Template:IRANPOL GS talk

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Terrorism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Iran B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Kazemita1 - You added this "but it "seemed" as part of an MEK campaign including a bombing in Qom following the assassination of the governor of Evin prison, the killing of IRP radical Hasan Ayat and an assassination attempt on Ali Khamenei was presenting the speech at Abuzar Mosque." ([1]) This problematical because you are giving too much emphasis in a contentious article on something that "seemed", but was not confirmed. Barca (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not add it to the article. It was there for a long time until you removed it a few days ago. All I did was to use direct quote for the word "seemed" so that it is closer to the source. Secondly, we are balancing the above statement regarding who was possibly behind this attack with what follows next, i.e. with two statements that oppose the firs one:

According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP".^[1] According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular". According to the U.S department of state, the bombing was carried out by the MEK.^[2]

Besides, the source that used the word "seemed" is written by an academic person not related to the dispute and is published by Oxford University Press. Therefore, in light of the fact that this was part of the longstanding text, I am putting it back to the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katzman makes an assertion that there has been speculation within academics, and Abrahamian makes makes an assertion that "the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular", so it's not the same. You are also repeatedly reaching your own consensus and reverting, I think you were warned not to do this.([2]). Barca (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions are not related to the long-standing version of the article that you tried to remove. They are related to the newly added pieces. I highly suggest you respect the long-standing rule. Also, I am yet to hear why you disagree with the second piece even though it is from a reliable source.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing version does not include this text, so you should not revert as you did ([3]). I don't know what you mean about "the second piece". Restoring to the long-standing version because this gives too much emphasis in a contentious article on something that "seemed", but was not confirmed. Barca (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The admin for this page (El_C) built a law which was unanimously accepted by all active users at the time. The law says that if a text stays in the article for more than two weeks, it counts as long standing. Not to mention you have not stated the reason for your disapproval. The source is pretty much as reliable as you can get. (Oxford University Press).--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanamonde93:. BarcaMac removed a piece of text I had included in the article from a reliable source (Oxford University Press). His excuse is that there is too much emphasis on "seemed". The text reads as follows. Please, advise:

According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance". ^[3]

As a side-note, the sources are divided on this issue. For example US department of State clearly finds MEK behind this bombing while Ervand Abrahamian does not. My proposal was to just state what the sources say.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did present a reason for disapproval. We cannot give too much emphasis in a contentious article on matters based on "seemed", "if", and not facts. Also, the long standing version is 1 month, not two weeks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&oldid=922243555#Defining_longstanding_text_for_this_article Barca (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the 1 month rule brother. As for your concern on not emphasizing on "seemed" I am proposing a compromise. That we only include one of the two pieces I originally added to the article, i.e. only this sentence:

According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance".

Please, bear in mind that the other two sources, i.e. Ervand Abrahamian and Keneth Katzman are also using "iffy" words such as "whatever the truth" or things like that. I guess what I am trying to say is that nobody (on either sides) is quite sure what happened. Think about my proposal and let me know.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have access to the source, so no wording suggestions from me. That said, a few unrelated points; fighting over which version is in the article while you work out a compromise version here is silly. The version of the text Kazemita supports is quite incomprehensible to me. And in a situation where reliable sources are unsure as to what happened, describing that uncertainly isn't just not a problem, it is required, per WP:DUE. Focus your energies on finding a compromise wording, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 - these sentences talk about two different things, so I don't understand your "compromise" of adding one and removing the other. Also they don't form part of the long-standing text, so why do you keep adding them back into the article without solving things here first? Barca (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I advise to take a look at admin's comments. "Barca is incorrect in their understanding of WP:DUE, specifically about situations where sources are uncertain about what happened.". Essentially, we should add more sources; exactly the opposite of what you are doing.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a distortion of what I said. I specifically said that excluding sources because they are unsure of what happened is inappropriate. Content may be excluded for several other reasons; indeed, as I said before, all of you ought to be looking for ways to trim this article, not to bloat it further. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 edit warring again, what a surprise. Ypatch (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 - you are continuing to add this without reaching any agreement here first ([4] ) ([5] ). You first said that this should be in the article because it belonged to the long-standing text, and then when you see this is not so, you add the text in the article on your own decision even though this is still being discussed here. I am in agreement that the article should not be bloated, specially with guesses that don't really mean anything else besides a guess. Barca (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a claim stated by the reliable Author in the reliable Academin source, on the other hand Vanamonde93 said before " if the author says that in their own voice, it's reliable", so it was mentioned in the article as a claim, not fact (it seemed ...). what is wrong with this well sourced content ?Saff V. (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the source or the content. No reason has yet been mentioned against inclusion of this piece by users. The size issue applies to all the text that Barca is trying to add as well.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: Intersting!what has been the debate over?--Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology & inquiry

@Vanamonde93: @El C:. First of all, let me start with the fact that I am sorry for what I did a few days ago. To show good faith, I restored the article to the version that was supported by 3 editors who were "on the other side of the isle". Secondly, I want to ask both of you (mostly Vanamonde) about one of his previous statements:

"in a situation where reliable sources are unsure as to what happened, describing that uncertainly isn't just not a problem, it is required, per WP:DUE"

To give you a background, the situation Vanamonde is referring to is this section of the article where sources are divided about who actually was behind the bombing. It appears I might have misinterpreted Vanamonde's statement which was partially the reason why the whole edit warring started. Therefore, I am asking in the form of a yes or no question this time. Is it due to add the following statement to the "Hafte Tir bombing" section of the article:

According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance".

I appreciate your response. p.s. The source for this statement is rock solid (Oxford University Press) and the statement can be checked here.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This misunderstanding, such as it is, is probably based on a misunderstanding of what El C and I are trying to do here. We are acting in an admin capacity; we are not opining on content. What that means is; I might tell you that source X is an acceptable one for statement Y (because that is, essentially, determining whether a given edit is policy-compliant, which is what admins are supposed to do); I might tell you that excluding "biased" sources is inappropriate (because that is explaining policy); I might tell you that the article is badly organized, because similar material is being split up into different sections (that is a matter of common sense). I am not going to opine on whether a specific sentence constitutes due weight, because that would make me WP:INVOLVED. Thus; above, I said that one of the reasons that Barca was using to exclude a given source was inappropriate. That doesn't mean all reasons are inappropriate (or appropriate). What constitutes due weight is something for you to decide, by RfC if there's no agreement here. And to reiterate; the article is, at the moment, way too long, and confusingly written. I suggest all of you focus on addressing those problems, rather than adding more critical or adulatory material to the page. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1:this sentence "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance" was removed because of weight issues! Am I right? As well as I am of the same mind about not to ask admin make comment on all occasions, building consequence should be done by involved users.Saff V. (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Vanamonde93:. Whether you like it or not, if you comment on select text inclusions then you are already involved! For example, you imply that the article is too large and one should avoid adding new text. However, you do not comment on other inclusions such as this repetitive pushing. Barca keeps pushing the text about the number of people killed in prison, even though it is mentioned a few lines above. Bear in mind that I was not against inclusion of the book publication; just against excessive details that happen to be repetitive. In my case the text I was going to add (linking MEK to Haft Tir bombing) was NOT repetitive.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, even if it involves efforts to restore the longstanding text, will be responded to harshly, including with escalating blocks and article bans.

Example:

1. User X changes longstanding text.
2. User Y reverts back to the longstanding text.

<Up to now, this is allowed>

But any further reverts (starting with, to X) are now a violation of the restriction.

There is really no need to go back and fourth. Which is to say, it is prohibited to do so in this article. El_C 14:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @EmilCioran1195, Kazemita1, Saff V., BarcrMac, and Ypatch: To add to what El C said above; in recent weeks the bunch of you have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how talk page discussion is supposed to function. Discussions here are meant to build consensus, not to devolve into continuous accusation. This means you've to make proposals, and counter-proposals, and try to find a middle ground; and if there isn't a middle ground that you believe to be policy-compliant, solicit outside opinion via an RfC. All you've done at this talk page is yell at each other, and occasionally interpreted admin comments to suit your particular position. The blocks some of you just received were for sixty hours; but if I don't see evidence that you can edit this page in collaboration with people who disagree with you, then I'm fully prepared to TBAN all of you (and I don't want to hear a single word about how someone else's conduct was worse than your own). I suggest you begin by proposing ways to a) create a reasonably logical flow in the article, and b) reduce it to a reasonable size. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93: Why do not you see our efforts to improve the page's quality? You tell me you involve in discussions as an Admin, but when I report a personal attack or talk to you about suspicious editing, you give no clear answer (1, 2), But by reporting to others, the copyright issue appeared or the user was warned because of his bad behavior. I really don't know what was wrong with me?Saff V. (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Saff V.: If I thought you were uninterested in improving the article, I would have TBANned you. I am warning you (all of you) instead only because I still think you can make worthwhile improvements. I said what the problem with your editing was, above; briefly, that you are stonewalling and complaining on the talk page rather than collaborating. That needs to change; this page is for discussing content, not behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Please note that BarcrMac changed the long standing version here, on 4 December, which was reverted to the long-standing version by Kazemita1. I don't know how many back and forth were in between, but BarcrMac reverted again on 11 December, without substantiating his position. Needless to mention that he tried to pretend he was reverting to the longstanding version, which is clearly false (this change was made on 4 December so it was not considered as longstanding after 7 days on 11 December. This is while BarcrMac is well aware that long standing version is "1 month ago, not two weeks"!) Anyway, Please restore to the real long standing version, before this edit. The edit is objected because it is against what the cited sources are saying. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: This edit should be reverted for the same reason. Moreover, I don't know how many other changes were made to the long standing version without substantiation. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not restoring anything myself. If you can substantiate (with actual specifics — not vague generalities) that a longstanding text version is due, you may restore to it yourself. El_C 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Barca appears to have substantiated with actual specifics their edits in this talk page in the edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have not. Alex-h (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex-h. Not all of it is explained. He is yet to provide reasons as to why he is against inclusion of some text and/or pro inclusion of repetitive matter. Take for example the following:

1. He keeps pushing the text about the number of people killed in prison, even though it is mentioned a few lines above. Bear in mind that I was not against inclusion of the book publication; just against excessive details that happen to be repetitive.

2. He keeps removing reliably sourced content (Oxford University Press) that relates MEK to Hafte Tir bombing.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm restoring one of the changes to the longstanding version. This change (which was repeated here) is not supported by the sources (see [6] for example) nor there's consensus over it. Despite the edit summary, "Vanamonde's suggestion" is not necessarily supporting this (I see it as self interpretation of the admins' comment). I am ready to talk over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Every body, please note that a long standing phrase, i.e. "built around its leaders Masoud and Maryam Rajavi", was moved from the lead without building consensus. I believe it should be there since its describing in what terms the group is a cult. I am restoring to the longstanding version. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Kazemita1 is continuing edit warring ([7]) ([8]). He revert saying that I "consented to this version of the article", but this is untrue. Barca (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barca: Just take the diff between your last edit on Dec. 9th and the version I restored the article to on Dec. 13th and you will know. By the way, I left a message on your talk page asking for a friendly chat. Should I assume you are not willing to talk?Kazemita1 (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: Why did you revert wholesale the IP's edits? They seemed quite uncontroversial - if not inconsequential - to me, and some of them were just fixing formatting/spacing issues. I'm afraid I think this is indicative of the "ownership" mentality of a few authors of this page. They immediately revert newcomers edits, regardless of their merits. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1 - In your last reverts, ([9]) ([10]), you added to the article this material from the edit war, which is not part of the long-standing text and which you have reverted (yet again) without consensus:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

@El C: - sorry for bothering you, it is the obvious violation of the page's restriction. The later edits of Kazemita1 included disputed material belongs to edit war! Please leave a comment, Thanks! Barca (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm unable to immediately tell what's what. El_C 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - here are the diffs of Kazemita1's recent edit-warring reverts (the ones in bold happened after your warning here to stop edit-warring):

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".

