Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran: Difference between revisions
Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 350: | Line 350: | ||
{{tq|'''The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."'''}}<ref>{{cite news |title=Iranian dissidents plot a revolution from Albania |
{{tq|'''The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."'''}}<ref>{{cite news |title=Iranian dissidents plot a revolution from Albania |
||
|url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/13/world/iranian-dissidents-albania/#.Xnhh0NNKhE4|work=Japan Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17615065|work=BBC}}</ref> {{tq|'''Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,'''<ref>{{cite book|last=Cronin|first=Stephanie|year=2013|title=Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left|series=Routledge/BIPS Persian Studies Series|isbn=978-1-134-32890-1|publisher=Routledge|pages=274}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Buchta|first1=Wilfried|title= Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic|publisher=The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung| place=Washington DC|year=2000|isbn=978-0-944029-39-8|pages=144}}</ref> '''“cult-like",'''<ref>[https://apnews.com/608497d45e7c4225b85b70ac839b5249 "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group" The Associated Press, June 27, 2014]</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=The Cult of Rajavi|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=13 July 2003|accessdate=9 March 2016|author=Elizabeth Rubin}}</ref> '''or having a “cult of personality”,'''<ref>{{citation|author=Ervand Abrahamian|title=Radical Islam: the Iranian Mojahedin|publisher=I.B.Tauris|year=1989|isbn=9781850430773|volume=3|series=Society and culture in the modern Middle East |page = 139 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title = Terrornomics |editor-first = David |editor-last = Gold |page = 65 |isbn = 978-1-317-04590-8 |publisher=Routledge |year = 2016 |chapter = An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the ''Mujahedin-e-Khalq'' |first = Mark Edmond |last = Clark }}</ref> '''while other sources have dismissed these claims.'''|}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17615065|title=An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?|work=BBC|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=West should beware Iranian regime’s opposition smear campaign|website=Arab News |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/1406811/%7B%7B}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Iran’s Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times|website=Int Policy Digest|url=https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/12/12/iran-s-heightened-fears-of-mek-dissidents-are-a-sign-of-changing-times/}}</ref> |
|url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/13/world/iranian-dissidents-albania/#.Xnhh0NNKhE4|work=Japan Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17615065|work=BBC}}</ref> {{tq|'''Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,'''<ref>{{cite book|last=Cronin|first=Stephanie|year=2013|title=Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left|series=Routledge/BIPS Persian Studies Series|isbn=978-1-134-32890-1|publisher=Routledge|pages=274}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Buchta|first1=Wilfried|title= Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic|publisher=The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung| place=Washington DC|year=2000|isbn=978-0-944029-39-8|pages=144}}</ref> '''“cult-like",'''<ref>[https://apnews.com/608497d45e7c4225b85b70ac839b5249 "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group" The Associated Press, June 27, 2014]</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=The Cult of Rajavi|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=13 July 2003|accessdate=9 March 2016|author=Elizabeth Rubin}}</ref> '''or having a “cult of personality”,'''<ref>{{citation|author=Ervand Abrahamian|title=Radical Islam: the Iranian Mojahedin|publisher=I.B.Tauris|year=1989|isbn=9781850430773|volume=3|series=Society and culture in the modern Middle East |page = 139 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title = Terrornomics |editor-first = David |editor-last = Gold |page = 65 |isbn = 978-1-317-04590-8 |publisher=Routledge |year = 2016 |chapter = An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the ''Mujahedin-e-Khalq'' |first = Mark Edmond |last = Clark }}</ref> '''<s> while other sources have dismissed these claims.'''|}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17615065|title=An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?|work=BBC|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=West should beware Iranian regime’s opposition smear campaign|website=Arab News |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/1406811/%7B%7B}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Iran’s Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times|website=Int Policy Digest|url=https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/12/12/iran-s-heightened-fears-of-mek-dissidents-are-a-sign-of-changing-times/}}</ref></s> {{tq|'''while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".'''|}}<ref>[https://scholar.harvard.edu/majidrafizadeh/biocv DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH] who is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara).[https://www.arabnews.com/node/1406811/%7B%7B Arab News]</ref><ref>[https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/12/12/iran-s-heightened-fears-of-mek-dissidents-are-a-sign-of-changing-times/ IntPolicyDigest]</ref><ref><ref>[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/confronting-iran-52077 National Interest]</ref> |
||
<br> |
|||
<small>(I've ammended the text based on the feedback by VR and MA Javadi. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC))</small> |
|||
*'''Yes'''. This RfC proposes a reduction of redundant text in the article. The given text is redundant because it all refers to the same thing: different entities calling the MEK "cult" or "cult-like" (a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels contentious label]). |
*'''Yes'''. This RfC proposes a reduction of redundant text in the article. The given text is redundant because it all refers to the same thing: different entities calling the MEK "cult" or "cult-like" (a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels contentious label]). |
||
Line 397: | Line 399: | ||
::I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think {{tq|"The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media"|}} represents sources more accurately, then I'll change it to that. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
::I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think {{tq|"The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media"|}} represents sources more accurately, then I'll change it to that. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::I've amended the text. Thanks for the feedback. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Yes'''. Deleting sources indicating a "highly organized misinformation campaign" against the MEK, and then adding all other sources that call the MEK a cult, is not neutral editing. |
*'''Yes'''. Deleting sources indicating a "highly organized misinformation campaign" against the MEK, and then adding all other sources that call the MEK a cult, is not neutral editing. |
||
These sources calling the MEK a cult can be shortened, and Stefka has given a good proportion to the weight of the different viewpoints. I support shortening and if the final wording needs to be changed, then it can be changed, but this content needs shortening so it can be a more neutral article. [[User:Idealigic|Idealigic]] ([[User talk:Idealigic|talk]]) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
These sources calling the MEK a cult can be shortened, and Stefka has given a good proportion to the weight of the different viewpoints. I support shortening and if the final wording needs to be changed, then it can be changed, but this content needs shortening so it can be a more neutral article. [[User:Idealigic|Idealigic]] ([[User talk:Idealigic|talk]]) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 402: | Line 405: | ||
*I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed. Unfortunately we keep getting stuck at what the final wording should be. That probably happens because of the "all or nothing" attitude - discussion hinges between getting rid of (almost) everything vs getting rid of nothing. So I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=982246775&oldid=981844942 this incremental] edit, it reduces the first paragraph from 115 words to 85 words and gets rids of all redundancies and long quotes that were previously in the first paragraph. Hopefully this is something everyone can agree with. If so, I can then trim the second paragraph and so on.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|<b style="color:Black">talk</b>]]</sub> 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
*I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed. Unfortunately we keep getting stuck at what the final wording should be. That probably happens because of the "all or nothing" attitude - discussion hinges between getting rid of (almost) everything vs getting rid of nothing. So I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=982246775&oldid=981844942 this incremental] edit, it reduces the first paragraph from 115 words to 85 words and gets rids of all redundancies and long quotes that were previously in the first paragraph. Hopefully this is something everyone can agree with. If so, I can then trim the second paragraph and so on.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|<b style="color:Black">talk</b>]]</sub> 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:Vice regent|VR]]: My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=963380302 comment] shows I support "case by case" investigation. But they are aiming to perform a mass removal of wells-sourced and DUE contents from the page. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
:[[User:Vice regent|VR]]: My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=963380302 comment] shows I support "case by case" investigation. But they are aiming to perform a mass removal of wells-sourced and DUE contents from the page. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Mhhossein [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=980606475&oldid=980065643 mass removes] the "anti-cult" arguments from the article, and then proposes that the "pro-cult" arguments be kept based on [[WP:DUE]]. Then Vice Regent agrees that both "anti-cult" and "pro-cult" arguments should be shortened, but then proposes that the majority of "pro-cult" arguments be kept. This comes across as saying one thing and doing another in order to keep the article filled with "MEK is a cult" quotes. [[User:Stefka Bulgaria|Stefka Bulgaria]] ([[User talk:Stefka Bulgaria|talk]]) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Remove US from list of Allies in infobox? == |
== Remove US from list of Allies in infobox? == |
Revision as of 10:50, 8 October 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 ![]() |
|topic=
not specified. Available options:
![]() | 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.
