres better to WP:V"[18]
If you think these explanations are not correct, you need to provide counter arguments based on policies. Vice Regent edits are correcting the page based on the sources and you just reverted back to the wrong version. --Mhhossein talk 07:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that this text is part of an ongoing RfC; it's not only disruptive to have it modified continuously while the RfC is open, VR's edits are also not solving the current disputes with that sentence. His edit is also not faithful to the source (in that source, "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" pertains to events after 1986, not 1983.) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria, insisting what you consider a WP:V violation to remain in the article for the sake of an RfC is WP:POINT-y behavior. My wording is faithful to the source (as shown above) and I never wrote "1983" when referring to "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam".VR talk 08:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VR: You placed the sentence right after the 1983 event and before the 1986 events, which is chronologically wrong (the source you're using placed it after the 1986 events). We could put the text after the 1986 events (like the source you're using), but the text itself is disputed (per the lengthy arguments made on that RfC); so, for the last time, please wait until that RfC has concluded before continuing to edit that text. Also like I said, if you want to report WP:V violations, you can comment on what Mhhossein added back to the article (which isn't supported by any source at all). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument regarding the chronological order is not policy based and applicable. The author says "Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO’s standing in its homeland." Siding with Saddam in his war with Iran happened in 1983 and in 1986 they just moved their headquarter. He emphasizes that it was MEK's siding with Saddam that made majority of Iranian people call them traitors. So, the author does not say "Unsurprisingly, the decision to relocated his forces to military camps inside Iraq was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians..." That said your comment seems like pure stonewalling. Do you have more objections or these were all you have concerned you? --Mhhossein talk 07:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that we need to be faithful to the source (arranging events according to how they developed) and to WP:NPOV (considering all available RSs, and not just our preferred ones); both of which are policy based. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you have two arguments (though I wouldn't describe them as 'arguments'):
1: "we need to be faithful to the source (arranging events according to how they developed)"
VR's version is exctly trying to make the text faithful to the source. I already explained VR's version is not contradicting the source, specially in terms of chro order. Nothing is twisted. All what the author says is reflected in the VR's version. Moreover, your comment is not policy based. I guess this sort of stonewalling can buy you something which is not pleasurable.
2: "we need to be faithful to WP:NPOV (considering all available RSs, and not just our preferred ones)."
You created this argument just recently. Can you explain how VR's amendment violates NPOV? There's a longstanding text which is clarified by VR. This clarification is not adding/removing new POVs. --Mhhossein talk 18:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Stefka Bulgaria has reverted VR's clarification of the text. He has provided explanations which are refuted here. Moreover, he has made contradictory claims here; In this comment he claims the text —which is the main subject of this RFC —is "disputed", while, in response to my question, he said "Nobody is saying this ["Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians"] is disputed or unsupported by source." I believe VR's edit is making the text more accurate and faithful to the source. Would you please evaluate the consensus? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the lay reader there is no difference between these two pieces of text, and so this strikes me as yet another utterly pointless debate. If none of you are going to budge, then you need to open an RfC, and since it was VR who sought to make the change, you need consensus for his version. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vanamonde. I deem the objections raised here are not reasonable and are already rebutted, so it's not a matter of budging. --Mhhossein talk 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need Update

Hello. There are 2 [needs update] tag. can someone do it? Ghazaalch (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find that information in the source provided so I replaced it with what was provided instead. It should be fixed. Thanks for bringing this to attention Ghazaalch.VR talk 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VR. There are also some citation needed tag which I don't know what should be done about them.Ghazaalch (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch, ok I've started. The best thing to do is just find references rather than remove the material.VR talk 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VR. Could you name some neutral reliable sources which could be used improving this article? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Works_cited is a good list. Among that list, the RAND report seems to be latest and comprehensive. Abrahamian's "The Iranian Mojahedin" is sympathetic to the MEK but still accurate and scholarly.VR talk 11:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source restriction

Based on this ANI discussion, what do others think about implementing a restriction that involves generally avoiding media outlets and mainly sticking to academic/scholarly sources?

