Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Recent edits by Kazemita1

@El C: Kazemita1 has recently made a number of edits to this article that come across as controversial (and are also backed by controversial sources). I've taken them to WP:RSN (here and here), where I'm getting feedback that they are indeed controversial sources. Is it ok to restore the long-standing version of the article and discuss the sources / statements here futher before including them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Without having looked into any of that: if you're confident your objection is substantive, then, yes. El_C 00:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no definite opinion for being un-usable source.Saff V. (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is why it requires further discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Further analysis of Kazemita1's edits

The following is a list of text I will remove from Kazemita1's recent edits. I'm also including my reasons. Feel free to comment.

• "According to Glenn Greenwald, the main reason behind America's delisting MEK from as a terrorist group is because MEK is "aligned against the prime enemy of the US and Israel - and working closely with those two nations." - This is an opinion piece.

• Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule. - Most of this is repeated already in the article, and the source is being debated at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The MEK’s repertoire of operations includes suicide bombings, airline hijackings, ambushes, crossborder raids, RPG attacks, and artillery and tank barrages." - Most of this is repeated already in the article, and the source is being debated at WP:RSN.

• "However, their use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties" - Source is being questioned at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• "According to Abbas Milani, "MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days." - Lacks context.

@El C: The title of the subsection is "Violence and Terrorism". The book is published by Stanford's Hoover Institution. The author is a Stanford professor. I do not find Stefka's objection substantive.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• "According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties. - Source is being debated at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran." - WP:UNDUE and no context.

• "Rajavi and the MEK supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and opposed the Afghan mujahedin struggling against it." - Source is being debated at WP:RSN.

• "Iran experts Flynt Leverett wrote: Since when did murdering unarmed civilians (and, in some instances, members of their families as well) on public streets in the middle of a heavily populated urban area (Tehran) not meet even the US government's own professed standard for terrorism""Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group". The Guardian. Associated Press. September 23, 2012.</ref>: - Source is being debated at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, Is Stefka Bulgaria allowed to remove material while not all of used sources by Kazemita 1 were failed in RSN (here and here). For instance, some users said that meforum would be used by care or there is no agreement to reject the reliability of cia. Saff V. (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Above I have presented the reasons why I objected each edit. I also wrote that you are welcome to address these issues so that we may build consensus over their inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Until consensus is reached, longstanding text ought to be the order of the day. Sorry, but I'm not able to evaluate how substantive objection/s (and arguments overall) are at a glance because this discussion thread is too disjointed, lacks concision, and is simply not cogent enough for me to make such a determination. Please feel free to summarize the highlights of each position below this space. El_C 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can I ask you to warn Stefka not to erase too much of this stuff in one edit?! Each sentence needs a section to discuss and it is really annoying to have all the discussions in one section?Saff V. (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You want an admin to warn me for removing contentious material from a controversial article? Right... Moving on, if you want a section to be created per each edit Kazemita made, all you have to do is create a section per each edit. Below I've started with the first controversial edit, and added my response. Feel free to do the same for any other edit you'd like to discuss. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, admin Diannaa also removed all of Kazemita1's edits per copy-right vio. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I think a new restriction is needed to prevent adding or removing too much content for every user per day (for example!).It is just a suggestion which helps us to follow discussions more carefully.Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to propose additional restrictions. If there is consensus for these, they will be enforced. El_C 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #1

• "According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.

Beyond the reliability of the source (which was still under debate), User "The Four Duces" made the following observation:

The disputed edit is ""According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." That's awkward phrasing since the claim is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. It happens to be true, so mentioning the source in text is wrong. The full sentence in the source says: "The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." It seems therefore that the remarks are taken out of context. MEK has killed civilians as collateral damage. That's a fact. Different observers may find that to be acceptable or unacceptable. After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions. You need a source that explains the general opinion of their actions, which this source does not do.

Taking the source's remarks out of contexts seems like a legitimate concern.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A solution to your concern would be to include the full quote(of course after paraphrasing):

The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.

This is crucial to include in the article since we already have conflicting sources in the article debating whether MEK targets civilians or not.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with "After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions". Our serious issue as Kazemita1 mentioned is whether MEK targets civilians or not. It is allowed to include pov of Chris Zambelis from source (Jamestown Foundation) which the reliability of it was confirmed by most of users in RSN.Saff V. (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Counting the previous WP:RSN and this WP:RSN about Jamestown foundation, the majority consensus is that a better source than this is required for contentious claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that carte blanche verdicts do not count. The way it works is that you ask about ONE source for ONE edit. As a matter of fact, in your inquiry the editors specifically asked you if you are referring to Jamestown Foundation "as a whole or just one article". To which you responded "Just that one article". So I guess you already know the rules. By the way, there is an older inquiry about Jamestown Foundation as a whole that also leans heavily towards accepting it as a reliable source.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I wonder if you give your opinion about this discussion inRSN? Is it useable in the article or as Stefka claimed the better source is needed? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. As a reliable source per se., it's probably fine, but that said, it doesn't appear to be a particularly high-quality source. As for the specific usage contested here and elsewhere — well, that's what the content dispute is about. El_C 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is already discussed and we know that there's no concern when attribution is done (see WP:RSN and this this). @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you say how you found the majority consensus in this discussion "that a better source than this is required for contentious claims", even when attribution is done? I think it's actually the reverse, and most of the comments agree that the sources can, at least, be used with proper attributions. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C:. I understand you would rather see other sources that support Jamestown Foundation's argument on civilian casualties. I am wondering if the following ones do:

• "The group primarily resorted to assassination of key Iranian politicians and coordinated terrorist attacks that sometimes included civilian casualties", Compliant Rebels: Rebel Groups and International Law in World Politics By Hyeran Jo, Cambridge University Press

• "MEK carried out a number of attacks in Iran which resulted in civilian as well as military casualties", Global security: Iran, By Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee

Essentially, do you find the above in line with what Jamestown Foundation says

MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties

Kazemita1 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The quotes in your last post refer to the 1991 uprisings, which is unrelated to this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Did you remove one of my comments from this TP? You know you can't edit other users' comments, right? Please re-insert my comment to this TP. Also, if you want to have a discussion about the MEK's tactics, then we could through a NPOV discussion (not only using your preferred choice of sourcing). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mycomments are moved to the right section and your comments are put back to where it was. I understand it if you cannot top Cambridge University Press.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of suggested sources, we can restore the edit with the attribution to Jamestown Foundation. Is there any objection?Saff V. (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed TFD's objections. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I see, his objections does not prohibit us from using the sentence in context while being attributed. By the way, can you just say why you ignored the comments by collect 1 and Blueboar 2? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said befor, It is allowed to include pov of Chris Zambelis from source (Jamestown Foundation) which the reliability of it was confirmed by most of users in RSN, why do you just emphasis on TFD's objections which solve with attribiution!Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I wonder if you leave comment for consensus assessment.Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Do I need to read all the other subsections, too? Absent these, there seems to be consensus for including the source — objection against which is not substantive enough. Unless, again, it is addressed and made substantive below. Is it? El_C 15:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, There is no need to read all the other subsections.Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #2

• "Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule."

