Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran: Difference between revisions
→Questionable reverts: so what? |
|||
Line 717: | Line 717: | ||
:::However, I need the respond to this query; Vanamonde93's comment reads as such: {{tq|"...it's fairly clear that the "critics describe it as a cult" narrative is far more prevalent among RS than the '''"MEK is a cult" narrative"'''."}} Where was the so-called "MEK is a cult" narrative"? Which of the options contained such a narrative? I think the question is clear enough. By the way, "a rap on the knuckles" is not the suitable language an admin is expected to have. --[[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> 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
:::However, I need the respond to this query; Vanamonde93's comment reads as such: {{tq|"...it's fairly clear that the "critics describe it as a cult" narrative is far more prevalent among RS than the '''"MEK is a cult" narrative"'''."}} Where was the so-called "MEK is a cult" narrative"? Which of the options contained such a narrative? I think the question is clear enough. By the way, "a rap on the knuckles" is not the suitable language an admin is expected to have. --[[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> 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::I have not, at any point, stated that the article contained an "MEK is a cult" narrative, nor have I stated that the RfC was recommending such. I made a point about what the sources presented here were saying. If you're not able to see that distinction, I am concerned as to whether you can maintain the perspective necessary to edit this article neutrally. That is the last I will say about this closure, unless you choose to bring it up an [[WP:AN]]. A "rap on the knuckles" is idiomatic English for criticism without formal punishment [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/british/a-rap-on-over-the-knuckles]; even if you were unaware of that, arguing that it represents unacceptable behavior for an admin is quite surprising. The place to raise such behavior would, again, be [[WP:AN]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
::::I have not, at any point, stated that the article contained an "MEK is a cult" narrative, nor have I stated that the RfC was recommending such. I made a point about what the sources presented here were saying. If you're not able to see that distinction, I am concerned as to whether you can maintain the perspective necessary to edit this article neutrally. That is the last I will say about this closure, unless you choose to bring it up an [[WP:AN]]. A "rap on the knuckles" is idiomatic English for criticism without formal punishment [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/british/a-rap-on-over-the-knuckles]; even if you were unaware of that, arguing that it represents unacceptable behavior for an admin is quite surprising. The place to raise such behavior would, again, be [[WP:AN]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::The "MEK is a cult" narrative was not questioned here, rather the groups making the cult description was the question point. So, the true comparison would be between whether ''mainly'' critics are describing them as a cult or the description is also done by other groups such as scholars. Mentioning in closure something which was not even a matter of dispute, specially when the closer is "only assessing the arguments and the source material presented here" (which did not include a "MEK is a cult" narrative ), was what raised the question for me. Another point, after reviewing the closure comment once more, it has zero mention of scholarly works being compared to non-academic sources such as the news outlets (which I think would be a determining point specially when one is considering WP:DUE as the most applicable policy). Probably this is not that noteworthy. Anyway, the RFC is closed in favor of showing in the lead solely critics are describing them as a cult, a statement which I think is not in accordance to reliable sources I provided. That's an RFC! --[[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> 14:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC == |
== RFC == |
Revision as of 14:11, 26 March 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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:
- User X changes longstanding text.
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- I'm restoring one of the changes to the longstanding version. This change (which was repeated here) is not supported by the sources (see [6] for example) nor there's consensus over it. Despite the edit summary, "Vanamonde's suggestion" is not necessarily supporting this (I see it as self interpretation of the admins' comment). I am ready to talk over it. --Mhhossein talk 04:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- @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)
@El C: Kazemita1 is continuing edit warring ([7]) ([8]). He revert saying that I "consented to this version of the article", but this is untrue. Barca (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- @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)
@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)
@Kazemita1 - In your last reverts, ([9]) ([10]), you added to the article this material from the edit war, which is not part of the long-standing text and which you have reverted (yet again) without consensus:
" and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
" shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."
@El C: - sorry for bothering you, it is the obvious violation of the page's restriction. The later edits of Kazemita1 included disputed material belongs to edit war! Please leave a comment, Thanks! Barca (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm unable to immediately tell what's what. El_C 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@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".
- 15:30, 13 December 2019
- 10:52, 13 December 2019
- 18:13, 4 December 2019
- 17:14, 29 November 2019
- 05:50, 29 November 2019
" shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"
Barca (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Did you try bringing this to their attention? Specifically, about these two items? El_C 23:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would be careful if I were you, given another admins ultimatum regarding this article:
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)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @El C: The edits are about these two sentences:
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
" 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
- "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)."
- "Also the sentence
- Did I miss something? Ypatch (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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):
- @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)
- Because it didn't strike me as constituting edit warring. Perhaps that was a mistake. El_C 15:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
References
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)
- "shadowy outfit" seems a bit much. Also inaccurate, they crave publicity and stage mass events. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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."
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- That same Guardian source says
- 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)
- 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)
- I am against adding POV to the lead, too. So, let's remove the POVish phrase
- 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)
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
This is the sentence in the lede that's disputed:
"Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73] have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.[74]"
And this is what those sources say:
- " The M.E.K., which professes an eccentric variant of Islam, has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult." The quote speaks for itself: has been charaterized as resembling a cult (this does not support the statement currently in the lede).
- [14] HRW doesn't even describe it as a cult (This does not support the statement currently in the lede, and HRW should be removed unless there is a substantiated reason not to).
- "French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, for “its violent and non-democratic inspirations,” ″cult nature” and “intense campaign of influence and disinformation.” This is the statement of of Nadal who "criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran" for its "cult nature" (also this does not support the statement currently in the lede).
- "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules." This statement also refers that this is refers to "critics" of the group (which also does not support the statement currently in the lede).
A BBC source used later in the article presents both sides of the argument:
"One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away... And yet another officer, who was there at precisely the same time and is now a retired general ... "Cult? How about admirably focused group?" he says. "And I never heard of anyone being held against their will."
There is a debate forth and against this (forth by critics, and against by supporters). Adding either side is POV pushing, and the proposal here is to clean the article from POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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:
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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,
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)- El_C: Well, I would not say there was no substantiation behind its removal. Let me say the whole story in brief; It was disputed why MEK's being described as cult should stay when the sentence on "those who back the group" is removed. This was because Ypatch and others were trying to show that the description of MEK as cult was solely done by the critics and hence a counter POV was needed. From the other hand, I showed that there are numerous reliable and neutral sources describing the group as a cult (my comments [15], [16], [17] and [18]). If there's anything needing to be balanced, that is actually the sentence on "those who back the group" which should be counter-balanced by a sentence from those who criticize the group. This source by the Guardian, which is already used in the lead, contains both POVs, i.e. the pov of "those who back the group" and "those who criticize the group". --Mhhossein talk 09:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- El_C: Well, I would not say there was no substantiation behind its removal. Let me say the whole story in brief; It was disputed why MEK's being described as cult should stay when the sentence on "those who back the group" is removed. This was because Ypatch and others were trying to show that the description of MEK as cult was solely done by the critics and hence a counter POV was needed. From the other hand, I showed that there are numerous reliable and neutral sources describing the group as a cult (my comments [15], [16], [17] and [18]). If there's anything needing to be balanced, that is actually the sentence on "those who back the group" which should be counter-balanced by a sentence from those who criticize the group. This source by the Guardian, which is already used in the lead, contains both POVs, i.e. the pov of "those who back the group" and "those who criticize the group". --Mhhossein talk 09:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's directly above:
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
"Widely regarded" does not discard that these statements can be coming from critics (which the MEK has many), as these sources specify:
(Middle Eastern Eye)"Described by critics as 'a cult'
(CBC)"Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"
The Guardian"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 Daily Beast)" (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult"
(National Interest)"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.”