Here are some examples that Alex-h provided at ANI of "third-tier" journalism that could be removed from the article on that basis:

  • "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.[2]
  • "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."[3]
  • "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."[4]
  • "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."[5]

Anyone else have more such examples? What do others think about implementing source restriction in the article as a whole? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let that discussion reach a conclusion then we will discuss the proposed changes. --Mhhossein talk 07:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is about if we should implement source restriction in the article or not. You, Mhhossein, seem to be in favor of using scholarly sources over journalistic sources. So, what do you say? should we remove the journalistic sources that Alex-h pointed to, or are you just interested in removing the journalistic sources saying the Iranian regime is running a disinformation against MEK? Idealigic (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Idealigic, Alex-h and Stefka Bulgaria: I really think you are missing critical points from the AN discussion. I ask you follow the comments, specially those by Levivich and El_C. As opposed to your understanding, "source restriction" does not necessarily mean source removal. --Mhhossein talk 10:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein can you then please clarify, to your own accord, what "source restriction" implies? Please be clear about what "critical points" I've may have missed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It implies that scholarly sources be given higher weight than news media sources. This is especially critical when they contradict. In case of cult statements you used news sources as a counterbalance to scholarly sources. Is that the case here? For example, do any scholarly sources contradict Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters?VR talk 13:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are talking about different things here. About the RFC itself, the news sources are not in direct contradiction to the scholarly sources; the news sources just add a different POV (that isn' in the scholarly sources or the article). About the other news sources listed above, according to your own argument, if there isn't a scholarly source directly contradicting it then that means it merits inclusion? There will be many instances where scholarly sources have no business debunking trivialities published in fringe media outlets. That doesn't mean that those trivialities published by such outlets should be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria you said, the news sources just add a different POV (that isn' in the scholarly sources or the article). If something can't be found in scholarly sources then it should be given much less weight than material that is in scholarly sources.VR talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The news sources listed above are not found in scholarly sources. Shall we summarize them according to their weight? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should start by removing things that are only supported by single non-academic sources. Barca (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Hersh, Seymour M. "Our Men in Iran?".
  2. ^ Ali Gharib, Eli Clifton (26 February 2015), "Long March of the Yellow Jackets: How a One-Time Terrorist Group Prevailed on Capitol Hill", The Intercept, retrieved 30 March 2018
  3. ^ Kelly, Michael (10 April 2012). "US special forces trained foreign terrorists in Nevada to fight Iran". Business Insider.
  4. ^ Hussain, Murtaza (9 June 2019). "An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?". The Intercept. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  5. ^ Ainsley, Julia; W. Lehren, Andrew; Schapiro, Rich. "Giuliani's work for Iranian group with bloody past could lead to more legal woes". NBC News. Retrieved 28 October 2019.

The reason MEK is called a cult

  • I think when there is a sentence like "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".[70][71][72]", in the lede, we should add a short reason for the sake of the readers who want to know why. Like the following:

MEK's ideological revolution during which its members had to surrender their individuality to the organization,[1][2] is the reason critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".[3][4][5] Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.[6]

Besides, the ideological revolution is an important phase in MEK's evolution which is not mentioned in the lede. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ideological revolution of MEK took place years ago. It is not relevant to today's MEK or to the lead. Idealigic (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stefka Bulgaria: @Idealigic:. Why are you reverting my edits while I am using reliable sources and what i added to lead is just a short summary of what you can see in the main body of the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See this RfC. The consensus was to keep that sentence as is. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: None of those options refer to the reason why this organization is a cult. Do you have a reason for opposing this? Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: I kept the sentence as is, just added another sentence with a different subject, before the previous sentence. For the sake of the readers who may want to know why MEK is called a cult.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ Goulka 2009, p. 4.
  2. ^ Eileen Barker (2016). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-317-06361-2.
  3. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  4. ^ Middle Eastern Eye
  5. ^ CBC
  6. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".

New restriction proposal

I have been editing this page since ~3 years ago. Since then, I have been experiencing a continuous effort aimed at reshaping the history of the subject. I addressed multiple series of unilateral mass edits (For instance see "Shedding light on the 5th round of dubious edits"-It was followed by 6th round!). At last long, a very helpful restriction, i.e. Wikipedia:Consensus required, was implemented after I complained about the edit war waves by the pro-MEK users (see "New wave of edit war"). It was a great improvement indeed, thanks to El C's suggestion.