Where this text is repeated in the article:

• "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
• "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
• "it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
• "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
• "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
• "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
• "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
• "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"
• "...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This piece from the above mentioned text is missing in the article

In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991

Kazemita1 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I still haven't heard from anyone. My concern is clear. There is no mention of MEK helping the Iraqi regime repress Kurds and Turkmen in 1991. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As it has been discussed in The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war as well as user:Stefka Bulgaria are not going to accept that Collaboration between Saddam and MEK include a lot of aspects which listed above, I agree to summarize suggested text to "In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991. and mention in the article.Saff V. (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the post below, take this to the relevant discussion about Saddam Hussain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that discussion got it’s result.Now what in the problem with inserting repression of uprising led by shia Arab, kurds and turkmens which is sourced?Saff V. (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: can I included In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991. to article while there is no opposite opinion?Saff V. (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, but your comment is needed!Saff V. (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: you're the one who authored this section, yet you're now also asking for it to be discussed elsewhere? The question above by Saff V. is about including part of a passage you, yourself, quoted here. What gives? El_C 07:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We were discussing here that the MEK's collaboration with Saddam was overly-repeated in the article, as is this quote that Saff V. is trying to include in the article (repeated here in the article):

• "In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][48]"
• " MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.[60][61]"
• " the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.[408]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not an answer to my question. Again, you authored this section. The question is about part of a passage you, yourself, quoted here, in this very subsection. So what gives? You can't launch a discussion, then at some point in time decide it should be discussed elsewhere. El_C 07:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, and won't happen again. My stance was that since we were discussing Saddam Hussain in detail in another TP discussion, then the discussion would have been better observed there. That aside, we can continue to discuss it here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless Stefka is playing the game, @El C: Are we allowed to continue the discussion here?Saff V. (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If there is no objection, consensus can be seen to be implicit per WP:SILENCE. Let's avoid characterizing other participants' editorial activity as a "game," though. El_C 13:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is my objection: this quote that Saff V. is trying to include in the article is already mentioned in the article:

• "In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][48]"
• " MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.[60][61]"
• " the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.[408]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

None of them talk about uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, "Kurds" and "Turkmens" in 1991.Saff V. (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: can I insert In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991. to article while there is no fair objection?Saff V. (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You may not. That is a copyvio of: https://jamestown.org/program/is-irans-mujahideen-e-khalq-a-threat-to-the-islamist-regime . El_C 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, how about this one In order to appreciate of Saddam’s hospitality, uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens in 1991 were repressed by MEK allied with Iraqi security guard, I reworded it.Saff V. (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that is too poorly-written and still requires a lot of proofreading. El_C 18:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #3

• According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran."

I cannot see how "brutal acts of terrorism", is undue when it comes out of a Stanford scholar who actually hates the current Iranian regime.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The MEK's terrorism and work with Saddam Hussein is already in the article. We don't need a POV statement to repeat this again. Barca (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not duplicated, which section of the article mentions to the pov of Milani about Saddam and MEK collaboration which pointe to the support of America for propaganda against the regime? @Stefka Bulgaria:would you explain why it is undue?Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The MEK's collaboration with Saddam is well-established in the article enough times. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it related to MEK's collaboration with Saddam? Honestly, it refers to propaganda sided by America!Saff V. (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It does mention Saddam Hussain, and it does seem like a POV statement. Barca (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac:You said: "The MEK's terrorism and work with Saddam Hussein is already in the article.". I might settle with Saddam's name being mentioned. But show me where MEK's terrorism is explicitly stated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's just one mention in the article which is on the IRIB's viewpoint. Milani's POV, being an independent source, should not simply be dismissed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is merely a POV statement about something that is covered in the article in much detail already. Barca (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac @Stefka Bulgaria, There is no undue weight issue or duplicated material. Saddam backing of MEK included plenty of aspect.Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collobration of Saddam and MEK? Any way your objections is not fair and couldnot convince us!Saff V. (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We already have a section in this TP discussing the trimming down of repeated material concerning Saddam Hussain's collaboration with the MEK. As discussed in that TP discussion, we can resume this collaboration without having to overtly repeat it throughout the article. Let's sort out that TP discussion first before trying to add more about Saddam's collaboration with the MEK (or simply take this there). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not bad to check them one by one. Please answer me,Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collaboration of Saddam and MEK?Saff V. (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Here we are discussing all the text related to Saddam Hussain in the article. We need to keep topics in the same section so we may compare them effectively. Please take that discussion there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war, Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collaboration of Saddam and MEK?Saff V. (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does have to do with the over-repetition of the collaboration between Saddam Hussain and the MEK throughout the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I repeat my question, (I did not ask only about the collaboration between Saddam Hussain and the MEK),Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collaboration of Saddam and MEK? Please provide the text.Saff V. (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add to the article that the US supported the MEK´s collaboration with Saddam Husain, a big big statement, then you need something better than a self-published source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Kazemita1 i wonder if you provide the source of mentioned saying of Millani?Saff V. (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement we are discussing here is actually about MEK "engaging in brutal acts of terrorism" during the Iran-Iraq war. While the collaboration with Saddam Hossein is mentioned the level of collaboration and the brutality has not. So far I have not heard any substantive objection against the inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the original text we are debating on: According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran."

@Stefka. The source has been used in the article as a reliable one. Please, let me know your objection against it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There are already several sections in the article describing the MEK's "terrorism". This one doesn't add any new event, cause, or the like, it just presents a POV ("brutal"), and we are trying to keep things here WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. As a matter of fact, I went ahead and re-read the WP:NPOV. However, in this case MEK's brutality during its cooperation with Saddam is not contested by any source. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I tried to address all concerns mentioned by Stefka and Barca such as repetitive material by trimming the original text. I also explained to Stefka that the current proposed text is not being contended by any other sources and thus coming from a neutral scholar cannot be titled as POV. After more than a week of silence and not hearing anything from them I went ahead and submitted the new text. Stefka reverted my edit here saying the material is repetitive and POV. I tried finding similar content in the article and could not. Do you find his objection substantive?--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The MEK's work with Saddam Hussain, as well as its acts of "terrorism in its early days", as well as the US's support of the MEK, are covered in the article in detail, neutrally, and by reliable sources. This quote Kazemita1 is suggesting to include is nothing more than a sweeping POV statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I said nothing of MEK's work with Saddam in the new edit. The text I am proposing is about the impact of US's support for the MEK; not the support itself.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, then, about "the impact of US support for the MEK", there is a section in the article ("View on the United States") that provides factual accounts of the US's support for the MEK (and doesn't include sweeping POV statements from either side of the fence). About the MEK's "brutal acts of terrorism" (quote from in the statement you're trying to include), there's a current section in the article called "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" that explains factual accounts through reliable sources (and, again, doesn't include sweeping POV statements from either side of the fence). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As you said the existing section is about "View on the United States" and not about "the impact of US's support of MEK". Anyways, it seems to me that you are more concerned with Abbas Milani's choice of words. While, my preference is honoring a scholar's exact wording I can compromise to a less criticizing tone.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing factual in that (POV) statement that isn't already covered in the section (in a NPOV manner). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:Your help is needed. Stefka is not honoring WP:Silence nor does he seem to agree to a compromise. (This is the edit we are discussing)Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My help is needed a lot lately! Anyway, SILENCE has to do with consensus being implied due to the absence of objections. Clearly, there is an objection here, so SILENCE no longer applies. I suggest you figure out what is or isn't being repeated and how to phrase that passage in manner whose neutrality is acceptable to both of you. El_C 14:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel you :). The problem I am facing is that nothing about the following statement is repetitive in the article and it is from an academically published book. Stefka failed to show me one example of similarity:

According to Abbas Milani MEK's brutal acts in its early days "made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran". Kazemita1 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, what is it exactly that you're trying to include with this quote? In other words, according to you, what is this quote about? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"I mean what I say and I say what I mean". I am trying to include what is shown above in bold.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Un balanced contrast

Does "many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France" have the same weight as "some conservative American politicians"? Absolutely not. Hence we can not make a strong contrast between them with "Although". On another hand, Using "Although" is not supported by NYT source which it has mentioned the contrast (without using Although) only between "many Iranians" (not many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France) and "some conservative American politicians". As a result, I reverted this edit.Saff V. (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "Scorned by many Iranians as a cult and for its long alliance with Saddam Hussein, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative for Iran’s future."

This is what I added to the article: "Although many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative to Iran.

The source is valid, and all that's been included is what the New York Times says. If you're objection is that the New York Times doesn't use the word "although", then I'll use the phrase they use, "scorned by". Also, I'm adding this source and this source, which support the NY TIMES claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You have changed the longstanding version of the article. I opened a talk page discussion here and objected your change. But you again inserted them and violated the restrictions. You are violating original research. The contrast between the opinion of the experts and the American politicians is not supported by the source. You must make a self revert now. No consensus was built and you added again.@El C: your comment is needed.Saff V. (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

[T]he group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative to Iran — again, we have part of a quote that is presented (almost in full) as original prose without quotation marks. It's a copyvio and therefore cannot stay in place. El_C 18:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for the response, I wonder if you let me revert the current version to the long-standing version which there is no consequences for the current one. In addition, I have to say, it is not the first time that he violated copyright, e.g, @Winged Blades of Godric: recently warned him for this edit.Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to address the close paraphrasing that still remained with original prose. @Saff V.: please let me know if that edit is good with you. El_C 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That MEK is considered an alternative by some is already in the lead (It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government.....It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group).

Non long-standing material is controversial and should not be included in the article until the conclusion is reached. For example,Where did this contrast shown by STILL come from? and so on.Saff V. (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: if you disagree that this deserves mentioning (I asked Mhhossein the same question below) — specifically, mention in the lead about conservative American politicians support for the MEK, then you are free to remove it and restore the longstanding text. It does surprise me somewhat, if I were perfectly honest, but that is of no consequence. El_C 23:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: I think we are GAMEd again. Please see the following:

• Stefka Bulgaria's edit
• Saff V.'s objection and his opening a TP topic
• Stefka Bulgaria's violation of the page restrictions and resisting a self revert request.

I don't know why this clear breach of the rules we agreed upon, which is not unprecedented, is ignored here but can you please restore to the longstanding version so that we can talk about the details to be included? Also see this closely related topic. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: that addition is that copyrights violation, but I overlooked those revisions, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have now revdeleted them. *** But the notion that some conservative American politicians hold this view is still something you deem to be a fact worth mentioning, right? *** As for Stefka Bulgaria, I agree that this is suboptimal and that they would probably be sanctioned already if, as mentioned in my Survey discussion, I wasn't feeling such a lack of confidence lately. But thanks for helping (and for your kind words) on that front, as well. I will address your comments there momentarily. El_C 23:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: How exactly am I "Gaming" here? As far as I can see, I added a Reliable source to the article, Saff V. complained that I had added "although" to the paraphrasing (which the quote itself didn't say), so I added "scorned by" (the exact word that the quote used), which leads me of getting accused of copy-vio. I get the copy-vio issue, and it won't happen again, but my point is that all I did was add reliable source to the article, and tried to adhere to the quote as much as possible so there wouldn't be any objections, and then I get accused of Gaming. Can you please explain? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the GAME part, but think Mhhossein is saying that you partially reverted without getting consensus on the article talk page first (which would be a violation of the restriction) — that any proposals for a compromise should have been brought here instead of being boldly applied in a manner that essentially constitutes a revert. El_C 05:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I addressed the concerns raised, the first was Saff V. saying that the source did not say "although", and then when I added what the source actually said ("scorned by"), I get accused of copy-vio and Gaming. In a different TP discussion, it took over 3 months to add a Amnesty International quote into the article which perfectly met all requirements for inclusion (as did this one), and I'm the one accused here of "Gaming". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In any case, you live and you learn; so I won't bold edit anymore (even if the added text meets all requirements and addresses all concerns raised here). If we want to keep things fair, though, then other editors should not be allowed to bold-edit either, and there's been a lot of that going on lately in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're missing my point. It wasn't merely a bold edit, it was a partial revert, which perhaps represents a bold compromise. But it wasn't merely a bold new addition, per se. El_C 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: but didn't I address the concerns raised (to the letter)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. What exactly are you referring to? Maybe add the diffs, as well. El_C 05:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for attention, It is better to pick up some conservative American politicians and change the article to longstanding version, then continue the discussion on inserting again into the article or not.Saff V. (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I revert the current version to this long-standing version?Saff V. (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am in favor of reverting the recent additions to the lead so that we can discuss things on the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you can edit it as you see fit — I see you already removed it, so this is moot. But again, I'm a bit surprised. The contrast of having the US govt. deem the MEK as a cult, while at the same time have such high-profile (mostly but not only) conservative figures speak on its behalf — what issue do you take with that contrast being mentioned in the lead? Neither of you really explained. Should I even be allowed to ask that question is something that I'm going to raise in the Survey section. El_C 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I think WP:EDITORIALIZING is explaining it well. There should not be a synthetic contrast or there would be the violation of OR. Are there any sources clearly demonstrating "the contrast of having the US govt. deem the MEK as a cult, while at the same time have such high-profile (mostly but not only) conservative figures speak on its behalf"? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. But the contrast need not be expressed as such. These are simply two facts —two facets— that, together, relate to the somewhat inconsistent American approach the MEK. We can express it as a contrast here, on the article talk page (where we have some leeway with respect to original research), but in the lead itself, we can divide the two into separate components. Which the body is already doing, anyway. Let the readers draw their own conclusion. Are we not therefore failing to inform our readership by limiting ourselves to just one of these facets in the lead? What do you think? El_C 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite what Mhhossein mentioned, there is seen verification issues. From BBC SOURCE, It (Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group is the saying of Ex-MEK member Eduard Termado. I don't think it would be reliable. From cnsnews, authors don't support by it, unless we are going to refer to Title of the news (A Viable Democratic Alternative to the Iranian Regime)!amazing!Saff V. (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so. It is said in wikivoice BBCvoice and isn't attributed to any one person in particular. El_C 03:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Got your point, a good step forward. I'm against "limiting ourselves to just one of these facets in the lead."--Mhhossein ^talk 08:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I repeat again that 'authors' is not supported by cnsnews, unless we are going to refer to Title of the news (A Viable Democratic Alternative to the Iranian Regime)!Saff V. (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Saff V.. sure, if authors is not attributed to anything at all, it can be removed. Mhhossein, I'm glad. Indeed, this is a step forward. I realize I haven't taken a side on content disputes that much when it comes to this article, but on this point, I do think it's important to show the inconsistency of American approach toward the MEK. Again, just so we're perfectly clear, as far as this particular dispute is concerned, I am just a regular editor and my aforementioned view ought to hold no special deciding weight whatsoever. There seems to be unanimous consensus so far among participants in the Survey section (which I still consider unresolved) for me to continue to enforce the article restrictions intensively, but it obviously would not extend to this (Contrast) dispute. Sorry for the length of this note! El_C 16:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "synthetic contrast" or original research in that addition. The source makes this comparison between "cult" and support by "American politicians" ("Scorned by many Iranians as a cult and for its long alliance with Saddam Hussein, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative for Iran’s future."). @El C: - what's the exact problem with including this in the lead section? Barca (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, so I'm not sure you're asking the right person. I'm just looking for a compromise everyone can live with. El_C 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason there is objection against including this piece is because many of that the so-called conservative American politicians who support MEK are either getting paid by MEK, or are pro regime-change in Iran and thus are biased in their statements. I am sure there is a way to add that piece once we explain the background info on those politicians. Kazemita1 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would their bias (or lack thereof) be an issue, though? Sure, more context doesn't hurt, so long as it is concise, but the article ought to just present the facts. El_C 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - The source doesn't say that these politicians were paid, or that they were not paid, it just says that it received support from American politicians. It also makes a connection to the cult information, and is also a publication by the New York Times, so I don't see that as a valid reason to remove it. Sombody else have a better reason for why this was deleted from the article? Barca (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• We need to be very careful about using words like "but" and "however" to connect statements describing support/opposition, because criticism from Iranians and support from US politicians have nothing to do with each other, a priori. It's generally better to separate those statements. Also; we need to beware false balance; every statement about criticism doesn't have to be balanced with one about support, and vice versa; what matters is how often reliable sources discuss a given position. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vandermonde: I second that. The sentences should be separate. @El_C: I agree with you that the article ought to present facts. As an example we can concisely state facts about politicians in support of MEK, such as this: "Some supporters are paid, others see the MEK through the prism of Iran - they will just support anything that offers hope of change there. Many are well motivated but some are naive.".Kazemita1 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We are not making that connection, the New York Times is. If we decide not to make that connection ourselves, then that's a different thing I think. What the New York Times says with certainty is that the MEK has been promoted by American politicians, so why not add this in the article? Barca (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not against to back Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group to the article but as result of discussing, the removed sentence (:Still, support from a number of conservative American politicians, authors, and international policy makers has also been extended to the MEK, as an organization that could become "a democratic alternative to Iran ) should be edited, at the first "authors" is not supported by cited source and have to be removed. What about other results of discussing? Feel free to mention here. Saff V. (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: your objection that {{|tq|"so-called conservative American politicians who support MEK are either getting paid by MEK, or are pro regime-change in Iran"|}} does not seem to be a good reason to remove a reliable source from the article. We can have a discussion about the MEK paying for political support, but this does not change the statement by the New York Times. Can you please elaborate? Barca (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in this edit, we can state both facts together in the form of separate sentences. First fact is that some conservative American politicians are supporting MEK. The second fact is that those politicians are either paid or are pro-regime change.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this suggestion. We need to stay away from adding things which are not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: I understand that you want to separate the sentences, but that is not my question. My question is why did you remove the sources from the article when you could have just separated the sentences? Barca (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Kazemita removed ([1]) from the article "Still, support from a number of conservative American politicians, authors, and international policy makers has also been extended to the MEK, as an organization that could become "a democratic alternative to Iran." His explanation for the removal was that you said that "what should be in place while this is being discussed is the longstanding text, which I presume constitutes removal"([2]). I still don't understand. Was that information removed because it was being discussed in this talk page? Is that grounds to remove information without first providing a logical reason for removing it? Since Kazemita used your quote as the justification for the removal, I need to ask you. Thank you. Barca (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I wasn't the one who removed it. Nor can I control who quotes me and in what capacity. You need to ask the person who submitted the edit for their (substantive) reasoning. El_C 18:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive Edit summary

@El C: - Kazemita, in their edit here ([3]) removed "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy", which the Reuters article supports ([4]). Kazemita1 did not say anything in their edit summary about removing this sourced material. Isn't this a deceptive edit summary? Barca (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: they're claiming to be going back to the longstanding text. But at any case it is a quote, yet it was placed in the body without quotation mark (i.e. as original prose), which is a copyrights violation — so it cannot be restored, regardless. As an aside, I also notice that note 435 and 436, where this viable alternative quote is also mentioned, are duplicated. El_C 16:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: can I just use paraphrasing and quotes to insert this text back into the article? Also, isn't Kazemita1's edit summary deceptive nonetheless? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I have mentioned in my edit summary there are many things wrong with Barca's edit. To begin with, he replaced the analysts's view on MEK not having support in Iran with "other sources say". Furthermore, he has re-written the section such that a single quote in favor of MEK is preferred to plethora of sources stating MEK's lack of support in Iran. . In simple words he is promoting a minority view to a majority view which is against WP:UNDUE. So to get back to Stefka's question, no paraphrasing is not the only issue with his edit.Kazemita1 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

References

@BarcrMac: or @Stefka Bulgaria: or @Kazemita1: can you point me to when that copyvio was inserted so that I can revdelete it. Sorry for the multi-ping, but I forgot about this and would rather attend to it sooner rather than later. El_C 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC) @El C:.

It has not been reinserted as there were multiple objections against its inclusion beyond copyvio.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

But do you know when it was originally inserted before it was removed? El_C 04:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C:Yes, here it is.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. El_C 14:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: In these two edits ([5] and [6]) you put back in the article that "UNHCR, HRW and the governments of France have described it as a cult", but your edit summaries do not say where this is supported. Can you please elaborate? Barca (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

See discussions here about objections against the change made by Stefka and compare my text with the long-standing version. Also, by all means, feel free to contribute to that discussion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am also having a hard time understanding this revert. Kazemita1, in a few words, can you explain why you reverted this? Ypatch (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barca @Ypatch: I am sorry my edit summary was not clear to you. However, bear in mind that you guys were not involved as much in the discussions back then. If you had, you would know I am reverting to the long-standing version due to objections made by other users involved in the discussion. Anyways, I went ahead and reviewed the text just now; I added sources for France government and HRW claims and removed UNHCR assertion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Where in the HRW document does it say the MEK is a "cult"? Ypatch (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry to bother you. Here is a piece by Human Rights Watch:

"The MKO’s leadership consists of the husband and wife team of Masoud and Maryam Rajavi. Their marriage in 1985 was hailed by the organization as the beginning of a permanent “ideological revolution.” Various phases of this “revolution” include: divorce by decree of married couples, regular writings of self-criticism reports, renunciation of sexuality, and absolute mental and physical dedication to the leadership. The level of devotion expected of members was in stark display in 2003 when the French police arrested Maryam Rajavi in Paris. In protest, ten MKO members and sympathizers set themselves on fire in various European cities; two of them subsequently died."

Would you say the above piece supports the following assertion: "HRW described MEK as a cult built around its leaders" ?Kazemita1 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The excerpt certainly does not say so outright. As for whether the description alone supports the statement — that is a content question I'd rather not involve myself further in. But I did close your blockquote! El_C 11:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the blockquote fix! Where would be a right place to ask for third opinion regarding this issue?--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion would be my immediate suggestion! El_C 17:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A note on copyvio

Rather than respond at disparate sections, I'm just going to make a statement here. By accident, I have discovered two instances of copyvio in the article yesterday, which is alarming to me. Additionally, as mentioned elsewhere, there is too much close paraphrasing — likely in the expressed efforts to address the copyvios, themselves. That is not the way to do it. Original prose is needed.

If you see a copyvio anywhere on Wikipedia, please remove it immediately. Do not restore it, ever (no, not even for 5 minutes, @Stefka Bulgaria:), and report it to an admin so that it can be revdeleted.

Please note that this imperative totally supersedes anything to do with the restrictions that are placed on this article (the restrictions I devised with the consent of participants here and which later morphed into the Post-1978 Iranian politics General sanctions), or any other article on Wikipedia, for that matter. There ought to be zero compromise in this regard.

Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone going to fix and put back the copy righted information that has been removed? Barca (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. Anyone is free to write original prose to supplant the copyvio content that was removed. Whether those prospective additions end up being retained, removed or otherwise modified is also anyone's guess. El_C 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick survey about my unique role here

I want to be upfront. I've just edited the article (to address close paraphrasing, but still), which makes my position here in terms of WP:INVOLVED even more tenuous than before. I have been devoting a lot of time, effectively settling disputes (as well as referring participants to other avenues of dispute resolution). So my multipart question is: how am I doing? Have I made mistakes that give you pause? Should this formula continue or has another arrangement become due? El_C 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You are doing great body.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your role and activity is definitely effective and useful, but I am going to ask what is the difference between me and Kazemita1 with Stefka? You immediately treated with us and imposed the restriction while Stefka with violation following cases, just got advice! Let's see that,

• Copy right violations 1, 2
• Not waiting for reaching to the consequence and edit the article, he reverted the edit you let me do it,or clear example of it is removing longstanding material (1, 2)
• Divert arguments by playing the game which you advised him for this behavior 1, 2
• Using deceptive edit summary over and over.Saff V. (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid input. I wouldn't say that warnings counts as merely advise, but point taken. The answer is that all your diffs are from late October, whereas the last restriction I applied to someone was in September, which I should note was not a block. The truth is that, as much as I try to be even-handed, due to my increasing lack of confidence in my role here, especially lately, my finger has been very light on the trigger, in general, toward everyone. That is, in part, why I am seeking further input. Because I have reached the point of doubt. El_C 14:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: I was involved in editing the page long before you come here so I think my evaluation would be a good indication of the developments we had been experiencing here. I think you did great; your presence have restored the peace to the page. This page had sometime been challenging (I think you are already aware that in the past this page had been the target of socks seeking to promote MEK's agenda. Their farm was discovered). Anyway, things are good now. Stefka Bulgaria's moving to other pages (see his edits in Khomeini for instance) tells me the restrictions and your taking care of things had been effective. Last, but not the least, if there's something to be governed here as a rule, it should be even to every body (I'm not going to list the Stefka Bulgaria's violations here, but I think he is lucky enough for not receiving admin action). The only problem with this way of handling things, I mean having an admin watching the edits and commenting on the disputes, is that the process would be very time consuming for the admin, specially if the users don't understand that they would better ping the admin when ever enough comments substantiating/questioning the positions are exchanged. My overall evaluation is that you did good, many thanks for putting time on this.

As for making edits, like what you did for removing the close paraphrasing issue, why not asking the involved users to ta take care of things themselves? They (including me) should learn to discuss and edit without you while they feel your presence all the time. We should learn to make it easy for you to follow the comments; long and confusing threads would be very energy consuming, I believe. -Mhhossein ^talk 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: thanks for the kind words, they are much appreciated. Yes, the MEK article disputes are demanding, but I'm happy to help. The constant and chronic edit warring resulting in the article being protected for weeks at a time, was not sustainable. As I already mentioned to you last week, I just want to make sure that I have the consent, and outright support, of, well, pretty much all participants. If even one person objects, then I'm not sure I'd be able to continue my role here. That's why I'm bringing it up. I want it to be crystal clear. I'm not fishing for compliments, though those are always nice! Not be paranoid, but for me, there's also safeguarding myself from misrepresentations that I abuse my authority here in any way. As for my rewriting that copyvio sentence, you're right I should not have touched the article — I guess my instinct was to fix rather than redact. But, indeed, it was probably the wrong call. El_C 23:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. I don't know about others, but I told you my words. I had the same idea even when you commented against my objections. I know you are putting time on this. Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for your work and maybe because of the sensitivity of this page I can understand your suspicion. But your doubt has been given more allowance to Stefka do more wrong edits, We just two days ago found out the edit which Stefka did on 20 October has copyright violation. If you blocked him on 20 October he did not bring another material with copyright issue on 24 October (after 3 days). and on 31 October he violated copyright on this edit of Khomeini's page. It is the outcome of your doubt. Maybe there was another violation in his edits and we didn't see because of his mass edit (bringing mass material into the article). It violated being even-handed, the restriction imposed for me and Kazemita but Stefka just gets the warning. @El C: any way, without your presence we would not have been able to bring the article to this level of progress.Saff V. (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, MY tone was not soft, but it is hard to me as someone who was affected by the restriction, to see others with lots of violations and no one does not enforce laws for them.Anyway, Thanks for attention.Saff V. (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My problem is that the more I become involved in the article, the more I feel I am becoming WP:INVOLVED. The more I am asked to weigh on the nuances of whether certain content facets and objections have been substantiated, the more I feel doubt in my role here. That this doubt had become more acute lately and as a result has affected enforcement of some versus others, well, that is just pure chance. Anyway, the thought has occurred to me more than once to abandon my role here and to either withdraw from the article or to join it as a regular editor, with the authority to enforce restrictions explicitly revoked. That is why I am facilitating this discussion. Note that I am unlikely to do anything admin-related on this page in the immediate sense (aside from obvious emergencies like redacting and revdeleting copyvios) until this discussion clarifies where things stand. As mentioned, the restrictions I originally helped to devise with the consent of participants here, and which have later morphed into the overarching Post-1978 Iranian politics General sanctions — these may be enforced by any admin. Should it still be me? That is the question I pose. El_C 17:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As a followup: the more I make comments such as this on the article talk page, the more I feel my position becoming increasingly untenable. The question I pose is: A. How vital is it to have this highly-contentious article, effectively, moderated?; and B. How vital is it that that person would be me? El_C 21:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's face it. There is a single reason why this article is contentious. It is because of the current political situation and I am not getting into details of that statement to avoid commenting on users. That being said, so long as the political contention exists, so will the contention on the article. As a result, we need a moderating force. Given your experience with the users involved I highly suggest that you stay on top of this issue. --Kazemita1 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kazemita1, He is right on both answers.Saff V. (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C - I think you're help here as an admin is needed. That being said, I don't see why you could not get involved as an editor while you are also involved as an admin. Maybe there is a guideline where these two things should not be mixed up? I don't know. In general, what I have seen in this talk page is that walls of text are some times thrown at you, which some times diverts from resolving the points in discussion. I have also noticed that the page's restrictions are some times applied for some editors or circumstances, and not for others (for example, this recent edit by Kazemita [7], which they have removed without any explanation on this talk page). My advice would be that we keep talk page discussions short and to the point, and that the page's restrictions apply all the time and for everyone (and not loosely, as they appear to be at the moment). I think these two points, if enforced properly, would solve a lot here. Finally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with you editing the article while acting as an enforcing admin. To respond to your questions, I think it's vital to have an admin moderate this article, and I think you have been doing a good job here in general, but if we enforced WP:BLUDGEON and the page's restrictions more firmly from now on, then we could better benefit from your help. Barca (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Barca, the guide is WP:INVOLVED, but I am following the advise given in Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide/Dealing_with_disputes#Definition_of_uninvolved. In its exception, it states: If there is any doubt about whether or not you are uninvolved, but for some reason you think that you, as an admin, are the best person available (perhaps if the participants have invited you to intervene), it is best to openly declare your intentions on the article talkpage, and get a formal "signoff" from the participants. El_C 16:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Hi , Regarding your recent question about Admin role, you have a difficult job and you are doing fine. Editors who write in favor of the government in Iran have their own agenda, but this page is about the opposition. The difficult part is to see the fake publications. The government in Iran spends huge amount of money creating fake news and this makes judgment difficult. Your question about your role shows your sense of responsibility and I appreciate that. Please keep on going. Please remember the disputes have their roots in Iran and in the war between the government and the people, everything would finally be resolved there. Thanks for your endeavors in making this page more readable and truthful for the many readers who follow the events on Wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• @El C:. Hi. I do not know if this edit by Alex-h counts as personal attack, but I can tell you that as a person who edits here voluntarily, I am certainly offended by it. Just to give you an idea, not all Iranians who despise of MEK's past are pro-government.Kazemita1 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a personal attack. They don't have to represent the reality in their assessment. A reality which consists of the following: there are those who oppose the Islamic government in Iran and who also oppose the MEK. Those people also exist alongside those who support one but oppose the other. I doubt there are (m)any who support both, though. At any case, both sides have significant resources which they use to advance their own position and diminish that of their opponent. That is an indisputable fact. But, in the dispute between the two, someone who opposes any one of these sides at any given time may erroneously be conflated with supporting the other, which in many instances would, indeed, be a false conclusion. El_C 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Alex-h: MEK is known for its Propaganda campaign and we don't know how many "Heshmat Alavi"s or "online soldiers" are working for the group. Who knows? maybe they have also hired Wikieditors to promote their agenda (a sock farm pushing the POV of MEK was discovered, did you know?). That is why the editors need to be careful about the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein:Thanks for that veiled accusation, it's not the first time you've made accusations of sockpuppetry here, but just so there are no misunderstandings on that, no, I'm not a sockpuppet of the MEK. As a matter of fact, I stopped editing this article a long time ago because the way you and Saff V. (and more recently, Kazemita) persistently prevent certain information from being included in the article while having no problem including all kinds of Islamic Republic propaganda to it. Also so there are no misunderstandings, I'm not accusing you or anyone of being an Islamic Republic sockpuppet, but you lot have made it almost impossible for other editors to edit this article with some degree of neutrality, and that's the reason I stopped editing here.Alex-h (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's no accusation and please stop making harassing comments. I tried to shed light on the MEK's efforts as a part of its Propaganda campaign. By the way, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK (People's Mujahedin)." --Mhhossein ^talk 20:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: I'm not sure what your intentions are bringing here a comment from a dismissed SPI case you yourself filed a year ago. But if you're going to hint that there is sockpupettry here at this time, you need to take that back to WP:SPI, just like it was done for User:Expectant of Light, an editor you closely contributed with here and ardently defended, even though was blocked for admitted to sock-puppetry and Ad hominem. Alex-h (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: I do understand your feeling and I was afraid of having you reach this point of uncertainty. For this, I blame the editors who kept pinging you for every single issue, which had to be in fact resolved by mutual discussions between the editors. But, I think this is you who should chose your role from now on. We agreed upon a the restriction and we need some one to enforce it; I think, now that you have dealt with the editors and the article, there would be no choice better than you for dealing with the disputes. So, I suggest you to keep on the admin job and let the editors grow! This is my suggestion for today, I don't know if tomorrow things would be the same. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The violation of EmilCioran1195

It seems that EmilCioran1195 violated the restriction of the page, at first he added the group's ideology to the infobox, it was reverted by me, then he reverted it for the second time.@El C: I wonder if you check the situation.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

please refer to me what "violation" of any "restriction" (policy?) I have made. Secondly, explain why the BBC is wrong/inappropriate in applying the designation cited. Best regards, - EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

additional sources: New York Review of Books[8], HuffPo[9], Council of Foreign Relations[10], The Guardian[11], teleSur [12] EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ervand Abramanian, The Iranian Mojahedin, (Page 145)

Sussan Siavoshi, Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah, (p. 80): "In 1975, a group [MeK} within the organization rejected religion and declared themselves Marxist-Leninists". 2017, Cambridge University Press. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Baktiari, Bahman. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies; Villanova, Pa. Vol. 13, Iss. 1, (Fall 1989). The leftist challenge: The mojahedin-e khalq and the tudeh party. "The Mojahedin wanted the Islamic Revolution to help them establish an egalitarian society through the fusion of Marxism and Islam"[13]

The page restrictions are the top of the page. Please adhere to them. That said, I have always tried to subscribe to the notion that reverting due solely to "no consensus" is a problem. That is why I keep asking for substantive objections. El_C 17:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

EmilCioran1195, the MEK's ideology has changed through the years, see Ideology, a section that consists of many sources. Also in another BBC article, "Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular; from socialist to capitalist; from pro-Iranian-revolution to anti-Iranian-revolution; from pro-Saddam to pro-American; from violent to peaceful." So please do not include this without a talk page discussion first. Alex-h (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The case is not that simple. See Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 7#Marxism as ideology. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

EmilCioran1195 - you have ignored the comments here. The MEK ideology is not a simple case, so will remove for now until this is better determined. Barca (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

@EmilCioran1195:, why did you pick up well-sourced material just by mentioning "restore more neutral POV", please provide the substantive objections that admin reminded you! Saff V. (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong assertion

Barca made an assertion here that following checking the source appears to be wrong. Here is what the source says:

The Mujahidin have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence. Violence as a means, according to Rajavi was imposed on the organization only when Khomeini denied it every legitimate means of political activity. "Violence, bombing, and terror could not resolve Iran's problems, but it is Khomeini's terrorism that has pushed our people to armed resistance"

Despite Barca's edit, the source does not -in any way- relate establishing National Council of Resistance of Iran to Mujahidin's "demonstration" of reluctance to resort to violence. @El C: Such careless editing shall not be tolerated in a sensitive article like this.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you pinged me. If you disagree with the edit, revert it and discuss it here with the other party. El_C 05:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - you pointed out that the source says "The Mujahidin have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence. What I added was "even though it made a point to show they were reluctant to violence." Why is the wrong for you? Barca (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Kazemita1, dial it down, please; the content you removed here does seem to be supported by the source. The only issue is that the rest of that sentence isn't; but that wasn't added by Barca, was it? Barca, when you add sources to the middle of a paragraph, you need to be careful not to break the connection between the content that already existed and sources that may have been supporting it; in this case, it would seem that the Ostovar source was being used for that sentence, but that was no longer clear after your addition. The way to fix that is to duplicate sources when necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, Ok, but I checked the Ostovar source and it does not say anything about the MEK "continuing to conduct violent attacks in Iran". I don't know who added that, but because it's not represented by the source, it should be removed. Also if you agree that what Kazemita removed was represented by the source, then I will add it back to the article. Thank you for your input. Barca (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: The trouble is that the source you added is good for the content which you added, but the way you stuck it in the middle of a sentence made it look like the source was for the whole sentence when it wasn't. I don't care how you address that problem, but you need to address it; in general, in a contentious article, a footnote (or a set of them) should support the entire span of text that is between it and the previous footnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barac:"continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years" is in Ostovar source page 73 in the last paragraph. I am surprised you missed it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal by Kazemita1

Kazemita1, the Guardian article says "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes" ([14]), for this reason I added that "Critics of the group in recent years (such as experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW, and the governments of the United States and France ) describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes.". What I added is represented by the source. Why did you remove it? ([15]) Barca (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You could fix it by making it look like the Guardian source. Precisely speaking, you can change the part that says "Those who criticize the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"" to "Those who criticize the group and many who quit from the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"". --Kazemita1 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I did fix it to read like the Guardian source. Why did you revert it? Barca (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You did not. You mixed up sentences and sources together. Vandermonde had explained to you that you should be careful with this.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93: Kazemita reverted my edit saying that I'm mixing up sentences, but my intention is to expand an existing sentence in the article with a source from Guardian (the Guardian article is talking about the same thing as the claim I edited):

Source from Guardian:

"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules." ([16])

The claim I edited:

"Critics of the group in recent years (such as experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW, and the governments of the United States and France ) describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes.".

Is this not a valid edit? Here is the edit that was reverted by Kazemita (I had removed some info at the bottom by mistake which is unrelated to this edit) ([17]). Thanks. Barca (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: your proposed wording is far too close to the source, and borders on a copyright violation. As I've explained on this page previously, both people who add content and those who object to it need to be better about finding paraphrasing that doesn't alter the meaning of the source, while being sufficiently removed from the specific phrasing. Even stylistically, the sentence is poor; the bit about lack of support outside Iran probably belongs elsewhere in the article, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Not in the source and too many reverts

@Kazemita1: you put the article that "Many famous pro-MEK politicians have declared receiving money from the group." ([18]). I reverted ([19]) putting in the edit summary that the BBC article does not say the MEK paid the politicians (which is what you have added to the article). The BBC article says that "Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes.", so this is not the same as the MEK paying them. You still put this back in the article ([20]). This you should have discussed here first because the article has revert restrictions, and also what you are adding is not represented by the source. Barca (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who else would have paid those politicians for speaking pro MEK?! Here is another quote from the source to prove the point:

"Some supporters are paid, others see the MEK through the prism of Iran - they will just support anything that offers hope of change there. Many are well motivated but some are naive."

Anyways, I found two other sources (independent.co.uk and the guardian) that explicitly state MEK paying former American politicians:

the MEK continues to pay former U.S. officials for their time

the MeK, which operates under a set of front groups, writes very large cheques to those speaking at their events. Estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per speech. Bolton is estimated to have received upwards of $180,000 to speak at multiple events for MeK. His recent financial disclosure shows that he was paid $40,000 for one speech at an MeK event last year.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Last but not least, another confirmation in WP:RSN here that the BBC source does say who pays the pro-MEK politicians.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 - The Guardian sources you have provided do not say that "Many famous pro-MEK politicians have declared receiving money from the group" (neither does the WP:RSN discussion here). Your conclusion "Who else would have paid those politicians for speaking pro MEK?!" ([21]) is original research. There is also the dispute that not all of those who speak on behalf of the MEK get paid. This is a sensitive claim, and this one sentence in the lead is POV. Will rewrite to what the source claims and put this in the body where it can be given some context. Thank you. Barca (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

In my inquiry in WP:RSN I specifically asked the contributors to comment on my edit (that you are disputing). Since their verdict is on my side, I suggest you continue the discussion with them on this topic as I am starting to doubt your English skills. (assuming good faith that is)Kazemita1 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

But the "verdict" is no "on your side" at WP:RSN. The BBC source say "Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes. But then many other prominent MEK supporters act without payment." ([22]) So, some get paid, some don't, and it is not clear if payment always comes from MEK, or MEK supporters, etc. If we are to add this, then it should start in the body where it can be explained. I suggest you add this there in a neutral way (saying that some get paid, but some do not). Barca (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I suggest you discuss it with the un-involved contributors in WP:RSN. My inquiry is clear and so is the verdict. You can also consult an English-speaking editor as it seems you are having difficulty reading English text.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody at WP:RSN said you should include this in the lead of the article and revert like you did here ([23]) removing the neutrality. The information has been added and with some neutrality, so please stop reverting making it un-neutral. Barca (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Brother, in WP:RSN they commented on my edit in which I had added the content in the lead..--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Kazemita1, if you want to find other sources for this claim, it's fine; but the BBC source is only good enough for saying that the politicians get paid, not for saying that the MEK pays them. That conclusion is original research, if based solely on the BBC source. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:Even though BBC does say MEK pays those politicians (as confirmed here in the reliable source noticeboard) here are two other sources that support the claim that MEK pays politicians:

the MEK continues to pay former U.S. officials for their time

the MeK, which operates under a set of front groups, writes very large cheques to those speaking at their events. Estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per speech. Bolton is estimated to have received upwards of $180,000 to speak at multiple events for MeK. His recent financial disclosure shows that he was paid $40,000 for one speech at an MeK event last year.

Please, kindly let me know if you are still not convinced the claim passes verifiability threshold. Kazemita1 (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those sources support the content in question. You need to reach consensus on whether they constitute due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

do self revert

@EmilCioran1195: please do self revert the edit which is not verified by any sources and admin reverted it.Saff V. (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Me being an admin should have no bearing on reverting the unsourced addition by the IP, which was restored by EmilCioran1195 in violation of this article's restriction, and using an automated edit summary only. But I get the sense that EmilCioran1195 is heading toward a topic or at least an article ban, if they continue to be that unresponsive. My involved opinion is that EmilCioran1195's revert may be re-reverted by anyone (although I'm not going to do so), and that, if they revert again, I will ask another admin to apply the IRANPOL restrictions to them, which seem due, anyway. El_C 17:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Info is sourced (even though it really doesn't need to be). A quick Google Books or Google Scholar search will reveal longstanding Soviet support for the MeK over several decades. Why on earth would you want to deny/hide this? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Source it, then — do not restore the unsourced content and do not refer us to google. And definitely do not cast aspersions. El_C 05:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned in practically every source cited in the bibliography. Why delete it, if you know it is correct? Or, if you don't know if it's correct or not, why not carry out the 60 seconds of research required to verify it's correct, before deleting it?

Is that how Wikipedia works? You delete everything whether you know it's correct or not?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with regards to "casting aspersions". Bizarre. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Too many bad faith assumptions on your part, EmilCioran1195. Why on earth would you want to deny/hide this? — is casting aspersions. I do not want to deny or hide anything. I want that items to be sourced, like every-other-item-alongside-it. What is bizarre is that you failed to do so the first time.

Is that how Wikipedia works? You delete everything whether you know it's correct or not? — I did not know it was correct. I did know it was unsourced. Thank you for finally sourcing it. But you should have done it after I instructed the IP against introducing unsourced items, instead of reverting the addition without a source. That reflected poorly on you. El_C 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your edit summary here: Soviet support for MeK over the decades is so well documented and such common knowledge that I am surprised El C deleted it twice from the infobox. source added. First, that is factually incorrect I removed (not deleted) the addition one time, not twice. Second, it may be common knowledge to people from Iran, but I'm not from Iran. El_C 08:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please pay attention to this, the page is under IRANPOL restrictions which demanded the involved user is not allowed to revert the reverted edit until the consequence will be gained. it was the first point. Secondly, As WP:UNSOURCED asked, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. It is your responsibility to prepare RSes for cited material, All in all, please revert your edit or support it by inerting other sources, not academia.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on "seemed"

Kazemita1 - You added this "but it "seemed" as part of an MEK campaign including a bombing in Qom following the assassination of the governor of Evin prison, the killing of IRP radical Hasan Ayat and an assassination attempt on Ali Khamenei was presenting the speech at Abuzar Mosque." ([24]) This problematical because you are giving too much emphasis in a contentious article on something that "seemed", but was not confirmed. Barca (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Katzman makes an assertion that there has been speculation within academics, and Abrahamian makes makes an assertion that "the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular", so it's not the same. You are also repeatedly reaching your own consensus and reverting, I think you were warned not to do this.([25]). Barca (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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

The long-standing version does not include this text, so you should not revert as you did ([26]). I don't know what you mean about "the second piece". Restoring to the long-standing version because this gives too much emphasis in a contentious article on something that "seemed", but was not confirmed. Barca (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Kazemita1 - you are continuing to add this without reaching any agreement here first ([27] ) ([28] ). You first said that this should be in the article because it belonged to the long-standing text, and then when you see this is not so, you add the text in the article on your own decision even though this is still being discussed here. I am in agreement that the article should not be bloated, specially with guesses that don't really mean anything else besides a guess. Barca (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Apology & inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article size and organization

As I've said before, I don't intend to get INVOLVED with respect to content here; but I think I need to make a few obvious general points. First, the article is way too long. 50kb of prose is a good target; 60-70kb is not a disaster; 106kb is indicative of a serious need for pruning and/or spinning off subsidiary articles. Second, it's an organizational nightmare. The ideology section, for instance, has so many overlapping sections ("current" overlaps with "after the revolution", and the three topic-specific sections overlap with each of the earlier ones). The "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception". Scholarly perception should form the basis for the entire article, and should not normally have a section to itself unless there's enough material to actually write about the historiography of the MEK (I see no evidence for that at present). I could go on; but the basis of the problem is that supporters and detractors alike have just stuffed this full of "X said Y about the MEK", which doesn't make for a coherent narrative at all. At the risk of sounding cynical, a lack of clarity in the prose doesn't help either POV, so the lot of you ought to be working on this issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to clean up some overlapping sections. Barca (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy right violation

It seems that the article suffer from copy vio. While I picked up copied material form this source, I wonder if you take a look at them. Regards!--Saff V. (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Why extrajudicial killings

The 1988 execution has been described as extrajudicial killings while it was done based of order of Khomeini, the highest political positions in Iran and according to this source the fatwa was performed by a three-man committee be established, comprising a Shari’a judge, the prosecutor general or his assistant prosecutor, and a representative from the ministry of intelligence in each province.Any idea? Saff V. (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass reverts by Kazemita1

Kazemita1 - you are continuing mass reverting many edits in the article, even without respecting the long-standing text or giving any reasoning - ([29]) ([30]) ( [31]) ([32]) etc. @El C: this is allowed ? Barca (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with particular reverts, you can always revert back. Please provide substantive explanations of why you did so, here, on the article talk page. El_C 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: I see most of your recent edits, which ignited the recent edit edit wars, to be clear violation of recent restrictions. Note that you need to build consensus when making challenging edits. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 did not respect some of the long-standing text, even though I tried to discuss some of these points with him here. Now an IP has restored Kazemita1's edits which are not the long-standing text in the article ([33]). I will adhere to the long-standing version of the article, and we can discuss here the points that Kazemita1 is edit-warring about.

For example, I will remove this "According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance". because of Vanamonde's point about Article size and organization "full of "X said Y about the MEK", which doesn't make for a coherent narrative at all."

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

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

Also the sentence "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members" is descriptive of what Rajavi's book is about, which Kazemita1 removed. The description of the book seems relative to this article.

Barca (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, it is the obvious violation of the page's restriction. The later edits of Barca included disputed material belongs to edit war, He just mentioned his opinion and with any consequences edited the article (1, 2, 3,4), actually, revert edits!Please leave a comment, Thanks!--Saff V. (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

For choosing to perpetuate the edit war (revert revert of revert) BarcrMac is also blocked for 60 hours. El_C 14:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No source

@BarcrMac: Please support your edit by inserting RS, Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and longstanding text

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

Example:

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

<Up to now, this is allowed>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm restoring one of the changes to the longstanding version. This change (which was repeated here) is not supported by the sources (see [34] for example) nor there's consensus over it. Despite the edit summary, "Vanamonde's suggestion" is not necessarily supporting this (I see it as self interpretation of the admins' comment). I am ready to talk over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Kazemita1 is continuing edit warring ([35]) ([36]). He revert saying that I "consented to this version of the article", but this is untrue. Barca (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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