Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Deceptive Edit summary

@El C: - Kazemita, in their edit here ([1]) removed "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy", which the Reuters article supports ([2]). 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 ([3] and [4]) 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)

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[5], HuffPo[6], Council of Foreign Relations[7], The Guardian[8], teleSur [9] 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"[10]

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" ([11]), 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? ([12]) 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." ([13])

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) ([14]). 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." ([15]). I reverted ([16]) 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 ([17]). 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?!" ([18]) 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." ([19]) 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 ([20]) 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." ([21]) 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.([22]). 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 ([23]). 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 ([24] ) ([25] ). 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 - ([26]) ([27]) ( [28]) ([29]) 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 ([30]). 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 [31] for example) nor there's consensus over it. Despite the edit summary, "Vanamonde's suggestion" is not necessarily supporting this (I see it as self interpretation of the admins' comment). I am ready to talk over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Every body, please note that a long standing phrase, i.e. "built around its leaders Masoud and Maryam Rajavi", was moved from the lead without building consensus. I believe it should be there since its describing in what terms the group is a cult. I am restoring to the longstanding version. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Kazemita1 is continuing edit warring ([32]) ([33]). He revert saying that I "consented to this version of the article", but this is untrue. Barca (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@Kazemita1 - In your last reverts, ([34]) ([35]), you added to the article this material from the edit war, which is not part of the long-standing text and which you have reverted (yet again) without consensus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences

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

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

Now see what the source says for the first sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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