I hope I can express the current concern clearly in the following sentences. Despite the aforementioned restrictions there's still something wrong with the procedures here. Looking at the edits by the Stefka Bulgaria, there are numerous occasions where they carried out large diffs so that even Icewhiz who used to hold closely similar POV as Stefka Bulgaria advised him to avoid a "very large diff, with an even larger talk page wall of text", a request which was accepted by Stefka Bulgaria at the time. However, the user has been trying recently to mass remove a lot of well-sourced content all of a sudden, mostly without going through the details of as to why:

Most of these discussions will just waste a lot of energy and time mostly because the OP fails to explain his suggested removals. While, if there are limitations regarding the amount content to be discussed each time, users have to address the dispute in a more specific manner which certainly results in more suitable outcomes. This is what came to my mind after some years of being involved here and I hope it leads to betterment of the page. @El C and Vanamonde93: Your thoughts please. --Mhhossein talk 19:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, I don't understand your proposal in any concrete sense. I don't understand how you expect the notion of limitations regarding the amount content to be discussed each time is to be codified. Not saying the idea is necessarily a dead-end, but my immediate sense is that as far adopting such a moratorium, it does seem rather novel. El_C 19:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Sorry for not being clear enough. Actually, if something like this is implemented here, the users don't have to deal with a huge amount of changes at once. See this for instance. The OP says he is going to remove a lot of well sourced content because he thinks they are redundant (without even trying to say why and how!). Discussion over mass changes to the longstanding version should be avoided in this page since it has shown to be just energy/time wasting and also makes consensus building very difficult. We can determine a criteria for this based on the bytes to be added/removed/changed. -Mhhossein talk 07:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: you continue to make baseless accusations against me here. I recently opened two new talk page discussions, and we've just started discussing cleaning them up through a summary style approach (something suggested by Vanamonde93 here). I will explain why the specific sections require clean up, and any change made will be done through the usual consensus building process. Threatening to ban users for doing this (like you've done here) or trying to get admins to censor such talk page practices (which are common throughout Wikipedia particularly when cleaning up articles with major POV/editing problems) is... well, I'll let the admins here decide what that is. I have in fact cleaned up a lot of POV and unverified claims from the page through consensus (much of it which you were against removing, such trying to suggest that black people in a picture are a crowd rented by the MEK, which is completely WP:OR). So please stop casting aspersions against me. Any edit made here is explained and done through a consensus building process, and just because you don't agree with them does not give you grounds to make baseless accusations against me or to try and implement absurd restrictions to the talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is not going to prevent the summarization of the content, rather it functions to pave the way towards this goal. So you should not be concerned. However, the trend of your edits are clear enough so let's not go through them (so my words are not aspersions or accusations). Also I would like to ask you not label your mass removals as "a summary style approach". A suitable "summary style approach" should be accompanied by substantiations, preferably based on the reliable sources. However, you tend to organize poorly discussed mass removal discussions, which in turn would create a lot of unnecessary back and forth for the users. You are describing those RFCs accompanied by tag teaming as consensus building process. --Mhhossein talk 13:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Mhhossein's new restriction proposal is practical —my sense is that it isn't, at least in its current form— does not mean that the impetus behind it isn't real and pressing. To me, it looks like it is. That there is a problem, which mostly revolves around Stefka Bulgaria's overzealous trimming. El_C 18:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: Many thanks for the insights. I know there are vague points in this restriction, but I meant to point out a serious issue happening here. Do you have any suggestions so that we can let this impetus turn into a practical framework? --Mhhossein talk 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a proposal about byte-count is going to be helpful here. I recognize where the impetus is coming from, but such a proposal is only going to make it easier for any and all proposals to be stuck in limbo forever. This is not to say smaller proposals are not better; they are; but legislating against large ones isn't going to be helpful, and is near-impossible to enforce. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde: Thanks so much for your input. Do you have any suggestions avoiding the messy RFCs nearly always aimed at making overzealous trimmings? There's a trend in this talk page. You don't need to discuss the changes anymore. Start a RFC, bludgeon the discussion, increase the number of !votes and there's a 50% chance of winning! In this way, you even don't need to justify your proposed mass changes. Discussion is being undermined continuously in this talk page. I guess something like El C's suggestion of "a pre-RfC consultation" should be taken more seriously. I am just saying my thoughts and always need your insights. --Mhhossein talk 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really intend that as an outright requirement when I suggested that, though in the case of Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it should be...? El_C 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Barca says, Stefka is a good editor and they have been a great contributor to this page. Opposing POV editors might disagree, but IMO he has been a needed presence in this page. Instead of singling out editors (I don't think any editor here has their hands clean, specially Mhhossein), it would be good to have a roadmap worked out so that we can all work better together instead of against each other. Alex-h (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I think there is a general feeling of confusion in this talk page about how to clean up the POV in this article. Vanamonde93 suggested not adding more POV or allegations to it, but instead summarise what is already in the article. Some editors have tried to do this, but it seems this is not working since there are disagreements about how much should be trimmed and what points should be kept and what points should be removed. I think it would be helpful if an administrator established some basic ground rules about how to clean up POV in this controversial article. At first this might be a work-in-process, but it might later develop into a way we can all agree is the best way to fix this article. Thank you. Barca (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having the requirement that every RfC be closely moderated by an admin is a really good suggestion. I have found many RfCs initiated by Stefka to contain policy violations and to sometimes not make any sense. His supporters support him without critically examining the proposal. He rarely listens to his opponents, but does listen to admins like Vanamonde93, TonyBallioni etc. (I can provide diffs to back this up).VR talk 16:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what precisely is being asked here, but I get the sense that whatever it is, it goes beyond the purview of an admin's role. It may be best for participants to refine what "ground rules" they, themselves, wish to see applied to this page, rather than wait for a kind of edicts from up high. The general notion of being respectful by not coming across as trying to railroad the opposing side ought to probably serve as a guiding tenant, though. El_C 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria is a good editor. VR please stop turning these discussions into battleground. My question is on how we can all work better together. Barca (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, when I wrote above about being respectful by not coming across as trying to railroad the opposing side, I did mostly have Stefka (and their RfCs) in mind. I was even more blunt in the section directly above. My sense is that there has been a recent degradation in the quality of collaboration on this page, with a good brunt of it falling on their shoulders. El_C 14:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'm asking an admin to actively examine every RfC to ensure it doesn't violate policy. Let me give you two examples.