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)
- I am restoring to the longstanding version because more discussion is needed to conclude what we should include in the led to describe the MEK being designated as cult. Anyway, you have found some sources saying they are not saying MEK is a cult rather they say it "resembles a cult" or things like this. However you are ignoring the reliable academic sources which say, as fact and without making attributions, that MEK is considered as cult:
- From RAND:
"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."
- This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.
"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."
- Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge:
"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.
- In the previous source, Ervand Abrahamian is quoted as saying:
By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.
- The Cult of Rajavi by Nyt!!!
- This innovative description was later adopted and quoted by other sources.
- The Cult of MEK authored by Prospect:
"Accidentally or not, though, the speakers were helping to raise the profile and legitimize the aims of a cult group that will not bring democracy to Iran and has no popular support in the country."
- Will the Presence of Iran’s MEK Threaten Albania’s Already Shaky Stability? by World Politics Review:
"A shadowy outfit committed to the overthrow of Iran’s theocratic regime, the MEK is often described as a cult and used to be classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization."
"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)
@Mhhossein: The NYT source by Michael Rubin seems to be the closest RS supporting this claim. Most of the other source either do not support what is currently in the lede or are not by reliable sources or authors:
- The New York Review of books by Trita Parsi (an unreliable source by someone who has been described as a "Lobbyist for Iran")
- Commentary Magazine (an unreliable source by the same NYT source author)
- Chapter by Masoud Banisadr. You have used this source several times quoting it as "Eileen Barker", when the actual author is Masoud Banisadr, a "former MEK member" who dedicates the whole of his professional work to speak against the MEK.
- The American Prospect (far from being a reliable source)
- World Politics Review (far from being a reliable source)
@El C: I'm really trying not to ping you, but reverting back something in the article that isn't supported by its current sources is something that I see as a problem. You previously assessed that indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted", but Mhhossein nevertheless reverted back to this (something the current sources there do not support):
"Many experts,[70] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[71] and the governments of the United States and France[72] have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."
What the current sources supporting this say:
"has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult. "
The New Yorker"French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran for [...] its ″cult nature”"
AP News" has been described as having cult-like attributes"
The Guardian"Human Rights Watch report on MEK abuses in their camp. Quote on leadership devotion: "The MKO’s leadership consists of the husband and wife team of Masoud and Maryam Rajavi."
HRW (Which doesn't even mention the word "cult"!)
I could continue debating new sources with Mhhossein, but the point is that the version Mhhossein reverted to is not supported by the current sources there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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
Based on the continuing accusations by Mhhossein that I'm trying to "Game" the system by revisiting topics that had been discussed in the past, I won't go further in this discussion even though, upon analysis, it's fairly obvious that some of the sources that Mhhossein has included in the lede don't actually represent what it's being said.
What Mhhossein inserted in the lede:
" Various scholarly works[1][2][3], media outlets[4][5] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."
What sources actually say:
"an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."
RAND (Think tank)
"But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"
(refers to critics, more consistent with the RSs I provided below)[6]
"By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.
(having the "main attributes of a cult" does not mean they are a "cult") [3]
"The coup de grace that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife"
Even though this article comprises only of a criticism of the MEK, it still does not support that "media outlets describe it as a cult" Elizabeth Rubin
"Widely regarded as a cult"
Does not support that "media outlets describe it as a cult". The Guardian
On the other hand, RSs saying that critics describe the MEK as having cult-personality or cult-like characteristics are more consistent:
"But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"
[7]
"Described by critics as 'a cult'
Middle Eastern Eye
"Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"
CBC
"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government.
The Guardian
" (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult"
The Daily Beast
Per the analysis above, there are many more RSs saying that "critics" refer to the MEK as having "cult-like characteristics", than the current statement that "various scholarly works and media outlets" outright describe the MEK as a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
"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)- Ypatch is engaging edit war despite being warned and blocked for violating the page's restriction. Amid the ongoing discussions he is inserting his desired version against the longstanding version. Instead of starting a RFC for making the changes, as suggested by EI_C, Ypatch is destabilizing the article by dragging it into a real edit warring.
- This is longstanding version of the article (with some modifications after it was concluded that some sources are describing the group as "resembling" a cult).
- Stefka Bulgaria removed the terms
"Various scholarly works, media outlets"
from the longstanding version. - I restored to the longstanding version and tried to substantiate my objection here. Please note that I opened a new TP topic for the disputed issue.
- Any further removal of
"Various scholarly works, media outlets"
, without building consensus, would be counted as violation of the restrictions, and to my surprise, Ypatch has removed them again without trying to build consensus.
- His other edits like [19], which are reverting already restored materials, can also be deemed as a edit warring. @El C: It was not really how we decided to work. We don't revert solely because there's an explanation. I am not going to restore the longstanding version before your comment. I think Ypatch recent edits are clearly violating the restriction. --Mhhossein talk 07:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I am restoring the paragraph to the longstanding version since I believe the objections are still valid and some users are trying to put their version amid discussion. In response to comments [20], [21], [22] and [23]:
- Abrahamian, on some occasions, describe the MEK as a Cult. For instance, search
"Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences"
. - Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". So, saying it does not support "media outlets describe it as a cult", is just weird!
- RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources.
- The American Prospect[24], Council on Foreign Relations[25] and Commentary (magazine)[26] are among the reliable sources such a descriptions are made.
- In this source, "the cult of personality" is used un-attributed and is used in the author's voice. Otherwise we would expect something like "But critics question that commitment, "given [what they consider to be] the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi."
- This is a weird argument for showing something is due/undue. YOU can't make the final conclusion based on YOUR OWN assumptions.
- "Widely regarded as a Cult" in this source is not reflecting the newspaper's voice, yes, and I have now replaced it with another media outlet.
- Abrahamian, on some occasions, describe the MEK as a Cult. For instance, search
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
References
|
---|
References
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- Kazemita1 put back into the article that
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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:
- It's been well over a week and nobody has replied to this, so removing (per WP:SILENCE) the part that says
"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]
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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:
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- @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)
- 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)
"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)
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)
- 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)- @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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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
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)
- Which point is solely claimed by Nejat? --Mhhossein talk 10:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Netjang, as a significant NGO opposing MEK, is certainly reliable for its claims. --Mhhossein talk 14:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please stop making further personal attacks by attributing "promotion" of something to me. The society has been a source of info for multiple books ([27], [28] and [29] for instance). --Mhhossein talk 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Are you serious? They are already included. --Mhhossein talk 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Why would it be UNDUE? --Mhhossein talk 19:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- We don't have? Are you sure? So what's this? --Mhhossein talk 15:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Are you serious? They are already included. --Mhhossein talk 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please stop making further personal attacks by attributing "promotion" of something to me. The society has been a source of info for multiple books ([27], [28] and [29] for instance). --Mhhossein talk 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Netjang, as a significant NGO opposing MEK, is certainly reliable for its claims. --Mhhossein talk 14:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@Stefka Bulgaria: Why did you do this edit? --Mhhossein talk 15:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- This quotes Nejat Society. Ypatch (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- @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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- His own understanding of the points he got by talking to the MEK members. --Mhhossein talk 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein, please quote what "his own understanding of the points" are. Ypatch (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- His own understanding of the points he got by talking to the MEK members. --Mhhossein talk 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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,
- I already gave you the response:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Saying that
@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)
- Dedication of a separate section to the MEK's sexual misconduct against its members. --Mhhossein talk 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
A:
"Various scholarly works,[3][4][5][6] media outlets[7][8] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW[9] and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult.[10][11]"
B:
C:"Critics,[12][13][14][15][16] Human Rights Watch (HRW),[9] and many experts have described the group as "resembling" a "cult".[10][17][18][7]"
"Critics[19][20][21][22][23] have described the group as "resembling a cult".[10][24][18][7]"
- 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)
- 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)
- RfC
References
|
---|
References
|
Mhhossein talk 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
References
- ^ 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.