1. 15:30, 13 December 2019
2. 10:52, 13 December 2019
3. 18:13, 4 December 2019
4. 17:14, 29 November 2019
5. 05:50, 29 November 2019

• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"

1. 15:30, 13 December 2019
2. 10:52, 13 December 2019
3. 08:20, 6 December 2019
4. 18:19, 4 December 2019

Barca (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try bringing this to their attention? Specifically, about these two items? El_C 23:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their response to this was "@Barca: Just take the diff between your last edit on Dec. 9th and the version I restored the article to on Dec. 13th and you will know." but as you can see by the diffs this is simply continuing edit-warring. Barca (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @El C:, I am left with no choice but to say Barca is being untruthful here. Here is Barca's last edit on December 9th, right before the edit warring started, in which he consented to the addition of the following statements:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

Please, note that he did not edit the article any further for two days after that and one would naturally think this is a sign of consent. Two days later, on Dec. 11th when me, Ypatch and Emilcioran were all blocked and could not comment on any of his edits he deleted the above mentioned statements. He is now trying to present the facts as if I cheated. To show you further evidence, here is Emilcioran's edit and Ypatche's edit -who even though were opposing my edit- all included the above mentioned statements. In other words I am trying to say there is consensus on the version of the article I restored after recovery from block. And finally this is the diff between my edit right after recovery from block and Barca's last edit on Dec. 9th that shows they are the same word for word.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1, You were making many reverts in single edits, some of which I agreed with, and some of which I didn't, but because they were done in single edits, they were difficult to dissect. About these two lines Barca is pointing out, I did not consent to adding this to the article nor did I give consensus, so please don't say this on my behalf. You've been removing and adding info through your self-made consensus, and you seem to still be doing this. Ypatch (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, I do not say anything on your behalf; your edits do. You did not raise any concerns against Barca's edit on December 9th neither in the talk page nor via your edits in the article. As a matter of fact when I tried to change the article, you restored it to the version proposed by Barca. According to WP:CON, this means you either fully agreed to Barca's edit or you found his edit a good compromise. In either case, consensus is implied.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Can you please check this? The diffs show obvious edit warring, and Kazemita1's justification for them is baffling. Barca (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, another admin investigated this matter in edit warring noticeboard per Barca's report right here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the admin say "that 'Joe Smith supported this version in a past dispute' surely doesn't prove that it enjoys consensus to go in right now." Because there is no consensus, I'm restoring to long-standing version (just like Mhhossein did recently. Barca (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful if I were you, given another admins ultimatum regarding this article:

"Edit warring, even if it involves efforts to restore the longstanding text, will be responded to harshly, including with escalating blocks and article bans."

I invite you to respond to my proposal that I had left on your talk page to find a middle ground thru discussions.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Line break

Sigh. Although Kazemita1's contention that there is consensus for their edits seem to be tenuous, at best, BarcrMac reverting to the "longstanding version" ... "just like Mhhossein did recently" without trying to further discuss the content of the edits themselves was a mistake. A mistake for which they were blocked for 2 weeks. Key word here is substantiate. Substantiate your edits well in advance, with a focus on the content. The timeline and what constitutes longstanding text is key, also, to be sure — but this isn't a legal game where you prove what the longstanding text is and everything else stalls from there on. There needs to be, dare I say, lively discussion about why this or that is or isn't appropriate for the article. Again, please do better, everyone, and engage the content rather than the restriction rules. El_C 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: You blocked Barca for reverting to the longstanding version of the article. Didn't Mhhossein do exactly the same thing a few days ago (here and here)? Didn't Kazemita1 restore material to the article without consensus (here and here)? why wasn't he blocked for this also? Ypatch (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they at least attempted to substantiate by discussing the actual content — was I not clear about that? El_C 03:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Yes, you were clear, but didn't Barca attempted to substantiate by discussing the content here? Ypatch (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was ten days ago and does not seem to relate to the same series of edits. El_C 19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The edits are about these two sentences:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• ""shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

And Barca's discussion ten days ago attempted to discuss these two edits:

• "Also the sentence "and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years"" in the lead section is POV since the MEK attacks on the IRI are already in the next sentences - "it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][50]" and "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government.[47] The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them.[48]""

• "Also the sentence "Those who criticize the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran" in the lead section can be mixed with the previous sentence which is already about criticisms, and the thing about "support inside Iran" is already in the lead - "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[56]" (which already has POV problems)."

Did I miss something? Ypatch (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still did not address the latest series of edits, because these were after. Anyway, the point is that that was ten days ago, in another section. More recently, they could have said (nay, should have said): to summarize my argument from a week ago, your latest edits failed to fulfill my expectations in the following ways [etc.]. But instead of saying anything (at all) about the content, they just went on about the longstanding text over and over. Which is just not good enough. The adversarial fixation about the restrictions in unhealthy to the article. And when it is coupled with an absence of discussion about content, one which also leads to unsubstantiated reverts, actually disruptive. El_C 21:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I agree that adversarial fixation is not a good approach, but I do see Barca discussing the two sentences in question. On the other hand, after we all recently got blocked, Kazemita1 put back those two sentences without discussing in this talk page, which isn't a good approach either. Why wasn't he blocked? Ypatch (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't strike me as constituting edit warring. Perhaps that was a mistake. El_C 15:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Kazemita1 is reverting edits that formed part of the recent edit warring without consensus again: [11] [12] [13]. Can you please respond about this? Ypatch (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what those are reverts of, if they are reverts at all — because your report is too terse. No links to any substantive objections on your part, either. That is not how this is supposed to work. You need to do better, Ypatch. If you can't bother to expand and address (including the editor in question themselves!) the points under contention, I would rather you not ping me at all. El_C 15:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: In this edit, Kazemita1 removed the following:

• "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members.

This was previously removed by Kazemita in this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. That sentence is also currently being debated in the Talk page discussion "Excessive information about a book", for which no consensus has been determined yet.

Also in this edit, Kazemita1 removed the following:

• "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.^[1].

This was previously removed by Kazemita in this edit, this edit, and this edit. That sentence is also currently being debated in the Talk page discussion "Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences", for which no consensus has been determined yet. Ypatch (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 blocked for 2 weeks for inserting and reinserting text that was objected to. Even as a compromise, consensus for these edits ought to have been secured (again, use dispute resolution and accompanying requests toward that end). Participants should, again, note that the time for being bold is long passed. Making one's proposals here on the article talk page first is the recommended course of action. Apply these to the article only when you are relatively confident the edits enjoy consensus and that they do not constitute edit warring (restoring edits that were previously reverted). While a discussion commences, the longstanding text ought to stay in place. We already agreed to define what it is, generally (about one month of agreement, or at least WP:SILENCE). Please make sure you prove what it is, for specific edits, because that is often not easy to assess (for me, at least). El_C 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Per your advice that "While a discussion commences, the longstanding text ought to stay in place", I am requesting your permission to restore the sentence that Kazemita1 removed from the article:

• "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.^[2].

That sentence was added to the article over a month ago (I cannot find the exact date, but in this diff on October 19th shows that info was already in the article, which makes it part of the long-standing text), and is being discussed in the Talk page discussion here. Thanks for letting me know if that's ok. Ypatch (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Can you please answer my previous post? I don't want to get blocked for what to me looks like following the article's restrictions. Ypatch (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious that, at this point in time, you need to substantiate your objection to that (any!) change rather than simply seek to blindly revert on account of an edit being deemed longstanding text. No? Please don't make me write such a qualification every time. Substantiate in advance, please! El_C 17:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I had substantiated it in the section "Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences". My objection is that that statement is supported by this RS, forms part of the long-standing text, and there wasn't a substantiated reason when it was removed by Kazemita who in their edit summary said "There is enough agreement towards removing the Guardian source", but that is not the case. Ypatch (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I'm not going to re-read the entire article talk page every time I'm pinged about something here. If you address me, please indicate where the pertinent discussion has taken place at. As for your request, you don't really need to consult me. If there isn't an ongoing edit war and if the proposed revert to the longstanding text was substantiated, then you are free to revert back. The notion that any revert may result in a block unless it gets the green light from me first, is one I wish to dispel. El_C 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences

@EmilCioran1195, Saff V., BarcrMac, Ypatch, and Mhhossein:. In what follows I will be addressing the reason why these two sentences have a natural place in the article:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

Now see what the source says for the first sentence:

The organization gained a new life in exile, founding the National Council of Resistance of Iran and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years"

Essentially, by a new life in exile, it is not endorsing the group's activity; it is actually saying they continued their terrorst activity. I understand some people might have sympathy with the group, but we have to be faithful to the source. If we remove the part that Barca removed, i.e. and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years" we will be changing the source.

As for the second sentence, this is from the Guardian source that is also used a few lines later to describe what proponents of the group say:

critics of the group in recent years (such as experts,[70] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW[71], and the governments of the United States and France[72] have described it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes.[73] Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there

Guardian tried to explain each side believes about this group. Naturally, you would want both voices heard. By removing the voice of critics you are putting the article out of balance.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"shadowy outfit" seems a bit much. Also inaccurate, they crave publicity and stage mass events. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean it is from the same source that says "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran". It is attributing both sides. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kazemita1: Thanks for attempting to resolve the issues via TP discussion, though I believe you could express the comments in a more accurate manner. I am really puzzled why you are referring to "critics of the group in recent years (such as experts,[70]..." as being supported by reliable sources. Also, please link to the sources when ever you write "source" (or at least do it on the first usage please.) Anyway, you are suggesting to add two sentences to the lead and here's my opinion; the first one is really missing since it fits the time line of the MEK's activity in terms of saying their civil attacks were not stopped after their departure from Iran.

As for the second one, I partially agree since the second portion, i.e. "and cult-like attributes" is already included in a more accurate manner (also see this comment). The first portion of the sentence, i.e. "shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran", merits inclusion however, specially because the Guardian source is already used to reflect the voice of the group's supporters, so why not using it to show what the critics think? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to take stuff out of this article, not fill it with more POV. This was suggested by Vanamonde here. I'm against adding more POV. We should keep to clear and major points only, and these two sentences don't add anything that isn't already in the article. Ypatch (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am against adding POV to the lead, too. So, let's remove the POVish phrase "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there." It is the POV of "Those who back the MEK", so should be removed because of being a POV. Also, the rest of your comment, i.e. "these two sentences don't add anything that isn't already in the article", is a self made argument which certainly is not applicable here. Lead should contain the key points of the article. MEK's reception is one of them, I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do these sentences add to isn't in the article already? Until this is clearly explained, I'm against adding this to the article. Alex-h (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, please note that these sentences are in the middle of a paragraph taken from a single source. As mentioned by Mhhossein, we can of course remove the previous sentence from the same source as well. For example, we could remove both proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" as well as "shadowy outfit". In other words you cannot remove a negative comment made by an author and leave the positive one only. You either leave both or remove both. I think Emilcioran's approach was rather towards neutrality. He suggested we balance it by leaving one negative point and one positive point.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That same Guardian source says "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, which is something we have in the lead of the article already. We either include what "critics" and "supporters" say, or neither (I would lean towards neither to clean up the article of POV). Ypatch (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEK being described as cult is not what only "critics" do. Many experts and scholarly works have said the group is a cult. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypatch when you wrote "which is something we have in the lead of the article already" you have to provide duplicated material, just mentioning "we have in the lead of the article already" is not enough. I agree with picking up "shadowy outfit" which doesn't bring specific info into the article however I aginst to remove "little support inside Iran" as brilliant keywords have to be included into the lead.Saff V. (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that cherry picking which POVs are removed and which remain is the best way to go here. We either work towards removing most of the POV claims, or none at all. We can't pick and choose which ones we like and which ones we don't like since that's a form of POV pushing in of itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So, in light of that fact (that there should be no cherry picking), are you for or against leaving the statements made by the Guardian article?Kazemita1 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We either work towards removing most of the POV claims, or none at all. If we remove the Guardian POV statements in favor and against the MEK, then the allegations in the lede that the MEK is a cult needs to be removed as well. In a similar example, there are countless sources that describe the Trump administration as a "cult", yet you won't find the word "cult" on its Wiki article; that's because that article is better monitored than this one is. Similarly, we should aim to include mostly factual points (the MEK being a "cult" is not factual, despite what some people would want others to believe). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Please don't repeat that old comparison between this article and that of Donald Trump, the latter being a BLP (your comment was responded multiple months ago). I can't figure out on what basis are you asking for removal of something which is backed by "Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73]"? Please make a clear response to this question without mixing this with irrelevant topics: Do you have any fair and substantiated objections against removing the POVs (both from the supporters and the critics) from the Guardian? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of POV pushing, which the cult allegations are, as the Guardian article so eloquently put it:

"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules."

"But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government."

That is POV in favor, and against it. If we remove one side's POV, then we also need to remove the other side's POV. Removing one side and leaving the other is POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, "Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73]" and "critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years" are describing MEK as being cult. This is no longer a simple POV, I think, and the Guardian is not what gonna be the criteria for judgement here. Being a cult is already supported by many reliable sources other than the Guardian. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sentence in the lede that's disputed:

• "Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73] have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.[74]"

And this is what those sources say:

• " The M.E.K., which professes an eccentric variant of Islam, has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult." The quote speaks for itself: has been charaterized as resembling a cult (this does not support the statement currently in the lede).
• [14] HRW doesn't even describe it as a cult (This does not support the statement currently in the lede, and HRW should be removed unless there is a substantiated reason not to).
• "French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, for “its violent and non-democratic inspirations,” ″cult nature” and “intense campaign of influence and disinformation.” This is the statement of of Nadal who "criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran" for its "cult nature" (also this does not support the statement currently in the lede).
• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules." This statement also refers that this is refers to "critics" of the group (which also does not support the statement currently in the lede).

A BBC source used later in the article presents both sides of the argument:

"One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away... And yet another officer, who was there at precisely the same time and is now a retired general ... "Cult? How about admirably focused group?" he says. "And I never heard of anyone being held against their will."

There is a debate forth and against this (forth by critics, and against by supporters). Adding either side is POV pushing, and the proposal here is to clean the article from POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 removed ""Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there", but the part about those critical of the MEK describing it as a cult was kept. We should restore the long-standing version until we figure out if we'll keep or remove both support and criticisms in the lead. Ypatch (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are plenty of many other sources calling the group a Cult. Some even call them "totalitarian cult". When assessing the POVs, one has to take the weight of each POV into consideration. "One colonel", whom we don't know, is never going to be as weighty as "many experts" and "scholarly works". By the way, there's no much different between MEK being described as "resembling" cult and 'being' a cult, in light of many other reliable and neutral sources saying they are cult. There is an illusion here; MEK being a cult is not merely an accusation by the group's critics, rather many scholars, politicians and experts are saying that. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing the Guardian, then why are you ignoring this infamous long-read by the Guardian saying MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult"! Also, a quick search in books brings you good results. For instance, see this book by Routledge saying MEK finally turned into a "destructive cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 09:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: i have analyzed the sources supporting the statement in the lede, and described why they don't support the statement as is. I have also showed how major press, such as the BBC and Guardian, describe critics referring to the MEK as having "Cult-like attributes", and how supporters dismiss those claims. In other words, if you want to make a case that the MEK is referred to objectively as a "cult", then you need to provide several reliable sources that say the MEK is objectively a "cult". So far, you've provided a chapter in a book written by a MEK defector and an article by www.middleeasteye.net, which is not enough to objectively render any political group as a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I showed how flawed your analysis was. You are cherry picking the sources to show there's no source saying MEK is a cult! this infamous long-read by the Guardian saying MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult"! The RAND report dedicates a whole section on "MEK as a Cult" and it cites HRW as having the same description (see p. 69). The report further proves that MEK is a cult:

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult. They allege that former MeK members and critics of the MeK are either Iranian agents or their dupes. However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC.

There are plenty of other sources saying the same thing, some of them are already used in "designation as a cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 15:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed did not "cherry pick the sources to show there's no source saying MEK is a cult!", I just provided an analysis of the current sources in the lede which, as I showed, do not support the statement that the MEK is a "cult", but rather that "critics" (as the Guardian source puts it) have described the MEK as having "cult-like characteristics" (which is considerably different). Also, where is the Human Rights Watch source that says that the MEK is a "cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You provided an analysis but we won't act based on the user's own analysis (per WP:No Original Research). Btw, the act of preferring this source over this long read, which says MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult", is pretty much like cherry picking. Note that according to the Guardian, "takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve." For HRW, see the Rand report I already provided. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, that's a single source; hardly enough for justifying such a big claim the the lede of the article, wouldn't you say? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specially when another article by the Guardian clearly specifies that these are statements by critics (making it not an objective truth, which is how it's currently being presented in the lede). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a single source. There are dozens of reliable sources making similar conclusions regarding MEK. The problem is that you are sticking to your source and ignore a higher quality source! why? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Mhhossein and Stefka discuss the cult sources in the lead section, I will restore the following long standing text removed by Kazemita1 without a substantiated reason:

• "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.^[1].

As I have explained to El_C, my objection is that this statement is supported by this RS, forms part of the long-standing text, and there wasn't a substantiated reason when it was removed by Kazemita who in their edit summary said "There is enough agreement towards removing the Guardian source", but that is not the case. Ypatch (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypatch: That's another violation the page's restrictions. Your claims are wrong; You removed it just amid our discussion (and what follows) on what sentences should be included in the lead and you never substantiated why the sentence has to be restored! I have already explained (see my comments above) why you this edit would add to POV issue. @El C: I think an admin action is needed here. Despite what Ypatch claims, our discussion on "cult sources in the lead section" is not something separated from our discussion on including the opinion of "those who back the MEK". Ypatch's revert is not substantiated and he has relied on his explanation to you as a justification for the edit. This is a clear breach of the page's restrictions. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein I'm not immediately able to identify that revert as a violation. Ypatch appears to have substantiated their revert (albeit more tersely than I would like) back to the longstanding text. El_C 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for the response. Before I provide more details, can you show where/how he substantiated his revert? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's directly above: [the] statement is supported by this RS, forms part of the long-standing text, and there wasn't a substantiated reason when it was removed by Kazemita. El_C 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: Well, I would not say there was no substantiation behind its removal. Let me say the whole story in brief; It was disputed why MEK's being described as cult should stay when the sentence on "those who back the group" is removed. This was because Ypatch and others were trying to show that the description of MEK as cult was solely done by the critics and hence a counter POV was needed. From the other hand, I showed that there are numerous reliable and neutral sources describing the group as a cult (my comments [15], [16], [17] and [18]). If there's anything needing to be balanced, that is actually the sentence on "those who back the group" which should be counter-balanced by a sentence from those who criticize the group. This source by the Guardian, which is already used in the lead, contains both POVs, i.e. the pov of "those who back the group" and "those who criticize the group". --Mhhossein ^talk 09:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I showed above, the majority of these sources describe the MEK as having a "cult-like nature" or "resembling a cult", and yet the lede says that these sources have described the MEK as a "Cult". That's a misrepresentation of the sources. Also this Guardian source specifically says this refers to critics of the group, while backers have a different view on the matter. The diffs you provided do not address these points, which are crucial in this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, by all means, make a proposal to add that counterview. Stefka Bulgaria, if that is the case, then, indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted. El_C 09:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: Ok, I will go by making the proposal. Also, I have showed multiple times, among them here, that Stefka Bulgaria is cherry picking that Guardian source again other higher quality sources to say his point. Though I am ready to see his points (not further cherry picking or gaming please). --Mhhossein ^talk 09:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on MEK's cult nature/charcteristics

The Guardian already addresses "Critics" and "Supporters" in a clear manner:

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government.

We have something similar currently in the lede, it just lacks the clarification "Critics and many of those who have left the group describe it as having cult-like attributes". I would be fine with using the Guardian's "critics" and "supporters" synthesis (most of which is already in the article's lede). May I go ahead and use the Guardian's synthesis? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to not cherry pick one source. The answer to your question is NO because this infamous long-read by the Guardian says MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult"! As you know Guardian long-read "takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely regarded" does not discard that these statements can be coming from critics (which the MEK has many), as these sources specify:

• "Described by critics as 'a cult'

  (Middle Eastern Eye)

• "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"

  (CBC)

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government.

  The Guardian

• " (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult"

  (The Daily Beast)

• "Such words as “cult/terrorist” are similar to how the Iranian regime describes the MeK, suggesting that Tehran’s disinformation program has been effective. Here is a quotation from the Fars News Agency, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Fars quotes the Commander of Iran’s notorious Basij Forces of the IRGC, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who said, “Iraqis hate the MKO [MeK] much and the only reason for the presence of the grouplet in Iraq is the US support for this terrorist cult.”

  (National Interest)

I can look for more, but these are enough sources supporting this already. I propose we add "Critics" to the lede based on these sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring to the longstanding version because more discussion is needed to conclude what we should include in the led to describe the MEK being designated as cult. Anyway, you have found some sources saying they are not saying MEK is a cult rather they say it "resembles a cult" or things like this. However you are ignoring the reliable academic sources which say, as fact and without making attributions, that MEK is considered as cult:

• From RAND:

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.

• A long-read from the Guardian:

"Widely regarded as a cult, the MEK was once designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and UK, but its opposition to the Iranian government has now earned it the support of powerful hawks in the Trump administration, including national security adviser John Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo."

Does it need explanations?

• "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult" by Commentary:

"The MKO is not only a creepy cult, and willing to say anything to buy support regardless of the group’s record, but an empty shell as well."

• Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge:

"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.

• In the previous source, Ervand Abrahamian is quoted as saying:

By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.

• The Cult of Rajavi by Nyt!!!

This innovative description was later adopted and quoted by other sources.

• The Cult of MEK authored by Prospect:

"Accidentally or not, though, the speakers were helping to raise the profile and legitimize the aims of a cult group that will not bring democracy to Iran and has no popular support in the country."

• Will the Presence of Iran’s MEK Threaten Albania’s Already Shaky Stability? by World Politics Review:

"A shadowy outfit committed to the overthrow of Iran’s theocratic regime, the MEK is often described as a cult and used to be classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization."

• "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult"

"Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)."

• Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) by Council on Foreign Relations:

"Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."

There are probably some other sources making similar description of MEK and they don't use terms such as "cult-like" or "cult-attributes" or etc. So please let the discussion go before making further reverts. By the way, the current version of lead is wrongly showing all the sources as using "cult-like". I suggest proposing a draft here, before any direct change to the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: The NYT source by Michael Rubin seems to be the closest RS supporting this claim. Most of the other source either do not support what is currently in the lede or are not by reliable sources or authors:

• The New York Review of books by Trita Parsi (an unreliable source by someone who has been described as a "Lobbyist for Iran")

• Commentary Magazine (an unreliable source by the same NYT source author)

• Chapter by Masoud Banisadr. You have used this source several times quoting it as "Eileen Barker", when the actual author is Masoud Banisadr, a "former MEK member" who dedicates the whole of his professional work to speak against the MEK.

• The American Prospect (far from being a reliable source)

• World Politics Review (far from being a reliable source)

@El C: I'm really trying not to ping you, but reverting back something in the article that isn't supported by its current sources is something that I see as a problem. You previously assessed that indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted", but Mhhossein nevertheless reverted back to this (something the current sources there do not support):

• "Many experts,[70] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[71] and the governments of the United States and France[72] have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."

What the current sources supporting this say:

• "has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult. " The New Yorker
• "French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran for [...] its ″cult nature”" AP News
• " has been described as having cult-like attributes" The Guardian
• "Human Rights Watch report on MEK abuses in their camp. Quote on leadership devotion: "The MKO’s leadership consists of the husband and wife team of Masoud and Maryam Rajavi."HRW (Which doesn't even mention the word "cult"!)

I could continue debating new sources with Mhhossein, but the point is that the version Mhhossein reverted to is not supported by the current sources there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is that I already provided sources supporting the current wording (except for "many experts" saying the resemble a cult) and you can't simply dismiss the sources by writing "far from being reliable". Also your edit had inserted inaccuracies into the led, as I already explained in my previous comment (why do you ignore them?). Also I don't know why you tend to repeat old things over and over (exactly like what you did here). I am not going to repeat my comments here. Anyway, I have done some changes here to make it more accurate. Finaly, . --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe launch an RfC about this, so that you can get some outside input into this dispute... My own view, incidentally, is that to say that the MEK is a cult outright does not seem to mirror the available sources. It comes across as an hyperbole. By contrast, referring to cult-like attributes seems like a good compromise that resolves that. El_C 17:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: If you wish to include in the lede of the article that certain entities "have described the MEK as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi", you need RSs confirming just that. So far, I pointed out the unreliable sources you provided are no good for backing up this statement, and the only reliable source available (the New York Times) is already being used to in the "Other names" section to state "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult", which I also find to by another hyperbole (using El_C's terminology). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Elizabeth Rubin piece comes across as a "damming article against the MEK", certainly a one-sided criticism of the group. Perhaps worth unraveling with other views elsewhere in the article, but in the lead section of the article it becomes WP:UNDUE POV. Ypatch (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous section where we were following the discussions on how to use was hard to navigate, I suggest we continue the talks here. There had been some changes to this paragraph. We concluded that "many experts" say the group "resemble" a cult. However, "Various scholarly works, media outlets" was removed for being unsourced despite the fact that "the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" per MOS:CITELEAD. However, the body of the article is already featured with the citations supporting the phrase. Anyway, I'm restoring the material accompanied by the requested citations. Btw, simply saying a source is not reliable, it does not make us believe the source is not reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have much time to look at the new sources, but I see that the BBC article used for the claim that the US described the MEK as a "Cult" includes an interview with one officer saying the MEK is a cult, and another interview with another officer saying the MEK is instead an "admirably focused group". The mainspace also has sources saying the US has criticized the MEK at some points, and supported it at other. This needs to be better presented in the same way the source is presenting it (more neutrally), so moving this to the section "Designation as a cult". Ypatch (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the continuing accusations by Mhhossein that I'm trying to "Game" the system by revisiting topics that had been discussed in the past, I won't go further in this discussion even though, upon analysis, it's fairly obvious that some of the sources that Mhhossein has included in the lede don't actually represent what it's being said.

What Mhhossein inserted in the lede:

" Various scholarly works^[1][2][3], media outlets^[4][5] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."

What sources actually say:

• "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War." RAND (Think tank)

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi" (refers to critics, more consistent with the RSs I provided below)^[6]

• "By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult. (having the "main attributes of a cult" does not mean they are a "cult") ^[3]

• "The coup de grace that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife" Even though this article comprises only of a criticism of the MEK, it still does not support that "media outlets describe it as a cult" Elizabeth Rubin

• "Widely regarded as a cult" Does not support that "media outlets describe it as a cult". The Guardian

On the other hand, RSs saying that critics describe the MEK as having cult-personality or cult-like characteristics are more consistent:

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"^[7]

• "Described by critics as 'a cult' Middle Eastern Eye

• "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'" CBC

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government. The Guardian

• " (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult" The Daily Beast

Per the analysis above, there are many more RSs saying that "critics" refer to the MEK as having "cult-like characteristics", than the current statement that "various scholarly works and media outlets" outright describe the MEK as a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Stefka's analysis of the sources, I'll add "critics" to that then, putting in all the sources that say "critics". I'll also remove any sources that don't support neither "critics" nor "Various scholarly works, media outlets have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi." That should leave us with a more accurate representation of sources. Ypatch (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Guardian sources for the "cult" attribution. The first writes "Widely regarded as a cult", and the second writes "has been described as having cult-like attributes". The first "Widely regarded as a cult" does not support that "media outlets have described it as a cult", but the second guardian source does support "cult-like attributes". Removing the first Guardian source that says "Widely regarded as a cult" since it does not support "media outlets have described it as a cult", and keeping the second Guardian source that supports what's in the article ("has been described as having cult-like attributes.") Ypatch (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Various scholarly works, media outlets have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" is now supported by 1 source, while "critics, HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult" is supported by 10 sources. The first part is WP:UNDUE in comparison to the second, so removing it on that basis. Ypatch (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch is engaging edit war despite being warned and blocked for violating the page's restriction. Amid the ongoing discussions he is inserting his desired version against the longstanding version. Instead of starting a RFC for making the changes, as suggested by EI_C, Ypatch is destabilizing the article by dragging it into a real edit warring.

• This is longstanding version of the article (with some modifications after it was concluded that some sources are describing the group as "resembling" a cult).
• Stefka Bulgaria removed the terms "Various scholarly works, media outlets" from the longstanding version.
• I restored to the longstanding version and tried to substantiate my objection here. Please note that I opened a new TP topic for the disputed issue.
• Any further removal of "Various scholarly works, media outlets", without building consensus, would be counted as violation of the restrictions, and to my surprise, Ypatch has removed them again without trying to build consensus.

His other edits like [19], which are reverting already restored materials, can also be deemed as a edit warring. @El C: It was not really how we decided to work. We don't revert solely because there's an explanation. I am not going to restore the longstanding version before your comment. I think Ypatch recent edits are clearly violating the restriction. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't removed again per se., the word "critics" was supplanted instead. If that is also a revert (if that happened before), you need to demonstrate that. As an aside, mere removal of longstanding text —a unique instance thereof— is not considered itself to be a revert, but rather a bold edit. Those bold edits may be reverted back to the longstanding text, providing the objection to the bold edit is substantiated. El_C 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C:It was indeed a revert back to this or this version of the article. If that is a revert, it calls for admin action (repeating a revert for changing the lead, where the are substantiated objections against the change). I think this is opening the hands for edit warrens to revert amid discussions, without building consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the word "critics" has been repeated in one of these instances, I'm not inclined to view this as a violation or edit warring. The sentences which follow are quite different. A revert is not just word duplication, but rather also about underlining meaning. El_C 06:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am restoring the paragraph to the longstanding version since I believe the objections are still valid and some users are trying to put their version amid discussion. In response to comments [20], [21], [22] and [23]:

• Abrahamian, on some occasions, describe the MEK as a Cult. For instance, search "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences".
• Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". So, saying it does not support "media outlets describe it as a cult", is just weird!
• RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources.
• The American Prospect[24], Council on Foreign Relations[25] and Commentary (magazine)[26] are among the reliable sources such a descriptions are made.
• In this source, "the cult of personality" is used un-attributed and is used in the author's voice. Otherwise we would expect something like "But critics question that commitment, "given [what they consider to be] the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi."
• This is a weird argument for showing something is due/undue. YOU can't make the final conclusion based on YOUR OWN assumptions.
• "Widely regarded as a Cult" in this source is not reflecting the newspaper's voice, yes, and I have now replaced it with another media outlet.

Further removal of the phrase "Various scholarly works, media outlets" from the longstanding version of the article out of discussion process should be avoided without building consensus, given the objections and the given sources. I'm restoring to the longstanding version given the bullets provided and am ready to discuss the points on the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources have already been analyzed in this section, and El_C approved the update of the article which was purely based on the available source. Mhhossein reverted without consensus. Moreover, Mhhossein removed the numerous sources backing up "Critics". Lastly, here's an analysis of the sources above, which show you've edited here without consensus:

• "Abrahamian, on some occasions, describe the MEK as a Cult. For instance, search "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences"."

That is not equal to "scholarly works" describing the MEK "as a cult built around"

• "Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". So, saying it does not support "media outlets describe it as a cult", is just weird!"

As Ypatch pointed out: "The Elizabeth Rubin piece comes across as a "damming article against the MEK", certainly a one-sided criticism of the group. Perhaps worth unraveling with other views elsewhere in the article, but in the lead section of the article it becomes WP:UNDUE POV."

• "RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources."

Doesn't say the MEK is a cult, it says The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

• "The American Prospect[6], Council on Foreign Relations[7] and Commentary (magazine)[8] are among the reliable sources such a descriptions are made."

"The American Prospect" is not RS, "Council of Foreign Relations" cites Rubin's article, a "Commentary Magazine" is another "damming article against the MEK" by another Rubin.

• "In this source, "the cult of personality" is used un-attributed and is used in the author's voice"

That does not equate to it describing the MEK as a "cult".

• "This is a weird argument for showing something is due/undue."

When you have the Rubins saying the MEK is a "dishonest Cult", but you don't have other RS saying the same, then that's an UNDUE statement.

• ""Widely regarded as a Cult" in this source is not reflecting the newspaper's voice, yes, and I have now replaced it with another media outlet.

Ypatch already addressed the Guardian sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The admin's comment starts with suggestion for starting an RFC and his "own view" was to avoid saying "MEK is a cult outright", which we are already respecting by having phrases like some people "has described it as" being MEK with others saying they "resemble" a cult (the latter literally means the group is said by some to have cult-like attributes). So, I would not interpret that comment as "approving" an update. Anyway, as for the bullets:

• Yes, Abrahamian did not use the exact words of the 'cult being built around someone', but there are other reliable sources saying this. Actually cults are always built around something/someone. Anyway, this item, i.e. "built around its leaders", can be prone to further discussions. Probably you may explain why "cult of personality", the description used by Abrahamian, does not equate to saying the cult is being built around its leaders. Also, see CFR saying "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."
• You two describe the Elizabeth Rubin's work as being "damming article against the MEK" and "certainly a one-sided criticism of the group" and the description seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Likewise you said "Commentary Magazine" is another "damming article against the MEK" by another Rubin."
• The RAND report, clearly describes the group as "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."
• CFR is not used as a direct source here but it make a general statement: "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis." So, it says "many analysts", "including Rubin", say MEK is a cult. Also, can you say why you think "The American Prospect" is not a reliable source?
• When Abrahamian describes the group as a "the cult of personality", it is describing the group as "cult". What's wrong here?
• "Dishonest Cult" is used no where in the article, nor is used "creepy cult".This argument is baseless. "... is now supported by 1 source"! Simply because there are more supporting sources. -Mhhossein ^talk 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to repeat "baseless", but there has already been numerous thorough analyses of the sources that indicate otherwise. You reverted without consensus, which we had received through El_C. Bottom line. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein went against a consensus that was approved by El_C without discussing it further with anyone here. Mhhossein should have engaged in a debate with other editors here, as has been happening for a long time now, instead of reverting without discussion. I am reverting Mhhossein's revert until consensus is achieved. Ypatch (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hafte Tir bombing

As explained in the article, MEK never admitted to conducting this bombing. As a result, sources are divided on whether MEK was behind this bombing or not. Currently, the content of this section leans toward the sources that deny MEK involvement. @EmilCioran1195, Saff V., BarcrMac, Ypatch, and Mhhossein: Do you find it a good compromise to add one sentence from sources such as the following, that connects the bombing with MEK? And to address the size issue that was brought up by Vanamonde we can perhaps remove "the shadowy outfit" of MEK from the lead as suggested by Emilcioran.

Axworthy, Michael (2016). Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic. Oxford University Press. p. 214. ISBN 9780190468965.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, As discussed here before, it was concluded that "The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point. The overarching description should follow that".Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Wikipedia article on the Hafte Tir Bombing that describes this incident in detail. If we're trying to clean up this article, then a mention that the IRI blamed the MEK for this event should be enough. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly you recommend that we remove all the sources in this section; including the ones that deny MEK involvement.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that this can be reduced to one or two sentences since there's already a Wikipedia article about this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but please note the same is true about 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. We have one full section even (lengthier that Hafte Tir bombing) dedicated to it in the article, yet the topic has a separate Wikipedia page. I think, in here we are discussing ways to fine-tune the article with little change due to the contentious nature of this topic. That said, you are more than welcome to open a new discussion for trimming all sections that have a separate Wiki article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 put back into the article that "According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance". Adding such observations of an author gives the false impression that there is some kind of evidence that the MEK carried out this attack, but there isn't any evidence. The sources only say that the MEK is accused of this bombing, and that the MEK denied the charges. That is all that we should have in this section, and should be restored to the long standing version for that reason. Ypatch (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring to long-standing version of the article based on my substantiated objection (just before this message) that has been there for about 10 days. Ypatch (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive information about a book

This one is rather minor, but I figured in the interest of trimming the article, I open the discussion for it. In this section of the article the details of a tragedy is explained. However, when describing Maryam Rajavi's book there is repetitive content. My sugestion is to change this sentence:

In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity". The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members.[164]

to the following

In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity" on this topice.[164]

This is in light of the fact that the exact number of people killed is already mentioned a few lines above.

As Human rights organizations estimates, The number of those executed remains a point of contention, with the numbers ranging between 1,400 and 30,000 including women and children.[161]

--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, we don't need to repeat the toll more than necessary. Your suggestion describes the book in a good manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is really essential to prevent inserting duplicated material. Why should we get the reader bored in this way?Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is about Rajavi's book. What Rajavi's book is about doesn't seem to be duplicated anywhere else in the article, right? If you want to start cleaning up POV, how about the Fund Raising section, which is made up of 4 subsections which, considering the length of the article, really should not be. Or Human rights record and Allegations of sexual abuse, which are the same thing, right? Or Ideological revolution and women's rights which has a lot of excruciating details about a marriage? How about starting with those? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Stefka Bulgaria has drawn attention to that section; it is critically important that the "ideology" section only contain material the relevance of which has been established by reliable sources. In other words, sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned. Whether this is the case, I leave for all of you to determine. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ervand Abrahamian discusses the marriage in the ideological revolution section of his book. And editors from both sides of the isle have relied on this academic book.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody can see that each word of the ideological revolution section is the result of discussion under the control of Admin. It is better not to mix topics with each other! The disputed sentence "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members" is same as "As Human rights organizations estimates, The number of those executed remains a point of contention, with the numbers ranging between 1,400 and 30,000 ..." obviously!Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying we shouldn't use the Abrahamian book, the argument is whether so much excruciating detail is needed (as in the other sections I mentioned). For Rajavi's book, mentioning what the book says doesn't seem excessive to me, but if editors are suggesting it needs to be removed, then the same criteria should apply to other sections, like the Women's Rights and Ideological Revolution where there is indeed excessive detailing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think no one is asking for removal of the sentence on the rajavi's book. Rather, the sentence is just repeating the toll which should be modified so that the WP:UNDUE issue is resolved. We don't need two sentences almost the same thing. We can write that the book is on the executions without adding unnecessary details. @Vanamonde93: You can find in archive the discussions regarding the relationships between that marriage and the ideological revolution. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1 asked for the removal of the sentence on Rajavi's book (one sentence is about what Rajavi's book is about, the other is about what other sources speculate the death tolls are). In fact, Kazemita1 seems to have removed that information, along with making several other reverts that are currently discussed here without any given consensus. Is anyone going to do anything about that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one dares edit this article at the moment, we just get banned at the whim of a random passing admin. Not worth it. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that I just blocked this user for 2 weeks for an ARBPIA violation, so they are unable to respond to the following: on the mainspace, if one does not revert, there is literally zero chances of facing sanctions. El_C 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this information is "excessive", particularly when we have allowed so much about who Massoud Rajavi married and didn't marry in an article about the MEK! This description explains what the book is about, something that doesn't seem to be repeated anywhere else in the article (the quotes Kazemita provided are about what statistics assume death tolls are, not what Rajavi says death tolls are. So it does not qualify as "excessive information". Ypatch (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite simple, we should not report the toll twice, though we can cite multiple reliable sources for a death toll. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source is from Amnesty International saying that "The number of those executed remains a point of contention, with the numbers ranging between 1,400 and 30,000 including women and children." This describes that the death tolls estimates remain a "point of contention" that includes "women and children".

The other source says "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members". This describes Rajavi's account of the death tolls, the "the majority being MEK members".

This is why this information is not repeated. One is an estimate from Amnesty, the other is an explanation of what Maryam Rajavi's book is about (someone who was directly involved in this ordeal). If you still think this information is repeated, I will compromise by merging these two sources together. Ypatch (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully agree that the death toll estimates by Amnesty are the same as what Maryam Rajavi's book is about, but whatever, moving on. On this premise of removing repeated information from the article, I've ordered the allegations made against the MEK about nuclear scientists, and removed any information repeating what the NBC source was saying. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist was a clear violation of the article restrictions and had nothing to do with the self-made "premise of removing repeated information from the article". --Mhhossein ^talk 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated information about nuclear scientists

I found this (the later part of this sentence about nuclear scientists) to be repeated information about the allegations made against the MEK regarding Iranian nuclear scientists, which is something that's already covered in the article:

• "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."[393]

I propose removing (the part about nuclear scientists at least) based on that it's repeated information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well over a week and nobody has replied to this, so removing (per WP:SILENCE) the part that says "although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel" since that is already in the article in the "Iran's nuclear programme" section:

• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[208][209][210] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[211][208] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."[212]

• "On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."[382]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: You removed the following from the article saying it's "duplicate material:

• "Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani (senior aide to Iran's supreme leader) concerning the MEK and the Iran nuclear scientists were unsubstantiated, and that "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."^[1] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."^[2]"

Can you please point out where this duplicated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 9 months it's too long. I think it should be 6 months for discussions that haven't reached consensus, and 12 for any that have. Also just noticed Mhhossein reverting this disputed edit without actually providing an objection. @El C: I thought we were not allowed to revert without providing a substantiated objection? (some editors here, including myself, have been blocked for that in the past). Ypatch (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong section. Anyway, that revert is based on an explanation provided in October — though I, for one, don't remember what it was. El_C 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive information a marriage/divorce

In light that Kazemita1 (with Mhhossein's support) has removed from the mainspace "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members." on the basis that this is "excessive information", then we should treat other problematic sections under the same criteria, starting with the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights".

I propose that the following paragraph:

"On 27 January 1985, 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'. The MEK is "known for its female-led military units".[6] 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'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. 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.[263]"

Be resumed into the following:

""On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. 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 the "ideological revolution. 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'. The MEK is "known for its female-led military units".[6]

My reasoning for reducing this is because there is nothing in the removed sentences that tells us more about the MEK's "Ideological revolution and women's rights" (which is what this section is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is an attempt to summarise some parts of this article while other parts have been inflated. This is one of the parts that is inflated, and it can be summarised while retaining the main occurrences. Ypatch (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do we have to discuss this topic and all its aspects? Isn't 4 months enough? For instance, summarizing this paragraph is inappropriate because, according to the Admin's comment, some issues become vague and incomprehensible.Saff V. (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like being GAMEd by Stefka Bulgaria. He is making a false comparison between the removal of excessive mention of death tolls and what he finds to be "excessive information a marriage/divorce". The current wording of the article, i.e. "In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity" on this topic," is sufficiently describing the Rjavi's book with no excessive details on the toll. Can you stop mixing irrelevant things please? If you have objections with what we discussed some months ago, you need to have fair reasoning on why, for instance, Rajavi and Abrishamchi's divorce should not be here (this divorce needs to be mentioned since it is describing what steps were taken for the ideological revolution.) Also, the impact of the divorce-marriage and its reception by others have to be mentioned, too. We discussed all of these things earlier and you can find them in archive. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, you may have missed Vanamonde's suggestion that "sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned". I have presented my case why this needs trimming, and I have also presented a proposed text. I ask that, in the spirit of collaboration, you or Saff V. do the same. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria and you are going to show how sources stated that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology by SUMMARIZING the paragraph! Aren't you? During that disscussion we brought sources which they explain the relationship between that material and that divorce and marriage cleary, even you suggested text we discussed it. Maybe user:Vanamonde93 is not aware of that discussion but User:El C can give comment.Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be optimistic and AGF. However, the more I look the more I think something is going wrong with Stefka Bulgaria's suggestions. Looking at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 17#Ideological revolution and women's rights, which contains the details of our discussion where Stefka Bulgaria was involved, it appears he is again making the previous mistakes. For instance, I already asked him why he was suggesting to remove the portion on divorce, but he failed to respond to my query. This concern was also mentioned by User:El C when he said "No mention of "divorce" (really? "already married"?) and Abrahamian's exposition on how this was viewed in Iranian society is absent". In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria was warned against by El C against Gaming the system and being tendentious. He was also told that "stripping the content bare to the point that it is no longer recognizable as such" is different from being "concise". Other users were also making objection against his suggestion, and Stefka Bulgrai is here again asking almost the same thing! What's it if it is not an attempt at gaming the system? Comments by @El C: is welcomed. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, I would say that my preference is for an RfC that is properly closed so that consensus is codified in the closure. But here, I am, indeed, experiencing déjà vu — which is not good. Anyway, objections to the proposed changes (or ones similar enough — feel free to correct me) were already substantiated at length before, were they not? If that is indeed so, then participants are not, in fact, obliged to entertain these again after only a scant few months (thereby sparing everyone the repetition). Consensus here will not be arrived at by filibuster, just like it will not be arrived at by edit warring. Please try to be mindful of past discussions. For example, phrase your proposal with a preamble like so: past discussion regarding this issue has reached a stalemate. Unlike the rejected proposal that contended that X, I am proposing that we implement changes that would result in Y. But coming across as saying: I propose that we do X changes (again) — that is a problem that, if repeated, can be viewed as tendentious editing, which may result in sanctions. I'm not sure to what extent this is the case this time, but that is something to be mindful of. Again, exhausting opposing participants through filibuster and repetition isn't the way to compromise. Please ensure that one clearly explains what is new with whatever given proposal, so that we aren't going around in circles. El_C 17:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I pointed out how Saff V., Mhhossein, and Kazemita1 have advocated for the removal of certain information saying that the information is "excessive". I then proposed that we use the same criteria for other sections where the information also seems "excessive", which (unless I misunderstood) was supported by Vanamonde93 who wrote "sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned." If we have recently determined that we are cleaning the article of "excessive" information, then I would assume that revisiting a previous discussion based on the recent editing aims should be ok, but I am to assume that it's not? (and we are never to discuss this section again?). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have the same months-long discussion every four months — it's unpractical. Your proposals better have some new components, or you are, at best, just wasting the time of participants, and at worst, waging warfare through attrition. El_C 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria I would say your proposal warranted admin action since it was almost the same. That you are equaling removal of almost identical mention of death toll to the removal of well-sourced contents is itself meaningful. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the impracticability of reviving a discussion that took place 4 months ago, but I do find that there are genuine inaccuracies here. For instance, this is what Abrahamian wrote:

• "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"

And this is what's currently in the article:

• " This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping."

This is taking the observations of some "traditionalists" and what Abrahamian thought the incident smacked of, and making it read as something objective that happened amongst the whole of the Iranian middle class (which is not supported by the source, and isn't supported by other sources either). @El C: if you don't find that to be an issue, then I'll just let this go. Thanks for weighing in. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's room for some further refinement (i.e. traditionalists). That's usually the case in any collaborative writing, anyway. But Abrahamian speaks with authority nonetheless (which is to say, authoritatively), so the crux of it seems faithful enough to the source material. Certainly, nothing requiring wholesale removal. Anyway, one could always add the pertinent excerpt from Abrahamian in an explanatory note, too, in case it is felt that the original prose's meaning had become either too diluted or too potent, or just plain inaccurate. Something worth exploring, in any case, sure. El_C 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by Stefka Bulgaria is attempting to justify a clear wrongdoing; Depsite what Stefka Bulgarai says, he should have "revive"d the old discussion and probably added some more new comments. Also, I am seeing again that Stefka Bulgaria aims to persistently ping El_C for every single thing happening here. Just see "if you don't find that to be an issue, then I'll just let this go"!!! I don't think that this would lead to betterment of the article, rather it makes the admin become too involved (Stefka Bulgaria has already benefited from this situation when he narrowly escaped from sanctions some months ago). As for the recent issue, on the "traditionalists'" idea", it does not explain the mass removal of contents. It can be resolved via discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein, I would ask that you focus on the article's content rather than the mudslinging you presented in your last comment here. Moving on, if you agree that specifying "traditionalists" is appropriate, then, unless anyone else has a problem with that word, I'll clarify that in the article. It's a good start to compromising some of that section which to me reads like POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please use a more polite language? What you described as "mudslinging" was in fact an attempt at protecting the article's content. Anyway, how are you going to include the "traditionalists"? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mudslinging" is not an impolite language. Moving on, I think the best solution here is to just quote Abrahamian directly. This will help represent properly his view points on the matter. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since anyone replied to my proposition to quote Abrahamian directly, so I'll quote Abrahamian directly based on WP:SILENCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive information about "Fundraising"

In the quest for cleaning up unnecessary long sections in the article, the section Fund raising is currently made up of 4 subsections that describe MEK fundraising in 4 different countries. That seems needlessly excessive. I propose we merge the 4 subsections into a single section describing the main, verified by reliable sources, and relevant points. Much of it is based on claims by Nejat Society, which seems more propaganda-oriented that factual evidence. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which point is solely claimed by Nejat? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Netjang Society, in 1988, the Nuremberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police." Anyone have a problem with removing this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is well attributed claim and there's no issue with regard to reliability. Do you find Nejat incapable to have such a claim? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netjang Society is not a reliable source; and we need reliable sources to verify claims. This is the reason it needs to be removed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On December 28 I proposed to clean up the "Fundraising" section. This involves merging unnecessary subsections and removing anything not backed by RSs. As of yet, the only response came from Mhhossein who questioned Netjang Society as a valid source; a website that apparently is fully dedicated to spreading propaganda against the MEK. I'll wait for Mhhossein's response to how Netjang Society is a valid source for these claims while I merge the sections and remove anything that isn't backed by RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netjang, as a significant NGO opposing MEK, is certainly reliable for its claims. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Nejat as a "reliable" and "significant NGO" is concerning. Why don't we start using other advocacy website such as Iran probe as RSs too? Because that's what they are, advocacy websites and far from being peer-reviewed RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making further personal attacks by attributing "promotion" of something to me. The society has been a source of info for multiple books ([27], [28] and [29] for instance). --Mhhossein ^talk 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on... so has the NCRI been a source of info for multiple books; does that mean we should include their advocacy here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? They are already included. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better question here would be whether Nejat Society's accusations against the MEK are WP:DUE. Are there any other reliable sources supporting these accusations? (a single Iran Government affiliated website seems WP:UNDUE for this). Ypatch (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be UNDUE? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't have more sources that mention the same accusations. It's just one organization making these accusations and their primary purpose appears to be to publish posts against the MEK. Ypatch (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have? Are you sure? So what's this? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Why did you do this edit? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This quotes Nejat Society. Ypatch (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the attribution unless one can say how "author's conversations at the Nejat society" can be re-written as "according to the Nejat Society"? The author have reached that conclusion after discussing the issues with the former members of MEK at the Nejat society. Talking to the members of the MEK had been a part of the author's scholarly work. So, we are not allowed to interpret the author's intention in other ways. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not the author, it's Nejat society ("author's conversations at the Nejat society"). So you cannot attribute the author, but needs to be attributed to Nejat society because that is the source of the information. But that's like collecting information directly from the Islamic regime about MEK. It may be valid for the Islamic regime's POV, but that's it. Ypatch (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Human Rights Record" and "Allegations of sexual abuse" sections

I propose merging Allegations of sexual abuse within the Human rights record section as it forms part of the same subject ("allegations of sexual abuse" is basically "human rights record", so two different titles are not needed here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among other humanitarian issues of MEK camps, sexual abuse is highlighted by multiple reliable sources. In general, "sexual abuse" is thought to be a sever human rights violation. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "In general, "sexual abuse" is thought to be a sever human rights violation." is WP:OR. "Allegations of sexual abuse" is indeed a "Human rights violation". We don't need a section for each type of alleged "Human rights violation" in the article, we can just include the bulk of it in a single section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I afraid, that way we will ignore the RSs' stress on the "sexual abuse" by MEK. A whole documentary was dedicated to that, among other things. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are allegations by defectors, so it's misleading to say that there is a "a stress on sexual abuse by RSs". These allegations form part of Human Rights abuses; and a reason hasn't been provided as to why they merit their own separate section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As RSes on the treatment of MEK with its members support, In general, "sexual abuse" is thought to be a sever human rights violation, for instance, Rand devoted a separate section to it, see page 71, or BBC published an article just about sexual abuse of MEK. In addition, during an interview with ex-member of MEK, they mostly emphasized on the sexual harassment in MEK's camp, see Soltani, Moeini and Hedayati and Heyrani's description.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat since you're not addressing the point I'm making: these are allegations by defectors, not confirmed events, and they are indeed part of what constitutes "Human Rights abuses". Creating a separate section for this emphasises a POV in trying to magnify a particular event that already forms part of a section in the article. See POV Fork. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is how the sources are treating the issue and we don't care why the topic had been of the interest to the sources. It could be because sources were themselves interested in them or other things. Take a look at Rand, for instance.--Mhhossein ^talk 21:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: what is it exactly that you'd like me to look for in the Rand report, for instance? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication of a separate section to the MEK's sexual misconduct against its members. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: can you put the exact quotes you're referring to here? I've read through the source but did not find what you're referring to. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not searching for a single phrase. We are talking about a whole section dedicated to the MEK's sexual abuse. Ctrl+f "Sexual Control". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sexual Control" section in that source comprises of a single paragraph about divorce/celibacy. How does that justify having a section in the mainspace titled "Allegations of sexual abuse"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source mentioned above has dedicated a whole section to the MEK's sexual abuse. Needless to mention that there are plenty of sources dedicating a significant amount of their content to this topic. MEK's sexual misconduct has been of the key characteristics indicating the cultish nature of the group. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhossein, saying that "the source mentioned above has dedicated a whole section to the MEK's sexual abuse" is not actually true. The article talks about "compulsory divorce" and "required to be celibate". Not once does that section mention the term "Sexual abuse", so using that can't be used as basis for having a section with the name "Allegations of sexual abuse". Please provide reliable sources that use the term "sexual abuse" in relation to the MEK. Ypatch (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have indeed used the title and the content following is not unrelated to the sexual abuse by MEK. Also, see my comments once again. That source is just an example. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, where in that example does it say "sexual abuse"? You need to provide exact sources and quotes, which you haven't yet. Ypatch (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As before, this material was picked up from the page by Stefka and it was told him, such edit needs discussing but unfortunately the opened discussion (see Possible violation of restrictions) did not reach any specific conclusion on removing this material.He removed material by reason that it is not supported by sources while I am against however I edited it to be supported bysource. @El C: is n't this edit a violation of page restrictions? How many times do we have to discuss a topic that was argued just some months ago (for instance see "Excessive information a marriage/divorce" in this page)?Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bold edit to me. If you wish to contest it, you are free to do so, of course. El_C 12:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Stefka explained their edits here and in their edit summary saying they have removed repeated information (which is at par with what was requested about the 30,000 death toll). Saff, there is a section Stefka created about other repeated content about the nuclear scientists. How about taking any issues to that section? Ypatch (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff, in your edit, you added that

• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."^[3][4]

I cannot find that in the sources, though. Can you point out where in the sources this is supported? Ypatch (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Stefka Bulgaria another time tried to GAME us. Please see the timeline:
  • 15 August 2019: Removal of materials regarding the nuclear scientists by Stefka Bulgaria
  • 15 August 2019: Revert by me
  • 28 September 2019: Removal of the content by Stefka Bulgaria, another time without trying to build consensus and substantiate.
  • 28 September 2019: Stefka Bulgaria's violation was reported to you by me.
  • 28 September 2019: Self revert by Stefka Bulgaria after he was reported.
  • Multiple comments exchanged between me, Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita and Saff V.
  • 23 October 2019: Your suggestion of trying DR.
  • Now, another removal without trying to build consensus or DR.

Please note that, an almost similar filibuster cycle was reported here and your response is here. How many times should be continued? --Mhhossein ^talk 21:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they didn't just remove it, they replaced it with something else (albeit quote-riddled and poorly-written). You are free to revert back, if you substantiate in detail why you've done so. Then, it will be time to build consensus, preferably by codifying it in a dispute resolution request that is properly closed. El_C 02:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: So, one may remove something from the long standing version 'n' times since there might be 'n' different phrases which can replace the old version? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: There was a discussion here about quoting Abrahamian directly to avoid POV pushing. In that same section about marriage/divorce, I also quoted the author directly, who doesn't refer to the incident as a "bizarre marriage", but rather a "bizarre episode" (sequence of events, as opposed to a single event). You reverted this back to "bizarre marriage", something the author does not say and that comes across as POV pushing. Can you please substantiate your revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that discussion, anyway, I have no problem with inserting quoting Abrahamian directly. My first issue is this phrase "this rather bizarre episode" which is not clear refers to what in your edit! What do you mean by "this rather bizarre episode"?

Secondly, The [Source] says that A contributing factor to the apparent disarray in the leadership was Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre. This rather bizarre episode was presented as an …. so that it illustrates that "this rather bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre". In other words, "this rather bizarre episode" includes Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife and marriage to Maryam Abrishami that was not clear in your edit and the author doesn't quote that you did.Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "bizarre marriage" sounds grotesque and it's something the author himself did not say. If we're going to reflect the author's personal opinion, which is the case here, then we should at least attribute accurately to what he actually said, which is "bizarre episode" (less grotesque). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the reader know that the "bizarre episode" refers to what? I think that if we decided to use "bizarre episode", use parenthesis would be needed, such as this: According to Sepehr Zabih, this "bizarre episode" (Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre) was shown as an ...Saff V. (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reader knows that it refers to the whole marriage/divorce incident because the sentence is placed right after (and in the same paragraph) the whole explanation about marriage/divorce. No parenthesis are needed unless you want to remove the whole explanation about the divorce/marriage previous to this sentence). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the whole explanation about the divorce/marriage previous to this sentence"? Which sentences?Saff V. (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Shortly after the revolution, Rajavi married Ashraf Rabii, an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood".[264] 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."[265]" Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your mean by "whole explanation" is the whole paragraph, which not only refers to Rajavi's divorce and remarriage but also includes other subjects such as the symbol of revolutionary womanhood, a great ideological, wife-swapping and .... So I certainly believe that the reader will not understand by reading the whole paragraph what bizarre episode means. That is why the description in parentheses needs to be explained.Saff V. (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: exactly which part in the highlighted text above does not refer to the marriage/divorce? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author uses "bizarre episode" in direct reference to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami" hence I believe neither Saff V.'s nor Stefka Bulgaria are presenting an accurate version. I suggest something like "bizarre episode", i.e. the sequence of divorces and marriages, was described as ...," which clarifies the author's words. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole paragraph devoted to the divorce/marriage claims, and that can be followed by the author's interpretation ("bizarre episode"). Adding "bizarre marriage", or outlining what the author was referring to (with "for example") is original research. Neither Saff V. or Mhhossein has addressed that point: which part of the paragraph that precedes the claim "this bizarre episode" doesn't refer to the divorce/marriage claims? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I answered above and repeat it again, It seems that your mean by "whole explanation" is the whole paragraph, which not only refers to Rajavi's divorce and remarriage but also includes other subjects such as the symbol of revolutionary womanhood, a great ideological, wife-swapping and so on! Actually your question is false! You have to ask, doesn't the previous sentence say anything about "this bizarre episode"? Furthermore, you are not familiar with concept of wp:OR which demanded, The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist but we have in the source that A contributing factor to the apparent disarray in the leadership was Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre. This rather bizarre episode was presented as an …. As a result it is not OR.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: exactly which part of that paragraph is not about the marriage/divorce? Please be specific, providing the exact sentences that are not related to the marriage/divorce. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OR allegation is just not applicable here, since my suggestion was well matched with the source you were referring to. Btw, The text is clear and everyone can see which part is related to what.--Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is clear and is about the marriage, which means adding the author's quote at the end is suggestive to that. So we really don't need to put words into the author's mouth here unless there a reason to, which so far I have read any. Can anyone say why we shouldn't quote the author as he wrote it? (saying that it requires explanation is not applicable since that whole paragraph is about marriage).Ypatch (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put words into the author's mouth?? It is the text of the book that I mentioned above:A contributing factor to the apparent disarray in the leadership was Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre. This rather bizarre episode was presented as an.... You say that the text is clear and is about the marriage while according to the mentioned text author hasn't said that. You made me repeat my first comment.Saff V. (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That text is about " Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami, which means it is relevant to what the author is saying, which means the author's quote doesn't need to be explained or reworded. If you can't give a clear reason why we shouldn't quote the author as he wrote it, then I'll ask El_C to allow me to insert the author's quote as he wrote it. Ypatch (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say how the reader should know that "bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami"? while the subject like a great ideological, wife-swapping was mentioned in the paragraph, Maybe the reader think "bizarre episode" means great ideological or wife swapping. When the author make it clear in his book why we shouldn't do that.Saff V. (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V.: according to the author, what does "bizarre episode" refer to exactly? Ypatch (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein and I said before. Any way I repeated again, according to source it refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami" directly.Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then there's nothing wrong with quoting the author right after the information about Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife. Ypatch (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly?Saff V. (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First one

At first, It would be better to give reasons when you are going to move the content from one section to another, just writing "More appropriate place for this" is n't enough! In the second step, @Stefka Bulgaria: can you explain by detail why did you move material from "Removal of the designation" section to "Iran's nuclear program"? As it was brought in the source ,The Obama administration lifted the MEK’s designation as a terrorist group in 2012, citing what it said was the group’s “public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.” A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran. The moved sentence by you definitely relates to "Removal of the designation" section, following MEK delisting and give an end to its terroristic behavior, the source mentions the assassination of nuclear scientists!Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A section discussing a particular event should include all the information concerning that particular event. So if there is a section talking about the allegations concerning nuclear scientists, we should have all the relevant information concerning nuclear scientists in that section (and not spread out repeatedly throughout the article). I moved information about nuclear scientists to the section about "Iran's nuclear programme" because it matched the topic of that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second one

At first, the material was moved from "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section to "Iran's nuclear programme in this edit by this edit summary "More appropriate place for this" which is not enough to substantiate it? After that, the moved material was picked up by this edit summary "Removing repeated info (these sources are quoting NBC news)" while sources don't support the new sentence NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials,...

• nationalinterest says that According to a report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem, the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the Iranian cult-cum-terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq. there is anything about U.S. officials!
• independent says that A well-sourced and convincing investigation last year by NBC News in the US concluded that "deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service"....Richard Engel and Robert Windrem of NBC quote Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's spiritual leader Ali Khamenei, ...
• nbcnews says that Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.
• haaretz says that On Thursday, U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group People’s Mujahedin of Iran in order assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, adding that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama was aware of the operation, but had no direct link to them. where is the claim of Richard Engel and Robert Windrem?!

So that I believe that this edit is not accurate and need to be reverted, the main sentences are more clear!Saff V. (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in my post above, the aim is to have each relevant section discuss its topic, and not have the same topic spread out repeatedly throughout the article (avoiding repetition in the article seems to be something yourself and Mhhossein have said to be in favor of in the past). We should discuss each topic in its relevant section in as much detail as RSs offer, and that information doesn't need to be repeated in other sections unless there is a particular reason why. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not repeated, see that, we had in the article:

• In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
• Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.

but you merged them in to:

• 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.

It is n't supported by sources, for instance, How do you prove that Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem are involved with the NBC News Report? There is no mention of NBC News Report in this sentence (Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.) as well as nationalinterestsays. So, for this reason, please check the above sources again carefully, your edit is not correct!Saff V. (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Are you saying we should remove "several commentators" from that sentence since there aren't any other "commentators" (besides Richard Engel and Robert Windrem) making this claim? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"several commentators" was removed by you and I don't know why. I just say that "several commentators" has nothing to do with NBC News report, for instans {{tq|Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection. There is two sorts of content, one, according to NBC News,U.S. officials report the MEK-Israeli connection for assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, second is Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem claimes which has nothing to do with NBC News!Saff V. (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., that source you provided also refers to the NBC article, including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem quoting Mohammad Javad Larijani. So this all goes back to a single source: the NBC article (if we're talking about the allegations concerning the killing of nuclear scientists, which is the text we we're addressing). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists." So please answer my question, How does support haaretz the above text? There is anything about "Richard Engel and Robert Windrem" in it (try ctrl +F), while the removed sentence by you, (Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.) is supported by it!Saff V. (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., I'm having difficulties understanding you. the quote "2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. is not supported by the Haaretz source, but by the NBC source. If that's not what you're asking, then what I said to you earlier in this TP discussion is that "the aim is to have each relevant section discuss its topic, and not have the same topic spread out repeatedly throughout the article (avoiding repetition in the article seems to be something yourself and Mhhossein have said to be in favor of in the past). We should discuss each topic in its relevant section in as much detail as RSs offer, and that information doesn't need to be repeated in other sections unless there is a particular reason why." In other words, it was all moved to the section about nuclear scientists, and all the information that is available about nuclear scientists is there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know why "several commentators" were removed?Saff V. (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to this edit, first of all, I have to warn for "Misleading edit summary", what did Stefka mean by "What sources say"? Why was sourced material "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing" removed? Did he believe that Mossad and the MEK didn't orchestrate the operation with their collaboration? The new version is longer than the previous one with any further detail. @Stefka Bulgaria: please leave a comment. Also, it would be better to revert this vague untile you prepare acceptable answers!Saff V. (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: This is what the source says:

• "The Iranian lobby in Washington is as well funded as it is deceptive and the opposition is enemy number one. Consider the unsubstantiated allegation made by Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

This is what I added in the article:

• "Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani (senior aide to Iran's supreme leader) concerning the MEK and the Iran nuclear scientists were unsubstantiated, and that "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

I added to the article what the "source says" (hence my edit summary, "what source says"). What is the problem exactly here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate explaining what you did, but I asked my question above and I am not willing to repeat them again. As well as you did not respond why did you add to the article what the "source says"? Saff V. (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: I'm having difficulties understanding you. I have explained why I changed it: because it isn't what the source says. I have also explained my edit summary, "what source says", which means that I added in the article what the source says (as opposed to what was in the article, and which you apparently put back in the article, which is a distortion of what the source says). If there is another question here that I may have missed, do let me know, but per my explanation, my edit is perfectly substantiated, while your revert isn't. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you pick up "the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists" which was mentioned in the source?Saff V. (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have reverted back into the article is a distorted version of what the article says. This is what the source says (again):

"The Iranian lobby in Washington is as well funded as it is deceptive and the opposition is enemy number one. Consider the unsubstantiated allegation made by Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

What this means: Larijani, an IRI-affiliated spokesperson, made the allegation that "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists", which "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

On the other hand, this is what you've added to the article:

• "Haaretz in an article suggesting "regime change" in Iran, published that Mohammad Java Larijani made the "unsubstantiated allegation" to NBC-TV News that "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never back up with evidence"."

That's a distortion of what the source says. It reads as though the Haaretz claims were never backed up with evidence, but that's not what the source is saying. The source is saying that Larijani's claims were not backed by any evidence, which is what I had included in the article (and which you reverted):

• "Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani (senior aide to Iran's supreme leader) concerning the MEK and the Iran nuclear scientists were unsubstantiated, and that "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

I have no problem including what Larijani's actual detailed allegations were, but in the correct context, which is what I had added. By the way, isn't this information concerning Larijani and Mossad already repeated in the section Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "what source says" means that I added in the article what the source says, while you picked up the allegation of Larijani (the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists) because you thought that it was pretended, Haaretz claims were never backed up with evidence. Moreover, in the end, you mentioned the allegation was duplicated. Unfortunately, your edit summary was not accurate and I consider it as Misleading edit summary, so, please care about it!

About content, your concern is not serious, it is clear now in the last version of the article that the allegation of Larijani is not supported by any evidence, not the claim of Haaretz. Anyway, you could edit just that part of the content and made it clear, but you packed up the allegation of Larijani (the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists)! as well as we have in the source that "Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News", he declared it to NBC-TV News, but you removed it, I don't know why, it is what the source says. In the hand, When you wrote, Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani, which allegations do you mean?Saff V. (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information about Lariani is repeated in the article in the section about Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK ("On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence.") I'm removing it to avoid repeating the same information. Ypatch (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For another time

It was written in edit summary "copy edit" but "all subsequent revelations" was removed! obviously it is misleading edit summary too.In addition as wp:claim demanded, using "claim" is not natural and is needed with more loaded terms.Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead section of the article, it says "The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."

That is followed by some conflicting views that say "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government.[48] The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them.[49] Struan Stevenson and other analysts have stated that MEK targets included only the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions."

I think that the first sentence ("The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982.") resumes well the conflict with the mullahs, and the rest can be placed in the body where the reader can read contrasting views in a better setting, maybe in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" ? That would also make the lead section easier to digest. Ypatch (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does members of the Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens have to do with clerical leadership?Saff V. (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A single source vs multiple sources = WP:UNDUE. The attacks took place between 1981 and 1982, and most sources say the attacks were against the clerical leadership, and we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens". We can add the part about "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" in the body along with other views about the conflicts between the MEK and the Iranian authorities. Ypatch (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following content should be picked up because: The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, including women and children, and with the majority being MEK members.

• The first, which book exactly?
• Secondly, the source doesn't support the content or the source doesn't argue about any book?
• Thirdly, Except for this source there isn't another source mentioning the in 1988 childer were executed. It is just the estimate!Saff V. (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Washington Times article supports "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, listing the location of 36 Iranian mass graves and explaining that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members."

The part about "women and children" appears in the Amnesty International report. Reinserting each point to their respective sections based on the sources. Ypatch (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot's of drawbacks with this edit

First, as I asked above, which book is meant? why did Ypatch reverted "the book" to the article again, while I wanted it to be clear?

The second, It is just the claim of amnesty, that the children and women were executed, there is no other source to support it, but he wrote it as a fact, without according to amnesty.

The third one, as WP:RSP demanded, Washington times is not RS but it was used by him!

The forth, added material including mass graves or execution of 30000 people are duplicated and they have inserted in the article (that section) previously! it is interesting to inserting duplicated material by who cares about it!

@El C: I wonder if you leave a comment for such bold edit! Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what the book? That almost comes across as a non sequitur.

You know my view about Amnesty — I don't think it needs in-line attribution, though it wouldn't hurt as a compromise.

Washington Times may be reliable for this purpose. Its partisanship has to do with domestic US politics and climate science, which this isn't.

I'm not seeing the material duplicated. Please quote the excerpts directly. But some duplication may be viewed as reiteration.

I'm not sure it's a bold edit, because the edit summary says Putting back information, so when was that information taken out for it be put back in? El_C 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was missing: "In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity"". This identifies what "the book is about", so i'm reinserting this back into the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, This edit is an explicit violation of page restrictions. On January 11, he edited the article. But I disagreed with that by the reasons I wrote in TP. Then he reverted my edit again with any tolerate knowing my response as well as the issue about which book remained.

In another hand,amnesty source has a fringe viewpoint that other sources don't support the execution of children and women.Saff V. (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V., the Amnesty International source supports that "women and children" were executed in the 1988 massacre. But if that isn't enough, here are more sources:

• "CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.

  ^[1]

• "more than 30,000 political prisoners in Iran's prisons in the summer of 1988 including women and children and all political prisoners who supported the opposition movement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)"

  ^[2]

• "As confirmed by an audio recording that was leaked to the public in 2016, victims of the massacre included children and pregnant women."

  ^[3]

You can go ahead and add these new sources to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the second and third ones are not RS as well as it is not clear what is the source of the telegraph for the claim?Saff V. (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Parliament is RS, and The Telegraph clearly refers to the 1988 Iran prison massacre. Here are more sources (which you could also add to the article):

• "'At least order to spare women who have children ... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not reflect positively and will not be mistake-free,' Montazeri wrote in a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogators ... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic desease'"

  ^[4]

• "The second wave of killings also claimed several thousand victims, and was accompanied by the same secrecy. Eventually, several months later, relatives were called to the prison and handed a plastic bag with their children’s effects. By October many thousands of prisoners had been killed in this way by the state—without trial, without appeal and utterly without mercy."

  ^[5]

• " Khomeini ordered there should be mercy to anyone, including teenagers. He said pregnant women should not be spared or even be given chance to give birth to their children—and should be executed immediately."

  ^[6]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: your objection is not substantiated. For the last time, Amnesty is a reliable source — it is not a fringe. We have already established this on numerous occasions. You cannot keep reverting on that basis. That is not reasonable and is, in fact, tendentious. @Stefka Bulgaria: what is up with linking to references (above) in such a lazy way? Please at least provide titles, authors, dates, etc. It's surprising, since you've gone to the trouble of compiling the sources already. El_C 14:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm lazy sometimes. I blame my upbringing. Will insert the more reliable of these sources into the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, tendentious? You agreed with me that it was not clear which book is meant? As well as you said that Washington Times may be reliable for this purpose but in other discussion you said that "In other words, we have to follow what WP:RSP says, rather than make reliability decisions on our own. When in doubt, consult RSN while retaining the status quo ante version in the interim". It means that we are not sure about the reliability of this book. In addition, some of the sources provided with Stefka are not RS, needed to RSN's review, some content of that book in challenging, What does "children" mean? A 13-year-old teenager or a fetus? as well as, this doesn't support the execution of children. If Amnesty is the only RS support this claim, is not better to use in-line attribution.Saff V. (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hill source is just opinion pieces!And other provided sources need to review, for instance saqi publisher's book doesn't support the execution of children.Saff V. (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough RSs here; just check the ones I included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I asked about the reliability of TDB in RSN, provided by Stefka, It seems that this material was added in this edit A few months after the executions, relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings. By October that year many thousands of prisoners had been executed without trial or appeal. needs more sources and TDB is not enough. Do I allow to remove this challenging claim from the article?Saff V. (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Beast does not falsify stories. Maybe it has a bias, like many other sources, but it is still reliable. Barca (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Would you please take a look at this? I see a pattern here by Stefka Bulgaria. He repeats his old edits which have faced objections, without adding something new to previous discussions. Recently, Stefka Bulgaria has removed something which we have already discussed and no consensus was formed at the time (specially see my comments here and here). Stefka Bulgaria has made no new objections. Can you remember the former case where you responded that he had to be "mindful of past discussions" and "coming across as saying: I propose that we do X changes (again) — that is a problem that, if repeated, can be viewed as tendentious editing, which may result in sanctions"? In summary, please see Stefka Bulgaria's comment on 9 October 2019 and compare it with his comment on 21 January 2020 followed by removal of content, despite objections. His newer comment is even more concise, instead of covering the previous discussions! --Mhhossein ^talk 09:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I first substantiated this edit on January 12, and then on January 21 I confirmed that there hadn't been a response to my proposal, and was going ahead with the edit based on WP:SILENCE. Here's the sequence of events:

On January 12, 2020 I substantiated that edit in the TP discussion Repeated information about nuclear scientists", where I wrote:

• I found this (the later part of this sentence about nuclear scientists) to be repeated information about the allegations made against the MEK regarding Iranian nuclear scientists, which is something that's already covered in the article:
• "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."[393]
• I propose removing (the part about nuclear scientists at least) based on that it's repeated information."

That post went unanswered, so on January 21 2020, I wrote:

• It's been well over a week and nobody has replied to this, so removing (per WP:SILENCE) the part that says "although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel" since that is already in the article in the "Iran's nuclear programme" section:

• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[208][209][210] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[211][208] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."[212]

• "On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."[382]

Mhhossein keeps accusing me of GAMING when what I've been doing is substantiate my edits in the Talk page, and editing when these have gone answered for over a week. These continuing accusations come across as WP:HARRASMENT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The very fact that Stefka Bulgaria, despite being reminded, is still insisting on ignoring our previous discussions on the disputed content, is indicating he has not got the point behind your warning. @Stefka Bulgaria: Bludgeoning the process, which you already did by repeating the whole of your comments over and over, does not distract the eyes from your recent violation. What's the point behind repeating those comments verbatim? You can simply put the diffs! Also, just imagine, there are only 4 mins between your latest comment (which YOU call substantiation) and removal of the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. On 12 January 2020 I presented a reason why the text should be removed. I waited for over a week for a response, but received none, so on January 21 I confirmed I'd be going ahead with the edit based on WP:SILENCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019 was not that long ago, so counting on a week of SILENCE while there are multiple proposals pending is not that reasonable, actually. What should have been done is what I suggested back then — open a dispute resolution request (probably an RfC) so as to codify the consensus about this, or lack thereof, once and for all. Is this a repetition or a reiteration? Find out by following the steps outlined in the dispute resolution page. El_C 16:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: what would have been helpful here, at least for me, is some kind of explanation from Mhhossein that outlines how the removed text isn't repeated already in the article (which is what I set out to outline here). That could have been a good step forward here... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether it is a repetition or a reiteration is something you two probably should not determine on your own. El_C 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All RfCs in the last year or so here have concluded in no consensus. I also took this to a dispute resolution last year, and Mhhossein refused to comment there as well. IMHO, refusing to engage or lack of consensus should not determine the editing process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is obliged to participate, in anything. Everything here is voluntary. Everyone is obliged to adhere to the determined consensus, or lack thereof. Anyway, I don't know what to tell you — if there's a no consensus closure result for a proposal, then that's just the way it is. There's no way around that that I know of. But after a long while, a proposal may be resubmitted, because consensus can change. El_C 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of avoiding getting reported by Mhhossein again, how long should I wait before re-submitting a previous proposal that concluded in no consensus? (also, for the record, this last TP discussion I opened about this went unanswered for 9 days). Thanks, El_C. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you had a lot of pending proposals, which may overwhelm participants. The wait time, like determining longstanding text, is something that should be decided by local consensus. Myself, I would propose something between six months and a year. Say, 9 months. Let's see what other editors think about that. El_C 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing Stefka Bulgaria needs to do is to stop this sort of behavior. As for this case, I had elaborated my points (here and here) back in October 2019. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not allowed to simply GAME us anymore. @El_C: This is not the first, or second time he is doing this. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if Mhhossein is agreeing to the 9 months; but I am. I won't re-open a previous discussion that ended in no consensus that was closed less than 9 months ago. As for the WP:SILENCE clause, that's still a bit unclear since I thought 7 days without responding was an internal agreement we were abiding to. I'll consult El_C next time just to be sure. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, you should probably find a less lenient admin if you wish for Talk page restrictions to be applied as aggressively. I allow for wide latitude when it comes to talk page collaboration — within reason, of course (see above). El_C 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: sorry for posting in the wrong section before. I don't see a substantiated reason for Mhhossein's revert back in October either. Is this ok? Shouldn't they at least be clear here about what their objection is? (sorry for insisting, it's just that the axe fell on me because of this, and equal scrutiny would be good). Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, indeed, maybe briefly reiterate what your objection was, because who can really remember what was said back in October. El_C 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypatch: If you or Stefka Bulgaria had really followed the thread here, you would see this discussion being mentioned. Also, some of my previous comments ([30], here and here) are showing what my objection had been. Ariane M. Tabatabai should not be quoted selectively for pushing a certain pro-MEK POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: In response to your comment: Having a "wide lattitude" is certainly helpful but the question is how many times he can repeat the same mistake? Pretty much the same thing happened in less than a month after your warning. Your warnings were not unprecedented; see [31] and [32] both your warnings to him. Please review this thread once again; I clearly provided the link to our previous discussion and still he pretended otherwise. He knew he had acted against your warning so he had to pretend there had not been any previous objections against his recent edits. This behavior is highly disrespectful and I feel offended seeing t happening from time to time. How many times exactly is he allowed to repeat this? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Mhhossein's reason for reverting, according to them, is that the edit pushes "a certain pro-MEK POV". This does not address the issue (which is more to do with the incident already being mentioned twice in the article). Is Mhhossein's response substantiated here? Ypatch (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't to my satisfaction. El_C 20:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I remember: no substantiation before, and no substantiation now. Mhhossein, Instead of all this fuzzing, how about addressing what's being asked, particularly about the time frame required for a previous discussion to be brought up again? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have your response to my previous comment El_C?

@Ypatch You are misquoting me here and you (you and Stefka Bulgaria) are attempting to do the same thing with Ariane M. Tabatabai. If you selectively remove some portions of his comment saying MEK is suspected of being involved in the assassinations, and leave the portion of the comment saying MEK's ability to do such operations has decreased, you have in fact misquoted Tabatabai to preserve a certain POV. So, "Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words." --Mhhossein ^talk 20:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 9 months it's too long. I think it should be 6 months for discussions that haven't reached consensus, and 12 for any that have. Ypatch (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: If, then, Mhhossein's revert wasn't substantiated (neither back in October or now), shouldn't they get some kind of sanction for reverting without consensus or proper substantiation, like some of us have been in the past? Mhhossein also just made another revert based on a self-made consensus without discussing it with anyone. Ypatch (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[N]either back in October or now (bold is me emphasis) — possibly. But, indeed, that's what we're missing: a summary of what was said in October to substantiate the revert, then. Without which, indeed, this is could be seen as a violation which, in turn, may be subject to sanctions. Again, Longstanding text and per talk are not magic words. El_C 14:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's something bizarre happening here. I have provided my substantiation multiple times (BOTH now and back in October 2019): If you selectively remove some portions of Tabatabei's comment, which says MEK is suspected of being involved in the assassinations, and leave the portion of the comment, which says MEK's ability to do such operations has decreased, you have in fact misquoted Tabatabai to preserve a certain POV. So, "Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words." Back in October, I also substantiated my objection in a similar manner. How about sanctioning those who failed to gain consensus for removal of a well sourced content back in October and are repeating the same behavior now without bringing something new as substantiation? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Mhhossein's response remains the same; it does not address the issue why that part of the quote was removed (as said multiple times, it was removed because that information about nuclear scientists is repeated twice in the article). Mhhossein's revert doesn't address the repetition and is a revert based on self-made consensus, and some of us have been blocked for the same type of reverts in the past. Ypatch (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're saying there has been misquoting involved. I don't understand exactly why, but it is progress, I suppose. Some more to go, though, Mhhossein. That is simply too terse. El_C 16:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Part of the quote was removed because that information was already repeated in the article. There wasn't any "misquoting". Ypatch (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoting someone is a great deal. Removal of the content in a selective manner, as it was done to Tabatabei's comment, can lead to POV. Just compare the two versions. The current one:

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."

The one with selective removal of content:

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years."

I have looked into the source and believe we may have to do more modifications to the text. This is what the source says exactly:

"Most recently, the group was suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel, until the 2015 nuclear deal.17 The group’s capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years – especially since the 2003 Iraq war, with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, who provided it with financial and logistical support 18– but it continues to be one of the main terrorist groups identified as a threat by Tehran."

It is clear the text says the group, even after overthrow of Saddam, continued to be a terrorist group which was "identified as a threat by Tehran." --Mhhossein ^talk 06:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypatch, In fact, you had to provide fair reasons for doing such challenging edit into the lead, you changed the long-standing version without making a consequence and didn't give time to see other users responses.Saff V. (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The removal of that text is not misquoting the author because none of the author's words were altered in any way. Mhhossein's responses sidestep the question and he never addresses the actual reason why that text was removed (its repetition throughout the article, which is a reason Mhhossein has used to remove other text from the article).

This is the part of the quote that I had removed: ("[the MEK is] suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel.") As explained in this TP, the reason I removed it was that this information is already repeated in the article:

• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[208][209][210] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[211][208] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."[212]

• "On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."[382]

The issue with repetition should have been at least addressed prior to going ahead on their own and reverting that edit. You've blocked various editors already here for jumping the gun this way. Similarly, Mhhossein's latest edit to the article, where he reverts an edit that had been discussed here for weeks without anyone's consensus . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the reverse, in this case you tried to push your edit out of process and you failed to do this. Wasn't the admin tolerate, you could have been blocked multiple times. Anyway, I have explained my point (although I have done it over and over). According to the source text, which I provided here, Tabatabai's comment, i.e. "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years," should not be used out of context. Tabatabai is infact discussing the MEK's ability for carrying out terrorist attacks in the context of the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Can you please read Mhhossein's response? Is it substantiated? How about their last revert? Is that allowed without consensus? (the same scrutiny that was placed on my edits when I was blocked would be fair). Ypatch (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but once again, SharabSalam makes me less inclined to participate in the same articles as they do — which does not, however, precludes me acting as an uninvolved admin with regards to him, if need be. So, I'm taking a step back, for now. Good luck. El_C 18:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened, but I don't think it's right to be intimidated so that one ceases to participate in certain articles (a familiar sensation I've often felt here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Hey, We need you here. I am not going to repeat how your presence made this article unsafe for those who were edit warring the page. There had been a real improvement here. So, please be here. @Ypatch: instead of downgrading an admin by repeatedly asking him for permission or like, you are advised to say why you think my objections are not substantiated. You know, every thing goes by discussion and substantiation. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mhhossein should have been sanctioned for reverting without substantiation or consensus, like some of us have in the past. Ypatch (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that waiting nine months to talk again about old discussions is too long. Maybe 6 months like Ypatch said? Other ideas? Barca (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: You removed a source from the article saying that it wasn't reliable. The Washington Times is a published newspaper and a reliable source though. Ypatch (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: the The Washington Times is, indeed, a reliable source for that purpose, or any purpose unless it is about domestic US politics or climate science. El_C 22:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, we have to follow what WP:RSP says, rather than make reliability decisions on our own. When in doubt, consult RSN while retaining the status quo ante version in the interim. El_C 23:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, It is marginally reliable not reliable. Also, Iranian nuclear issue is a U.S. related issue. So it shouldnt be used. Ypatch, no it is not reliable. Per its article it is famously known for publishing anti-Muslim propaganda.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems doubtful that the claim made by The Washington Times was fabricated. Again, if you need another opinion, RSN is that-a-way. El_C 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I have started a discussion there. I also want to say that the word "However," there makes it look as if the previous part claim is dismissed and this claim is stronger although the previous claim is well-sourced. It is not needed. Also if it's true then the official name should have been made public and should be named, what if it's John Bolton?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: Does The Washington Times support "However"? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained in my edit summary: "The sentence about the State Department spokesman dismisses the previous claims, so "However" is more appropriate than "And" (which suggests the opposite)". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "However" per WP:EDITORIAL, if there's no explicit implication of the contrast that "However" creates. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a contrast between statements; and it's an improvement from the "and" that was there before (which was deceiving). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably YOU feel there's a contrast. The sources should directly impress the contrast by using the words showing it. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the text, you'll see the contrast is quite evident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria, How many times users have to say that TWT is untrustable! Rather make users repeat their disagreement, respect their opinions. You are not allowed to disregard the RSN discussion and violate the consensus because "You are not sure".@SharabSalam: please take a look at this matter. Saff V. (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the conversation at RSN, there isn't consensus that Washington Times is unreliable. Also there is another source that confirms what the Washington Times published. "QUESTION: Yeah, I – just to follow up on one of the questions that was presented earlier. Does the U.S. Government have a position with respect to whether the assassination of scientists in Iran constitutes terrorism? SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: If we had information on that and could pursue it, we would, but as I said, we have never said that this group was involved in those assassinations." Ypatch (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they said that TWT is unreliable?!Please see again the RSN disscussion:

user:Guy ,I think the Washington Times is an unreliable source due to its history of bias and inaccuracy. I never use it at all.

user:SageSolomon I agree with Guy, I wouldn't call The Washington Times a reliable source either, and the part in the article you're bringing up does seem fishy, if thats what youre asking.

user:Gamingforfun365 It is a shame because there are a few decent folks that write or have written for the newspaper. Unfortunately, it has the same mediocre journalistic integrity as Fox News, but hey, at least it is not the Daily Mail!

I don't know with these objections how d you claim that TWT is reliable?! Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: There is a U.S. Department of State source that backs up the claim. Regardless whether there is a consensus or not about Washington Times being RS, the U.S. Department source definitely is. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It seems some users are happy with being out of the article. Theses users usually don't follow the discussion cycles and tend to engage edit wars and removal of contents out of consensus building process. There's an ongoing discussion happening here over one of the paragraphs in the lead. Previously, I reported and edit which I thought was edit warring against the article's restrictions. Back then, you responded that the edit was a bold action, not an edit war. Now, exactly after you expressed your feelings, they have repeated exactly the same edit war amid the discussions. They seem to be sad of being blocked previously by you. Another edit war against the page's restrictions. Save the article please. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch's reverted to consensus, which you (Mhhossein) didn't have when you made your last two edits (hence, you being questioned about those edits before El_C decided to step back). If you want to establish your edits, you need to gain consensus first. It is you, Mhhossein, who edit-warred; and very likely dodged a block for pushing your edits that had no consensus or substantiation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which consensus? There's an ongoing discussion! As El C said, As an aside, mere removal of longstanding text —a unique instance thereof— is not considered itself to be a revert, but rather a bold edit. Those bold edits may be reverted back to the longstanding text, providing the objection to the bold edit is substantiated'Bold text'.. Mhhossein edited the lead by covering fair concerns raised but In Ypatch's edit, Reverting to the version approved by El_C doesn't seem to be substantiated as admin demanded! In addition, what does "approved by El_C" means?Saff V. (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin said that Ypatch's edit is bold edit, so Ypatch was not allowed to repeat it.Saff V. (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C approved that edit, while Mhhossein's edits did not have any consensus. Ypatch (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: never approved that and you are just misusing the admin's absence. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what we have here is that Ypatch has repeated a bold edit twice while there was objections and ongoing discussions. This buys sanctions most probably.06:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Saff V. (talk)

I already showed that El_C said that edit was fine. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V.: You removed the following from the article saying it is "duplicated":

• "Ayatollah Montazeri wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini saying "at least order to spare women who have children ... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not reflect positively and will not be mistake-free ... A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogators ... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic decease."^[1]

I don't see information about Ayatollah Montazeri's letter to Khomeini anywhere else in the article, so putting this back in on that basis. If you can show where this is repeated exactly, we can discuss further. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be clear but I explain:

• A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogator and As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic decease duplicated with Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.
• at least order to spare women who have children duplicated of Those executed included women and children.

In addition, my edit summary is removing of duplicated and detailed material. I have to note that Vanamonde said (Article size and organization)First, the article is way too long. Does the letter add any new info to the article? Saff V. (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the examples you provide refer to Ayatollah Montazer's letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to see duplicated material which I provided, In other hand Does the letter add any new info to the article? it is really irrelevant. please give fair reasons, otherwise, I have to move the material to the appropriate article,1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners.Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The letter is not repeated anywhere else in the article, and the letter is relevant since it refers to the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, where many MEK members were executed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you said it refers to the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners! Does the letter add any new important info to the article?I have to note again that Vanamonde said (Article size and organization)First, the article is way too long.Saff V. (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The letter is an official statement between two highly-ranked Iranian officials about the "1988 execution of MEK prisoners"; so yes, it is relevant. Additionally, this information is not repeated in the article, so it does add new and important info. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the new important info that the letter contains? torture MEK member and execution of women and children are duplicated and should be removed, so the rest of info doesn't add any important info to the article and make it just longer!Saff V. (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new important info that the letter contains is confirmation by a high-ranking Iranian official of the details of the massacres, something we don't have in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which details of the massacres related to MEK? except for the torture and execution of women and children?HOW do you prove that the prisoners refer to MEK?Saff V. (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The letter has no direct relationships to MEK and it should not be pushed into the body of this article. I don't object mentioning but keeping such amount of the letter some sort of POV pushing. I suggest taking the letter to an article related to the executions or similar articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: the presence of you is absolutely necessary for the article. I don't know why you don't answer the ping, If you need to be far away from MEK article or anything else, I respect your feeling but the presence of Admin is needed for the article. I am actually not going to involve you more into the article but this absence makes some issues:

• [see this disscusion], The irrelevant letter was inserted into the article, I provided my reasons (the article is too long, duplicated material, irrelevant material) but I Stefka without any attention repeat his not fair objection!
• As the RSN disscusion, it was concluded that TWT is not trustable and more discussion is needed in TP, I removed the source because of that, but Stefka reverted it because he is not sure, such a fair reason!
• In absence of you, page restrictions were violated and they misinterpret your comment for pushing your povs, please see here and here
• I really cannot understand why for making clear the "bizarre episode" we have to consume two weeks time and energy for discussing, while you could stop it by leaving a comment! You do n't control the discussion and they use this absence and don't give a fair reason.

They are just some examples!Saff V. (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Can you take look at the above complaints? as well as this edit which illustrates they don't respect to RSN discussion. I must say that they have already been blocked because of this behavior.Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]