  1. For a previous RfC on reducing cult section, Stefka proposed the text "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". Eight users came and supported this - eight! Clearly none bothered to actually check Stefka's references. I checked the source, didn't find the quote, so I politely asked twice to get the page number. Then admin L235 noticed the same issue and also asked. No response. It wasn't until TonyBallioni intervened that the text was removed.
  2. For the RfC that reduced the cult section, Stefka initially proposed the text "other sources have dismissed these claims." Just like #1 this was a violation of WP:V. I pointed out that the sources said no such thing. Stefka maintained his position that he quoted sources correctly. Then Vanamonde93 saidtwice that Stefka hadn't quoted sources properly, before Stefka changed the text.

I can give several more examples. Normally, users are supposed to keep each other in check. That doesn't work here because some users support Stefka no matter what. They don't bother to check his proposals. One has even admitted to not reading the RfC before he supports Stefka. This is why we need an admin who can critically examine if a proposal violates a policy or just plain common sense.VR talk 16:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good luck in finding one! Yes, I share your concerns there. I suppose I can just use WP:GS/IRANPOL to mandate Stefka to moderate their approach. I may well end up doing just that. El_C 16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless revert

@Stefka Bulgaria: you made this revert[19]. But scholarly sources say the MEK has an Islamist ideology:

  • "[MEK] is a militant Islamic-Marxist organization that seeks to overthrow the Shi'ite Muslim government in Iran.Peter Chalk. Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 508."

"the MEK with its...Marxist-Islamist ideology inspired by Shariati...the MEK's Islamist dimension made it difficult for Khomeini and the IRP to label the organization as the enemy of Islam. Iran's Reconstruction Jihad: Rural Development and Regime Consolidation after 1979. Cambridge University Press. p. 74."

"The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that was formed to opposed Western influence in the shah's regime.Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Brookings Institution Press. p. 178."

"...the Marxist Islamist group the People's Mujahedin of Iran...Iran’s Foreign Policy: Elite Factionalism, Ideology, the Nuclear Weapons Program, and the United States. Routledge. p. 23." Ghazaalch (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ghazaalch:. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Stefka Bulgaria:. MEK ideology is too complicated to be reduced to "Islamist ideology". Barca (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is not a matter of voting right or wrong. We should refer to neutral sources for the right answer.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1000617257

Leave a Reply