Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Cherry picking

June

There is no doubt that Human rights reports or Amnesty are tertiary sources at best, but they are usually the collective work of several volunteers writing these reports based on "he said, she said" of various political activists. So the attributed statements for these sources are needed. In the other hands, the HRW report largely talks about "Huge Spike in Executions in Iran", while it was used to cite a minor passage just about MEK Or two specific persons, That is called cherry picking and is a kind of misrepresentation of the source.

Also,I have to note that Stefka wrote a statement with significant POV issue into the article "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process". Please pay attention that material about Kazemi or Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh includes cherry picking problem and undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I find this recent revert by Saff V. to be tendentious as there was no "Cherrypicking" or "misrepresentation of the source" as the user claims; the text simply repeats what the RSs say. This is what was removed:

• This statement is backed up by numerous sources: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.

• This statement is attributed and backed by a reliable source: "According to European intelligence and security services (as well as MEK members), Iran's Ministry of Intelligence's networks "shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution."

• This is a well-documented incident that has its own Wiki page: 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners."In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""

• In 2011, Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so."

• This statement is attributed: "In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."

Thanks for checking.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's tendentious, but it could be better substantiated. If one argues that something falls outside of due weight, they are then obligated to show what those limits of due weight actually are, a matter which is not made entirely clear by the objection. Likewise, if someone is arguing that the facts are being cherrypicked, they are then likewise obligated to show where those pertinent facts actually lie. El_C 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: so they've reverted even though they haven't outlined where the WP:DUE and WP:CHERRY issues are. Wouldn't that qualify as an unsubstantiated revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No, but it should be better substantiated now. El_C 03:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that we should be better at expressing ourselves now that the article is under this new restriction. First of all note that the article already includes "there has also been an ongoing campaign by the Islamic Republic to demonize victims, distort facts, and repress family survivors and human rights defenders}}. This is sentence is so close to one of the given suggestions. Also, there's already a sentence saying "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" and there's another one narrating Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh's claims. Should we copy here every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports? Also the article already includes "shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution". Stefka was told about this (see Mhhossein's comment on 07:21, 8 June 2019). You have also suggested to add the repetitious "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process" without making proper attributions, which adds to the severity of the problem. Just, look at the suggested title! This is while we have 'Human rights record' for the MEK itself. Should we change it into "MEK's human rights abuses"?For cherry picking, HRW reported that not only the crime of Kazemi is being in relation with MEK, but also the two of sending images of the protests to foreign is mentioned as his another crime, while it was not brought in that paragraph.Saff V. (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If you don’t think we should include “every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports” (which, by the way, we are not), then the same applies for other aspects in the article such as the “sex allegations” against the group, correct?

Also, you could have just removed text that was repeated; everything else is properly backed and attributed and refers to this section which specifically addresses “IRI human right abuses against the MEK”. Can you specify, one by one, what is UNDUE or CHERRY about each point I raised above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It would vary from case to case as well as I don't know which sex allegations exactly you mean. Anyway, please let us review disputes one by one and don't say anything about sex allegations in this discussion, they are different from each other. I addressed POV and cherry picking issues in my previous comment.Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I see, NyTimes and the Guardian are used for the cases mentioned in sexual abuse allegations. Needless, to say that the section is titled as allegation! Not a double standard? As for the repeated text, what would remain if we remove them? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: From Saff V.'s response, I can't see what's WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE about the points raised above; can you? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I can. The argument has now been substantiated. I think it's best that every case should be evaluated according to its own merits and particularities. We should not doing a pro- vs. anti-MEK counter weighting here. El_C 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry, I'm having difficulties seeing it. What's WP:CHERRY / WP:UNDUE about this first point for instance?

• The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.

Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The argument is that it essentially duplicates existing material. El_C 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right; I had also noticed it before but missed here for whatever reason. But I can't see the WP:CHERRY/WP:UNDUE for the other text that's not repeated; this for instance:

"In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's essentially a duplicate of the existing materials. See 'Operation Eternal Light and 1988 executions' where 3 paragraphs are dedicated to this. So, I don't think it would be suitable to include given those materials. Moreover, for your next edits, calling sth "cruel, inhuman" without making proper attributions is not a good idea, is it? Specially when the source, i.e. Amnesty, is itself criticized for " whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)  

Amnesty International and HRW are neither MEK or IRI sympathetic. Instead of creating a new section about the IRI's human right abuses against the MEK, would everyone be ok to just include (whatever is backed by RSs and isn't repeated) chronologically in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Some of the materials are not fitting well into a time line basis. That's why I don't think it can be true for all the parts. The main sections are already showing a chrono order. Right? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that I explained my mean clearly before but because of Stefka's ask, I make it clear by reviewing one by one.

• The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families., it repeated nearly 3 times in the article (Plz do ctrl F "kidnap") so giving undue weight is obvious.
• "In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." it repeated nearly 2 times in the article (Plz do ctrl F "executions") so giving undue weight is obvious, words such as cruel, inhuman needs to be attributed.
  • In 2011, Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so." there is a cherry-picking issue. Stefka wrote that Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK, while as the source says, Jafar Kazemi was executed because of sending photos of the protest for foreign people. Also this statement about Kazemi and his wife need to be attributed.

"In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families." it is duplicated and make undue weight issue.Saff V. (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We have several RSs that say the IRI tortures MEK members, so this is not WP:UNDUE information, and whatever is not repeated elsewhere in the article can be included (either chronologically or in its section), correct? Please note this is about "torture" against the MEK, not executions or anything else. This is what RSs say:

• "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• "The killing was ordered by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who became Supreme Leader of Iran after the revolution. It was relentless and efficient. Prisoners, including women and teenagers, were loaded onto forklift trucks and hanged from cranes and beams in groups of five or six at half-hourly intervals all day long. Others were killed by firing squad. Those not executed were subjected to torture. The victims were intellectuals, students, left-wingers, members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK), other opposition parties and ethnic and religious minorities. Many had originally been sentenced for non-violent offences such as distributing newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations or collecting funds for prisoners' families, according to a report published by Amnesty International, an NGO, in 1990." (The Economist)

• "Thousands of people suspected of belonging to the Mujahedin, and also to leftist opposition groups, were arrested and sent before the Revolutionary Courts... In order to obtain the desired confession, torture was routine."

• "During the early morning hours of January 24, 2011, Evin prison authorities hanged Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for the crime of moharebeh because of their alleged ties to the banned Mojahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK)... During several interviews with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Kazemi's wife informed the group that interrogators had tortured her husband and kept him in solitary confinement for more than two months after his September 2009 arrest in order to force him to confess to the charges, but that he had refused to do so. Authorities failed to notify the prisoners' family members or lawyers prior to executing them.

• Ervand Abrahamian's Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran shows a chart of MEK and Marxist death tolls in Iranian prisons during the 1980s that says "Includes those executed by firing squad and hanging, but excludes those killed in armed confrontations and under torture. (University of California Press)

• If they were lucky, Mojahedin were arrested and put in prison. Torture and firing squad came later (Routledge)

If there are problems with any of these, please be specific. They are not WP:UNDUE, meet WP:RS, and as far as I can see are not repeated outlining torture against the MEK by the IRI in the article. They can also be attributed, so that's also not the issue here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with how many RSes support the material, I am sure there are undue issues, It is better to remind your word: "There is no need to have 5 different subsections here. This refers to my previous comment about trying too hard to magnify trivial information into significant events.... The section does not need further repeated statements by the same authors.There seems to be a lot of hostility between the MEK and the IRI, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tabloid platform for amplifying this. The article needs to focus primarily on major historical / political events, as any Wikipedia article about a political party. Following your given reasons, duplicate material that some of them were repeated more than 2 times should be removed from the article.Saff V. (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I propose that we only include text that isn't already in the article. From what I can see, the text above is not repeated text already in the article. I'm also fine with not creating further subsections. Are we all ok with this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka how do you think about the following sentences? Aren't they repeated or same? Still, do you think these sentences The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families...."In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." have to be kept into the article?

in the following, I collect duplicated material for the above sentences from the article:

1. The MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists".
2. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih".
3. The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.
4. In August 1992, a MEK member was kidnapped and brought to Iran.

and as to executions, we have:

1. In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members.
2. In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners".
3. The executions ordered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government. Saff V. (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's do one at a time:

• "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

July

Where is this repeated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't you think that sentences like... In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners" ...or... In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members ...as well as... A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa are enough to devoted space to 1988 executions and there is no need to detailed description?Saff V. (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does provide a more detailed description, which can be merged with "A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa". Should I come up with a proposed merge of sources/statements? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Can I see the merged material here?Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

How's this?: "A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa" A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: in case you missed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is duplicated material. The exact number of executed people is on the article right now...In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners.Saff V. (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest we replace the excerpt you provided with this:

"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."