- ^ Middle Eastern Eye
- ^ CBC
- ^ The Guardian
- ^ 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)
- 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) - 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)
CNone (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: [30], [31], [32], [33], 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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):
- 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)
- 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) - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- Can you show me which part of option A is stating
- Describing the MEK as
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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[34]. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Done Thank you Ali Ahwazi. I used the source. --Mhhossein talk 08:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)- See [35]. Multiple scholars have described them as a cult. --Mhhossein talk 06:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- 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
- See [35]. Multiple scholars have described them as a cult. --Mhhossein talk 06:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @D4iNa4, which reliable sources actually
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Comment: I have added another source from an academic publisher describing the group as 'cult'. --Mhhossein talk 13:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
Mhhossein talk 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, multiple scholars have described them as a cult ([24][25][26][27]). --Mhhossein talk 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- We've been through this:
"Personality cult"
is not equivalent to"cult built around its leaders"
(what's currently in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- We've been through this:
- Yes, multiple scholars have described them as a cult ([24][25][26][27]). --Mhhossein talk 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Peter Waldman's report:I came across another report by Peter Waldman from Wall Street Journal who describes the MEK as cult. --Mhhossein talk 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- That source also refers to the MEK as having a
"personality cult"
, which is different than outright saying the MEK is a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)- In your viewpoint, probably. But the fact is that
"personality cult"
is a cult! --Mhhossein talk 02:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)- @Mhhossein, that's where you're confused. A Cult is
"a social group that is defined by its unusual... beliefs"
; while a Personality Cult"arises when a country's regime uses the techniques of mass media... to create an idealized... image of a leader."
They are two very different things. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)- They are no longer different if you don't misquote the first sentence from the lead of Personality Cult which says:
"A cult of personality, or cult of the leader, arises when a country's regime – or, more rarely, an individual – uses the techniques of mass media, propaganda...to create an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
Also, this scholarly paper defines the "Personality cults" of political leaders as being"conceptualized in one of two different ways: as propaganda that portrays the leader positively, or as rituals of leader worship."
Another author describes it as"a set of interaction rituals, linked in chains, focused on symbols that refer to a political leader, and saturating a significant part of the public space of a polity."
Mandatory divorce of the married women and their marriages to Rajavi are one of the symbols of MEK's personality cult. Scholarly sources have fully explained these details. --Mhhossein talk 13:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- They are no longer different if you don't misquote the first sentence from the lead of Personality Cult which says:
- @Mhhossein, that's where you're confused. A Cult is
- In your viewpoint, probably. But the fact is that
- That source also refers to the MEK as having a
References
|
---|
References
|
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for closing this RfC. Based on your closing remarks, would the following be an accurate compromise of sources? (as you've pointed out, "personality cult" seems more in line with sources than "resembling a cult"):
"Critics have described the group as having a personality cult .[10][24][18][7]"
.
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's a compromise you could offer, sure, but that has slightly different meaning than Option C above, so that would require fresh discussion and, if there's no consensus in said discussion, a fresh RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: I am wondering which option included the narrative of
"MEK is a cult"
? Look at the article before the RFC closure, no where in the article they are called a Cult as factual statement, a point you have probably missed. Also, You said nothing regarding why the scholarly works should be considered the core part of our discussion? Are those authors critics of MEK? Who knows?--Mhhossein talk 06:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)- Mhhossein, you are doing precisely what I asked you not to, and relitigating the RfC by presenting arguments to me that you should have presented to the other editors. I read all the arguments. Yours did not gain consensus, because you focused on the existence of specific sources supporting your preferred version, and not the prevalence of that version of the narrative among the scholarly literature as a whole. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: "All discussion closures are subject to review". Your closure comment pretends that there had been a dispute over calling MEK a cult as a factual statement, which is totally wrong (none of the options contained this or lack thereof). I raised the argument multiple times in this RFC. --Mhhossein talk 06:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Really Mhhossein? In this other TP discussion aren't you arguing that the "MEK's designation as a cult is of the most significant aspects of the group's history"? (something that isn't backed by a single RS). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's a patently absurd reading of my closure, Mhhossein, but if you want to have someone review my closure, I'm sure El C would be willing to give his opinion: if not, WP:AN is the place to go. If you do post to AN, I suspect all that you will achieve is a rap on the knuckles, but you always have that option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have read Vanamonde93's close, which I found no fault in, procedurally or otherwise. To challenge the close, however, please follow the steps outlined in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- However, I need the respond to this query; Vanamonde93's comment reads as such:
"...it's fairly clear that the "critics describe it as a cult" narrative is far more prevalent among RS than the "MEK is a cult" narrative"."
Where was the so-called "MEK is a cult" narrative"? Which of the options contained such a narrative? I think the question is clear enough. By the way, "a rap on the knuckles" is not the suitable language an admin is expected to have. --Mhhossein talk 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)- I have not, at any point, stated that the article contained an "MEK is a cult" narrative, nor have I stated that the RfC was recommending such. I made a point about what the sources presented here were saying. If you're not able to see that distinction, I am concerned as to whether you can maintain the perspective necessary to edit this article neutrally. That is the last I will say about this closure, unless you choose to bring it up an WP:AN. A "rap on the knuckles" is idiomatic English for criticism without formal punishment [36]; even if you were unaware of that, arguing that it represents unacceptable behavior for an admin is quite surprising. The place to raise such behavior would, again, be WP:AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "MEK is a cult" narrative was not questioned here, rather the groups making the cult description was the question point. So, the true comparison would be between whether mainly critics are describing them as a cult or the description is also done by other groups such as scholars. Mentioning in closure something which was not even a matter of dispute, specially when the closer is "only assessing the arguments and the source material presented here" (which did not include a "MEK is a cult" narrative ), was what raised the question for me. Another point, after reviewing the closure comment once more, it has zero mention of scholarly works being compared to non-academic sources such as the news outlets (which I think would be a determining point specially when one is considering WP:DUE as the most applicable policy). Probably this is not that noteworthy. Anyway, the RFC is closed in favor of showing in the lead solely critics are describing them as a cult, a statement which I think is not in accordance to reliable sources I provided. That's an RFC! --Mhhossein talk 14:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have not, at any point, stated that the article contained an "MEK is a cult" narrative, nor have I stated that the RfC was recommending such. I made a point about what the sources presented here were saying. If you're not able to see that distinction, I am concerned as to whether you can maintain the perspective necessary to edit this article neutrally. That is the last I will say about this closure, unless you choose to bring it up an WP:AN. A "rap on the knuckles" is idiomatic English for criticism without formal punishment [36]; even if you were unaware of that, arguing that it represents unacceptable behavior for an admin is quite surprising. The place to raise such behavior would, again, be WP:AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- However, I need the respond to this query; Vanamonde93's comment reads as such:
- I have read Vanamonde93's close, which I found no fault in, procedurally or otherwise. To challenge the close, however, please follow the steps outlined in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
RFC
The consensus is against including the sentence "
A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists" in the lede.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
- No I have asked before, who is the senior official? It could be John Bolton an Iranian hawkish. This doesn't fit in the body of the article or the lead section. I also the one who have opened the RSN about Washington times which is a partisan newspaper. Iran is one of U.S. politics (democrats vs republicans) where Washington times is not reliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- 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."