|
RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources(WP:UNDUE). This replaces my former closure of this RfC, found below, which was based on incomplete information. The structure of this RfC – which relied on one specific proposed text, of which nearly 25% of the words consisted of a quote which did not appear in the cited source – was not conducive to the formation of real consensus. While this closure is functionally similar to the previous closure (general agreement to reduce repetitiveness, but pending further discussion on the balance of positions), this re-closure recognizes more flaws with the substance of this discussion. Participants who cite DUE/UNDUE in future discussions/RfCs are strongly encouraged to reference specific sources to back their assertion that the weight of reliable sources requires a certain balance of opinions. Specific citations, along with analysis of the prominence given by reliable secondary sources to differing opinions, will likely be given substantial weight. Additionally, participants should verify the sources cited by other participants to ensure that they stand for the proposition for which they are cited. Future discussions/RfCs should also assess the proportion of content that should be devoted to "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" viewpoints. For example, if the great majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the subject as a cult, and if consensus is to reduce the size of the cult section to one paragraph or less, it may be appropriate for the entire section to be devoted to statements that the subject is a cult. If, however, a substantial portion of reliable secondary sources support that the subject is not a cult, then the cult section should address that viewpoint with proportional prominence. (WP:UNDUE)Questions about this closure are always welcome. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Shall we summarize the following:
According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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.
A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi".
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.
In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. 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". 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".
Into this?:
Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[1][2] “cult-like",[3][4] or having a “cult of personality”.[5][6] Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence
.[7][8]
- Yes - per:
- 1) WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK: The article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK of redundant "cult" claims that don't add anything.
- 2) I had previously received consensus to for this, but it was reverted by a now-TBanned editor who failed to address any of the points raised.
- 3) This proposal is about not repeating "cult" claims constantly, turning the article into "According to XYZ, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to ABC, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to EFG, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; etc..." There is really no need for that, hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Both WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK apply to the articles not sections. You have persistently failed to say specifically which portions are redundant. There had never been consensus built for your mass removal (you could not provide a response to my objection). --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: 1) the presented text is considered redundant because it all talks about the same thing (the MEK being a "cult", "cult-like", etc.); hence this RfC proposing to summarise it. 2) Here is the consensus I received for this a few weeks ago, which was reverted by a now T-banned user. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: So that's why you're puzzled; you think it's redundant since "it all talks about the same thing" (we know it's a clearly false description for redundancy or lack thereof since then the whole page is redundant as it all talks about MEK!). As for the imaginary consensus, see my next comments [1]&[2] which you failed to response. --Mhhossein talk 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: 1) the presented text is considered redundant because it all talks about the same thing (the MEK being a "cult", "cult-like", etc.); hence this RfC proposing to summarise it. 2) Here is the consensus I received for this a few weeks ago, which was reverted by a now T-banned user. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Both WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK apply to the articles not sections. You have persistently failed to say specifically which portions are redundant. There had never been consensus built for your mass removal (you could not provide a response to my objection). --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the current version is very much WP:UNDUE. The material should be condensed to a single sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I also think that the current version is very much WP:UNDUE and should be trimmed which will make for a much better narrative. Nika2020 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes the current version is filled with unnecessary redundancy. I agree it needs editing, and the condensed sentence is a good synopsis. Idealigic (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult in the article. A sentence is enough for this. Alex-h (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- No to mass removal, yes to case by case investigation: Just like the previous RFCs by the OP (RFC-1, RFC-2), and despite being told, this RFC is too wide in scope and vague. It is claimed that ALL the portions of the text in question are redundant and UNDUE and should be removed. This is while the text is featured with third party and governmental reports, official statements and the statements by the authors and the scholars which are all making a major point- a point which is possessed by plenty of plenty sources (here's a list containing some of the sources). Sources like RAND have provided a specialized review of the cult characteristics of the group and sources like The New York Times, The Guardian and The Intercept have provided the meaning of MEK being a cult from a members' prospective. When being described, the sources start by saying MEK is "cult/cult-like" group, or MEK has cult-like characteristics (here's a list of them), which means the cult characteristics of the group is an untranslatable part if the MEK's history. The RFC is very silly; For instance, just imagine the OP is suggesting to remove the infamous Elizabeth Rubin's work (see how the source has been referred to across the world). I don't think this ambiguous RFC should go anywhere. --Mhhossein talk 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes: Alex-h pretty much said what I had in mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- No. The content has been discussed vastly in the talk page and the conclusion was to keep it as is.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - Also agree with Alex-h here. The article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - one sentence is enough for this. - MA Javadi (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: the current version is WP:UNDUE. Condensing it into a single sentence would be a good fix. Barca (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Question: @Vanamonde93: I think the current RFC, like the previous one, is too wide in scope and covers a significant portion of the article without specifying why each part should be removed. Should the users be specific when participating this RFC? I mean should they say why portions should(n't) be removed in a specific manner or it would suffice to make general comments? --Mhhossein talk 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: Actually, the proposal here is very specific. It just seeks to trim a lot of content. Justifying that removal is up to those who are arguing for it. If the case for removal isn't clearly made, then there's likely to be no consensus for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional No, as it removes content that is reliably sourced and useful to the reader. But if we decide to fork out things like "history" and "ideology" from this article for the purpose of reducing its size as I proposed at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Fork_out, then obviously most sections will need to be summarized, including the "Designation as a cult" section. I also agree that the current section would benefit from some copy-editing. Its confusing to see the US gov call it a cult in one paragraph and then call it not a cult in another paragraph. The reader will want to know why this is.VR talk 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- This RfC is not about
"History"
or"Ideology"
sections, but about the"Designation as a cult"
section , which is filled with a redundant list of quotes saying the MEK is a cult (which can be condensed into one sentence). Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- This RfC is not about
References
|
---|
References
|
- 'No, many of the items which have been suggested to be deleted in here, are important sentences and DUE. The whole text cannot be considered the same, together. For instance, the following matter that: "What is the report of the government of the U.S. and the politicians of other countries concerning it", it will add useful information to the text. I don't see any specific reason to delete the view of "academics" (It is better to keep "expert and formal opinions"). The views of the former members should be maintained, too, but it ought to be noted that attribution should be done appropriately. Generally, I am against this RFC in this manner. It would be better to be determined (item-by-item) why a sentence should be deleted. Meanwhile, the sentence which has been suggested as substituting, has the problem of "Unsupported attribution" itself. i.e. this question is find in the mind that: the purpose of "certain sources" is exactly related to which sources? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, reading "Cult" repeated times in the article is not useful to the reader at all. A concise summary is all that is needed about this (unless, like Alex said, we want to turn the article into a list of people calling the MEK a cult, which we don't). Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV. Ypatch (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- NO This proposed change does not really seem to be per WP:DUE. It is actually acting against it. I see a handful of reliable sources are to be omitted. Perhaps there should be a rewording, but not at this level certainly.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
MEK capturing Mehran in 1988
@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [3] Are you saying the MEK did not capture Mehran in 1988? Also the version you added does not have a source. Barca (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- See my edit summary please: "read the source once again 'Iranian rebels based in Iraq said they withdrew from the town of Mehran after a three-day offensive, in which they reported capturing military hardware they estimated to be worth $2 billion.' " There's not statement of fact as you tried to pretend. As for the citation, as far as I see, there's no difference between the version before your edit and the version after my edit. --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: This is what is in the AP source =
"Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."
"Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters."
That is AP saying the NLA captured Mehran, with even one of their correspondents going to the site.
You reverted this to a version with no sources. We can attribute the part about the equipment, but I don't see why this can't be in the article, specially since your version doesn't have any sources. Thank you for your reply. Barca (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- In terms of citation my edit did not make any changes - see the version before your edit and the version after my edit. If your main concern is citation please let me know which portion needs references. Also, pay attention to my '04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)' comment. You can't push MEK's estimation as such strong facts. --Mhhossein talk 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: AP is saying the NLA captured Mehran, why can't we add that to the article? Barca (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Where does AP say the city was captured by MEK? --Mhhossein talk 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: I already posted this. This is what is in the AP source =
- Where does AP say the city was captured by MEK? --Mhhossein talk 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: AP is saying the NLA captured Mehran, why can't we add that to the article? Barca (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- In terms of citation my edit did not make any changes - see the version before your edit and the version after my edit. If your main concern is citation please let me know which portion needs references. Also, pay attention to my '04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)' comment. You can't push MEK's estimation as such strong facts. --Mhhossein talk 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
"Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."
"Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters."
Barca (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi BarcrMac. Yes I noticed them but they say MEK attacked Mehran for sure and that they crossed the border with the aim of capturing the city. However, I don't see any supporting clues showing it was indeed captured. --Mhhossein talk 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: The AP article writes that "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran"
. The city was captured by the NLA. Then there is this other article by Time magazine [4]
"The fanatical legions of the Ayatullah Khomeini suffered another embarrassing defeat last week, this one apparently inflicted by their countrymen. In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills. Western reporters brought to the battle scene confirmed that the rebels had captured 1,500 Iranian prisoners, as well as tanks and artillery."
Will you let this information be added to the article now? Barca (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- BarcrMac: I would suggest avoid saying it was captured. Your new source say it was seized. Do they have pretty much the same meaning from military viewpoint? There would no problem if they are the same. Also the source is not the best one we can rely on. Just see how it describes the outcome as being "embarrassing". Can you find a better source? Find your sources so that we can finalize the wording. --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein What is the problem with adding a Time magazine and also Associated Press source that says "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran"? Both sources are reliable. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can you see my response in my previous comment? It seems to be a fact that they indeed crossed the border and attacked the city. Do your sources say the 'captured' the city? --Mhhossein talk 11:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein What is the problem with adding a Time magazine and also Associated Press source that says "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran"? Both sources are reliable. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein: According to the sources,
- "In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills." by Time Magazine
- "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran" Associated Press
- I would put in the article something like "In 1988 the National Liberation Army took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Do you have an issue with this? MA Javadi (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein - please answer. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that Mehran was indeed captured, though its not clear by who. Kaveh Farrokh writes the Iraqis used chemical weapons to capture Mehran and subsequently "handed over Mehran to the National Liberation Army of Iran".
- And calling the soldiers of Iran as "pro-Khomeini soldiers" is weird. The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.VR talk 21:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- MEK was backed by Saddam forces, a point which should be added. --Mhhossein talk 05:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein adding what you think is missing instead of removing the whole information would have been the solution here. If adding that the MEK were backed by Iraq is all that we're missing, then I can add this to the article. Vice regent, I agree with your point about this being an "Iran-Iraq war" and not a "Khomeini-Saddam war", so will correct this in the lead of the article where it says "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Iraq". - MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- We are all in the same page with this then? @Vice regent: @Mhhossein: I will add "In 1988 the National Liberation Army and Iraqi forces took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Please answer if you have any issues with me adding this. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, we are not. There is still the question of who captured Mehran. If you read the source you presented, it adds,
Dispatches from Tehran said the three-pronged assault was carried out by Iraqi regulars supported by fighter-bombers dropping chemical bombs, but rebel commander Massoud Rajavi denied the ″hollow claims."
This is in line with Kaveh Farrokh who argues the Iraqis captured Mehran using chemical weapons and only subsequently handed it over to NLA.VR talk 18:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)- @MA Javadi: You used VR's comment to reach a wrong conclusion that the lead should change, a change for which you need to gain consensus. Moreover, having done the edit, you were calling for using "pro-Khomeini soldiers" which contradicts your previous edit. I am restoring your changes to the lead back to the longstanding version. Let's go by the sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: so taking into consideration the Time Magazine and Associated Press articles, what would be your chosen phrase for this information? MA Javadi (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, we are not. There is still the question of who captured Mehran. If you read the source you presented, it adds,
- We are all in the same page with this then? @Vice regent: @Mhhossein: I will add "In 1988 the National Liberation Army and Iraqi forces took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Please answer if you have any issues with me adding this. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein adding what you think is missing instead of removing the whole information would have been the solution here. If adding that the MEK were backed by Iraq is all that we're missing, then I can add this to the article. Vice regent, I agree with your point about this being an "Iran-Iraq war" and not a "Khomeini-Saddam war", so will correct this in the lead of the article where it says "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Iraq". - MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- MEK was backed by Saddam forces, a point which should be added. --Mhhossein talk 05:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
(←) I notice that there is no mention of these events in this book on the MEK. Based on this NYT article and Farrokh's book, I'd write: "In June 1988, the National Liberation Army briefly held the Iranian town of Mehran under unclear circumstances. According to Kaveh Farrokh and Iran, Iraq captured Mehran by using chemical weapons and then handed the town over to the NLA; three days later Iran recaptured the town from the NLA. However, MEK claimed it captured the town without any Iraqi help and it withdrew from Mehran voluntarily.
" VR talk 03:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: VR suggested that "The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.", so MA Javadi tweaked "Saddam Hussein" to "Iraq", and then VR tweaked "Iraq" to "Iraq forces", and then Steka Bulgaria tweaked that further. You reverted the whole collaboration between these editors, something that looks like going against consensus. I also think that the war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, so that would be a majority consensus approving "Iraq" over "Saddam Hussein". Can you please self-revert your edit based on the majority consensus built here? Idealigic (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think Vice regent meant that portion in the lead of the article can be changed. You can ask the sources why the tend to say MEK sided with Saddam, as opposed to saying they it sided with Iraq. --Mhhossein talk 11:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyediting cult claims RfC
The closing statement of this RfC states very clearly that a) there is consensus for reducing the length of those claims, and b) the two-sentence alternative formulation doesn't necessarily have consensus. As such, I'm going to note that I will be taking a dim view of any edit-warring those two sentences into the article in place of all the other content; and I will also be taking a dim view of opposition to any suggestions of shortening that are not accompanied by suggestions of how the verbosity may be reduced, because there's consensus that it needs to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I suggested one solution to this by arguing that parts of this article should be forked out as this article is too big - a problem that goes hand in hand with the verbosity referenced above. There was some support for it here: Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_32. Concretely I propose copying all the content about the ideology of MEK (including cult claims) to Ideology of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (currently a redirect). In its place we leave a summary of MEK's ideology that we can all agree on.