In this instance, nothing is repeated and the info is better presented/more accurate. Can we please agree? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

what are the differences? Are you going to stress at the time of the event, late July and mid-August? The important key points of your suggested text now can be seen in the article. Saff V. (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

My two cents; These executions were carried out when MEK had launched armed attacks against Iran and some of the members of MEK in prison were supporting this armed development by making riots. So anything you are going to add, should include such a context, without which the text would be imbalanced. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

1) What is the problem with adding the dates of the events? 2) This is presented within the 1988 conflict with Iran, so that's not an issue. Any clear objection why this shouldn't be on the mainspace? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding just the time (late July and mid-August), it makes the article more accurate. I extremely believe that we have to avoid adding duplicated material.Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think we should add repeated material. Please tell me what's repeated here:

"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."

Please be specific. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

August

You made a loop and make me repeat my response again and again. Please change your manner!for the last time I repeat, as I illustrated to you duplicated material already, you just by using ctrl F can find duplicated material, for example, these sentences are seen in the article now: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners" or A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa orordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition orThose executed also included women and children. Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"? Does it mean torture of MEK member in prison?Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's the full quote and the source:

• "Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

Any objection to include this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You were already told. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Please add reliable sources that verify your objection, or self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure:

"The 1988 mass execution is believed to have started after the MEK forces, which had defected to Iraq and were fighting alongside Saddam Hussein against their countrymen, launched an unsuccessful military incursion against Iranian forces. "

[1]

"The reason for this new round of widespread executions was Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the Mojahedin-e Khalq."

[2]

"Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."

[3]

I will also see if I can find sources on the riots in the prison by the MEK members. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

At the first political dissidents is not referred to MEK. Secoundly the text is duplicated, we have in the article that "Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views" or"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families". Saff V. (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Mhhossein's suggestions, I propose including the following:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[4] Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

@El C: This TP discussion has been ongoing since June, could you please approve or decline if the above inclusion is a fair compromise? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Saff V.'s objection is fair enough. The material is almost duplicated elsewhere in the article; why did not you respond to his objection? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, where is this almost duplicated elsewhere in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm...see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Insertion of an unsourced challenging claim; one of the examples. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The link you sent was not helpful Where exactly in the current live article is this duplicated? (please provide the exact text). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Here you are:

"Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"

"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."

--Mhhossein ^talk 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here it is revised, and find the following to be information that expands on the existing one:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[5] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

If there are any specific objections, please present them; alternatively, I'll include this in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Same objections are applied. Please review my previous comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein is objecting the inclusion of the following text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[6] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

Arguing that it's repeated here:

"Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"

"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."

I find the text is different and serves to expand on current information, and therefore merits inclusion. What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a merger ("torture," "other leftists") might be a good compromise. El_C 20:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, great. Will merge everything into something along these lines:

• Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails."[7] A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process. The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."

The text describes the processes of the 1988 executions in more detail, and concludes with the IRI continuing to target members of the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There's an improvement here, but I'm afraid since some of the materials are still repetitious. In this discussion the sentence "The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK" was concluded to be the abstract of the sources none of which explicitly supported that. So, you should go by either of them. Also, "other torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is just a POVish. I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

September

Please provide a proposed paragraph that you believe doesn't include repeated text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that no response implies consent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:Can you report the exact quote from source belongs to this sentence:"a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"?Saff V. (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: What's missing in the current state of the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Here's a source "The majority of those killed were supporters of the People's Mujahedin of Iran although supporters of other factions were executed as well."[8] @Mhhossein: as I've stated above, I find my proposed text provides clearer insights into these events. In any case, if either of you have any further objections, please provide a proposed text that you think would constitute a fair compromise. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of your proposed text now is seen into the article, the difference is just this sentence:"Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails." Am I right? Thanks for providing a quote, "other factions" does not mean other leftist opposition groups.Saff V. (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: your proposed text now is included into the article. What are you going to do exactly?Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On August 28th, I wrote :Will merge everything into something along these lines:

• Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails."[9] A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process. The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."

The text describes the processes of the 1988 executions in more detail, and concludes with the IRI continuing to target members of the MEK. If you have a different proposed text, then by all means provide it, if not, I'll update this proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I find your suggestion adding unnecessary POVs to the article. The current wording of the article is already describing the event. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Now we have in the article that Following operation Eternal Light, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa...Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. Do you want to replace your suggested text with this? I believe the current material in the article about 1988 executions is more detailed. If you don't agree, we can discuss sentence by sentence.Saff V. (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The following is not included in the article:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[10] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process. The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."

Can you please give me a simple and precise reason why it shouldn't be? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK." is seen in the "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" section. Is this sentence referred to the 1988 execution? What do you mean by "failed invasion"? Is it referred to a specific event?Saff V. (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the revised text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[11] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

Any objections? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you repeat "The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to..." 2times?! This sentence "Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails" doesn't support by source, it is mentioned in the source that on 28 July, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Rouhollah Khomeini, used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa (religious order) ordering the execution of all prisoners who remained “steadfast” in their support for the PMOI.Saff V. (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails" is supported by the source. This is my revised proposed text. Please specify if there are any specific objections for this to be included:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[12] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

These two mentioned sentences are saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15, as well as actually is POV of the source, we cannot devote this amount of weight to this source or saying of volunteered.Saff V. (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What? are you saying we cannot include this because the source is Amnesty International? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually not, It should be used with the appropriate weight, your sentences is undue weight,saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15.Saff V. (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've asked Saff V. to provide a clear objection as to why my proposed text (just above) is not suitable for the article. He has complained that it's "undue weight". I find this to be an unsubstantiated answer since clearly the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is a well-established event. Would you agree? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If understand correctly, he is saying, in part, that the agency of a 15-year-old to volunteer is limited. Personally, I don't agree, but it isn't an objection that is without substance. El_C 16:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The first part of the text, ("Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails.")[13] is not attributed to a 15-year old volunteer; this is what TheGuardian says: "The survivors were tried on the spot and quickly executed; Mehrad watched as hundreds were hanged at gallows erected in the nearby town of Eslamabad. Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails. Amnesty estimates that more than 4,500 people were put to death, and some sources say the numbers were even higher."

The second part of the text has nothing to do with a 15-year-old volunteer, but it's attributed to Amnesty International. Do you still think Saff V.'s objection substantiated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Who is able to follow this thread any longer? — I am genuinely asking, because we need your help! Anyway, why not ask Saff V. what they object about that passage. Maybe you two can reach a compromise. El_C 16:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

October

@El C: This is my proposed text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."(The Guardian} The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.(Amnesty International)

This is what the Guardian article says:

• "The survivors were tried on the spot and quickly executed; Mehrad watched as hundreds were hanged at gallows erected in the nearby town of Eslamabad. Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails. Amnesty estimates that more than 4,500 people were put to death, and some sources say the numbers were even higher."

An this is what the Amnesty International source says:

• Amnesty International's research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late ulay an early September 1988, thousands of political dissdents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in iranian detention facilities across teh country ad extraudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. May of those killed were subjected to toruture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatmet or punishment in the process

I did ask Saff V. about his objection, and his response was that my proposed text is "undue weight,saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15.", but this is inacurate (per the Guardian and Amnesty sources above). Can you please weight in on wether his objection is substantiated? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, it does not appear to be substantive. El_C 16:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Are you sure the only objection in this thread is that of Saff V.? Why are pretending as if only Saff V. had made objections?--Mhhossein ^talk 20:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

See this comment; for instance. Also, you had not elaborated why you tend to insert the POV of Amnesty (which is somewhat disputed) as a fact? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You need to be clear in your objections. What exactly are you objecting here with the proposed text? (please outline your points here clearly and in some detail). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The previous paragraphs relate to Mehrdad's narration, and the paragraph belongs to this sentence - Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails begins with Mehrdad's narration. It is hard for me to believe that this sentence should not be attributed to Mehrdad.Saff V. (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

My previous comment is detailed enough. One of the objections clearly outlined, is that "you had not elaborated why you tend to insert the POV of Amnesty (which is somewhat disputed) as a fact?" --Mhhossein ^talk 16:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Ok, I'll attribute Amnesty's statement to Amnesty. Would that be ok then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please see this comment? Another point is that if the quotation to be used, is on MEK. As far as I see, it's commenting on dissidents in general. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein: We cannot go digging through diffs to find out what you actually mean. Please present any objections in a clearly and concise manner. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No digging is needed, my previous objection still stands being clear enough and don't think it needs to be repeated. Please open the link and you'll see it. I'm ready to respond further. Also probably your forgot my latest point (the text being on MEK or dissidents in general). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

1) Dissidents also include the MEK, so we can say just that, MEK and dissidents. 2) saying that something is just "POV-ish" is not a substantive objection, specially when it involves actual research by Amnesty International. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If the source don't mention the MEK, we cannot include MEK and dissidents!Saff V. (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll include the first part of this since there doesn't seem to be any substantive dispute against including that. The text that seems to be objected is the following:

"The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."

@El C: Saff V.'s and Mhhossein's objection to this is that the passage (above) does not mention the MEK. However, the source is about the dissidents that were executed in 1988 by the Iranian government, which (as the source says) includes the MEK:

"This happened shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war and an armed incursion that the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran... launched into Iran from their base in Iraq. Three days later, on 28 July, Iran's Supreme Leader, Rouhollah Khomeini, used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa (religious order) ordering the execution of all prisoners who remained "steadfast" in their support for the PMOI."

Are their objections substantive / is the passage ok for inclusion? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what they have to say in light of this first. Also, users need to be responsive in detail, Mhhossein —Stefka Bulgaria is right on that count— yes, even at the possible expense of some repetition. Referring editors elsewhere because you think whatever given issue had already been addressed, is just not gonna cut it. El_C 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, the source says "dissidents" which does not necessarily mean MEK. Yes, all MEK members were dissidents but the reverse is not always right. Your inclusion is adding an unnecessary level of POV to the text. Secondly, as I told you here "the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK" was concluded to be the abstract of the sources none of which explicitly supported this claim. Now you are adding a sentence with pretty much the same meaning. So, you should go by either of them. Also, "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is just a POVish phrase. I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing. El_C: Why did you ask me to repeat my words with my diffs explicitly providing my objections. It's becoming like a GAME here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you consider whatever you're responding to have become repetitious, point that out, but again, do so in detail rather than just with see this diff. The point is you need to clearly demonstrate whatever it is you're saying —you need to use your words— up to and including claims of gaming the system. El_C 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I don't find Mhhossein's objections to be substantive for the following reasons (green text = Mhhossein's objections):

1) 'the source says "dissidents" which does not necessarily mean MEK. Yes, all MEK members were dissidents but the reverse is not always right.' Not true; as I pointed out in a previous comment, the source specifically says that these dissidents include the MEK.

2) 'Your inclusion is adding an unnecessary level of POV to the text.' I am only adding what Amnesty International's research says.

3) 'You are adding a sentence with pretty much the same meaning [as] "the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."' This is also inaccurate. The quote you pointed out refers to the IRI targeting MEK sympathisers since the 1980s up until the present day, and the one discussed here provides specific details about the the 1988 executions.

4) 'I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing.' This is not a valid argument; Amnesty International meets WP:RS, and all I'm doing is including their research into the article.

El_C? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Now Mhhossein gets to respond to that — do you see how this works? At some point you'll arrive at a compromise — or, you won't and further steps in the dispute resolution process would hopefully advance the impasse. Sure, it's possible that at some point I'll evaluate an argument to be unsubstantiated, but that outcome is not particularly likely. Either way, carry on. El_C 01:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let us know that how, without original research, the text would cover MEK. Also, if you agree that the mentioned quote, i.e. ""the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK," serves to cover "IRI targeting MEK sympathisers since the 1980s up until the present day," then it certainly covers the 1988 executions. So, just stop repeating it. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've already addressed both of Mhhossein's points in my previous post, so we're going around in circles. Can you weigh in please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I should continue my work here... Apparently, I'm an "anti-Iran[ian] who support[s] a terror group like The People's Mojahedin Organization [and am] totally unreliable to be an admin" [[14]. El_C 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I would implore you not to succumb to what looks like WP:BULLYING. You've greatly helped advancing the work here, and you've definitely been very efficient in moving edits forward in this and other Iranian-related topics. These topics are in dire need of an uninvolved admin's input, and you've been one of the very few to offer a helping hand. Your work here has been very inspiring to me, so please don't give up on it. On the other hand, I think one has to question the intent behind SharabSalam's false accusations; can someone just make WP:ASPERSIONS like to an admin without any repercussions? Unbelievable... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria, I appreciate the kind words! They have apologized, though, so I am ready to move on. This thread has been going on since June, so something needs to be done to turn the tide. Remind me what the two competing versions are? Anyway, perhaps it's best to launch an RfC about these and go from there...? El_C 15:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: You just failed to address my objections. I was clear enough with saying if you agree that the mentioned quote, i.e. ""the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK," serves to cover "IRI targeting MEK sympathisers since the 1980s up until the present day," then it [also] certainly covers the 1988 executions. So, just stop repeating it. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Which material of the source says that these dissidents include the MEK?Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I already responded to both these points in my previous posts, but here they are again:

• @Mhhossein: The text I’m asking to include is the following:”The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilites across the country and extrajudically executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.” This text specifically addresses the 1988 executions, providing details of how those prisoners were managed by the IRI. The text you are arguing is the same as this is “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK”; this refers to the general practices of the IRI towards the MEK, and not how the 1988 prisoners were managed.

• Saff V.: If you read the report, you’ll see that the majority of these dissidents included MEK members. Here are some quotes: ”A first wave of executions, beteen late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI, both men and women. According to survivors, interrogations alays started with a fateful question: “What is your political affiliation?” Those who proudly answered that they were “Mojahedin” (the appellation of the PMOI preferred for themselves) were immediately ordered to join a line which meant they would be executed.”; ” We are aware of the massacre of the men prisoners and assumed that the Mojahedin (PMOI) women prisoners had also been executed.”; ”If the official insisted on asking them to clarify which organization, most responded using the pejorative term “monafeqin” to avoid reprisal and only a few Said they were “Mojahedin”. Etc... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's go to review your answer, you say that we have in the source :The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilites across the country and extrajudically executed. In another hand, it is mentioned in the source that A first wave of executions, beteen late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI, both men and women. So it result dissidents includes MEK! @El C: Am I wrong, if I consider this answer the example of wp:OR?

@Stefka Bulgaria,As you said “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK” is a general description about execution of MEK. Why are you going to bring more detailed info that subject into article?Saff V. (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't view it as original research and am having a difficult time following your argument why this would be so. Also, is further historical detail really a bad thing? El_C 14:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, adding very detailed information about a marriage and a divorce didn´t seem to be a problem for Saff V. et al., but adding detailed information about executions is a problem? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a matter of adding details; the disputed content is in fact an absurd repetition. Also, I would object additions on those divorce/marriage, if the article already had something in that regards. Likewise, now, I object this absurd repetition on 'IRI tortured/poisoned MEK members' since the article is already featured with a general and clear comment, i.e. “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK”. The point is that, to add this general sentence, you used the portion of Amnesty, which you to wish add, to prove “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK”, so adding that would clearly be over repetition of an already mentioned sentence. To summarize, the article already has a sentence saying IRI tortured MEK members and the sentence, you believe, is the abstract of multiple sources, one of them being Amnesty. That said, repeating almost the same thing from a source, already used for making a similar impression, is not a good idea. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Could you please tell me if Mhhossein´s last response is substantiated? Basically, I proposed that we add details about the way the IRI handled the 1988 executions of MEK members. Mhhossein´s objection is that we already have a sentence in the article saying that the IRI executes and tortures MEK supporters. My problem with that is that we do not have detailed information about how the IRI handled MEK prisoners during the 1988 executions, which is what I´m proposing to include. Thank you for your input as always. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not my only objection (I don't understand why you repeatedly ping El_C when you have not paid attention the other party's objection). As you see in my previous comment, the article already has a sentence saying IRI tortured MEK members and the sentence, which you believe (see this rather old discussion), is the abstract of multiple sources, one of them being Amnesty. That said, repeating almost the same thing from a source, already used for making a similar impression, is not a good idea. Your position is very week; you are trying to insert the POV of Amnesty, an advocacy group which is not a suitable source for adding historical details, while we have a closely similar sentence in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with a general statement being repeated in a more specific setting. That said, this is something all of you need to figure out for yourselves as I'm not particularly inclined to close this rather lengthy thread at this time, myself. Sorry. El_C 10:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not when the POV of an advocacy group is to be used for reporting that. Moreover, Amnesty was once used to support adding that general statement which itself was an abstract of multiple sources. Seems odd to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Amnesty International can be seen as a reliable source. But feel free to bring my decision up to review at RSN. I'm happy to go with with whatever the consensus is there. El_C 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: This lenghthy thread has come down to the inclusion of these two sentences by Amnesty International. The source for these two sentences meet WP:RS, and they provide further details into how the IRI managed MEK members during the 1988 executions. I´ve asnwered all of Mhhossein´s and Saff V.´s objections here. In the Ideological revolution and women's rights discussion, you closed in favor of adding detailed material about a divorce and marriage to the article. Can you please let me know if adding detailed material about the 1988 executions would be ok? (I need your consent here as I don´t see Mhhossein´s objection as substantive, and inserting this back into the article without your consent would likely lead in me getting reported to you). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

please tell the truth, that discussion was closed because of being long-standing text!Saff V. (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If it all comes down to whether Amnesty can be used as source, then indeed, that in my view would not constitute a tenable position and, in which case, I would be inclined to decide in favour of inclusion. But not quite yet. El_C 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: You really need to consider being careful when making comments. The discussion was not closed as a result of our discussion, it was indeed a longstanding text. As for other claims, you once used the source to say how IRI behaved towards the MEK members. Can anyone pay attention to this objection? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Here's the RSN result of Amnesty International being used as a source for this. The general consensus seems to be that it's ok to be included as long as it's attributed. May I include it with attribution to AI? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Affirmative. El_C 20:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C You said "If it all comes down to whether Amnesty can be used as source", and it was not only the quality of the source, I'm asking to remove the material. My objection is not still responded. can you see my latest comment in this subsection please? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I read it, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say. El_C 06:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I am wondering how every thing simply came "down to whether Amnesty can be used as source". To summarize, we had a discussion back in May on whether or not "the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK" was explicitly supported by the sources. The discussion was ended by you saying the sources, one of them being the Amnesty piece in question, were "quite compelling". So, we once used the source as as support for making a general statement and now it is used to express a very similar thing. This seems odd, to be honest. Another important point here is the way Stefka Bulgaria is (self?)-interpreting the RSN discussion. There are users (like [15] and [16]) besides stressing on how discriminated the source is, are suggesting to use higher quality sources instead.

To be frank, I think your major "if" is just ignored here by yourself. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is considerable objection in RSN that Stefka didn't mentioned them for instance, I mean the title of the piece is "Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's Prison Massacres are Crimes Against Humanity". That indicates a pretty strong bias on the subject or If it was all done according to Iranian law, then throwing in worlds like "extrajudicially" is pretty polemical.Saff V. (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Here we go... when a decision doesn't go your way, then the complaining and mudslinging begins (not only towards me but also towards the uninvolved admin that's helping move the editing forward in this page). I took it to RSN, the majority consensus was that it was ok for inclusion if attributed, and so I attributed it. Move on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's go to review the "1988 execution of MEK prisoners" section which included new added material by Stefka:

1) Stefka added that Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails while in the section we had A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. In the sentence added by him,thousands of MEK is not support by sorce and I want to ask isn't the secound sentence more detailed and related to article and why does it need to first sentence while we have secound one?

2) Stefka added that According to Amnesty International, "thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." while we have had in that section

According to Ervand Abrahamian, “thus began an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history.”

Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition.

The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants.

@El C: Do you agree that the new material added by Stefka does not give new detail info to the article? @ Stefka if you sure that "the majority consensus was that it was ok for inclusion if attributed" why didn't you let us to review it before inserting material into the article?Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I feel the discussion is being bludgeoned. There was consensus at RSN for inline attribution, and that's that. El_C 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry to bother you, but i think that the User:Mhhossein's disagreement can be investigated. How many times has the material of Amnesty International (as a disputed source) been used in the matter of executions in the MEK article?

• the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK

• According to Amnesty International, "thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearances in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed following an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and executed across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. The executions were carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government.

  Saff V. (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V., we've been discussing this for a while now, even with El_C responding "I don't think there's anything wrong with a general statement being repeated in a more specific setting." You've and Mhhossein complained about this text from it being WP:OR, to Amnesty not meeting WP:RS, to it being WP:POV, etc. etc... It was decided at WP:RSN that both the statement and source were ok to be included. See WP:DEADHORSE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion! and RSN is not the correct venue for deciding whether or not something should be included in the article. RSN is only for assessing the reliability of the sources. My understanding of this comment by El_C is that the consensus at the RSN would be deterministic "If it all comes down to whether Amnesty can be used as source" (see the edit summary saying "well, if it's that simple" while it was not really that simple!) The problem is that my major objection had nothing to with the reliability (while it was a concern for me). I have explained it multiple times, including here, and am ready to do it once more if it's needed. @El_C can you elaborate on that please? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither you or Saff V. had an issue with adding detailed information about a marriage / divorce to the article, but you both have had all kinds of issues (WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS, none of which apply) with adding more detailed information about the management of the 1988 executions? All of your concerns have been addressed here already by El_C (and myself), and you are indeed bludgeoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

These objections are not substantive enough, Mhhossein — and please don't refer me to edit summaries when you can simply pipe the diff. Again, I expect to be spoonfed the evidence rather than be forced to go hunting for it. Anyway, I really don't know what you expect Stefka Bulgaria to do here anymore, and even less what you expect me to do. Amnesty is one of the most preeminent human rights organizations in the world and its view is of major import, overall, in both the mainstream and the scholarship. The matter of original research or reliability of it as a source has been settled. Moving now to the argument that the addition is simply not needed rings hollow to me, I'm sorry to say. Because of that, and due to the months and months of discussion above, I'm inclined to accept the addition as de facto longstanding text. You may seek to gain consensus for its removal through an RfC. By all means, let some outside editors determine this once and for all. But, with respect to this addition, WP:ONUS (which is not a magic bullet) will now apply in the reverse. El_C 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C I never tried GAME you (I did not even think about that). I tried to ping you less, since I believed pinging you too much will be harassing. I tried to be sincere when editing, commenting and making objections. That said, seeing my objection is described as "ringing hollow to you" is just unpleasant and disappointing. I had made a sincere objection and I still believe it is right. With that description, I have nothing more to add here. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: sorry, it does ring hollow to me. But that is not a statement that impedes your motives (what you tried to do). What I am saying is that, regardless of your intent (which I always evaluate to be in good faith — sorry if it had come across otherwise), I believe you have exhausted your arguments here and are, effectively, running on fumes now with respect to this particular dispute (the optics of which, at least, are suboptimal). That is why I have decided that the addition has gone on to fulfill the requirements set out for it after months of discussion. If you still feel it isn't needed, you have the option to contest it by building consensus against it being featured in the article, via the launching of a separate RfC. *** For that matter, you have the option of contesting my overall role here and may do so at any time. That is to say, any editor is entitled to pose the argument that my role here has outlived its usefulness — following a discussion, if there isn't consensus for me to continue, I will withdraw from the article, wishing you all best of luck. (Not saying you, yourself, implied any of this, but I still want to be crystal clear that my unique role here relies on the expressed consent of participants, not on acts by fiat.) El_C 15:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I'm consent with you, at least me. As for the current discussion, RFC is a good option, but I've already put enough time on that. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References
References