[37]. --Mhhossein talk 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)- 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)
- The pov of NYT is not a good example of undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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":
- A 2003 article by Elizabeth Rubin
- Article by mcclatchydc.com (which I'm not even sure constitutes WP:RS)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Another one. --Mhhossein talk 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I think it's you, Saff, who doesn't quite understand WP:UNDUE, which says that
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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".
- "How Iranian MEK went from US terror list to halls of Congress" by Middle East Eye which, according to RSN, it's a controversial source at best. The article, just like the Rubin article, is a
"one-sided criticism of the group."
- "Trump Luminaries at Iranian Jihadi Cult Conference in Paris while Excluding Nice Iranians from Immigration" by Juancole.com. Really? Do I really need to explain why this shouldn't be in a controversial article?
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)
- 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)- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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:
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
@Vanamonde93: I think an important part of my comments were ignored. "The cult of Rajavi" or "Rajavi cult" is largely used Iran, mainly in Persian language sources. This statement is supported by reliable sources saying: "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."
To further prove the point, I have listed just some of the sources using the title:
- Extreme right of Europe and Netanyahu's new mission to Rajavi Cult, by the Tehran Times.
- "Behaves like Rajavi Cult but claims to be open minded", a piece by Kayhan newspaper.
- "The fourth escape by the heads of Rajavi Cult", by Al-Alam.
- From Nifaq to the Rajavi Cult, a book published by Dideman publication.
- "A big impact to the Rajavi Cult", by Irdiplomacy.
- "Munafiqin and a big delusion called 'Alternative'/Why the Rajavi Cult has no popularity inside Iran?", by Shafaqna.
- "The eternal death of Rajavi Cult in Mersad operation", by IRDC.
As a middle ground suggestion, now that I have provided a substantiated objection, I think the title would better be restored to the its longstanding place with a note saying the title is mainly used inside Iran (or something like this). This should be included in accordance with WP:DUE. --Mhhossein talk 18:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who needs to be persuaded about this. I will help trying to judge talk page consensus later, but I'm not opining on the specific question of due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: I know, but your previous judgement of consensus apparently did not consider my emphasize on the Persian language sources. That's why I have raised it again with more details. --Mhhossein talk 12:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We already have one derogatory name calling used by the clerics against the MEK on that section; we don't need more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did not see in the sources "clerics" saying something. One of the sources I provided says clearly
"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..."
They attacked and killed Iranian people and sided with their enemy Saddam. --Mhhossein talk 06:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC) - @Vanamonde93: Could I have your feedback to my previous comment? --Mhhossein talk 06:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- We've been over this. A couple of sources saying something doesn't mean that that's the common trend. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Don't bludgeon the process please. There's a common trend and I can provide more sources. However, I need to have the Vanamonde93's comment first. --Mhhossein talk 13:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just start an RfC; given that some sources exist, this is entirely a content dispute, and I am not opining. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: This is my question exactly. It was a matter of content dispute from the beginning and you had said an RFC had to be started. However they performed the edit without any RFCs or like. Now, I am asking to act based on Wikipedia:Consensus required by restoring to the longstanding version given my substantiated objection and then start an RFC over the proposed change. A new consensus was determined without my sources being weighed here. --Mhhossein talk 04:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Longstanding text" and "per talk" are not magic words". You need sources to support your edits, and the majority of sources clearly do not support that
"the cult of Rajavi"
is a common name of this group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)- I said an RfC had to be started if consensus couldn't be reached on the talk page. Then enough editors opined here that there was a consensus of sorts. Now there's a difference of opinion again, so an RfC is again necessary. So please start one, and stop worrying about which version of the text remains in place while the RfC occurs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: I am saying the previous alleged consensus DIDNOT consider the Persian language sources why I had raised before this. Also, by "enough editors" do you mean Stefka Bulgaria and Ypatch? How about me and Saff V. objecting the change? The fact that Stefka Bulgaria is persistently interrupting my communication with is itself signaling something! --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I'm not "interrupting" you, I'm adding info that you're omitting (and this is a TP discussion, where editors should be welcomed to include their input, no?). As noted earlier in this TP, we already have one derogatory name calling in that section. Saying that
"Cult of Rajavi
(derogatory name often used by Iranian clerics to refer to the MEK) is one of the MEK's "common names" is not only WP:UNDUE and WP:POV, but also WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)- @Mhhossein:, when I judged the existence of consensus in that conversation, you had not provided adequate evidence of reliable Persian language sources saying what you said they did. Please also remember that you would, by definition, need sources clearly independent of the Iranian government, while also being reliable, which isn't easy to find. For the last time, please start an RfC, and present your sources there, together with a substantive analysis of why they are reliable. Stefka Bulgaria, the number of contentious labels is irrelevant. All that matters is how much support they have in RS. Please do not make any more arguments about how many derogatory labels have been applied. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I'm not "interrupting" you, I'm adding info that you're omitting (and this is a TP discussion, where editors should be welcomed to include their input, no?). As noted earlier in this TP, we already have one derogatory name calling in that section. Saying that
- Vanamonde: I am saying the previous alleged consensus DIDNOT consider the Persian language sources why I had raised before this. Also, by "enough editors" do you mean Stefka Bulgaria and Ypatch? How about me and Saff V. objecting the change? The fact that Stefka Bulgaria is persistently interrupting my communication with is itself signaling something! --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I said an RfC had to be started if consensus couldn't be reached on the talk page. Then enough editors opined here that there was a consensus of sorts. Now there's a difference of opinion again, so an RfC is again necessary. So please start one, and stop worrying about which version of the text remains in place while the RfC occurs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just start an RfC; given that some sources exist, this is entirely a content dispute, and I am not opining. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Don't bludgeon the process please. There's a common trend and I can provide more sources. However, I need to have the Vanamonde93's comment first. --Mhhossein talk 13:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- We've been over this. A couple of sources saying something doesn't mean that that's the common trend. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References |
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)
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)
- Yes There is a vast amount of RSs confirming torture and executions of MEK members during the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners (see also 1988 execution of MEK prisoners) that's why WP:UNDUE does not apply here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- What's wrong with the source saying
- 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)
"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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- Montazeri's letter is about the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners.
- 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)
- No Only one source and its not a strong reliable source. Seems undue and an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes Daily Beast is ok source for this. Idealigic (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- There's no clear consensus on using Daily Beast at RSN. --Mhhossein talk 18:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes Per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes also per Stefka. Ypatch (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Basmenji, Kaveh (2005). Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran. Saqui Books. ISBN 978-0863565823.
- To the closure: Please weight arguments, not the amount of votes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020
![]() | This edit request to People's Mujahedin of Iran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Not done. Not a valid link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
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:
- "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."
- "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."[1]
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)
- 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)
- Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. What do these statements add to the article? Ypatch (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please stop removing the comments by former members without having them discussed here. --Mhhossein talk 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. What do these statements add to the article? Ypatch (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
We've had this discussion several times before. Massoud Banisadr is a former MEK member who's few published works solely consist of portraying the MEK in a bad light. Also, your argument for keeping "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards"
is a straw man argument: This is a statement by a former MEK member, nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- We are not going to censor Massoud Banisadr's comments only because YOU think he is "portraying the MEK in a bad light". What do you mean by "bad light"? Are those who support MEK's cause good guys? As for the MEK's massacre of Kurds in Iraq, I provided a link to show how repeatedly the quotation is used. Your attempt to remove the comments published by reliable sources without providing sufficient reasoning is highly questionable. --Mhhossein talk 12:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: sorry to hassle you again with my pings. There is a majority consensus here that these two quotes from past members of the MEK don't add anything new to the article except more superficial criticism from former members of MEK. These are the two quotes:
- "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."