- When it comes to shortening some compromise will be needed. For example, I tried what I think should have been a very uncontroversial shortening of the lead and I was summarily reverted (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Lead_is_too_long).VR talk 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Going back to this RfC, the two replacing sentences I suggested were:
- "
"Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like", or having a “cult of personality”. Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence."
What wording (that is NPOV) would be accepted by the opposing side? (Please note that this is a straight-forward question that requires a straight-forward answer). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're addressing that question to me, but I'm not taking a position on that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Vanamonde: the question was addressed at those who voted against this wording on the RfC; but I guess anyone can comment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I can propose something. Before I do, I want to point out that in the RfC (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RfC_about_copy-editing_"cult"_claims_in_the_article) Stefka proposed removing certain parts of the People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_cult section and replacing it with the above. So the presumption is that anything in that section not mentioned by Stefka in the RfC is not being discussed for removal. FWIW, it would have been less confusing if Stefka had proposed summarizing the entire section. Anyway, I'll make a proposal soon-ish.VR talk 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- What is the page number for this claim
"the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"
?VR talk 09:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- What is the page number for this claim
Proposal
Previous version
|
---|
According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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.
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". 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". |
New version:
Many officials have described the MEK as a "cult", including the United States government,[1] Foreign Ministry of France.[2] a 2008 report by the United Kingdom's Home Office,[3] and Samir Sumaidaie (Iraqi ambassador to the U.S.).[4] Academics who have described the MEK as a cult include Ervand Abrahamian,[5] Stephanie Cronin,[6] Wilfried Buchta,[7], Eli Clifton[8] and others.[9] Some journalists who visited MEK camps in Iraq, including Reese Erlich,[10] Robert Scheer,[10] and Elizabeth Rubin[11] described it as a cult. Claims that MEK is a cult have also been denied by Raymond Tanter,[12] and the European Parliament,[13] who has accused Iran of falsifying information.
A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options".[14] Rubin argued the cult revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi.[15][16]
VR talk 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- VR, you are still including a detailed list of those who have called the MEK a cult, something which ignores the majority of votes in that RFC. The RFC asked for reducing this to a couple of sentences, and you've reduced it to a couple of paragraphs. I think the two original suggested sentences were OK (since, as Kevin said, those are also an option), and if VR wants to change the verbosity within those two sentences then we start to have something, but what VR is suggesting here does not reflect the majority consensus in that RFC by a long shot. MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- One of the issues in the RfC was the redundancy and my proposal gets rid of that entirely.VR talk 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Proposal reflecting the RfC consensus
I think this would be a middle ground proposal that considers Vice regent's proposal and the RfC consensus:
Sources such as the U.S. government and certain academics and journalists have described it as having cult-like characteristics. This includes devotion to Maryam and Masoud Rajavi. Other sources have referred to some of these allegations as “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence".
Idealigic (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's hardly "middle ground" and I would disagree because this proposal is inaccurate - its not only the US government, but also officials from UK, France and Iraq that have made the allegation. It also gives WP:FALSEBALANCE as way more reliable sources call the MEK a cult than those who deny it. Finally, it doesn't tell us why those who call the MEK a cult do so. Which is what the second paragraph does in my proposal.VR talk 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I find Idealigic's proposition to be a good middle ground. There were several votes in that RFC in support of summarising all the list of people ever calling the MEK a cult into one sentence. VR's attempt to still include a detailed account of people calling the MEK a cult is not respecting the RFCs consensus. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Idealigic's proposal. @L235: thank you for closing this RfC; could you please help us conclude it? Do we have consensus for Idealigic's suggestion? Alex-h (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alex-h, you are hardly going to have consensus after just three users have weighed in. Let's allow for more time for the others to comment, please. Vice regent, you're coming dangerously close to stone-walling. Any proposal needs to still reflect the RfC closure, meaning that it needs to accomplish approximately the same amount of shortening. Objecting to the two-sentence proposal and offering a two-paragraph proposal isn't going to fly. If you don't like this one, offer an alternative of comparable length, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: What do you mean by "the same amount of shortening"? Given the fact that that the original text is 5 paragraphs I find Vice regent's comment fairly criticizing the proposed text. --Mhhossein talk 12:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: There was consensus for drastically condensing that content. Vice Regent's proposal does not conform to that consensus, and his criticism above is in effect relitigating the RfC, intentionally or otherwise. If you object to that text, please offer an alternative that is of comparable length. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- About VR's suggestion, different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims; hence the proposal in this RfC to synthesise all these claims into one or two sentences. I stand by my original proposal, or if that doesn't have consensus, then Idealigic's proposal. If any of the opposing editors propose something of similar length, then that could also be an option. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- If your problem is solely with "government officials", it can be resolved via rewording. --Mhhossein talk 12:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus says:
"the proposed replacement is an option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.)"
If you have a suggestion about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences, then please propose something. Proposing instead two paragraphs, as VR has done, completely ignores many of the votes in that RfC (five of which agreed that one sentence was enough for this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)- If what I proposed does not get consensus, I'm also ok to go with Stefka's two sentences. Idealigic (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am going to propose another version this time closer in length to Stefka's original proposal, as Vanamonde has indicated. Before I do that, can someone please provide the page number for "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? I've asked that twice now. I want to know the context this was said in.VR talk 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: You need to elaborate on "different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims". What do you mean by that? --Mhhossein talk 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Like Idealigic, I'm also fine with Stefka's original sentences if Idealigic's doesn't get consensus. Alex-h (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alex-h can you provide the page number of the reference that says “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? VR talk 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Vice regent, I have not read the book, but had a glance at the introduction where it writes "We at the European Parliament decided to conduct a full investigation into the alleged human rights violations by the PMOI contained in the HRW report. We found the allegations contained in the HRW report unfounded and devoid of any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was procedurally flawed and substantive inaccurate. Moreover, in the course of our study we became aware of an elaborate and complex misinformation campaign by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security against the PMOI", if that helps? Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- But is that related specifically to the claim of "cult"? If not, it may belong in a different section. Also, it seems that the book reflects the views of its authors who happen to European MEPs but not necessarily the Parliament as a whole. In that case, "the European Parliament's report" would be a bit misleading and I'd prefer to either name the MEPs or say "a report by some European MEPs".VR talk 16:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Vice regent, I have not read the book, but had a glance at the introduction where it writes "We at the European Parliament decided to conduct a full investigation into the alleged human rights violations by the PMOI contained in the HRW report. We found the allegations contained in the HRW report unfounded and devoid of any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was procedurally flawed and substantive inaccurate. Moreover, in the course of our study we became aware of an elaborate and complex misinformation campaign by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security against the PMOI", if that helps? Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alex-h can you provide the page number of the reference that says “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? VR talk 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Like Idealigic, I'm also fine with Stefka's original sentences if Idealigic's doesn't get consensus. Alex-h (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: You need to elaborate on "different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims". What do you mean by that? --Mhhossein talk 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am going to propose another version this time closer in length to Stefka's original proposal, as Vanamonde has indicated. Before I do that, can someone please provide the page number for "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? I've asked that twice now. I want to know the context this was said in.VR talk 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- If what I proposed does not get consensus, I'm also ok to go with Stefka's two sentences. Idealigic (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus says:
- @Stefka Bulgaria, Idealigic, and Alex-h: Following a note by Mhhossein on my talk page, I made an effort to determine whether the proposed text contains a misquote. I have spent the last 30 minutes trying to verify the quote "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". I obtained an electronic copy of the People's Mojahedin of Iran : mission report and searched through it for the quote. In fact, I searched for the words "falsified", "information", and "traceable" individually and could not verify this quote or anything close to it. Furthermore, neither a Google search nor a Google Scholar search for the quote "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence" turned up any material that did not originate from Wikipedia. I am now deeply troubled and I am worried that the RfC I closed, above, was invalid to begin with. Where did this quote originate? What page number of the cited reference does it appear on? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I see that Stefka Bulgaria was the one to originally introduce the quote, so hopefully they can show us where the quote is from. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Kevin: I don't have access to the book at this time, but I believe the original quote is "A delegation of the European Parliament and the US military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of intelligence (MOIS)"
, included in "Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition" by Cheryl Benard, Austin Long, Angel Rabasa, containing the footnote "Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005."
. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The page would be needed to see what are the "claims" that are being referred to.VR talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the link (it's on page 118), and it reads:
"In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has bben found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the U.S. military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (“MOI”)."
[Footnote: "See Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005."]- Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- The page would be needed to see what are the "claims" that are being referred to.VR talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kevin The article also includes this source/statement (I don't have access to the book):
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".
[17]
- There are also other sources that say similar things:
"Ever since coming to power, Iran’s clerical leaders have claimed that the MEK is a cult that lacks meaningful support inside Iran."
IntPolicyDigest"The People's Mujahedin is a resistance group that has been fighting for regime change in Iran for decades, despite the Iranian government trying to dismiss the group as a "cult.""
Fox News"Accused misdeeds aside, the group is also frequently referred to as a cult whose members suffer cruel deprivations and human rights abuses. Their devoted support of NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi and her husband, Massoud Rajavi is, accordingly, indicative of an absence of free will. Every one of the foregoing assertions and charcterizations about the NCRI and MEK is false or deceptively misleading. Only their endless repetition by the Tehran regime's propaganda and intelligence services has caused many in the West to assume they are true. Corroborating evidence is non-existent, fabricated or distorted in ways that for years went critically unexamined in the U.S. and elsewhere."
The Ayatollahs and the MEK - Iran's Crumbling Influence Operations; University of Baltimore- I've come across others; I can look for them if needed...
- One only needs to read through the article's sections "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" or "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" to get a glimpse of what the clerical regime in Iran have been trying to do to discredit/oppress the MEK. These sections were the basis for starting that RfC you closed, and the reasoning was that adding a collection of quotes all repeating that "the MEK is a cult" is basically turning the article into an attack platform against a legitimate political group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Stefka, the sources may not be saying what you want them to say. The Tater quote doesn't say the cult allegation is false, only that it is exploited by Iran. Same thing with Fox news (which is a controversial source) and Adam Ereli. Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. is indeed saying the cult allegations are either false or misleading.VR talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- And we know that Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book is not reliable for this page. --Mhhossein talk 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book may or may not be at the same calibre as other sources (such as mcclatchydc.com for instance), but we have a link from the University of Baltimore website saying that
"Ambassador Lincoln J. Bloomfield Jr. has published a new monograph, The Ayatollahs and the MEK–Iran's Crumbling Influence Operation , through the University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs."
, so this looks to be a publication by a U.S. ambassador released by University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. In any case, here are more quotes:"Mr Kinglsey goes on to infer that some people regard the MEK as “a duplicitous terrorist cult”, notwithstanding the fact that the highest courts in America, the UK and the EU unanimously agreed to remove the MEK from their respective terrorist lists many years ago, after finding that they had been blacklisted erroneously based on similar “duplicitous terrorist cult” allegations by the fascist Iranian regime."
source by Struan Stevenson."The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”
source by Ivan Sascha Sheehan"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
source by Majid Rafizadeh"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."
source by J. Adam Ereli
- Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book may or may not be at the same calibre as other sources (such as mcclatchydc.com for instance), but we have a link from the University of Baltimore website saying that
- And we know that Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book is not reliable for this page. --Mhhossein talk 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Stefka, the sources may not be saying what you want them to say. The Tater quote doesn't say the cult allegation is false, only that it is exploited by Iran. Same thing with Fox news (which is a controversial source) and Adam Ereli. Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. is indeed saying the cult allegations are either false or misleading.VR talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is a source by the United States Congress and United States House of Representatives titled "Camp Ashraf : Iraqi obligations and State Department accountability", that reads:
"Derogatory descriptions of the MEK/PMOI including describing the bonds of commitment between its leaders and members as "cult"-like, are widespread. On this point the author offers two observations.
The first related to the number of MEK/PMOI imprisoned, assassinated and executed at the hands of the ruling regime in Tehran, particularly in 1980-81 after MEK broke ranks with Ayatollah Khomeini regarding the shape of Iranian politics after the Shah's overthrow, and both side clashed violently. Estimates of MEK/PMOI supporters, including casual and suspected supporters, killed at the hands of the Iranian government exceed 100,000, and the mullahs have since targeted MEK figures in exile abroad. This conflict has bred deep and enduring enmity.
The second observation concerns the prevalence of sophisticated, unattributed information operations in the West generated by the Iranian government, mentioned in the cover memorandum. ... This inquiry has found that the Iranian government has since 1979 gone to extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI and its leaders in Europe, Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. ... Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) has for years conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI. This has occurred as Iran's diplomatic efforts (noted above) have explicitly sought to pressure the US and other governments to isolate the MEK as a terrorist group."
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: What are you going to prove? That they are not a Cult and this is Iranian government calling them as such? If yes, are you backing your position by Kinglsey's POV along with Stevenson's book - we discussed that the latter source was MEK sympathetic (see [5]) - the alleged comments by a think tank head and the US congress report (so what's this source is saying?) Were Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin - the journalists who visited the MEK camp in Iraq and said MEK had cult-like characteristics- all recruited by Iran? --Mhhossein talk 06:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm neither trying to prove that the MEK are or are not a cult; I've made my position clear that my proposal was about reducing a lengthy list of quotes all derogatorily calling the MEK a "cult". Why? because having a section (misleadingly) titled "Designation as a cult" and adding a long indiscriminate list of "cult" quotes there comes across as an attack effort against the main political opposition to the clerics in Iran.
- Also, you're failing to acknowledge many of the sources I've provided, including the United States Congress source just above.
- I find that trying continuously to add derogatory quotes in a contentious political article is problematic for a number of reasons; yet, you have persistently done this here. We have many sources calling the Trump administration a "cult" ([15], [16], [17], etc.), but that has never been considered a viewpoint to merit inclusion there (least merit its own section). However, the same has not been applied here, not even to the point of reducing verbosity (despite receiving a majority vote in that RfC to do so). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- They are neither "derogatory" nor "attacks". Your previous comments are persistently trying to imply that the BAD things regarding MEK are attacks coming from an Iranian campaign. What do you say about those scholars and journalists, did they have links to Iran? Taking the independent reliable sources into account shows something else. I am talking about those reliable sources that your RFC aimed to remove. Those quotes are not "derogatory", rather they are how the reliable sources portray the group's internal incidents. The RFC you referred to togther with the one that was overturned as a result of the AN discussion, are exactly showing this approach of going ahead by such RFCs - which are not backed by guidelines - no longer works. You need to cover the things as it is - which means major POVs should be included based on their due weight. Just look at the level of condensation you were suggesting! (Do I need to emphasize that the Google results for "the cult of Rajvi" is clearly showing the title is widely used across the sources when referring to MEK.) --Mhhossein talk 12:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sources say they are "derogatory descriptions", and you keep trying to fill the article with them. Also the sources in the section about the disinformation campaign against the MEK (which I've just updated) speak for themselves. Filling the article with a vast amount of derogatory descriptions (as well as with other sources denouncing them) isn't good for the article; hence my proposal to reduce the verbosity, but once again we have not been able to advance the editing process here (despite having received majority vote to do so in that RfC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop Original Research. There are many other sources that don't call these "derogatory". I know at least three journalists who have visited the MEK'c camps and believe they are Cult. So, should we sya they are cult? --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sources say they are "derogatory descriptions", and you keep trying to fill the article with them. Also the sources in the section about the disinformation campaign against the MEK (which I've just updated) speak for themselves. Filling the article with a vast amount of derogatory descriptions (as well as with other sources denouncing them) isn't good for the article; hence my proposal to reduce the verbosity, but once again we have not been able to advance the editing process here (despite having received majority vote to do so in that RfC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- They are neither "derogatory" nor "attacks". Your previous comments are persistently trying to imply that the BAD things regarding MEK are attacks coming from an Iranian campaign. What do you say about those scholars and journalists, did they have links to Iran? Taking the independent reliable sources into account shows something else. I am talking about those reliable sources that your RFC aimed to remove. Those quotes are not "derogatory", rather they are how the reliable sources portray the group's internal incidents. The RFC you referred to togther with the one that was overturned as a result of the AN discussion, are exactly showing this approach of going ahead by such RFCs - which are not backed by guidelines - no longer works. You need to cover the things as it is - which means major POVs should be included based on their due weight. Just look at the level of condensation you were suggesting! (Do I need to emphasize that the Google results for "the cult of Rajvi" is clearly showing the title is widely used across the sources when referring to MEK.) --Mhhossein talk 12:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I find that trying continuously to add derogatory quotes in a contentious political article is problematic for a number of reasons; yet, you have persistently done this here. We have many sources calling the Trump administration a "cult" ([15], [16], [17], etc.), but that has never been considered a viewpoint to merit inclusion there (least merit its own section). However, the same has not been applied here, not even to the point of reducing verbosity (despite receiving a majority vote in that RfC to do so). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Questions regarding the RfC closure
I received the following question on my talk page, and I hope my answer there will be helpful here:
Hi Kevin,
About the RfC you re-closed on the MEK talk page, I don't quite understand your re-closing comments.
We currently have several paragraphs in the article consisting of a list of people basically calling the MEK a cult in a section title that misleadingly says "Designation as a cult" (when there isn't a single source to support that the MEK was ever designated a cult).
There was a majority vote in that RfC that agreed we didn't need to have this long list of people calling the MEK a cult, the majority basically saying that a couple of lines was enough.
I thought your initial suggestion of coming to an agreement about the final wording was a good idea since we could look at the sources and determine proportion according to sources, etc. So I don't understand why this was overturned to "no consensus"?
Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: Thanks for reaching out. You are correct that, on the substance, my close did not interpret consensus all that differently. My new closure says that if participants reach a consensus about the appropriate distribution and length of the section, consistent with UNDUE, then that should be implemented, and that there is general agreement to reduce in length if possible – which is not all that different from my original closure.
- The appropriate length of a section is, for the most part, an editorial decision (unless the new section length would make the section so disproportionately larger or smaller than other sections compared with their significance, counted by reliable secondary sources, that it is UNDUE). Therefore, it is essentially controlled by a rough consensus of people, counted for the most part numerically.
- However, WP:UNDUE requires that appropriate weight be given to viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. I write about this quite extensively in my third and fourth paragraphs, but to summarize: if the vast majority of reliable secondary sources call MEK a cult, and the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to e.g. three sentences, then all three sentences should probably describe sources calling MEK a cult. However, if the size of the section is e.g. 15 sentences, it may be OK to spend one or two of them discussing reliable secondary sources which call MEK not a cult. Similarly, if the split of sources is closer to 70%/30%, then if the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to three sentences, perhaps two of those sentences should describe sources that call MEK a cult and one should describe sources that call MEK not a cult.
- This is why I was so alarmed in this case. In the article as it stood before the RfC, the most prominent "not a cult" sentence was a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded). A sentence relying on this misquote was 20 of the 37 words (54%) of the RfC-proposed text, and Idealigic's post-RfC proposal offers it similar prominence (19/45 words, 42%).
- That alone is enough to render the RfC effectively invalid. The broader issues that this represents, of course, is that you're going to need much better sourcing overall than you've presented if you want to call the cult allegations "false" or "falsified information" (very few of them outright say it). Instead of trying to insert information saying that MEK is not a cult or has improperly been considered a cult, you may be better off (though I'm not familiar with the sources) by inserting information supported by reliable secondary sources: (a) specifically refuting particular elements (e.g. "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like"); or (b) discussing sources regarding how the government of Iran has attempted to cause others to believe MEK is a cult. However, be careful not to juxtapose those sentences with "is a cult" claims in a way that implies that sentences supporting (a) or (b) are also arguing that MEK is not a cult, unless the reliable secondary sources specifically state that MEK is not a cult.
- Hope this provides a good overview of my thinking, but I wrote this while rushed so please let me know if you have further questions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Ideology
Stefka Bulgaria you removed an addition made by Bahar1397 regarding MEK's ideology. Can you explain why you removed it? VR talk 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: you may have missed Vif12vf's revert last month about this, or the numerous discussions we've had about this here, but basically, the MEK's ideology is complicated and since there are RS saying different things (and at different times), we never reached a consensus for an appropriate summary for the infobox. See also here, here, here, etc.. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you VR, I was going to ask the same thing. Maybe we can start a new RfC for this? I see "Marxist" as part of MEK ideology in other articles too. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
One source to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight. Idealigic (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is regarding this edit. Perhaps that gives it undue weight for it to be mentioned in the lede. But this information can be mentioned in the main body?VR talk 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Removal
Per L235’s concerns on my talk page I have removed a portion of this page for failing V, an action I believe to be within the intent of IAR in regards to the general sanctions on this page. I am posting here so other editors might review my edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for being WP:BOLD and removing it. I had asked three times for someone to provide me a page number so I could verify the quote, so its about time.VR talk 01:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Intelligence campaign
This current section People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Intelligence_campaign_against_the_MEK seems redundant and a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can we summarize and shorten it? VR talk 23:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've been expanding these sections with the aim of attending the WP:DUE and MEK-sympathetic sources request. Properly representing the body of sources from all sides is necessary, and since there seems to be a large amount of derogatory depiction of the MEK in the article already, then it seems that we need a similar amount of coverage about the efforts that have been made to delegitimise the MEK in the West so that appropriate weight is given to the different viewpoints.
- I would be in favour of summarising redundancy in the article. To give proper weight to the different view points, if we shorten the propaganda/intelligence campaign against the MEK, then I propose we also shorten redundant derogatory depictions of the MEK (something that's currently excessive in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- We have to mind WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "average" Western reliable source depicts MEK generally negatively. It doesn't help that they were once designated a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, I would agree with removing redundancy everywhere, both pro-MEK content and anti-MEK content.VR talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is a fair bit of MEK-trashing in Western sources, but there are also a fair amount of reliable sources that commend the MEK. Also what Stefka pointed out, there are reports of the Iranian government running a media demonization campaign to promote the MEK as a terrorist cult in the West. I think all this needs to be in the article, but I don't think we need long paragraphs continually banging you over the head with the same information, which is what is in the article now. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: I agree with VR saying the section should not be FALSE BALANCED. Addition of POVish narrations MEK-sympathetic sources to the already oversized page, not only is a good tool to reach what you could not make via those awkward RFCs, but also is making the article full of unnecessary things. Establishing WP:DUE, more than other things, requires paying attention to high quality sources. Hence, Varesteh's claims is rarely an improvement to this page. What is it adding to the page? As for this unnecessary insertion, MEK sympathetic sources like Vidal-Quadras, Giuliani and Ereli should not be used to give weight to such a position. Neither Hamid Bahrami's nor Majid Rafizadeh's claims (who are they??? I know Bahrami is a former political prisoner!) are adding something new to the page. Though their reliabilities are highly questioned here. Also, do you think Al Bawaba is a reliable source here? As for the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report, it is known that MEK's "supporters have also hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm, to persuade members of Congress to support its cause". There are similar issues with [18]. Also are 'verfassungsschutz' and 'english.aivd.nl' reliable? You should not just insert everything you find on the net. You can see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section. --Mhhossein talk 12:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- We have to mind WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "average" Western reliable source depicts MEK generally negatively. It doesn't help that they were once designated a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, I would agree with removing redundancy everywhere, both pro-MEK content and anti-MEK content.VR talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Blanket removal of sources
@Mhhossein: why did you blanked-remove all of the sources that Stefka added to the article pointing out to a demonization campaign by the Iran regime against the MEK?
1* "The United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, and Committee on Foreign Affairs published an enquiry on derogatory descriptions of the MEK, including "cult"-like allegations. The enquiry found that since 1979, the Iranian government had gone through "extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI", adding that for years, MOIS had conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI.""
[1]
2* "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK.[2] On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"
[3][4]
3* "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."
[5]
4* "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."
[6]
5* "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."
[7]
6* "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."
[8]
7* "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”
[9]
8* "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."
[10]
You also refer to the 1st source as "the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", but it seems to be a report by the U.S. Congress. The other sources also seem to meet WP:RS.
You seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK, but when someone offers a counter-view that says there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK, you blanket-remove all of it? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @MA Javadi: See my comprehensive explanations. Also, please avoid from making personal attacks ("you seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK" is a clear comment on me which is prohibited). Take a look at the "Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", you'll see it's what I said. Was it necessary to copy all of them here? --Mhhossein talk 13:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: These sources by Dr Majid Rafizadeh, Ivan Sascha Sheehan, Joseph Adam Ereli, also the sources by Arab News, Intelligence and Security services, etc., why did you remove them? (I don't see an explanation for this in your past post) - MA Javadi (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Mhhossein, your "comprehensive" explanation doesn't take into account many sources you removed from the article, and this is not the first time your edit summary doesn't reflect all of the edits you made in the article ([19]). Idealigic (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Both of you: Read my comment once again please. I have tried to cover all of your questions. As for [20], this is simply an opinionated piece. Futhermore, Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. --Mhhossein talk 12:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- For instance, DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara), and he writes:
"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
- Ivan Sascha Sheehan is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. He writes:
"well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"
- Joseph Adam Ereli is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs] and he writes
""To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."
- For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article (despite this already being overtly covered), but you won't allow opposing POVs describing a well-financed propaganda campaign against the MEK. By doing this, all POVs (except your preferred one) are not properly weighted, but then in these RfCs you propose that
"major POVs should be included based on their due weight"
. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article (despite this already being overtly covered), but you won't allow opposing POVs describing a well-financed propaganda campaign against the MEK. By doing this, all POVs (except your preferred one) are not properly weighted, but then in these RfCs you propose that
References
- ^ Camp Ashraf : Iraqi obligations and State Department accountability. 2017. ISBN 978-1981888559.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ "West should beware Iranian regime's opposition smear campaign". Arab News.
- ^ "Iran's Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times". Int Policy Digest.
- ^ "Confronting Iran". National Interest.
- ^ General Intelligence and Security Service (2009), Annual Report 2009
- ^ "Verschärfung der internationalen Sanktionen gegen den Iran".
- ^ General Intelligence and Security Service (2009), Annual Report 20011
- ^ "Verfassungsschutzbericht des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen über das Jahr 2016" (PDF).
- ^ "Iranian opposition abroad finds new voice amid protests".
- ^ "Mullahs Demonize Opposition In Response To Crises: Will Iran Survive?".
RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article (2nd RfC)
![]() |
|
This RfC takes into account the points made in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article".
Shall we summarize the following:
According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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.
A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi".
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face."
Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.
In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. 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".
The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish".
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".
Into this?:
The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."
[1][2] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[3][4] “cult-like",[5][6] or having a “cult of personality”,[7][8]
while other sources have dismissed these claims.[9][10][11] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".
[12][13]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page).
(I've ammended the text based on the feedback by VR and MA Javadi. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC))
- Yes. This RfC proposes a reduction of redundant text in the article. The given text is redundant because it all refers to the same thing: different entities calling the MEK "cult" or "cult-like" (a contentious label).
- In the previous RfC, it was questioned whether such a reduction would leave
"enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"
(WP:UNDUE).
- To help with this, I provided sources with a counter-viewpoint saying that there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK to, among other things, depict it as a "terrorist cult" in the West, but Mhhossein removed these from the article; here are some of the sources that were removed:
[14]"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
”[15]"disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."
[16]"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."
[17]"A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."
"Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."
[19]"The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."
[20]"“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."
[21]"The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."
- Some of these sources don't refer specifically to the "cult" allegations, while others do. Comparing specifically the "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" allegations presented in this RfC, there is a majority viewpoint in favour of "pro-cult". As such, "pro-cult" allegations have been given prominence in the proposed summary of the text.
- Although the final wording of the summary can be further tweaked, this RfC mainly proposes reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations; something that's been needlessly over-emphasized in the article (making it come across as an attack against a legitimate political group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes Just looking at the material that is to be shortened, what one US colonel said is clearly WP:UNDUE, as is the bit about $80,000. These are clear signs that the material needs to be summarized. Furthermore, the summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria appears to summarize viewpoints in about the right proportions. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
- This RFC is as ridiculous as the previous one. Tag teaming or like won't work here. --Mhhossein talk 18:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Stefka Bulgaria I am once again concerned that you may not be quoting sources properly. For example, you write "while other sources have dismissed these claims" and you cite this source. But the source seems to say (emphasis added),
And yet another officer, who was there at precisely the same time and is now a retired general, has become an active lobbyist on the MEK's behalf. With his open smile and earnest friendly manner, he is a good advocate. "Cult? How about admirably focused group?" he says. "And I never heard of anyone being held against their will."
It is a misrepresentation to call an MEK lobbyist as "other sources". More accurate would be to say something like "MEK denies the allegations". Nor does this source you cited dismisses the claim. It merely argues that Iran has tried countries to label MEK as a cult, not whether the allegation is false or not.VR talk 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @VR: here are three sources:
by DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH who is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara).Arab News"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
by Ivan Sascha Sheehan who is is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. IntPolicyDigest"well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"
by Joseph Adam Ereli who is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs. National Interest"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."
- Feel free to propose a suitable summary, which we could then use as an option for the final wording. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment VR. That's why I say this RFC is as ridiculous as the previous and won't make an improvement to this page. Some sources are cherry picked to reach a desired inclusion. --Mhhossein talk 12:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - per WP:NOTADVOCACY - we can report objectively without overstating or amplifying and the article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - this summary is sufficient. About the final line, if we include Stefka's sources, then
"The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media"
could be a better representation of the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC) - I have no opinion on the RfC as a whole, but the use of the word "dismissed" is not justified based on the sources provided here. Please either modify that or provide better sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think
"The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media"
represents sources more accurately, then I'll change it to that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)- That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've amended the text. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think
- Yes. Deleting sources indicating a "highly organized misinformation campaign" against the MEK, and then adding all other sources that call the MEK a cult, is not neutral editing.
These sources calling the MEK a cult can be shortened, and Stefka has given a good proportion to the weight of the different viewpoints. I support shortening and if the final wording needs to be changed, then it can be changed, but this content needs shortening so it can be a more neutral article. Idealigic (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Idealigic I neither agree with Stefka adding lots of redundant material on the misinformation campaign, nor with Mhhossein's blanket removal of it. I think some mention of that needs to be made in a neutral fashion.VR talk 00:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed. Unfortunately we keep getting stuck at what the final wording should be. That probably happens because of the "all or nothing" attitude - discussion hinges between getting rid of (almost) everything vs getting rid of nothing. So I made this incremental edit, it reduces the first paragraph from 115 words to 85 words and gets rids of all redundancies and long quotes that were previously in the first paragraph. Hopefully this is something everyone can agree with. If so, I can then trim the second paragraph and so on.VR talk 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- VR: My comment shows I support "case by case" investigation. But they are aiming to perform a mass removal of wells-sourced and DUE contents from the page. --Mhhossein talk 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein mass removes the "anti-cult" arguments from the article, and then proposes that the "pro-cult" arguments be kept based on WP:DUE. Then Vice Regent agrees that both "anti-cult" and "pro-cult" arguments should be shortened, but then proposes that the majority of "pro-cult" arguments be kept. This comes across as saying one thing and doing another in order to keep the article filled with "MEK is a cult" quotes. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove US from list of Allies in infobox?
The source cited for its inclusion is an article from 2018 titled "M.E.K.: The Group John Bolton Wants to Rule Iran." Bolton's ideological positions are fairly far removed from the mainstream, but at that time he was National Security Advisor, so his position on such matters were relevant, at that time; but, he was booted from his position quite a while ago, so the his position as it relates to US policy is not particularly relevant anymore. Are there any other sources that support listing the US as an ally to this group? Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the same can be said about some of the other "allies" listed in that infobox. About the U.S., maybe it's too soon to say whether it remains its "ally" or not. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Operation Shining Sun
@Idealigic: At first you removed the "Operation Shining sun" from the body and the infobox, alleging the source was not reliable. Now, after I have found a reliable source for that, you claim it's not enough. Please explain why there should be more than one source for that? I see your edits are becoming tendentious. You have recently reverted a user without explaining why! --Mhhossein talk 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: You tried to use this theglobepost link to put in the lead that the MEK was involved in a battle. If you insist that this is a reliable source for this, my suggestion is that you ask at RSN and see what they will say there about that. Then you used another source that looks more reliable (I cannot access it though), and I reverted you with edit summary "One source for to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight." You also have removed single reliable sources claiming "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources", as such if you want to put in the article that the MEK took part in a battle, you need "multiple high-quality sources". And if you think this means my editing is "tendentious", then this would mean your editing is also tendentious, and werent you blocked for tendentious editing in April? Upon request, I can provide more ways in which I think your editing has been tendentious, if tendentious editing is what you really want to discuss. Idealigic (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Idealigic. I've submitted the RfC below taking note of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- This straw man fallacy mixed with a battleground language won't be an improvement to this discussion. It's hopeless to see the portion of your comment saying MEK's participation in the operation is an exceptional claim. Cohen's scholarly work, which you removed, is just reliable enough for this. @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Should I really find more than one source saying MEK started "Operation Shining Sun" against Iran? The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement. --Mhhossein talk 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: Can you show me where your scholarly source supports your assertion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: Sure, you can see it in P. 5
"In the document, which was exposed after Operation Shining Sun which took place in April 1988 and probably referred to that operation as well, the Komite’s advice to their leadership..."
. The context is on the MEK's activities against Iran. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)- I did see that quote, but I don't buy it, sorry. The source is not explicitly saying the MEK initiated that, and if it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly, then you should be able to find a source making it explicit without trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: Sure, you can see it in P. 5
- @Mhhossein: Can you show me where your scholarly source supports your assertion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
RfC about removing contentious content from the lede
![]() |
|
Shall we remove the following from the lede?:
"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
- Yes. Per: WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:UNDUE and WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT:
- About the first part of the sentence in question:
"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
There is only a single source that passingly mentions "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."
Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources""), this is a major/contentious and WP:UNDUE claim. Besides this passing mention, no other source has been found describing the MEK siding with Saddam Hussein in 1983.
About counter-arguments saying that the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, please note that this is already described in detail in the lede: ("In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."
)
- About the second part of the sentence in question:
"a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"
This goes against our WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT policies.
The MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country"
;[1] and that has also been described as "the largest Iranian opposition group"
.[2]
Making any contention about the MEK's popularity (within an authoritarian regime that has banned the MEK and that is running a disinformation campaign against it to,[3][4] among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”
[5]) would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede).
An actual poll to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran would be very difficult to do; as Ronen Cohen notes: "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."
[6] Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth without opposing views; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to removing this sentence. For the first part of the sentence, WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems the relevant policy for why this should not be there. For the second part of the sentence, the other sources given by Stefka (specially the one about the Iranian regime spending hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portray it as a group without popular support) should be enough to consider this inapropriate for the lead. Idealigic (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Stefka Bulgaria many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented. For example, three sources were provided for MEK's ties to Saddam pre-1986 at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_33#Different_proposal. Similarly, I provided fourteen (14) sources saying that MEK's popularity significantly declined due to its collaboration with Saddam. Here they are:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Are there reliable sources that say MEK's popularity wasn't hurt by siding with Iraq? MEK being the largest opposition group doesn't directly contradict this statement.VR talk 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- 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
- Unassessed socialism articles
- Unknown-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment