Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,068: Line 1,068:


Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read: "''who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes''" and "''on what basis''". *[[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read: "''who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes''" and "''on what basis''". *[[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
:MEK's designation as a cult is of the most significant aspects of the group's history, just like how it was once considered a terrorist organization. It's Cultish nature has been studied by researchers and reported by media. Likewise, the "Human rights record" should be addressed separately. As an encyclopedic entry, the history of the group should be reflected just how the sources do. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 02:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:45, 8 March 2020

Template:IRANPOL GS talk

Edit warring and longstanding text

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 [1] 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 ([2]) ([3]). 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, ([4]) ([5]), 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: [6] [7] [8]. 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]

References

  1. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".
  2. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".

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:

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 [10], [11], [12] and [13]). 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]

References

  1. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".

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:

  • "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:

"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.

"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?

"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."

"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.

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

"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."

"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."

"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)."

"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:

  • 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.

@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]
  • "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 [14], 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 [15], [16], [17] and [18]:
  • 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[19], Council on Foreign Relations[20] and Commentary (magazine)[21] 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]
Mhhossein edit warring this again! You cannot revert without discussion. Reverting back until another consensus is achieved. Ypatch (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Crane, Keith; Lal, Rollie (2008). Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities. Rand Corporation. ISBN 9780833045270. Retrieved 11 September 2018. ...the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War.
  2. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  3. ^ a b Abrahamian 1989, pp. 227–230. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rubin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Merat, Arron (9 November 2018). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 January 2020. 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.
  6. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  7. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.

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]

References

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 ([22], [23] and [24] 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]
Nobody has replied to this in a month. Reading through www.nejatngo.org/en/, this an organization affiliated with the Iranian government against the MEK. I think it should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:NEUTRAL problems, or if Mhhossein insists on keeping it, then moved to "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK". If nobody replies, I'll proceed with removing this. Ypatch (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you the response: "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 06:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: what conclusion has the author reached? that Nejat Society made these statements about the MEK? That is pretty obvious, but not the point. The point is that Nejat Society is the one making these statements against the MEK, not the author! So it is quite deceiving to leave it in the article as it is since, like I already said, "Reading through www.nejatngo.org/en/, this an organization affiliated with the Iranian government against the MEK. I think it should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:NEUTRAL problems" Please address the problem that is being discussed here. Ypatch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the author made the interviews with MEK members then he made a conclusion. So, we should not misinterpret "author's conversations at the Nejat society" as "according to the Nejat Society". The latter means the author is merely conveying something while the former means the author has published the analysis of his interviews with the members. --Mhhossein talk 06:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What "conclusions" are you talking about? That former members of MEK said that the MEK ran false charities? The author is only reporting on what he was told by Nejat Society, he is not making any conclusions. Ypatch (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not simply reporting the MEK members' narration. Anyway, the materials are published in a secondary reliable source and we are not going to dig it deeper. Stop mis-using WP:UNDUE. --Mhhossein talk 12:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What else then is the author reporting on here besides MEK members' narration? Don't forget that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Ypatch (talk) 16:07, 5 March 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]
@Vanamonde93: Another talk page discussion where people have stopped participating. Does WP:SILENCE apply? or what is the procedure that should be followed when users stop answering? Ypatch (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any credible evidence being presented of sources giving a lot of weight to content about sexual abuse my the MEK. Certainly the RAND source above does not do this. To be clear, I have not looked for such sources myself, but have evualated the sources presented here, as part of determining whether participants in this argument are engaging in substantive argumentation or stonewalling. Furthermore, there has indeed been no substantive response here for a while, so there is a clear argument to apply WP:SILENCE. If any changes are reverted, the revert will need to be backed up by substantive argument, not claims about "long-standing content". Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and merged these two sections based on the points raised ("Sexual abuse" is a "Human rights violation") as well as per WP:SILENCE (a substantive argument or source detailing that this article merits a heading of "sexual abuse" has not been given). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unquoting what source says

@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]
Info about "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami", followed by the author's quote about "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami". Ypatch (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text that comes before the "bizarre episode" is a mixture of the info on the divorce&marriage and explainations on the incident. The quote remains confusing without defining it.Saff V. (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saff V., I asked you what the text was about, and you said "it refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami", so then, there would be nothing wrong with putting the author's quote right after ""Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami". Ypatch (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V., your recent edit is not in accordance with the discussion we have been having. If, in your own words, "bizzare episode" is about " "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami", then there is nothing wrong with quoting the author after that information. I will now add it as such. Ypatch (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood but why. Because I constantly have to hear an unacceptable duplicate answer. I asked you, "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"?" YOU did n't answer and asked "according to the author, what does "bizarre episode" refer to exactly?" I answered and repeted again and again, yes "bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami" but how the reader can find out that? I read the book and found that. why are you against to make it clear for readers? @Vanamonde93: can you leave a comment, I really bother for this discussion, there is no fair objection and made me repeat my answer!Saff V. (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion is among the more bizarre episodes on this talk page. Drop it, the lot of you. I would advise removing the quote altogether, because it reads like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph. If you insist on using it, though, it's abundantly clear what is being described as "bizarre", and further prolonged discussion is pointless. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. I will follow Vanamonde's recommendation of removing the quote altogether. It's one thing to include criticism of the MEK where criticisms are WP:DUE, but a different thing is trying to include any and all possible POV against the MEK (such as this "bizarre" word). Ypatch (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Vanamonde's suggestion?Vanamonde suggested that "I would advise removing the quote altogether, because it reads like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph. If you insist on using it, though, it's abundantly clear what is being described as "bizarre", and further prolonged discussion is pointless. " He never said to remove "bizarre". This material is supported by RS. Also the text that comes before the "bizarre episode" includes some POVs and we have to mention "bizarre episode" for balance. Please build the consequence and let to know other opinions then edit the article!Saff V. (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Ypatch's compromise of only removing the "bizarre" part and keeping the rest of that quote, but since Saff V. has objected that, then I'll go with Vanamonde's advice: "I would advise removing the quote altogether, because it reads like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph.". Removing it on that basis. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Doesn't the edit violate the restriction of the page? How about self-interpretation of your comment? Did you really say to remove only the "bizarre" word? It is interesting Stefka removed the quote that he formerly was added to the article!Saff V. (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V: I don't understand why you keep on complaining about edits you yourself just reverted. About my own edit, I initially tried to abide to what the author was saying (without adding the WP:OR that you and Mhhossein have been trying to include to that quote), but then I agreed with Vanamonde's assessment that this reads "like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph". Instead of substantiating why that criticism is necessary, you report me here to Vanamonde, and then to ANI. Yourself and Mhhossein have reported me for such things dozens of times; which to me comes across as WP:BULLYing (also the reason why EL_C may have stopped participating in this page). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment refers to Ypatch and the violation of page's restriction not you. Please do not try to make a reason for Admin's absence there is no reason.Saff V. (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am suggesting that none of that quote, the adjective "bizarre", or the rest of it, adds to any understanding of the subject. However, that's not binding on you, obviously, and if you still disagree an RfC is the way to go. It would be among the silliest RfCs I have seen. I would remind you that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; we summariza what sources say, not reproduce them in their entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting views in the lead section

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]

@Vanamonde93: In view of all the recent reports from Mhhossein and Saff V. against me in this talk page, I thought I'd ask you before going ahead with this edit. Nobody has replied to my request here since January 18. El_C said before that we could go ahead with an edit if nobody replied a proposal in this talk page after 7 days per WP:SILENCE. May I go ahead with this edit since it's been over a week since anyone replied here? Ypatch (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing information which they were added into the lead during lots of discussions and RFCs (for example) is not simple.In addition, it is a strange reason to remove them as well as this opinion, most sources say the attacks were against the clerical leadership, and we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" is OR. Please do "ordinary citizens" ctrl+f and see other sources (used in the body)support that MEK attacked ordinary citizens. they are more than one source! Removing key information wouldn't make the lead section easier to digest.Saff V. (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the text in question:

"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.[citation needed][50]"

Ypatch is not saying to remove this information, but rather move it into the body with other scholarly views about this (since the information is disputed).

In the RfC you linked (which led to yet another "no consensus"), the closing admin said "it should be noted that analyzing sources and arriving at conclusions is usually not the job of the lead—particularly if those conclusions are disputed... Concluding whether someone or something was targeted can also be problematic to begin with, as at its core it's concluding intent, and then generalizing it across several decades involves even more of a conclusion."

I agree with Ypatch and the closing admin's remarks. That information is evidently disputed, so saying that this is "removing key information" is not applicable. Can you substantiate an argument (other than "long-standing version") why we shouldn't move this to the body? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citing the existance of past consensus is not a viable argument here. As far as I can see, WP:SILENCE does in fact apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved this to the "Assassinations" section where there is more detailed information about the arguments concerning MEK targets.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:silence is not applied here, as far as I see. Saff V argued targeting of "members of the Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" had nothing to do with with targeting of the "clerical leadership" and no clear counter argument was given. --Mhhossein talk 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not only mentioned previous RFCs. Which of my objections has been answered? I asked "What on earth does members of the Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens have to do with clerical leadership?" and ypatch just answered "we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens". I said there was more than one source in the article about ordinary citizens attacked by MEK!
On the other hand, this saying of Ypatch," most sources say the attacks were against the clerical leadership, and we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" " is really his own OR! I can't understand why WP:silence is applied here while I comment on my objection just 3 days ago!
MEK's reactions and activities are important and need to be mentioned in the lead. Removal of this materials is adding to POV problem. That "The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership" is not a good reason for removing MEK's confirmed attacks on non clerical persons. This important point should be solved by RFC.Saff V. (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: can you leave a comment?Saff V. (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The info about MEK attacks that's been resumed in the lede is what the majority of RSs say:

  • "The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."
  • "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[54] In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris.[50][55] In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[56][57] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[48][58][59]"

Then in the "Assassinations" section (in the body), there is more detailed analysis of what the different (at times, contradicting) scholarship say about non-clerics. The argument was that we don't need to cram conflicting information in the lede (conflicting because different sources say different contradicting things), which is something that can be better teased out in the article's body; leaving the main WP:DUE facts in the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content to be included in the lead for attacks by MEK is disputed and needs to be discussed. For example why the significant incident of 1981 Iranian Prime Minister's office bombing is removed from the lead? The POV issue mentioned by Saff V is noteworthy and now the lead is less balanced than before. The former version should be restored and the discussion should go with an RFC. --Mhhossein talk 22:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As always, you need sources to back up your claims. Please provide them (that article you just pointed out has many issues with misrepresentation of sources or sources by the Iranian regime against the MEK, which help fix now). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone should feel free to initiate an RfC; however, Ypatch moved the content in question after this discussion had been open for a while, therefore WP:SILENCE does apply. Also, please remember that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not cover every point in it; and also, that if a disagreement between reliable sources is included in the body, leaving it out of the lead is often a reasonable option, but including something along the lines of "sources dispute X" is another viable option that balances concision with neutrality. If an RfC is started, I would recommend including such an option as a via media. Please do not use this suggestion as an excuse to start an edit-war; I am offering these as options to focus further discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, Could you explain what do you mean by including something along the lines of "sources dispute X" is another viable option that balances concision with neutrality?Saff V. (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of El C

@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]
  • At least one of the reasons I haven't been active here of late is that the lot of you combine to make every discussion utterly opaque. By linking to previous discussions in every new talk page section, which in turn have links to previous sections, you've made it such that anyone trying to understand a dispute has to read the entire history of this talk page. So stop doing that, please; everyone knows what's been said here before, and if someone starts ignoring it, WP:AN is the place to raise that. Stefka Bulgaria, I advise you to drop the Washington Times issue. We can dispute its reliability for however long we want, but there's a more basic problem; that quote gives virtually no information. All it's doing is denying the state department said something. It has virtually no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the MEK. Also; can you please provide RS, here on the talk page, demonstrating the link between the disputed letter and the activities of the MEK? All you've given on the talk so far is a link to the article section, and I'm not reading every single source contained therein. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Vanamonde93: I dropped the Washington Times issue several days ago after Ypatch added a new source supporting the Washington Times statement (which was originally given at RSN).
That paragraph on the MEK page goes like this: there's a source saying "US officials" alleged the MEK was involved in the killings of nuclear scientists; and a response by a US official saying they never made such claims:
"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."[3][4][5] A Senior State Department Official confirmed that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.[6][7]
Don't you think the response by a US official is valid? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: It seems like a non-sequitur to me; the NBC is reporting anonymous officials; the State Department is saying the state department didn't say it. The two statements sound contradictory, but they are not, and as such the second adds very little information. That said, if you feel strongly, the thing to do is start an RFC (that goes for all of you, not just Stefka); not argue about it ad nauseum. Also, please answer my request for sources about the letter. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The State.gov source addresses specifically the NBC claim about "anonymous officials":

"We know that NBC has reported back in February that a U.S. Government official had said that MEK was involved in killing the scientist – nuclear scientist – in Iran as a (inaudible) for Israel."

"SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, number one here. The judgment – and it is a judgment – was made on the basis of those criteria that are enunciated by the Secretary: the public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism over more than a decade, and cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their military base. And I should add that the United States Government has not claimed that the MEK was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran. And that’s really all we’re going to have to say on that."

So we have a report by NBC saying US officials made "x" claims, and a source by a US official saying they never made those claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tanter, Raymond; Sheehan, Ivan Sascha (28 September 2012). "Now the Cards Are on the Table". Haaretz.
  2. ^ "MEK will fight Iran regime from new Ashraf-3 base in Albania". Washington Times. 26 July 2019.
  3. ^ Marizad, Mehdi. "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News". nbcnews. Retrieved 9 February 2012.
  4. ^ "Israel's Mossad Trained Assassins of Iran Nuclear Scientists, Report Says". Haaretz. 9 February 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  5. ^ Cockburn, Patrick (5 October 2013). "Just who has been killing Iran's nuclear scientists?". The Independent. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  6. ^ "MEK will fight Iran regime from new Ashraf-3 base in Albania". Washington Times. 26 July 2019.
  7. ^ "Background Briefing on an Announcement Regarding the Mujahedin-e Khalq".

Hi @Vanamonde93: about the letter, this is what the source says:

"... thousands of Mojahedin prisoners, as well as a number of the members of other political groups, were executed in prisons inside Iran. Even many prisoners who had been released after serving thei terms were re-arrested and handed over to firing squids. Teh execution of these prisoners began with Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa in summer 1998, which read in part:

Those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain committed to their support for the Monafequin [Mojahedin], are waging war on God and are condemned to execution ... As regards the trials, use whichever criterion that speeds up the implementation of the [execution] verdict. The only official to raise his voice against the mass killings was Ayatollah Hosseinali Montazeri, Khomeini.

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]

As you can see, this is about the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Basmenji, Kaveh (2005). Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran. Saqui Books. ISBN 978-0863565823.
The utility of the first sentence above is still not clear to me, but, as I've said before, if you still want it in the article you should open an RfC. With respect to the letter; okay, the connection is being made by the source. Assuming its reliability is not being questioned, there's still the question of due weight; and if you can't come to an agreement about that, then again, you need an RfC. Neither El C nor I am going to solve that particular conundrum for you. Saff V., in this case you were the one seeking the material's removal; I suggest you open an RfC; and please frame it neutrally when you do. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the response, I have some questions to get your mean better. For the Washington times, I just want to know why Stefka and Ypatch didn't respect to RSN conclussion and both reverted (stefka and Ypatch my edit, if users are allowed to ignore RSN and revert edit which was done based on its conclusion just by inserting "I am not sure TWT is unreliable", (pleas see here), Really why do we use RSN? I have to say that still, TWT is standing in the article and I am going to pick it based RSN discussion as the untrustable source. On the other hand, you said that " that quote gives virtually no information." That quote means material was inserted by this edit. OK, in this way you agree to pick up material with both sources because it doesn't provide any important info.Am I right?
About the letter, at first, I am going to remove duplicated material of letter's content which I illustrated above, then I can not know why you suggest opening RFC while we know there is no direct relation between letter and MEK article, as well as the letter violates wp: weight. I certainly appreciate you convince me.Saff V. (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it was pointed out at RSN and several times in this TP, that statement is also backed by this US Government source, which is definitely a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Saff V.: Your responses are getting very hard to understand, and I'm concerned that you're not actually reading what I've written above. 1) Admins do not give permission for content-related edits. We can respond to edits that violate policy. There is no clear policy violation here, because while the RSN discussion shows that TWT is unreliable for some content, there's no particular reason to think it's unreliable here. 2) Yes, personally I think that sentence is utterly useless, but Stefka and others disagree; therefore, an RfC is the way to go, because again, I have no authority over content. Specifically, I cannot decide what is due weight by myself. 3) As far as I can see, the issue with the Daily Beast is a separate one; there is also no clear consensus on its use at RSN. This is something else to raise here, via an RfC, if necessary. Also; I think when you say "pick up" you mean "remove", but those two do not mean the same. I hate to say this, but for working on a contentious article, editors need a better grasp of English than your post above demonstrates. If you're working with a translator, perhaps that means you need to put more time into figuring out exactly what you're reading and what you're saying. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde As I said, I asked questions to get your mean better. I understood what you said, but I found it to be a little strange because you suggested frequently opening RFC for solving issues. Anyway, I will give it try. Also, I forgot to read the answer before publishing it. I read it right now, you are right, some words were missed, sorry.Saff V. (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch's violation of the restriction

@Vanamonde93: Sorry for the delay. Previously, I reported and edit which I thought was edit warring against the article's restrictions. Back then, EI_C responded that the edit was a bold action, not an edit war. Now, exactly after EI_C expressed his feelings, they have repeated exactly the same edit war amid the discussions. The text needs to be restored to the longstanding version and the discussions, which I believe had led to good changes to the lead, should continue. Thanks for your intervention.--Mhhossein talk 08:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another straw man report. Here's the Talk page discussion about that edit, where I provided detailed analyses of the sources showing how they did not accurate represent what Mhhossein has been constantly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) trying to include in the lede. This was El_C's feedback/responses (to Mhhossein's complains) throughout that discussion:
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any cause to take an administrative action here (besides the fact that all of you are arguing over which version of the page should not be in place while you argue over the rest of it, instead of just discussing the content, as you ought to be doing). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde I really appreciate your control and response actually. The case needs to admin's decision is violating this request of El_C, did YPATCH Substantiate his reverts?Saff V. (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out that those edits were thoroughly discussed and substantiated in its TP discussion (a discussion Saff V. didn't contribute to at all). These constant trivial reports are coming across as WP:HARRASMENT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I involved by this disscusion. If anyone wants to edit the article according to اhis own opinion, then the page 's restriction, one reverting or arguing here would be pointless. My objection is to the rules violated here by Yachts. 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!Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion which you've linked to doesn't address the sources, which is what we actually did in the relevant TP discussion. Unless there's a question by an admin, I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the user who began dedicating a topic on the disputed content, I believe there was no consensus over the disputed content. In this edit the admin suggested to go by an RFC. Please note that the longstanding version of the article already respects the admin's insight 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). Also, this comment by EI_C has a major "if" and should be misinterpreted. However, as Vanamonde suggested, I will elaborate my points on the content:
  • 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."
  • Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". The Elizabeth Rubin's work is described by Stefka Bulgaria and Ypatch as being "damming article against the MEK" and "certainly a one-sided criticism of the group" and the description seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Likewise they said "Commentary Magazine" is another "damming article against the MEK" by another Rubin."
  • The 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 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.
According to the restrictions of the page, "once a new addition or change to longstanding text are reverted, the edits must be shown to enjoy consensus before being reintroduced again". This is while the change to the longstanding version of the article was carried out without consensus being built, though the admin had clearly asked for an RFC. I will restore the longstanding version and start an RFC over it, while according to WP:ONUS "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."
-Mhhossein talk 15:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I think you were asking for discussion on the content. Please take a look at it "We have an admin approval on the previous version"!!! --Mhhossein talk 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EI C: They revert under your name, can you please comment on this? Yptach was blocked just recently for this sort of behavior. --Mhhossein talk 19:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion, of which Mhhossein has not participated in over a week. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My latest comment, which were objections against the change to the longstanding version, is still left with no response. That's what shows you were not able to build consensus and kept mis-interpreting the admin's comments. --Mhhossein talk 19:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Longstanding text" and "per talk" are not magic words". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, that's why Ypatch should not have carried out edit war amid the ongoing discussions! --Mhhossein talk 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have discussed, and so have I, and so has El_C; that's consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until EI_C is not commenting here, you can simply attribute whatever you like to him! For the record, my latest substantiated objection was never responded. --Mhhossein talk 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefka Bulgaria, I do not see a clear consensus for the version that currently exists; all El C is saying is that the organization cannot be directly described as a cult, which Mhhossein's version does not do. The RfC below is supposed to establish a new consensus, specifically with respect to what version is compliant with WP:DUE. Until then, you ought not to be edit-warring over long-standing content. Ypatch, please self-revert, and allow the RfC to take its course. Mhhossein, please don't revert this yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the intervention. Ypatch has repeated the revert 3 times against both the article longstanding version and the admin's comments. I reported his edit, which I thought was edit warring against the article's restrictions. Back then, EI_C described the edit as being a bold action, not an edit war. But, how many times that bold edit could be repeated? He repeated the edit. And now he again repeated the same edit against the longstanding version of the article. Consider that he was previously blocked for the same edit warring behavior. --Mhhossein talk 06:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanamonde93 This is what Mhhossein inserted back into the article: "Various scholarly works[71][72][73], media outlets[74][75] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi". What we establish with Ypatch and El_C was that the sources did not mirror those claims, and that 'reverting to the long standing text' shouldn't be an excuse for putting something in the lede that isn't represented by the sources. Can you please comment? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your are again misinterpreting El_C's comments. Anyway, I showed  here and here that the text is supported by reliable sources. So, don't downgrade my substantiated objection, which you two failed to respond, to a low-level excuse. --Mhhossein talk 11:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefka Bulgaria There's a difference between giving certain sources undue weight (something which is largely a matter of judgement) and actively misrepresenting sources (which falls foul of WP:NOR, and is something an uninvolved admin can issue sanctions for). I see evidence that the weighting of sources in that sentence is contentious. I see no evidence that that sentence contains clear-cut original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde93: For about the last year or so, all RfCs in this Talk page have ended in "no consensus", which has left text in the article that isn't properly represented by the majority scholarship. We actually need someone neutral to look at the sources and make a decision based on that. I tried this by taking issues to Third opinion, but Mhhossein refused to comment there, and I was told by El_C that they aren't obligated to comment, which leaves the issue in the article in place. It is through such processes that fixing text in the article has been prevented, even with RSs at hand. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is sometimes the fate of contentious pages on a project such as this one. You're welcome to solicit more input by posting neutral notifications at relevant wikiprojects, but ultimately the absence of consensus is always likely to be a problem. Even if El C or myself decided to step away from acting as admins here, and worked to rewrite the page, there's no reason to assume that our version will be any more palatable to the other editors than the current material that is under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93:: Another violation of the restrictions by Ypatch, which should be reverted: The whole story is discussed here but, briefly, the user reverted against the article longstanding version, although it was once reverted by me and was being discussed (just see his edit summary). No consensus was reached when he changed the longstanding version. My argument was that we needed to avoid misquoting Ariane M. Tabatabai by removing a selected part of his words! This is the complete version:

    "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."

    --Mhhossein talk 06:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That text was removed because that information is repeated in the article a couple of time already, and that was clearly explained in that TP discussion. As notified earlier, "long standing text'" is not a magic word or substantiated reason to justify a revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO consensus was built for changing the longstanding version. Your arguments are pretty much the same as those you used to alter the lead!!! Btw, "explained in that TP discussion" is not a magic phrase, consensus should be built and Ypatch's edit came amid an ongoing discussion. --Mhhossein talk 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That edit had my consensus; it didn't have yours, but that's hardly a surprise. More importantly, it was substantiated. A substantiation and a 2 against 1 consensus seems like a legit reason to advance the editing process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 to 1? Is it a football game? --Mhhossein talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not jumping in on your side this time, Mhhossein. Repetition is an obvious reason to ignore the "longstanding" rule, and I find your arguments against removal not to be substantive. We need to represent sources accurately, but that does not mean every sentence for which a source is used needs to represent the totality of the source. The author's point about assassinations has clearly been made elsewhere, and as such the author isn't being misrepresented. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comment. But I did not want to ask you jump on my side. I was reporting a harmful act, i.e. determining the consensus unilaterally, which goes against the stability of the article. He did the second revert amid an ongoing discussion and it was clearly against the article restriction. The admin, who originally suggested WP:CONSENSUS, urged multiple times to avoid determining the consensus unilaterally. Regardless of whether or not the edit was right, I am reporting the very act of edit warring two times amid an ongoing discussion by a user who was recently blocked for edit warring and whose recent edit warring turned out to be against the consensus. I hope I am clear. --Mhhossein talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now that you're commenting on the content, please say how selectively leaving "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years" is not misrepresentation of him, despite the portions of his comment saying "[MEK] continues to be one of the main terrorist groups identified as a threat by Tehran". For what reason that but should be ignored ? --Mhhossein talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Removing information that's already repeated twice in the article is not a "harmful act", so please tone it down.
  • 2) In that TP discussion, you never address the repetition, but just keep repeating "misquote" over and over again, which does not address the issue (repetition).
  • 3) You accuse Ypatch of "edit-warring", which, under the same criteria, could also be applied to you (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, etc.)
  • 4) In the initial relevant TP discussion about this, you did not even participate. Then, a few days later, you reported Ypatch to El_C for "misquoting", but what Ypatch had actually done is remove the info that's repeated in the article.
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, I am not taking a position on the content; I'm evaluating the arguments all of you are presenting with respect to policy and common sense. Making an argument that has a basis in policy and common sense is a good thing. Repeating that argument that doesn't, is tendentios behavior. At this moment, you are being somewhat tendentious, because a) You've misunderstood how WP:NPOV applies to that quote, b) you keep talking about the longstanding version even though El C and myself have both made it clear at various points that there need to be other reasons to keep content in the article, and c) now that I've disagree with your position, you are shifting the goalposts, and pointing to a part of what the source says that wasn't removed or added in the edit you are disputing. My comment was not about the source in its entirety, but about the assassination portion, as you would have realized if you had read it dispassionately. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93: I was accused of "shifting the goalposts" and being "tendentious" by you, but I guess you would not say that if you had gone through the comments. See my comments ([25] and [26]) where I have explained Tabatabai's comment should not be used out of context. I reported two cases where Ypatch had done edit warring. The first one, which you admitted was not in accordance to the EI_C's commetns, was concluded with no warning or even advice to Ypatch. --Mhhossein talk 16:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: In light of the admin action you took, could you say why the following edit series was not a violation of the page's restriction:
  1. Stefka Bulgaria removed the terms "Various scholarly works, media outlets" from the lead.
  2. 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.
  3. Ypatch removed them without trying to build consensus.
  4. Ypatch removed them again. Note that the edit turned out to lack consensus.
Your explanations will help me understand the restriction better. --Mhhossein talk 02:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When did I ever say that edit was okay? I told Ypatch explicitly that his edit was not okay, and asked him to self-revert. Saff V.'s violation today was the latest in a string of edits that evinced a battleground attitude; which is why he was sanctioned. Discretionary sanctions are, as the name implies, discretionary. To be clear, a considerable number of editors here have been risking sanction with their behavior for a while now; as I've said more times than I can remember, please return to discussing the specifics of the content, and not each others' behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde: You know Ypatch was once blocked for the same violation and his recent violation could bring him something more than 'self-revert'. Anyway, "discussing the specifics of the content" requires stability of the article and it, at the same time, helps the stability. I believe Saff V was wrong. But I would like to know why a sanction did not apply for the Ypatch's case? I am not even asking to do it now, just want to know how the discretionary works. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you. Discretionary sanctions are applied when admins feel their benefits (containing disruption) outweight their costs (fewer editors to build an article). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all participated in the talk page discussion The paragraph on MEK's cult nature/charcteristics, including Ypatch. During that talk page discussion, I analysed the sources thoroughly showing that "Critics have described the MEK as having cult-like attributes" was more in accordance with the majority sources than what Mhhossein proposed ("Various scholarly works,[68][69][70] media outlets[71][72] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi"). El_C's feedback (to Mhhossein's protests) about this was the following:

The analysis of sources and El_C's feedback seem to add up to a substantiated reason for Ypatch's edit. Still, that edit was reverted and a RfC was launched. Something similar is currently happening on the TP discussion Other names, where Mhhossein and Saff V. are saying the MEK is commonly referred to as "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult" based on two (biased) RSs and a number of fringe publications (I will provide an analysis of those sources soon). That will also likely end up in a RfC, which will also likely end up in "no-consensus" (as it has been here with every other RfC for over the past year), leaving that derogatory name, which isn't backed by the majority scholarship, in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bludgeon the process please. There's nothing new in these wall of texts. You have repeated them almost verbatim. Ypatch's edit turned out to be a violation. --Mhhossein talk 08:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde:So, sometimes a user, with a background that of Ypatch, may violate a restriction and still be untouched because of those "benefits" and "costs"? --Mhhossein talk 06:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead

Which of the following themes should be adopted by the lead of the article for including the sentences on the MEK being described as a cult group? Mhhossein talk 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A:

"Various scholarly works,[1][2][3][4] media outlets[5][6] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW[7] and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult.[8][9]"

B:

"Critics,[10][11][12][13][14] Human Rights Watch (HRW),[7] and many experts have described the group as "resembling" a "cult".[8][15][16][5]"

C:

"Critics[17][18][19][20][21] have described the group as "resembling a cult".[8][22][16][5]"

Note:This suggestion had never been a part of the previous disputes so it is meaningless to discuss it and should be removed from the table (it was added by Stefka Bulgaria). --Mhhossein talk 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

And I have restored the proposal. You really ought not to strike options in an RfC, Mhhossein. There's no requirements for the options in an RfC having been previously discussed; indeed, RfCs that rigidly restrict themselves to very specific outcomes are rarely helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
RfC "is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system" and/or is "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes." Suggestion C had never been a mater of dispute. Anyway, the act of manipulating an RFC started by others, without saying a word to them, does not convey a good impression to others.--Mhhossein talk 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Shahidian, Hammed (2002). Women in Iran: Gender politics in the Islamic republic. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-31476-6. Retrieved 21 February 2020. After summer of 1981 Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then they have turned into a cult.
  2. ^ Crane, Keith; Lal, Rollie (2008). Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities. Rand Corporation. ISBN 9780833045270. Retrieved 11 September 2018. ...the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War.
  3. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  4. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. Retrieved 25 January 2020. Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Rubin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Rubin, Michael (7 July 2013). "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult". Commentary. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference RAND was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b c Filkins, Dexter (29 April 2019). "John Bolton on the Warpath". Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  9. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".
  10. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  11. ^ Middle Eastern Eye
  12. ^ CBC
  13. ^ The Guardian
  14. ^ The Daily Beast
  15. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".
  16. ^ a b Abrahamian 1989, pp. 227–230. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
  17. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  18. ^ Middle Eastern Eye
  19. ^ CBC
  20. ^ The Guardian
  21. ^ The Daily Beast
  22. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".

Mhhossein talk 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A: This well-sourced suggestion, in contrast to suggestion B, is covering the various views with regard to MEK being described as Cult. The text is well-attributed and is supported by multiple reliable sources. MEK is described by some as a Cult and suggestion B is falsely attributing this viewpoint only to Critics. Needless to say that A is in accordance with the longstanding version of the article and was changed without consensus being built. --Mhhossein talk 19:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Long-standing version" is not a magic word; you need sources backing up claims; and the vast majority points refer to these claims as coming from "Critics"([1][2][3][4][5]). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  2. ^ Middle Eastern Eye
  3. ^ CBC
  4. ^ The Guardian
  5. ^ The Daily Beast
  • A those are not critics or biased sources, those are neutral scholars, saying critics or any attempt to poison the well is POV-pushing and misleading.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not going to opine on specific options, obviously, but if you're trying to write a helpful article, rather than something that sounds like a soapboxy piece even if it isn't, you ought not to overuse scare quotes, and ought not to overuse within-sentence citations. What do the citations after the word "critics" achieve? Are they only supporting the fact that those authors are critics, and not the rest of the sentence? Also; what does the phrase ""resembling" a "cult"" even mean? How is it different from saying "resembling a cult"? Those words are plain english; I don't see any copyright concerns with omitting quotes in that case. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment; An RfC determines fresh consensus. As such, arguments about how long something has been in the article carry exactly zero weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • C None (first choice) or C (second choice) : Changing my vote to None as first choice based on Adoring nanny's vote. I actually had made this argument a while back saying that:
"there is a recent trend in some media publications to accuse Donald Trump (and the Republican Party) of being "unpopular" and having a "Cult personality" and a "propaganda machine" (which are carbon-copy allegations against the MEK: [27], [28], [29], [30], etc). Yet, we don't include those allegations in relevant Wiki articles (even less in the lede sections).
If we go with option "C", this is my reasoning why: We only have 2 RSs outright describing the MEK as a cult, while the rest of the reliable sources (approx 10) clearly describe the "cult" allegations as something that is either coming from critics, or something that refers to the group's "Cult of personality" (which is very different than outright saying the MEK is a "cult"). The A option (what is currently in the article) is WP:UNDUE and a gross misrepresentation of the majority scholarship about this (the sources speak for themselves). To the closing admin: closing this as "no consensus" leaves the current "A" option in place, so I'd ask that you please read the sources carefully and base the final outcome on that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment; I have yet to see any substantive analysis of the sources here. It's not enough to link three or four sources supporting one or the other version; to determine due weight, we need to look at the totality of source material. We need to ask questions like; of all the scholarly works on this subject, how many describe the MEK as a cult? Of the scholarly sources focusing substantively on the MEK, how many do so? Of the human rights groups discussing this topic, how many do so? Due weight isn't determined by the how many sources support something; it's determined by how prevalent a certain view is within the totality of source material. And from that perspective many of the arguments presented here are very weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (first choice) or C (second choice) per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Obviously "cult" is a controversial label and therefore I think the best option is to exclude it. But if we must include, ascribing it to "critics" is less bad than going on at length. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (first choice) or C (second choice) per Adoring nanny. I also think "cult" label is controversial and should not be in the lead. If it needs to be kept, "Critics" is more accurate, so either leave it out or keep the "critics" version. Ypatch (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Vanamonde93s request about the substantive analysis of the sources:
A: Analysis of sources of option "A" (why I think that saying that sources outright refer to the MEK as a "cult" is WP:UNDUE):

"Various scholarly works,[1][2][3] media outlets[4][5] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW[6] and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult.[7][8]"

1) Could not find that quote in the cited book, but found it in this report by RAND (Think tank), which describes the MEK as a "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group". What is concerning about that report by RAND about the MEK is that the word "Cult" is mentioned over 50 times, which is unusual for what it's supposed to be an unbiased report.
2) Book published by Routledge that says "given the cult personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi". This does not support the statement it's being used for ("Cult of personality" is not equal to calling the group a "cult").
3) Book by Ervand Abrahamian that says "These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult...", which also does not support the statement that the MEK is outright a "cult".
4) Article by Elizabeth Rubin that says "The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult"
5) Article by Michael Rubin (Elizabeth's husband) that says "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult". As Ypatch said in an earlier TP discussion, both these articles by the Rubins are a one-side criticism of the MEK.
6) The same RAND source used again to say that "Human Rights Watch" also described the MEK as a cult. This is what the source actually says: "The cult characteristics in this appendix have been widely reported by former MEK members and by Human Rights Watch". However there isn't a source found by HRW saying the MEK is a cult, and even this re-used RAND source also doesn't say that HRW outright says the MEK is a "cult", but rather that HRW has reported on the groups "cult characteristics".
7) Article by the New Yorker that says "has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult" (which is not equivalent to outright calling the MEK a "cult").
8) Article by The Guardian that says "has been described as having cult-like attributes" (which is not equivalent to outright calling the MEK a "cult").
C: Analysis of sources of option "C" (why I think that saying that "critics" refer to the MEK as having "cult-like attributes" or "resembling a cult" is WP:DUE):

"Critics[9][10][11][12][13] have described the group as "resembling a cult".[7][14][15][4]

9) Book published by Routledge that says "But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi."
10) Article by Middle Eastern Eye that says "Described by critics as 'a cult', Iranian opposition group is now lauded by top US officials as alternative to Iran's government."
11) CBC article that says "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"
12) Article by The Guardian that 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"
13) The Daily Beast article that says "often described by critics as a cult"
14) New Yorker article that says "characterized by many experts as resembling a cult
15) Book by Ervand Abrahamian that says "These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult...".
16 Article by Elizabeth Rubin that says "The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult" (I think it's worth keeping one of the Rubin sources that are critical of the MEK, which refers to the MEK as "something more like" a "cult").
  • Note: I have not analysed option "B" since it includes all the same sources as options "A" and "C". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick response to the analysis of the sources (NO where, the lead is "outright calling the MEK a cult") :
Stefka Bulgrai needs to answer why he is trying to pretend that the lead is currently "outright calling the MEK a cult"? No where in the current version of the lead, the group is being called cult in an "outright" manner, rather the article adopts an descriptive tone when it comes to Cultish nature of the MEK. You have repeatedly failed, on this TP, to explain why "cult of personality", the description used by Abrahamian, does not equate to saying the cult is being built around its leaders. Also:
  • In his book, Abrahamian writes "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences". This sentence is a clear description by the author's voice. --Mhhossein talk 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult".
  • The 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 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." Also it adds: "The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch.4 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."
  • 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.
  • 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."
--Mhhossein talk 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or C. The lead is dominated by the summary of the group's activities. So this information provides an insight regarding the structure or the nature of the organization and its leadership. It helps in giving the article dimension as well as an opening for the body to discuss its organizational structure and its leadership. There are sources that mention it. I would recommend that the content should clearly indicate that some regard it as a cult while some say it is cult-like. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (first choice) or C (second choice) also per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Adding "Cult" in the lead section of an article about a political party automatically discredits it (its history, its ideologies, etc.). Avoid stating opinions as facts in the lead is needed if we aim to keep this controversial article a bit more neutral. Alex-h (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And NO where in the lead opinions are stated as facts! So, your argument is not applied here. --Mhhossein talk 06:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the MEK as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" is opinion, not fact. Option "A" is simply shoehorning every last bit of "cult" criticism into one sentence with an apparent aim to discredit the MEK. Also, Mhhossein please stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND of discrediting other editor's votes. Alex-h (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me which part of option A is stating "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" as a fact?? --Mhhossein talk 19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (first choice) or C (second choice) per the many sources in the article that dispute the "cult" criticism:
>"retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".[16]
>"Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a ″cult nature”; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was “ashamed” by this statement.[17]
>"Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".
>"An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence".[18] According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK",[19] not addressing claims of being a cult by various journalists."
Nika2020 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None (first choice) or C (second choice) due to labeling and brevity. Option A also has a few grammatical errors (missing "and" for instance) and is repetitive.--Eostrix (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Enough attribution is done and the article avoids stating it as a fact. Sources are reliable and diverse. Can anyone see I found now? It can be helpful[31]. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you Ali Ahwazi. I used the source. --Mhhossein talk 08:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why option C is not a good choice: Simply it is not covering views by academic scholars. Option C heavily relies on news-outlets, which is very detrimental to the accuracy of the lead. Option A, on the other hand, is featured with multiple high quality academic sources which need to be considered as a criteria for decision. Options B and C are aimed at ignoring the viewpoints of scholarly works so lead to an UNDUE narration regarding the status of the group. The only academic source used in Option C is this one, which is mis-used here. --Mhhossein talk 08:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None - (first choice) or C (second choice) also due to labeling and the analysis of the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Scholars view should be preferred over the other sources. Option "A" covers diverse views, from the scholars to critics and adheres to NPOV. Labeling is not applied in this case given the reliable sources using the term. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@D4iNa4, which reliable sources actually "described it [MEK] as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi"?, vs how many sources refer to this name-calling as coming from "Critics"? That's what we're discussing here. If there was a "majority scholarly view" that outright describe the MEK as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" then we wouldn't even be having this RfC; but that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See [32]. Multiple scholars have described them as a cult. --Mhhossein talk 06:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, you keep on repeating "multiple scholars have described them as a cult", yet, I have done a thorough analysis of the sources and what they say, which show that this is indeed not the case. Even with the single source you've provided in your last post, it says "personality cult", which is invalid for "option A" ("personality cult" is different from "a cult built around its leaders). To the closing admin/editor, these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of all the bludgeoning with misleading claims. Please simply look at the sources and what they say (I have done a thorough analysis of them in "Response to Vanamonde93s request about the substantive analysis of the sources" just above). Also please note that bludgeoning has been occurring in the RfCs here for over a year, which lead no-consensus, which leaves material that isn't backed by the sources in the article. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, multiple scholars have described them as a cult ([20][21][22][23]). The academic sources, mostly published by credible universities, which I provided are so clear that don't need your analysis. I think you are the one have so far have bludgeoned the talk discussions by mass-repeating the comments word by word. Here it is my response to your analysis. --Mhhossein talk 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source doesn't mention the word "cult"; the next two sources say "Personality cult", which is different from "a cult built around its leaders. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you tend to use {{od}} when it's not necessary! Anyway, "Personality cult" or "cult" are quite similar and this is not a critical issue to ignore the scholarly views. I have provided at least two sources saying the "a cult built around its leaders. Are these two your only issues? --Mhhossein talk 06:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None - (first choice) or C (second choice) Adding "Cult" to describe a political party opposed to the Iranian regime in the lead is very controversial and something we do not do in other articles about political parties. If it must be included, then "C" is the better alternative for many reasons, but mainly because it is backed by more sources than the other options. Barca (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Scholarly views should make the core part of our decision making and should be given more weight in comparison with other sources. Option A says the group is "described it as a cult", so there is no concern as name calling or label considering the academic reliable sources. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added another source from an academic publisher describing the group as 'cult'. --Mhhossein talk 13:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEK ex member is not a good source for saying "scholars say the MEK is a cult" (may be good for saying MEK ex member say MEK is a cult, but that's different). Ypatch (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not change the fact that there are multiple other scholarly works describing them as cult. --

Mhhossein talk 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there actually were "multiple other scholarly works describing them as cult", we wouldn't be having this RfC. To the closing editor, I emphasize please disregard bludgeoning and simply look at the source analysis in this RfC. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None - (first choice) or C (second choice) Per WP:UNDUE. The majority sources do not support "A" (both scholarly or non-scholarly). Idealigic (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Crane, Keith; Lal, Rollie (2008). Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities. Rand Corporation. ISBN 9780833045270. Retrieved 11 September 2018. ...the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War.
  2. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  3. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. Retrieved 25 January 2020. Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Rubin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Rubin, Michael (7 July 2013). "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult". Commentary. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference RAND was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Filkins, Dexter (29 April 2019). "John Bolton on the Warpath". Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  8. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".
  9. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  10. ^ Middle Eastern Eye
  11. ^ CBC
  12. ^ The Guardian
  13. ^ The Daily Beast
  14. ^ "Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group".
  15. ^ Abrahamian 1989, pp. 227–230. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
  16. ^ Merat, Owen Bennett Jones (15 April 2012). "An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?". BBC. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  17. ^ "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group" The Associated Press, June 27, 2014
  18. ^ Brie, André; Martins Casaca, José Paulo; Zabeti, Azadeh (2005). People's Mojahedin of Iran. L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782747593816.
  19. ^ Raymond Tanter (2006). Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: U.S. Policy and the Iranian Opposition. Iran Policy Committee. ISBN 978-1599752976.
  20. ^ Crane, Keith; Lal, Rollie (2008). Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities. Rand Corporation. ISBN 9780833045270. Retrieved 11 September 2018. ...the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War.
  21. ^ Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-94157-3. Retrieved 14 January 2020. But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi.
  22. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. Retrieved 25 January 2020. Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences
  23. ^ Shahidian, Hammed (2002). Women in Iran: Gender politics in the Islamic republic. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-313-31476-6. Retrieved 21 February 2020. After summer of 1981 Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then they have turned into a cult.

RFC

Should the sentence that it is "A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists" be included in the lede? Saff V. (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No: first, which Senior State Department Official made this claim? Second, one of sources is the Washington times which is not reliable enough for supporting the claim, (see here), Third, as Admin said, "the quote gives virtually no information. All it's doing is denying the state department said something. It has virtually no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the MEK".Saff V. (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leadership

Please substantiate this revert. There are some issues with that:

  1. if there are grammatical problems, you can do copy edit rather than removing it.
  2. You wrote that "MEK leadership and cult/marriage info is already described in detail in other parts of the article." this material, "More ever swearing an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran is part of the MeK membership ceremony. The blame of Rajavi leadership is forbidden", are not related to cult or marriage and there is nothing about them in the article. Please provide them, if there is.
  3. Creating a section with the title of "leadership" is common in similar articles, see [[33]] and [[34]]. we have an article about the Iranian political-militant organization which is included a section about leadership, but there is nothing for leadership. It is vital who are leaders and What are the main features of leadership, therefore we have to make a separate section for it.Saff V. (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V.: What is the exact information that you're trying to include in the article, and why is that information necessary? (that isn't already repeated). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The exact information to be included in "Leadership" section is exactly all what you can say about the leadership of the group and the transfer of power between the leaders. Such a section is found in many other similar articles; you can see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda, for instance, both featured with "leadership" subsection. So, your argument for removal of the whole section, as opposed to modifying it, is not correct. It is very clear that after 'leadership' is created, the related materials from other parts of the article should go under it, as much as possible. --Mhhossein talk 16:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're currently generalising. Please be specific about what information you're looking to include there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're escaping from the very fact that the article should have this section. The content may need further discussions. The section is going to be created if you don't have substantiated objections against it. For the start, it will have basic facts regarding the leadership of the group. --Mhhossein talk 14:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, I don't have an objection against the creation of this section, I'm just asking what it is that you're trying to include there (what Saff V. previously included was either repeated, illegible, or trivial info, which the article does not need). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the material of this edit is duplicated, illegible, or trivial info? If you think the article does not need them, it is your POV!Saff V. (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Masoud Rajavi designated himself and Maryam leader and co-leader of the MeK (and, by extension, of Iran) for life." This is already in the article:

  • "Leaders: Massoud Rajavi / Maryam Rajavi, deputy commander-in-chief[8]"

    ;

    "In 1980, the MEK was under the control of Massoud Rajavi, one of the few surviving members of the MEK’s Central cadre."

    ;

    "pro-democracy demonstrations across the country invoked by MEK leader Massoud Rajavi"

    ;

    "On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader."

    , etc...

2) "While the transformation of MEK into a cult was begun, the concept of leadership was used in the MeK chant “Iran-Rajavi, Rajavi-Iran” as well as informal title the present Imam (Imam-e Hal) was used widely by MeK membership."

  • Trivial (and POV).

3) "Masoud Rajavi tended "to compare his own marriage to that of the Prophet Muhammad".

  • Trivial (I don't understand why Saff V. and Mhhossein insist on filling this article with random text about Rajavi's marriage)

4) "More ever swearing an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran is part of the MeK membership ceremony. The blame of Rajavi leadership is forbidden."

  • Illegible

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection against the creation of this section, SO I created it. In addition, the issue of Illegible sentences was solved. About sentences that Stefka said they are "Trivial", I think it is just his POV and the opinion of other users is needed.Saff V. (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saff, the section you created about "leadership" still doesn't make much sense. Why do you want to add "membership ceremony involves swearing an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran." Criticism of the Rajavi leadership is not permitted" add to the article? The other info you removed from their sections is also not warranted.? The other material that you moved into that section was better placed in their previous sections. This is not an improvement to the article, so I'm reverting it on that account. Ypatch (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have to build the consequence then edit the article. Up to now, there is no objection to create this section and I solved the Illegible issue mentioned by Stefka. I added that material because RS supports them.Saff V. (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saff, you need to read more carefully these conversations we are having here. The problem is not with creating a "Leadership" section, the problem is with the type of information you have been trying to include there. You still have not answered my question, and you continue to add things that don't add anything to the article except superficial criticisms. Ypatch (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no objection against having the section, the you probably need to consider stopping removing the section. If you there's something to be modified, you can avoid being general by saying "superficial criticisms" content is added and suggest details to be added. All of us here are apparently saying the section should be created by you are showing otherwise in practice by removing the section. If there's anything to be improved, it won't happen by whole removal of the section. Btw, I can see Saff V has changed the content in light of Stefka Bulgaria's comments. --Mhhossein talk 17:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other names

I have reverted this edit by Mhhossein because the section "Other names" aims to indicate other names that the group commonly known by ("People’s Jihadists" is not one of them). Since we're on this topic, and though this is brought up in a previous TP discussion, in the section Other names there is also the name "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult", which is also WP:UNDUE (there seem to be only two sources referring to the group with this derogatory name). Unless there is a substantiated reason to keep this, I propose removing it per WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of Rajavi and/or Rajavi Cult is an infamous name which was coined by NYT and is now widely used by sources referring to MEK. Others have also referred this name. For instance, "Another form of corrupted Sufism and Jihad in Islam is the cult of Rajavi."[35]. --Mhhossein talk 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, please provide sources to substantiate your claim (two sources are not enough to refer to a political group with any derogatory name). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pov of NYT is not a good example of undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 1 or 2 sources are not enough to determine the MEK had the alternative name "Rajavi Cult". That is why this name is WP:UNDUE. You need more sources to establish that "Rajavi Cult" is another name the MEK goes by. Please provide them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the POV of NYT as a minority views? This article of NYT is so significant, it has been used as a reference in other RSes (like Taylor & Francis which publishes books and academic journals, Greenwood Publishing Group, part of ABC-CLIO, University of Colorado). In addition sources including 1, 2 and 3 support it.Saff V. (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V.: I don't know if you're trying to confuse me by re-using the same sources quoted in other publications, or if this is a WP:COMPETENCE problem. To resume, these are the only available RSs that have called the MEK a "Rajavi Cult":
Either list more RSs that (independently) refer to the MEK with this derogatory name, or that derogatory name will be removed from the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to confuse you, I am going to say that you might misunderstand what wp:undue demands! The NYT source gives proper weight to the material and it wouldn't be the views of tiny minorities.Saff V. (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's you, Saff, who doesn't quite understand WP:UNDUE, which says that "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Ypatch (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, WP:UNDUE is being misused here. We're not going to act based on the Stefka Bulgaria's self-made criterion here. The term is wide spreadly used in other reliable sources, as shown by Saff V. Moreover, "Rajavi Cult" (Persian: "فرقه رجوی") is indeed one of the terms alternatively used when referring to MEK in Persian language media. Your attempt to remove this name is highly questionable. Paul Sheldon Foote, a California State University professor, has also used the term. Likewise, the name is used by Juan Cole. --Mhhossein talk 06:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those two sources are WP:RS. If that's all you have been able to come up with, then using this disrespectful name is certainly WP:UNDUE. Ypatch (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly using UNDUE and downgrading those authors as being non reliable has apparently no cost here. Come with a reason please and review my comment again. --Mhhossein talk 17:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another one. --Mhhossein talk 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't look like they meet WP:RS, so I'm removing them. If you disagree, you can ask at WP:RSN for others to comment. Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how things work. I am going to restore if you can not elaborate in what terms the sources are not reliable. Merely saying 'the sources are not reliable' is not a license for such a wholesale removal. --Mhhossein talk 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you has in any way discussed what makes these sources reliable or not. Further edit-warring over this, especially in the absence of any substantive discussion, will be met with sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These new sources that Mhhossein added do not appear to be WP:RS, which is needed specially for adding this sort of name-calling. The first clue that these sources are not reliable is in their titles, but also Middleeasteye.net, Opednews.com, and juancole.com are not suitable sources to support that the MEK is often referred to "The Cult of Rajavi". Someone with Mhhossein's editing experience should know this. The 2003 Rubin piece seems to be the closest thing to a reliable source that describes the MEK as "The Cult of Rajavi", which would make this name-calling WP:UNDUE because it has been cited by the minority sources. That is my substantiation for removing "Cult of Rajavi" from the article. What's Mhhossein's reasoning for keeping it? Ypatch (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't appear to be reliable source is not a proper justification. You have judged the sources based on the titles, which is pretty much wrong and inaccurate, and I know with my experience what a reliable source constitutes. Middle East Eye is a credible news organization benefiting from the contribution of Jamal Khashoggi, Moncef Marzouki, Alistair Burt, Daniel Kawczynski among others. That's weird to see the source is questioned in terms of its reliability. Also, Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, is an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East. You can see his previous views regarding Iran. I would not simply discredit his works just for nothing! That's why the sources are reliable. --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick analysis of the sources that Mhhossein is saying are enough to support the claim that the MEK is commonly referred to "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult.":

  • "The Cult of Rajavi" by Elizabeth Rubin. Ypatch described this in a previous TP discussion as "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." I agree with this assessment; may be ok for the body, but certainly not for "Other names".

These are the 3 sources Mhhossein is using to keep in the article that the MEK is commonly known as "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult." I also agree with the assessment that someone with Mhhossein's editing experience should know better; yet, here we are. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using Mhhossein's own words, "The first sentence in WP:UNDUE reads as such: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The user who is trying to insert this material should explain how a paragraph should be dedicated to this 'minority view'?" Ypatch (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ypatch: Are you hounding me from page to page? Anyway, this is not a minority view. The term is frequently used in Persian-language media and multiple independent works use the same title for them. @ Stefka Bulgaria:
  • Ypatch's comment is not the criteria for us here so please don't repeat that again. Calling a source "damming article against the MEK" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Elizabeth Rubin's work came in a highly credible media and has been referred to by multiple other sources since then. No where in this discussion I can see the MEE source is being described as a "controversial source at best". User:E.M.Gregory, who is proven sock puppet said it was not reliable! Kingsindian said there was nothing wrong with that and Nishidani said there was no reason to exclude it.
  • YES, you need to explain why Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, who is an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East, is not a reliable source here.
--Mhhossein talk 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, if this is not a minority view, then provide substantial sources (you've been asked for this already).@Vanamonde93: Mhhossein has been asked to provide sources showing that the MEK's "other name" is "The Cult of Rajavi". He insists that the three he presented are enough. Is that the case? Ypatch (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again and please don't mislead the admin by misquoting me. Note that "the term is frequently used in Persian-language media" and inside Iran they are widely referred to as "Rajavi Cult" (Persian: "فرقه رجوی"). I have provided three other independent sources using the term in a similar manner. Moreover, Rubin's usage of the term in NYT, has been mentioned in plenty of reliable sources. I can list them at your request. I recommend you to review WP:UNDUE once again. --Mhhossein talk 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I realise my ping may be a hassle, BUT Mhhossein added to the article that the MEK's "Other name" is "Cult of Rajavi". Mhhossein based this on 3 sources (only 1 of which is WP:RS). Even if all 3 sources were WP:RS, that still would fall under WP:LABEL and WP:UNDUE. We already have one name calling by the Iranian regime about the MEK in the article ("Monafiqeen (Persian: منافقین‎, lit. 'the hypocrites')"), and Mhhossein is adding "Cult of Rajavi" as a legitimate "Other name" of the MEK. Do you see my concern? Ypatch (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be inaccurate to say solely the "Iranian regime" is using the term. For instance this source say: "However, they have little support inside Iran, where they're seen as traitors for taking refuge in an enemy state and are often referred to as the cult of Rajavi, coined after the leaders of the movement, Mariam and Massoud Rajavi." This term is widely used in Persian-language media. --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is fundamentally a content decision, and as such I'm not going to weigh in on it. An RfC is likely the way to go here. I will note in passing that there's a difference between how common a viewpoint needs to be to be included in the article with in-text attribution, and how common it needs to be to be included in Wikipedia's voice. Listing something as another name for the group is a use of Wikipedia's voice. A source that is good enough for the author's view to be included with attribution may not be enough for this sort of designation. I say may, because I haven't actually looked at the totality of the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. From your note, I will attribute to the author to what the author says. The majority of these sources that Mhhossein has provided quote this author, so it's good enough for the author's view point. Ypatch (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Is there any consensus for this removal? I see the edit a part the user's destructive editing pattern. On what basis did the author downgraded the "content decision", for which a RFC was suggested, to this move? I prefer to seek your comment before anything else. --Mhhossein talk 17:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a removal; that's quoting the author and placing the quote in a relevant section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria is correct; that's not a removal, that's a reorganization, supported by this discussion, which I judge to be sufficient consensus for it unless and until someone provides more sourcing for the "Cult of Rajavi" designation. This discussion is sufficient not because of the numbers of editors on either side, but because of the number and quality of sources for that information (or rather, the lack thereof). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

Review the page's restriction

Some edits such as this one show that "consensus required" doesn't work well for the MEK article. it allows users to misuse it. I suggest to change the consensus required to 1RR. Any ideas are welcome.Saff V. (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion. We should have done that from the first days we decided on WP:CONSENSUS. This will keep the page against the edit warrers. --Mhhossein talk 06:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Should this sentence "According to The Daily Beast,a few months after the executions, relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" be included in the article?Saff V. (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Per WP:UNDUE, TDB isn't enough and more sources are needed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) No: The claim is not supported by other reliable sources so UNDUE would apply here. --Mhhossein talk 05:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is totally irrelevant. The RFC is asking for relatives being handed " plastic bags with their children's belongings" and your comment is not covering the RFC's requirement. --Mhhossein talk 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the source saying "relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" with regards to an incident for which we have plenty of RSs confirming numerous torture and execution tactics of children, women, and men? Is this really so extraordinary to believe considering all that took place during these executions (all of which we have plenty of RSs for)? "Relatives being handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" is not an extraordinary claim considering all that took place during the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. Some editors here have been trying to remove details about these executions (see here, for example), and at the same time shoehorned every bit of criticism about a marriage/divorce into the article. That's damaging the article, not making it better. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an extra ordinary claim for which a source far better than TDB is required. --Mhhossein talk 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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] That is a major claim, and it's backed a major source. "Relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" is not a major claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montazeri's letter has nothing to do with this RFC (please see the RFC content once again). I don't know why you are trying to put irrelevant comments. --Mhhossein talk 06:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montazeri's letter is about the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners. "Relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" is also about the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners. See the connection? Montazeri's letter is a major claim about this incident; the "plastic bags" claim isn't (what this RfC is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering! Can you say why should this article include such a disputed detail of a tangentially related incident which is supported by a contentious source? The Daily Beast is not something to be used for this text. --Mhhossein talk 17:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no clear consensus on using Daily Beast at RSN. --Mhhossein talk 18:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Basmenji, Kaveh (2005). Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran. Saqui Books. ISBN 978-0863565823.

Consensus building

@Saff, without consensus or even reaching a middle ground, you can't continue to push your own conclusions into the article about controversial edits that we have been trying to discuss here (as you have done in your recent set of edits). I've rolled them back on that basis. Please discuss them here with other editors before inserting them again. This is what consensus building consists of (you should know this by now). Ypatch (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown to violate this process repeatedly, so that advice looks weird to me. --Mhhossein talk 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

Please add link to Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK) for https://mek-iran, as this is the official website for this organization, not referenced in this article. 65.158.226.226 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Not a valid link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations by former MEK members in the article

There are way too many statements by former members of MEK in this article. They are sprinkled in different sections with criticisms of MEK that don't really confirm anything except maybe trying to put the MEK in a bad light. Some of them coming from Iranian government-related institutions such as Nejat Society. Some just tell us is that these former members of MEK have criticized the MEK, nothing more. I will remove the more WP:POV and WP:UNDUE ones, and propose that the rest are edited (we don't need so many). This is what I will remove so far:

The first doesn't tell us if the MEK were in conflict with Hussain following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, and the second does't tell us if the MEK was in conflict with the Kurds (and we already know the MEK was in conflict with the Iranian Revolutionary guards). Ypatch (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences are well sourced and "if the MEK were in conflict with Hussain following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980" or "if the MEK was in conflict with the Kurds" is not a proper justification for such a removal. --Mhhossein talk 06:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. What do these statements add to the article? Ypatch (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the first one shows how MEK have probably changed his viewpoints throughout its life and the second one shows the group's alliance with Saddam Hussein. So what? --Mhhossein talk 18:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the comments by former members without having them discussed here. --Mhhossein talk 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your substantiation for reverting? If so, it's not a substantiated revert. We already have in the article the different viewpoints the MEK has gone through, and we already have in the article the group's alliance with Saddam Hussein. Both these topics are already described at length in the article, so please provide a substantiated reason for your revert, and remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Ypatch (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" but you can't simply remove a major viewpoint on that basis. POVs regarding MEK's alliance with Saddam should be mentioned in the article. --Mhhossein talk 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "major viewpoints"; but rather, POV from MEK defectors which in fact don't add any new details about these events. I agree they should be removed from the article, mainly per WP:NPOV but also because the MEK's ideology and collaboration with Hussain are already in the article and covered by better and more neutral sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is your personal viewpoint regarding the issue. No, I disagree its removal from the article as I explained. You may launch an RFC though. --Mhhossein talk 05:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, these are just testimonies from former MEK members about things already in the article, they are not "a major viewpoints". You're stonewalling here. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria et al.: Masoud Banisadr is not simply a former MEK member, he is a scholar authoring books and articles so his views should be distinguished from what you are portraying here. Also, "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards"1 is very widely used by sources by various reliable sources. That said you are free to launch an RFC for these two sentences. --Mhhossein talk 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Cult of Rajavi". Archived from the original on 23 February 2009. Retrieved 3 August 2009.

"Human rights record" and "Designation as cult" sections

The section "Designation as a cult" is based on the section "human rights record". The "cult-like" references about the MEK come from the allegations described in the "Human rights record" section, so I propose merging "Human rights record" and "designation as cult" into a single section: "Human rights reports and cult allegations".

Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read: "who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes" and "on what basis". *Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEK's designation as a cult is of the most significant aspects of the group's history, just like how it was once considered a terrorist organization. It's Cultish nature has been studied by researchers and reported by media. Likewise, the "Human rights record" should be addressed separately. As an encyclopedic entry, the history of the group should be reflected just how the sources do. --Mhhossein talk 02:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=944478640&oldid=944411541

Leave a Reply