- "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."[2]
Stefka, Alex-h, and myself (and also Icewhiz in an older talk page discussion) agree that this is the case, while Mhhossein keeps arguing in favor of keeping them.
Is Mhhossein Filibustering the consensus process here by "Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing."? Ypatch (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, bias and unreliability are two different concepts. A source may be critical of the MEK and still be reliable. The real question is whether a source is getting undue weight or not. If there's three (four?) of you arguing to remove the source, and only one editor is arguing to keep it, that is fairly substantial consensus, though it wouldn't hurt to formalize it through an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Vanamonde. Yes, there is a majority consensus here, so I will remove the disputed content. Per WP:ONUS, Mhhossein can launch a RfC so that he can build consensus before inclusion of the disputed contents. Ypatch (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since Polling is not a substitute for discussion and none of the users have responded to why they are going to censor Massoud Banisadr's comments only because they think he is "portraying the MEK in a bad light" and why the quotation
"Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards"
which id heavily covered by the sources, should be removed. Vanamonde: I suggest going by asking a 3rd opinion (an un-involved and neutral user) or by launching an RFC.--Mhhossein talk 12:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC) - @Vanamonde93: I find at least three reliable sources mentioning the quote by Rajavi asking to kill the Kurds (see [38], [39] and [40]). Also, Masoud Banisadr is a an author and former member of MEK. I believe his views should be weighed more than other former members. --Mhhossein talk 12:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The quote which appeared in NYT is also repeated in the report by RAND (p. 62). Also, the command is described by Center for American Progress as being infamous. --Mhhossein talk 12:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since Polling is not a substitute for discussion and none of the users have responded to why they are going to censor Massoud Banisadr's comments only because they think he is "portraying the MEK in a bad light" and why the quotation
- Thank you Vanamonde. Yes, there is a majority consensus here, so I will remove the disputed content. Per WP:ONUS, Mhhossein can launch a RfC so that he can build consensus before inclusion of the disputed contents. Ypatch (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This revert by Mhhossein is edit warring against the achieved consensus in this talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- OUNS is NOT a relevant policy here! The content has been there for a long period of time. It's on the other party to establish consensus based on solid arguments to removed the content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:SharabSalam: The users have ganged up against me. @Vanamonde93:: I have performed a self revert in compliance with the page's restriction. I did not know I had reverted it once but please see my previous comments saying how the quote is covered by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- OUNS is NOT a relevant policy here! The content has been there for a long period of time. It's on the other party to establish consensus based on solid arguments to removed the content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: First Mhhossein edit-warred here by going against the consensus in this Talk page discussion, then he reverted to avoid sactions, but then SharabSalam put back that edit without even participating in why the content was removed in the first place. Ypatch (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have full-protected the page. Any further edit-warring after protection lapses will be met with a block. Mhhossein, it's no use throwing sources at me; I'm not the one you have to persuade. When due weight is all that is being judged, the talk page discussion here was sufficient for determining consensus; Indeed, talk page discussions are generally the best way to reach consensus, because RfCs take time and effort. RfCs have been necessary here because none of you is every willing to modify your positions after rational discussion, and so outside opinion is necessary. Mhhossein, the only reason you are not blocked right now is because you self-reverted. Now that SharabSalam has supported your position, I agree that an RfC is the best way to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your response. Didn't SharabSalam violate the restrictions by bold-editing back into the article something that he had not even participated on in the first place? It took some time for all editors to comment here, getting some kind of consensus, and just in one minute, all is reverted back. Ypatch (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, SharabSalam, and you all made reverts that were inappropriate. I'm sorely tempted to block all of you; please don't give me further reason to do so. Open an RfC, and focus on presenting a coherent and reasonable argument there. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- SharabSalam didn't violate any restrictions. You deleted a long standing content that is sourced to solid sources. I don't see any reason for deleting that content except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And I have made a comment above about your WP:GAMING of ouns. OUNS is not on the longstanding content. Removal of sourced long-standing content should has consensus first.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I made a self-revert after I checked the article history. Nothing happened in practice! --Mhhossein talk 03:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your response. Didn't SharabSalam violate the restrictions by bold-editing back into the article something that he had not even participated on in the first place? It took some time for all editors to comment here, getting some kind of consensus, and just in one minute, all is reverted back. Ypatch (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "The Cult of Rajavi". Archived from the original on 23 February 2009. Retrieved 3 August 2009.
- ^ "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)
- 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)
- Can you show RSs confirming that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- If your challenge is why the word "designation" is in the section title, we may discuss over it. Anyway, the cultish nature of the group deserves a separate section. --Mhhossein talk 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- How is "Human rights record" different from the "cult" allegations? Don't the "cult" allegations derive from "Human rights" allegations? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- The difference between "Human rights record" and "cult" allegations are subject to discussion by reliable sources. I mean we can't assume they are the same based on our own original research. The very fact that the cult allegations have been deeply discussed by reliable sources are not something to be ignored. --Mhhossein talk 12:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Then please provide the RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section from "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you find the sources making the section not enough for that purpose? --Mhhossein talk 12:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Then please provide the RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section from "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- The difference between "Human rights record" and "cult" allegations are subject to discussion by reliable sources. I mean we can't assume they are the same based on our own original research. The very fact that the cult allegations have been deeply discussed by reliable sources are not something to be ignored. --Mhhossein talk 12:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- How is "Human rights record" different from the "cult" allegations? Don't the "cult" allegations derive from "Human rights" allegations? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- If your challenge is why the word "designation" is in the section title, we may discuss over it. Anyway, the cultish nature of the group deserves a separate section. --Mhhossein talk 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can you show RSs confirming that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If I thought the current section was fine as it is, I wouldn't have started this TP discussion. I asked you for RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section. Can you please provide them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Cult and "Human rights records" are two different things. We can't, for example, add stuff about ancient history in the economy section of articles about countries. Same thing here, we can't add content about being cult to human rights records, these are two different things, we shouldn't even have to discuss this. The cult part is discussed in many many reliable sources so it should has its own standalone section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- SharʿabSalam▼, repeating that "Cult" allegations and "Human rights records" are two different things doesn't explain how they are two different things. You need RSs outlining how the "Cult" allegations are not linked to "Human rights records" (as it stands, the "Designation as cult" section reads as if it's based on the MEK's "Human rights records", this is why I suggested merging). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is basic English language stuff but okay.
- I think it is now clear that these are two different things. You will have to explain how these things are the same or just drop the stick.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Some sort of GAME is being played here; What kind of reliable source should determine the cult allegations warrant a separate section? Actually this is a wrong question/request. The amount and depth of the reliable sources discussing the cultish nature of the group should be finally the determining criteria for whether or not WP:DUE weight is given to the subject in the article. For that purpose, there are vast amount of sources saying they are either cult or resemble a cult. I can list those sources at your request anyway. --Mhhossein talk 03:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- SharʿabSalam▼, repeating that "Cult" allegations and "Human rights records" are two different things doesn't explain how they are two different things. You need RSs outlining how the "Cult" allegations are not linked to "Human rights records" (as it stands, the "Designation as cult" section reads as if it's based on the MEK's "Human rights records", this is why I suggested merging). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Cult and "Human rights records" are two different things. We can't, for example, add stuff about ancient history in the economy section of articles about countries. Same thing here, we can't add content about being cult to human rights records, these are two different things, we shouldn't even have to discuss this. The cult part is discussed in many many reliable sources so it should has its own standalone section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
For the third time, please list RSs that support the section "Designation as a cult"; and explain how the information from those RSs are not linked to the MEKs "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- For the fourth time we have already provided sources for that. Being a cult means being an unopened minded group that has extreme beliefs (after all they are bunch of terrorists) while human rights records is a completely different thing. If you have troubles understanding this basic stuff then your problem might be just WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: What happens when you ask objecting editors for RSs to back up what they're objecting, but they won't provide them (and instead they just bludgeon)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Whether or not something should be two separate sections or not is largely a matter of judgement, so long as all the content therein is verifiable and neutral. As such unless you're questioning the material itself, the matter of one-section vs two is best dealt with via an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: As a start, we need a title that matches the sources. "Designation as a cult" does not match the sources. Please provide a title that matches the sources, or I'll find a suitable title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Probably we can find something better than "Designation". SharabSalam: Do you have any suggestions? I will provide my suggestions after consulting the related sources. --Mhhossein talk 13:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein here are three suggestions with examples.
- "Classification as a cult"
- "Characterization as a cult"
- "Description as a cult"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- You were asked for
"a title that matches the sources"
, but provide only titles with no sources. I have not looked at the sources in that section, but the title should match what those sources are saying. Ypatch (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)- All of those match sources. All sources describe/designate/characterize/classify this terrorist group as a cult. Also, we should avoid verbatim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you SharabSalam. I would not find options better this. @all: How about "Characterization as a cult"? This is what I meant to purpose. --Mhhossein talk 04:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Which sources support MEK's "Characterization as a cult"? Please provide them (instead of repeatedly saying that they have been provided). The sources need to say the MEK has been characterized as a cult. Ypatch (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sources are above!. Here is an example,
MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Widely regarded as a cult
[43]. Don't tell me you want the exact word charaterization in the source, the word is a summary of what sources are saying.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) - Here is a source that says the exact word charaterization, although it is not needed and asking for it seems disruptive and time-sinking game.
He described the terror inflicted upon American and Iranian citizens at the hands of the MEK and described the well documented characterization of the MEK as a cult.
(emphasis is mine) [44]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sources are above!. Here is an example,
- Which sources support MEK's "Characterization as a cult"? Please provide them (instead of repeatedly saying that they have been provided). The sources need to say the MEK has been characterized as a cult. Ypatch (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you SharabSalam. I would not find options better this. @all: How about "Characterization as a cult"? This is what I meant to purpose. --Mhhossein talk 04:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- All of those match sources. All sources describe/designate/characterize/classify this terrorist group as a cult. Also, we should avoid verbatim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Probably we can find something better than "Designation". SharabSalam: Do you have any suggestions? I will provide my suggestions after consulting the related sources. --Mhhossein talk 13:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: As a start, we need a title that matches the sources. "Designation as a cult" does not match the sources. Please provide a title that matches the sources, or I'll find a suitable title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that single source by an Iranian lobbying group. Here are 10 actual WP:RSs that refer to this as being "Personality cult" (or "cult of personality"
) instead of a "Cult":
"...fostered his own cult of personality"
[1]
"it developed into a cult of personality"
[2]
" including a personality cult centered around MEK leader Maryam Rajavi"
[3]
"But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"
[4]
"given the cult personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"
[5]
"These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult..."
[6]
"Creating a personality cult"
[7]
"Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences
[8]
"former members describe the MEK as a personality cult"
[9]
"wrote Peter Waldman, the MKO had 'become an authoritarian personality cult'
[10]
And here are 5 more sources saying that these are coming from critics:
"But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"
[11]
"Described by critics as 'a cult'
Middle Eastern Eye
"Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"
CBC
"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government.
The Guardian
" (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult"
The Daily Beast
Now, which one do you think is more WP:DUE? The single source by a lobbying group that you've provided, or the 15 RSs I provided? (I have a feeling you'll say your single source is more WP:DUE, but worth asking anyway). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Good analysis of references. Drawing from these, something like "Cult of Personality Criticims" would be the more WP:DUE option. Ypatch (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- My proposal would be "Cult of Personality allegations" (which is what these are); but I'm of ok with Ypatch's proposal too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Two users are trying to pretend that MEK's characterization as a cult is only done by the critiques and are just some allegations which is in contrast to the reliable sources. Repeating this argument over and over does not change the reality brought to us by the reliable sources. SharabSalam's suggestion is best describing the the section. It's both neutral and brief! Just to show how cherry picked the list of the sources by Stefka Bulgaria is:
- - From RAND:
"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."
- This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.
- - A long-read from the Guardian:
"Widely regarded as a cult, the MEK was once designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and UK, but its opposition to the Iranian government has now earned it the support of powerful hawks in the Trump administration, including national security adviser John Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo."
- Does it need explanations?
- - "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult" by Commentary:
"The MKO is not only a creepy cult, and willing to say anything to buy support regardless of the group’s record, but an empty shell as well."
- - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge:
"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.
- - In the previous source, Ervand Abrahamian is quoted as saying:
By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.
- - The Cult of Rajavi by Nyt!!!
- - The Cult of MEK authored by Prospect:
"Accidentally or not, though, the speakers were helping to raise the profile and legitimize the aims of a cult group that will not bring democracy to Iran and has no popular support in the country."
- Will the Presence of Iran’s MEK Threaten Albania’s Already Shaky Stability? by World Politics Review:
"A shadowy outfit committed to the overthrow of Iran’s theocratic regime, the MEK is often described as a cult and used to be classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization."
- - "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult"
"Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)."
- - Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) by Council on Foreign Relations:
"Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."
- - 'Women in Iran: Gender politics in the Islamic republic' by Greenwood Publishing Group:
"After summer of 1981 Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then they have turned into a cult."
- - 'Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities' by Rand Corporation:
"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."
And again please don't simply say that source is not reliable without elaboration. Also, it's a silly request to ask for all the words of title be found in reliable sources. Moreover, SharʿabSalam's suggestion, besides being neutral and brief, is consistent with other articles. --Mhhossein talk 14:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I'm not trying to "pretend" anything. Looking at your sources, Commentary magazine link is not found, Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements is written by a MEK former member, "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult" is a book review by Trita Parsi (linked to Iran lobby), and you've included two sources by RAND (one of which doesn't say anything about a cult). Also Prospect and World politics review are questionable sources, but even if we included them, you'd only amount to 7 sources. Stefka provided 15 reliable sources (twice as many), so Stefka's proposal is a more WP:DUE option. Ypatch (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have added the archive url for the commentary article. Both of the RAND sources talk about cult. It's easy to tag something with questionable, but you need to substantiate your claims for the sources. It's interesting that you strike the sources yourself and reach a conclusion yourself. We are not going to count the sources or I would include 16 sources! Stefka Bulgaria's proposal is suffering from multiple issues including POV. Scholarly works should be considered for the conclusion I suggest. --Mhhossein talk 05:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- My substantiation is this: there are 15 reliable sources that support "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and there are 7 sources that support "Characterization as a cult", this is why the first choice is more WP:DUE. What is your substantiation for objecting this? Ypatch (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- They are certainly more than 7 and I am not going to list every single source supporting SharabSalam's suggestion. We don't rely on the number of the sources without considering their value. Your suggestion is clearly faulty because materials with regard to the Cultish characteristics of the MEK are not only "Criticims" or "allegations". "Characterization as a cult", from the other hand, is neutral and is not pushing any specific POV. As stated before, you can lunch an RFC. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Here is my policy-based argument based on what WP:WEIGHT says:
"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
What is your argument for keeping what a minority amount of reliable sources say over a majority amount of reliable sources? Ypatch (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)- But we are not dealing with "minority views" (this is probably your own understanding of the events). A neutral title is suggested and I believe this would best describe the section. FYI, when it comes to "description" or "characterization", this would mean others have described or characterized them as being a Cult which don't create "an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said." You have not still elaborated on why "description" or "characterization" would not fit the the case here. --Mhhossein talk 06:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are 15 reliable sources supporting "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and 7 reliable sources supporting "Characterization as a cult" (the analysis of sources is presented in this discussion). Which one do you think is the majority view, and which one do you think is the minority view? Ypatch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Crticism" and "allegation" are not the major viewpoints. I provided at least 11 sources saying this! Btw, I suggest you to read this one, too. Also, it's much better to use 'cult' for the title since its a general term and supported by the reliable sources. Being so specific by using "cult of personality" would not be a good choice for the title and this detail is something to be dealt with in the body of the section. Moreover, as I have emphasized before, the suggestions by SharabSalam are "sufficiently precise, concise", as opposed to your suggestion which, besides being too long, is impressing a certain POV. --Mhhossein talk 06:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are 15 reliable sources supporting "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and 7 reliable sources supporting "Characterization as a cult" (the analysis of sources is presented in this discussion). Which one do you think is the majority view, and which one do you think is the minority view? Ypatch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- But we are not dealing with "minority views" (this is probably your own understanding of the events). A neutral title is suggested and I believe this would best describe the section. FYI, when it comes to "description" or "characterization", this would mean others have described or characterized them as being a Cult which don't create "an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said." You have not still elaborated on why "description" or "characterization" would not fit the the case here. --Mhhossein talk 06:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Here is my policy-based argument based on what WP:WEIGHT says:
- They are certainly more than 7 and I am not going to list every single source supporting SharabSalam's suggestion. We don't rely on the number of the sources without considering their value. Your suggestion is clearly faulty because materials with regard to the Cultish characteristics of the MEK are not only "Criticims" or "allegations". "Characterization as a cult", from the other hand, is neutral and is not pushing any specific POV. As stated before, you can lunch an RFC. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- My substantiation is this: there are 15 reliable sources that support "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and there are 7 sources that support "Characterization as a cult", this is why the first choice is more WP:DUE. What is your substantiation for objecting this? Ypatch (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have added the archive url for the commentary article. Both of the RAND sources talk about cult. It's easy to tag something with questionable, but you need to substantiate your claims for the sources. It's interesting that you strike the sources yourself and reach a conclusion yourself. We are not going to count the sources or I would include 16 sources! Stefka Bulgaria's proposal is suffering from multiple issues including POV. Scholarly works should be considered for the conclusion I suggest. --Mhhossein talk 05:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Bludgeoning aside, there is clearly more RSs that support "Cult of Personality"
rather than "Characterization as a cult"
. For that reason, I agree with Ypatch that the first option is more WP:DUE than the second option. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- and I explained how that argument goes wrong in terms of ignoring that a suggested title should be neutral, sufficiently precise and concise, among other things. Please review my previous comments. --Mhhossein talk 07:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Page under full protection
The page is under full protection and, from my viewpoint, it shows the page restriction had not been able to bring the stability to the page completely. I am pretty much sure the situation of the page is now so much better as a result of the restriction suggested by El_C. However, this restriction requires the admins to keep eye on the development of the talk page discussions without being involved in them. The following points can be considered for the betterment of the article:
- From the very first days ([45], [46]) I was against pinging El_C too much since I believed the users should be able to discuss the issues themselves and would better avoid asking for comment for every single issue which. I was actually afraid of this situation.
- From the other hand, determining consensus by the users involved could also damage the page situation and nullify the restriction of the page. On multiple occasions I condemned this action by the involved editors.
- GAMING the system by performing the edits which were already discussed and archived should be avoided, unless there's a fresh consensus for that (there are some topics on this (see this for instance).
- 1RR can be considered as a measure to strengthen the WP:CONSENSUS restriction.
--Mhhossein talk 12:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Questionable reverts
@Mhhossein: can you please explain your last reverts? 1 and 2. The edit summaries you added don't seem resolve why all this info was removed. Ypatch (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Find "RfC about including the MEK's current principles" to know why this revert was done. As for this one, in "other names" see
"the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI"
ans also"many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous"
. Also, "It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group" and "According to Abrahamian, by 1989 many foreign diplomats considered MEK to be "the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations" in lead and body of the article. --Mhhossein talk 05:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)- @Mhhossein - El_C already warned you (twice) not to be vague with your responses. Please say why you reverted this edit ( "in detail rather than just with see this diff.")
- As for the the other revert you did, this is the information you removed:
"The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran). For this reason the Iranian government considers the MEK "as its main threat", making constant demands to Western countries to make restrictions of MEK activities as "a pre-condition for improving relations."
- That information is not repeated in any of the quotes that you provided, so please substantiate your reverts. Ypatch (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well I am not seeing any warnings. By the way, please read WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Firstly, again please review the quotes. "(a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran)" seems like a silly joke. This is in contradiction to the content of this page. Finally, You can't push some POVs as facts ( For this reason, MEK being a "main threat", Iran asking others to "make restrictions" and etc). --Mhhossein talk 06:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- That information is not repeated in any of the quotes that you provided, so please substantiate your reverts. Ypatch (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sorry again to ping you (I know do this often recently). I put this into the article:
The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran). For this reason the Iranian government considers the MEK "as its main threat", making constant demands to Western countries to make restrictions of MEK activities as "a pre-condition for improving relations.
[1]
With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam",
[2]
The sources are reliable, and the information is not repeated in the article. I asked Mhhossein in this talk page why he removed this from the article, but he keeps eluding the question. I know you've been suggesting RfCs lately, but in this case Mhhossein has not even presented some kind of applicable substantiation for his reverts. Ypatch (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- What you call "eluding" the question was actually referring you to an old RFC regarding your suggestion. Moreover, I commented on the problems with the other sentence, i.e. the senescent on MEK and NCRI. This is a really destructive pattern that you keep pinging the admin without trying to build consensus. --Mhhossein talk 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ypatch, Mhhossein has provided arguments for those reverts; the argument that he has not is rather tendentious, and I'm beginning to lose patience with the extent to which all of you constantly scream for help whenever someone you are arguing makes the slightest misjudgement. Please try to build consensus for that addition here. Mhhossein, As an aside, speaking purely from an organizational perspective, including information about the NCRI under "Other names" is patently silly; if you're concerned with repetition, you should move it elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but I really don't see the arguments clearly. Maybe I'm missing something here? @Mhhossein:
"The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran)"
is not the same as""the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI"
or"many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous"
. The two quotes in the article don't talk about the popularity aspect or how big the MEK is within the NCRI."With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam"
- the RfC you linked to was a no-consensus about adding MEK ideals in the lead of the article. What is the problem with adding this in the body of the article? Ypatch (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first two are not entirely redundant, but they are partially redundant, and are also partially contradictory. Resolving those issues is your responsibility, as the person wishing to add the content. Similarly, you need to establish consensus for adding the second piece of content, because Mhhossein believes it does not accurately represent the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, about the first edit, isn't it ok that they are "partially contradictory"? (I thought that adding different POVs was good as long as they came from reliable sources). About the second, the content I added does accurately represent the sources, this is why I pinged you, because a substantiated objection hadn't been presented. Mhhossein, please respond. Ypatch (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- There's an improvement (Ypatch has referred to RFC I am talking about). The next step is ask him read the comments saying reliable sources are not consistent with this description. In other words, you should not push your desired description of MEK into the lead. I am not going to list all of those sources but for instance take a look at this book saying MEK is "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology" and this one calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin". Which opinion should go to the lead? Also please work on the redundancy and contradictory claim of the source, for the first two portions. --Mhhossein talk 05:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, about the first edit, isn't it ok that they are "partially contradictory"? (I thought that adding different POVs was good as long as they came from reliable sources). About the second, the content I added does accurately represent the sources, this is why I pinged you, because a substantiated objection hadn't been presented. Mhhossein, please respond. Ypatch (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I'm not asking to "push my desired description into the lead", I'm asking to put this in the body. What is your objection with that? Ypatch (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Which portion are you talking about? --Mhhossein talk 07:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- This one - what's wrong with adding this in the body of the article?
With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam",
[3]- Ypatch (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest preparing a draft including other POVs such as "Islamic extremist Mojahedin"[47], "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology"[48]. --Mhhossein talk 06:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I asked you a specific question about a specific edit, and you respond about other edits that we haven't even discussed. Can you please answer my question? (you are welcome to start a new talk page discussion about other information you want to include). Ypatch (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- They are closely interrelated so the reader should get to know various POVs on the principles of the group. I mean whether or not it follows "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are points to be addressed by care. I think we need to weigh them according to WP:DUE. --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- I asked you a specific question about a specific edit, and you respond about other edits that we haven't even discussed. Can you please answer my question? (you are welcome to start a new talk page discussion about other information you want to include). Ypatch (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest preparing a draft including other POVs such as "Islamic extremist Mojahedin"[47], "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology"[48]. --Mhhossein talk 06:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Which portion are you talking about? --Mhhossein talk 07:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but I really don't see the arguments clearly. Maybe I'm missing something here? @Mhhossein:
@Mhhossein: "anti-fundamentalist"
tells us the group's ideology concerning fundamentalism. On the other hand, "extremist"
or "radical"
are slanderous POVs. See the difference? It is well established that the MEK is the Islamic Republic's main political opposition. I understand why certain people would like to brand the MEK with slander, but "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- The mater of ideology or like is just WP:OR and I don't tend to argue based on that. No, they're not slanderous POVs, rather POVs supported by reliable sources and I am not going to differentiate between "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam". My objection is exactly based on the WP:NPOV. --Mhhossein talk 06:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, are you saying that adding
"anti-fundamentalist"
as part of the MEK's ideology is WP:OR? The source supports this claim; how would it be WP:OR? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)- No. Actually, "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack of thereof. You are distinguishing between them via OR! You say one is ideology and the others are not. That's the OR issue. --Mhhossein talk 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- So then, you agree that
"anti-fundamentalist"
counts as part of the MEK's ideology? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)- It largely depends on the reliable sources. So what? --Mhhossein talk 13:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- So then, you agree that
- No. Actually, "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack of thereof. You are distinguishing between them via OR! You say one is ideology and the others are not. That's the OR issue. --Mhhossein talk 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, are you saying that adding
- The mater of ideology or like is just WP:OR and I don't tend to argue based on that. No, they're not slanderous POVs, rather POVs supported by reliable sources and I am not going to differentiate between "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam". My objection is exactly based on the WP:NPOV. --Mhhossein talk 06:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Some sources to be used
I have found some sources which can improve the article:
- "Our Men in Iran?", how the MEK members were trained by U.S.
- 'Tank girl' army accused of torture, the human rights situation in MEK camps.
- UNAMI Half Yearly Report on Human Rights - January to June 2013, a report by UN on the human rights situation of the group.
SharabSalam: Please consider improving the page using these sources if you have enough time. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Will do.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Another interesting one: "DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT"! --Mhhossein talk 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC about statements from former members of the MEK
![]() |
|
There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:
"According to former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, "[l]ooking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs"
"According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."
" According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."
"Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."
"According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, "several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members".
Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - as nominator. None of them add any new information to the article (except superficial criticisms), and they are all WP:UNDUE (none of the things said are verified by reliable sources. The only thing available are repetitions of these quotes in other sources). Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- In a RfC there is no "nominator".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- No they should not be removed. They are all well-sourced and noteworthy content..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes These statements are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK. This maybe could be placed in a section that includes POV from former MEK members (still has major WP:NPV problems, but better than what is in the article now), but not as stand-alone statements. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what these are, random statements from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- No We can't remove them merely because they're from the former members of MEK rather the coverage of the quotes by the reliable sources should be the determining criteria. "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards", for instance, is described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. This quotation is independently used by other reliable sources such as NYT and Foreign Policy. Also, Masoud Banisadr is not simply a former MEK member, he is a scholar authoring books and articles so his views should be weighed here. As for the propaganda campaign, the full report is provided by Aljazeera and this is not again merely a claim by a former member. --Mhhossein talk 07:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: The following shows the materials should not be removed solely because they're from the former members of MEK:
Source: DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT. --Mhhossein talk 06:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)"The only people who can truly understand what they’ve endured are other former MEK members."
- Yes: they should be removed, per the following:
- 1. These are not scholarly / journalistic analyses, they are allegations from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)
- 2. There is an ongoing "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" where
"Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK.""
- 3. These claims don't add any new information about key events that isn't already backed by reliable sources (posed neutrally and well-researched).
- 4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of
"reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK."
In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article. - 5. To the closing admin/editor: please note that the RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (mainly due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight carefully votes and what the sources are saying, but that is the only way to close these RfC's adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign. This would be very ridiculous to remove the statements by the members of the MEK who give the most natural narration of the events in the group only because MEK thinks there's allegedly a "misinformation campaign" against them. Using this argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know! --Mhhossein talk 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- We're not including claims by Heshmat Alavi in this article. For obvious NPOV reasons, we're also not including claims from any other current MEK member in this article. That should also apply to claims from MEK defectors (what this RfC is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign. This would be very ridiculous to remove the statements by the members of the MEK who give the most natural narration of the events in the group only because MEK thinks there's allegedly a "misinformation campaign" against them. Using this argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know! --Mhhossein talk 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes Per Stefka Bulgaria. Factual integrity above everything else . Barca (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Don't understand
Hi Mhhossein, why you reverted this edit? Barca (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Barcmac. The former RFC regarding this was closed with no consensus (you can find it in the archive). AFAIR, there was a matter of WP:DUE preventing inclusion of this. Moreover, why do you tend something into the lead which is not even supported by the source? --Mhhossein talk 06:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
"Cult" or "Cult of Personality / Personality cult"?
Based on Vanamonde's closing remarks in the RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead:
"a lot of the sources specifically use the terms "personality cult" or "cult of personality". Analyzing whether or not a personality cult is a true cult or not falls within the realm of original research... An option specifically discussing the "cult of personality" claims may have gained consensus, but such was not discussed, and a new discussion or RfC will be necessary to explore that."
As well as what the majority sources say in that RfC, I propose changing the lede from "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".
to:
Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality.
If there are objections, please substantiate concisely and through RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism articles needing attention
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Iran articles
- Low-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class political party articles
- Low-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment