Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

The execution of children

The following content should be picked up because: The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, including women and children, and with the majority being MEK members.

• The first, which book exactly?
• Secondly, the source doesn't support the content or the source doesn't argue about any book?
• Thirdly, Except for this source there isn't another source mentioning the in 1988 childer were executed. It is just the estimate!Saff V. (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This Washington Times article supports "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, listing the location of 36 Iranian mass graves and explaining that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members."

The part about "women and children" appears in the Amnesty International report. Reinserting each point to their respective sections based on the sources. Ypatch (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot's of drawbacks with this edit

First, as I asked above, which book is meant? why did Ypatch reverted "the book" to the article again, while I wanted it to be clear?

The second, It is just the claim of amnesty, that the children and women were executed, there is no other source to support it, but he wrote it as a fact, without according to amnesty.

The third one, as WP:RSP demanded, Washington times is not RS but it was used by him!

The forth, added material including mass graves or execution of 30000 people are duplicated and they have inserted in the article (that section) previously! it is interesting to inserting duplicated material by who cares about it!

@El C: I wonder if you leave a comment for such bold edit! Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, what the book? That almost comes across as a non sequitur.

You know my view about Amnesty — I don't think it needs in-line attribution, though it wouldn't hurt as a compromise.

Washington Times may be reliable for this purpose. Its partisanship has to do with domestic US politics and climate science, which this isn't.

I'm not seeing the material duplicated. Please quote the excerpts directly. But some duplication may be viewed as reiteration.

I'm not sure it's a bold edit, because the edit summary says Putting back information, so when was that information taken out for it be put back in? El_C 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This was missing: "In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity"". This identifies what "the book is about", so i'm reinserting this back into the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, This edit is an explicit violation of page restrictions. On January 11, he edited the article. But I disagreed with that by the reasons I wrote in TP. Then he reverted my edit again with any tolerate knowing my response as well as the issue about which book remained.

In another hand,amnesty source has a fringe viewpoint that other sources don't support the execution of children and women.Saff V. (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V., the Amnesty International source supports that "women and children" were executed in the 1988 massacre. But if that isn't enough, here are more sources:

• "CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.

• "more than 30,000 political prisoners in Iran's prisons in the summer of 1988 including women and children and all political prisoners who supported the opposition movement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)"

• "As confirmed by an audio recording that was leaked to the public in 2016, victims of the massacre included children and pregnant women."

You can go ahead and add these new sources to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the second and third ones are not RS as well as it is not clear what is the source of the telegraph for the claim?Saff V. (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The UK Parliament is RS, and The Telegraph clearly refers to the 1988 Iran prison massacre. Here are more sources (which you could also add to the article):

• "'At least order to spare women who have children ... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not reflect positively and will not be mistake-free,' Montazeri wrote in a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogators ... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic desease'"

• "The second wave of killings also claimed several thousand victims, and was accompanied by the same secrecy. Eventually, several months later, relatives were called to the prison and handed a plastic bag with their children’s effects. By October many thousands of prisoners had been killed in this way by the state—without trial, without appeal and utterly without mercy."

• " Khomeini ordered there should be mercy to anyone, including teenagers. He said pregnant women should not be spared or even be given chance to give birth to their children—and should be executed immediately."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Saff V.: your objection is not substantiated. For the last time, Amnesty is a reliable source — it is not a fringe. We have already established this on numerous occasions. You cannot keep reverting on that basis. That is not reasonable and is, in fact, tendentious. @Stefka Bulgaria: what is up with linking to references (above) in such a lazy way? Please at least provide titles, authors, dates, etc. It's surprising, since you've gone to the trouble of compiling the sources already. El_C 14:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lazy sometimes. I blame my upbringing. Will insert the more reliable of these sources into the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, tendentious? You agreed with me that it was not clear which book is meant? As well as you said that Washington Times may be reliable for this purpose but in other discussion you said that "In other words, we have to follow what WP:RSP says, rather than make reliability decisions on our own. When in doubt, consult RSN while retaining the status quo ante version in the interim". It means that we are not sure about the reliability of this book. In addition, some of the sources provided with Stefka are not RS, needed to RSN's review, some content of that book in challenging, What does "children" mean? A 13-year-old teenager or a fetus? as well as, this doesn't support the execution of children. If Amnesty is the only RS support this claim, is not better to use in-line attribution.Saff V. (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The hill source is just opinion pieces!And other provided sources need to review, for instance saqi publisher's book doesn't support the execution of children.Saff V. (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There are enough RSs here; just check the ones I included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I asked about the reliability of TDB in RSN, provided by Stefka, It seems that this material was added in this edit A few months after the executions, relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings. By October that year many thousands of prisoners had been executed without trial or appeal. needs more sources and TDB is not enough. Do I allow to remove this challenging claim from the article?Saff V. (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast does not falsify stories. Maybe it has a bias, like many other sources, but it is still reliable. Barca (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington Times

@SharabSalam: You removed a source from the article saying that it wasn't reliable. The Washington Times is a published newspaper and a reliable source though. Ypatch (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To repeat: the The Washington Times is, indeed, a reliable source for that purpose, or any purpose unless it is about domestic US politics or climate science. El_C 22:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, we have to follow what WP:RSP says, rather than make reliability decisions on our own. When in doubt, consult RSN while retaining the status quo ante version in the interim. El_C 23:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, It is marginally reliable not reliable. Also, Iranian nuclear issue is a U.S. related issue. So it shouldnt be used. Ypatch, no it is not reliable. Per its article it is famously known for publishing anti-Muslim propaganda.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems doubtful that the claim made by The Washington Times was fabricated. Again, if you need another opinion, RSN is that-a-way. El_C 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, I have started a discussion there. I also want to say that the word "However," there makes it look as if the previous part claim is dismissed and this claim is stronger although the previous claim is well-sourced. It is not needed. Also if it's true then the official name should have been made public and should be named, what if it's John Bolton?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Does The Washington Times support "However"? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It was explained in my edit summary: "The sentence about the State Department spokesman dismisses the previous claims, so "However" is more appropriate than "And" (which suggests the opposite)". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't use "However" per WP:EDITORIAL, if there's no explicit implication of the contrast that "However" creates. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a contrast between statements; and it's an improvement from the "and" that was there before (which was deceiving). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably YOU feel there's a contrast. The sources should directly impress the contrast by using the words showing it. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you read the text, you'll see the contrast is quite evident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, How many times users have to say that TWT is untrustable! Rather make users repeat their disagreement, respect their opinions. You are not allowed to disregard the RSN discussion and violate the consensus because "You are not sure".@SharabSalam: please take a look at this matter. Saff V. (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the conversation at RSN, there isn't consensus that Washington Times is unreliable. Also there is another source that confirms what the Washington Times published. "QUESTION: Yeah, I – just to follow up on one of the questions that was presented earlier. Does the U.S. Government have a position with respect to whether the assassination of scientists in Iran constitutes terrorism? SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: If we had information on that and could pursue it, we would, but as I said, we have never said that this group was involved in those assassinations." Ypatch (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't they said that TWT is unreliable?!Please see again the RSN disscussion:

user:Guy ,I think the Washington Times is an unreliable source due to its history of bias and inaccuracy. I never use it at all.

user:SageSolomon I agree with Guy, I wouldn't call The Washington Times a reliable source either, and the part in the article you're bringing up does seem fishy, if thats what youre asking.

user:Gamingforfun365 It is a shame because there are a few decent folks that write or have written for the newspaper. Unfortunately, it has the same mediocre journalistic integrity as Fox News, but hey, at least it is not the Daily Mail!

I don't know with these objections how d you claim that TWT is reliable?! Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: There is a U.S. Department of State source that backs up the claim. Regardless whether there is a consensus or not about Washington Times being RS, the U.S. Department source definitely is. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, before Ypatch provided U.S. Department of State source, YOU reverted the edit because you didn't sure about the reliability, while the consequences on RSN said that TWT is not trustable! Be aware that asking about the reliability of TWT was suggested by El_C and you don't respect his asking aNd result of RSN and violated page restriction.Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus that the Washington Times source wasn't reliable, and you reverted that edit anyway, so I don't know why you're still complaining. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch's recent edit wars

@El C: It seems some users are happy with you being out of the article. Theses users usually don't follow the discussion cycles and tend to engage edit wars and removal of contents out of consensus building process. There's an ongoing discussion happening here over one of the paragraphs in the lead. Previously, I reported and edit which I thought was edit warring against the article's restrictions. Back then, you responded that the edit was a bold action, not an edit war. Now, exactly after you expressed your feelings, they have repeated exactly the same edit war amid the discussions. They seem to be sad of being blocked previously by you. Another edit war against the page's restrictions. Save the article please. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch's reverted to consensus, which you (Mhhossein) didn't have when you made your last two edits (hence, you being questioned about those edits before El_C decided to step back). If you want to establish your edits, you need to gain consensus first. It is you, Mhhossein, who edit-warred; and very likely dodged a block for pushing your edits that had no consensus or substantiation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Which consensus? There's an ongoing discussion! As El C said, As an aside, mere removal of longstanding text —a unique instance thereof— is not considered itself to be a revert, but rather a bold edit. Those bold edits may be reverted back to the longstanding text, providing the objection to the bold edit is substantiated'Bold text'.. Mhhossein edited the lead by covering fair concerns raised but In Ypatch's edit, Reverting to the version approved by El_C doesn't seem to be substantiated as admin demanded! In addition, what does "approved by El_C" means?Saff V. (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Admin said that Ypatch's edit is bold edit, so Ypatch was not allowed to repeat it.Saff V. (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C approved that edit, while Mhhossein's edits did not have any consensus. Ypatch (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: never approved that and you are just misusing the admin's absence. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

what we have here is that Ypatch has repeated a bold edit twice while there was objections and ongoing discussions. This buys sanctions most probably.06:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Saff V. (talk)

I already showed that El_C said that edit was fine. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You DID NOT show, you just self interpreted his comments and misused his absence. I suggest Ypatch to cross his fingers so that the admin doesn't return, or he will be sanctioned for his recent edit warrings after being blocked once for the same behavior. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, please tone it down. We're here to work collaboratively. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

collaboratively??? It's like a joke! You two have reverted against collaborations. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ayatollah Montazer letter to Ayatollah Khomeini

Saff V.: You removed the following from the article saying it is "duplicated":

• "Ayatollah Montazeri wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini saying "at least order to spare women who have children ... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not reflect positively and will not be mistake-free ... A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogators ... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic decease."

I don't see information about Ayatollah Montazeri's letter to Khomeini anywhere else in the article, so putting this back in on that basis. If you can show where this is repeated exactly, we can discuss further. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

It seems to be clear but I explain:

• A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogator and As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic decease duplicated with Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.
• at least order to spare women who have children duplicated of Those executed included women and children.

In addition, my edit summary is removing of duplicated and detailed material. I have to note that Vanamonde said (Article size and organization)First, the article is way too long. Does the letter add any new info to the article? Saff V. (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

None of the examples you provide refer to Ayatollah Montazer's letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You don't want to see duplicated material which I provided, In other hand Does the letter add any new info to the article? it is really irrelevant. please give fair reasons, otherwise, I have to move the material to the appropriate article,1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners.Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The letter is not repeated anywhere else in the article, and the letter is relevant since it refers to the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, where many MEK members were executed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As you said it refers to the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners! Does the letter add any new important info to the article?I have to note again that Vanamonde said (Article size and organization)First, the article is way too long.Saff V. (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The letter is an official statement between two highly-ranked Iranian officials about the "1988 execution of MEK prisoners"; so yes, it is relevant. Additionally, this information is not repeated in the article, so it does add new and important info. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the new important info that the letter contains? torture MEK member and execution of women and children are duplicated and should be removed, so the rest of info doesn't add any important info to the article and make it just longer!Saff V. (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The new important info that the letter contains is confirmation by a high-ranking Iranian official of the details of the massacres, something we don't have in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Which details of the massacres related to MEK? except for the torture and execution of women and children?HOW do you prove that the prisoners refer to MEK?Saff V. (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• The letter has no direct relationships to MEK and it should not be pushed into the body of this article. I don't object mentioning but keeping such amount of the letter some sort of POV pushing. I suggest taking the letter to an article related to the executions or similar articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The letter describes details involving 1988 execution of MEK prisoners. It's RS, and provides insight from an Iranian official. Nothing wrong with it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

which details?which insight? insight concerning execution is not related to this article directly.Saff V. (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Details / insight about the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners (I thought this would be clear by now). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Coherence and POV

It is fairly obvious that a number of editors here have strong feelings about the MEK. At the risk of sounding cynical, though, none of you are doing your agendas any favors with your approach to this article. At present, anyone reading it isn't going to come away with the impression of the MEK as a force for good or bad; they are going to come away a) confused and b) knowing that the authors of the article cannot get along with each other. There are way too many quotes, and way too much he-said-she-said, for this to be helpful to the general reader. I don't know why it's so difficult for y'all to see that working together to implement some decent paraphrasing and pruning of quotes will help everyone here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not interested in the MEK coming across as either "good" or "bad". Since I've been involved here, I've managed to remove many bad sources, as well many, many misrepresentations of good sources; that's a good thing, I think. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

As to this edit, first of all, I have to warn for "Misleading edit summary", what did Stefka mean by "What sources say"? Why was sourced material "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing" removed? Did he believe that Mossad and the MEK didn't orchestrate the operation with their collaboration? The new version is longer than the previous one with any further detail. @Stefka Bulgaria: please leave a comment. Also, it would be better to revert this vague untile you prepare acceptable answers!Saff V. (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: This is what the source says:

• "The Iranian lobby in Washington is as well funded as it is deceptive and the opposition is enemy number one. Consider the unsubstantiated allegation made by Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

This is what I added in the article:

• "Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani (senior aide to Iran's supreme leader) concerning the MEK and the Iran nuclear scientists were unsubstantiated, and that "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

I added to the article what the "source says" (hence my edit summary, "what source says"). What is the problem exactly here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate explaining what you did, but I asked my question above and I am not willing to repeat them again. As well as you did not respond why did you add to the article what the "source says"? Saff V. (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I'm having difficulties understanding you. I have explained why I changed it: because it isn't what the source says. I have also explained my edit summary, "what source says", which means that I added in the article what the source says (as opposed to what was in the article, and which you apparently put back in the article, which is a distortion of what the source says). If there is another question here that I may have missed, do let me know, but per my explanation, my edit is perfectly substantiated, while your revert isn't. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did you pick up "the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists" which was mentioned in the source?Saff V. (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The way you have reverted back into the article is a distorted version of what the article says. This is what the source says (again):

"The Iranian lobby in Washington is as well funded as it is deceptive and the opposition is enemy number one. Consider the unsubstantiated allegation made by Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

What this means: Larijani, an IRI-affiliated spokesperson, made the allegation that "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists", which "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

On the other hand, this is what you've added to the article:

• "Haaretz in an article suggesting "regime change" in Iran, published that Mohammad Java Larijani made the "unsubstantiated allegation" to NBC-TV News that "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never back up with evidence"."

That's a distortion of what the source says. It reads as though the Haaretz claims were never backed up with evidence, but that's not what the source is saying. The source is saying that Larijani's claims were not backed by any evidence, which is what I had included in the article (and which you reverted):

• "Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani (senior aide to Iran's supreme leader) concerning the MEK and the Iran nuclear scientists were unsubstantiated, and that "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."

I have no problem including what Larijani's actual detailed allegations were, but in the correct context, which is what I had added. By the way, isn't this information concerning Larijani and Mossad already repeated in the section Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You said that "what source says" means that I added in the article what the source says, while you picked up the allegation of Larijani (the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists) because you thought that it was pretended, Haaretz claims were never backed up with evidence. Moreover, in the end, you mentioned the allegation was duplicated. Unfortunately, your edit summary was not accurate and I consider it as Misleading edit summary, so, please care about it!

About content, your concern is not serious, it is clear now in the last version of the article that the allegation of Larijani is not supported by any evidence, not the claim of Haaretz. Anyway, you could edit just that part of the content and made it clear, but you packed up the allegation of Larijani (the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists)! as well as we have in the source that "Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News", he declared it to NBC-TV News, but you removed it, I don't know why, it is what the source says. In the hand, When you wrote, Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani, which allegations do you mean?Saff V. (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This information about Lariani is repeated in the article in the section about Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK ("On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence.") I'm removing it to avoid repeating the same information. Ypatch (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For another time

It was written in edit summary "copy edit" but "all subsequent revelations" was removed! obviously it is misleading edit summary too.In addition as wp:claim demanded, using "claim" is not natural and is needed with more loaded terms.Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.:Which edit are you talking about? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This one!Saff V. (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Making a song and dance about that edit is inappropriate, Saff V.. The meaning of the sentence has not been changed; indeed, both changed sentences are now easier to understand, and "copy-edit" is an appropriate edit summary in this case. Drop this, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting views in the lead section

In the lead section of the article, it says "The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."

That is followed by some conflicting views that say "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.[48] The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them.[49] Struan Stevenson and other analysts have stated that MEK targets included only the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions."

I think that the first sentence ("The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982.") resumes well the conflict with the mullahs, and the rest can be placed in the body where the reader can read contrasting views in a better setting, maybe in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" ? That would also make the lead section easier to digest. Ypatch (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What on earth does members of the Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens have to do with clerical leadership?Saff V. (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A single source vs multiple sources = WP:UNDUE. The attacks took place between 1981 and 1982, and most sources say the attacks were against the clerical leadership, and we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens". We can add the part about "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" in the body along with other views about the conflicts between the MEK and the Iranian authorities. Ypatch (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In view of all the recent reports from Mhhossein and Saff V. against me in this talk page, I thought I'd ask you before going ahead with this edit. Nobody has replied to my request here since January 18. El_C said before that we could go ahead with an edit if nobody replied a proposal in this talk page after 7 days per WP:SILENCE. May I go ahead with this edit since it's been over a week since anyone replied here? Ypatch (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing information which they were added into the lead during lots of discussions and RFCs (for example) is not simple.In addition, it is a strange reason to remove them as well as this opinion, most sources say the attacks were against the clerical leadership, and we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" is OR. Please do "ordinary citizens" ctrl+f and see other sources (used in the body)support that MEK attacked ordinary citizens. they are more than one source! Removing key information wouldn't make the lead section easier to digest.Saff V. (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the text in question:

"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.[48] The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them.[49] Struan Stevenson and other analysts have stated that MEK targets included only the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions.[citation needed][50]"

Ypatch is not saying to remove this information, but rather move it into the body with other scholarly views about this (since the information is disputed).

In the RfC you linked (which led to yet another "no consensus"), the closing admin said "it should be noted that analyzing sources and arriving at conclusions is usually not the job of the lead—particularly if those conclusions are disputed... Concluding whether someone or something was targeted can also be problematic to begin with, as at its core it's concluding intent, and then generalizing it across several decades involves even more of a conclusion."

I agree with Ypatch and the closing admin's remarks. That information is evidently disputed, so saying that this is "removing key information" is not applicable. Can you substantiate an argument (other than "long-standing version") why we shouldn't move this to the body? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Citing the existance of past consensus is not a viable argument here. As far as I can see, WP:SILENCE does in fact apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved this to the "Assassinations" section where there is more detailed information about the arguments concerning MEK targets.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:silence is not applied here, as far as I see. Saff V argued targeting of "members of the Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" had nothing to do with with targeting of the "clerical leadership" and no clear counter argument was given. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not only mentioned previous RFCs. Which of my objections has been answered? I asked "What on earth does members of the Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens have to do with clerical leadership?" and ypatch just answered "we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens". I said there was more than one source in the article about ordinary citizens attacked by MEK!

On the other hand, this saying of Ypatch," most sources say the attacks were against the clerical leadership, and we have one source saying "Revolutionary Guards or ordinary citizens" " is really his own OR! I can't understand why WP:silence is applied here while I comment on my objection just 3 days ago!

MEK's reactions and activities are important and need to be mentioned in the lead. Removal of this materials is adding to POV problem. That "The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership" is not a good reason for removing MEK's confirmed attacks on non clerical persons. This important point should be solved by RFC.Saff V. (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: can you leave a comment?Saff V. (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The info about MEK attacks that's been resumed in the lede is what the majority of RSs say:

• "The MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."
• "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[54] In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris.[50][55] In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[56][57] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[48][58][59]"

Then in the "Assassinations" section (in the body), there is more detailed analysis of what the different (at times, contradicting) scholarship say about non-clerics. The argument was that we don't need to cram conflicting information in the lede (conflicting because different sources say different contradicting things), which is something that can be better teased out in the article's body; leaving the main WP:DUE facts in the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The content to be included in the lead for attacks by MEK is disputed and needs to be discussed. For example why the significant incident of 1981 Iranian Prime Minister's office bombing is removed from the lead? The POV issue mentioned by Saff V is noteworthy and now the lead is less balanced than before. The former version should be restored and the discussion should go with an RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As always, you need sources to back up your claims. Please provide them (that article you just pointed out has many issues with misrepresentation of sources or sources by the Iranian regime against the MEK, which help fix now). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone should feel free to initiate an RfC; however, Ypatch moved the content in question after this discussion had been open for a while, therefore WP:SILENCE does apply. Also, please remember that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not cover every point in it; and also, that if a disagreement between reliable sources is included in the body, leaving it out of the lead is often a reasonable option, but including something along the lines of "sources dispute X" is another viable option that balances concision with neutrality. If an RfC is started, I would recommend including such an option as a via media. Please do not use this suggestion as an excuse to start an edit-war; I am offering these as options to focus further discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Could you explain what do you mean by including something along the lines of "sources dispute X" is another viable option that balances concision with neutrality?Saff V. (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Unquoting what source says

@Saff V.: There was a discussion here about quoting Abrahamian directly to avoid POV pushing. In that same section about marriage/divorce, I also quoted the author directly, who doesn't refer to the incident as a "bizarre marriage", but rather a "bizarre episode" (sequence of events, as opposed to a single event). You reverted this back to "bizarre marriage", something the author does not say and that comes across as POV pushing. Can you please substantiate your revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that discussion, anyway, I have no problem with inserting quoting Abrahamian directly. My first issue is this phrase "this rather bizarre episode" which is not clear refers to what in your edit! What do you mean by "this rather bizarre episode"?

Secondly, The [Source] says that A contributing factor to the apparent disarray in the leadership was Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre. This rather bizarre episode was presented as an …. so that it illustrates that "this rather bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre". In other words, "this rather bizarre episode" includes Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife and marriage to Maryam Abrishami that was not clear in your edit and the author doesn't quote that you did.Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying "bizarre marriage" sounds grotesque and it's something the author himself did not say. If we're going to reflect the author's personal opinion, which is the case here, then we should at least attribute accurately to what he actually said, which is "bizarre episode" (less grotesque). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Does the reader know that the "bizarre episode" refers to what? I think that if we decided to use "bizarre episode", use parenthesis would be needed, such as this: According to Sepehr Zabih, this "bizarre episode" (Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre) was shown as an ...Saff V. (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the reader knows that it refers to the whole marriage/divorce incident because the sentence is placed right after (and in the same paragraph) the whole explanation about marriage/divorce. No parenthesis are needed unless you want to remove the whole explanation about the divorce/marriage previous to this sentence). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the whole explanation about the divorce/marriage previous to this sentence"? Which sentences?Saff V. (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Shortly after the revolution, Rajavi married Ashraf Rabii, an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood".[264] Rabii was killed by Iranian forces in 1982. On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani’s younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."[265]" Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems that your mean by "whole explanation" is the whole paragraph, which not only refers to Rajavi's divorce and remarriage but also includes other subjects such as the symbol of revolutionary womanhood, a great ideological, wife-swapping and .... So I certainly believe that the reader will not understand by reading the whole paragraph what bizarre episode means. That is why the description in parentheses needs to be explained.Saff V. (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: exactly which part in the highlighted text above does not refer to the marriage/divorce? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The author uses "bizarre episode" in direct reference to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami" hence I believe neither Saff V.'s nor Stefka Bulgaria are presenting an accurate version. I suggest something like "bizarre episode", i.e. the sequence of divorces and marriages, was described as ...," which clarifies the author's words. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We have a whole paragraph devoted to the divorce/marriage claims, and that can be followed by the author's interpretation ("bizarre episode"). Adding "bizarre marriage", or outlining what the author was referring to (with "for example") is original research. Neither Saff V. or Mhhossein has addressed that point: which part of the paragraph that precedes the claim "this bizarre episode" doesn't refer to the divorce/marriage claims? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I answered above and repeat it again, It seems that your mean by "whole explanation" is the whole paragraph, which not only refers to Rajavi's divorce and remarriage but also includes other subjects such as the symbol of revolutionary womanhood, a great ideological, wife-swapping and so on! Actually your question is false! You have to ask, doesn't the previous sentence say anything about "this bizarre episode"? Furthermore, you are not familiar with concept of wp:OR which demanded, The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist but we have in the source that A contributing factor to the apparent disarray in the leadership was Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre. This rather bizarre episode was presented as an …. As a result it is not OR.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: exactly which part of that paragraph is not about the marriage/divorce? Please be specific, providing the exact sentences that are not related to the marriage/divorce. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The OR allegation is just not applicable here, since my suggestion was well matched with the source you were referring to. Btw, The text is clear and everyone can see which part is related to what.--Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the text is clear and is about the marriage, which means adding the author's quote at the end is suggestive to that. So we really don't need to put words into the author's mouth here unless there a reason to, which so far I have read any. Can anyone say why we shouldn't quote the author as he wrote it? (saying that it requires explanation is not applicable since that whole paragraph is about marriage).Ypatch (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Put words into the author's mouth?? It is the text of the book that I mentioned above:A contributing factor to the apparent disarray in the leadership was Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami the wife of a leading member of Mujahidin leadership cadre. This rather bizarre episode was presented as an.... You say that the text is clear and is about the marriage while according to the mentioned text author hasn't said that. You made me repeat my first comment.Saff V. (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That text is about " Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami, which means it is relevant to what the author is saying, which means the author's quote doesn't need to be explained or reworded. If you can't give a clear reason why we shouldn't quote the author as he wrote it, then I'll ask El_C to allow me to insert the author's quote as he wrote it. Ypatch (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you say how the reader should know that "bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami"? while the subject like a great ideological, wife-swapping was mentioned in the paragraph, Maybe the reader think "bizarre episode" means great ideological or wife swapping. When the author make it clear in his book why we shouldn't do that.Saff V. (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.: according to the author, what does "bizarre episode" refer to exactly? Ypatch (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein and I said before. Any way I repeated again, according to source it refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami" directly.Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

So then there's nothing wrong with quoting the author right after the information about Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife. Ypatch (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly?Saff V. (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Info about "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami", followed by the author's quote about "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami". Ypatch (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The text that comes before the "bizarre episode" is a mixture of the info on the divorce&marriage and explainations on the incident. The quote remains confusing without defining it.Saff V. (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V., I asked you what the text was about, and you said "it refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami", so then, there would be nothing wrong with putting the author's quote right after ""Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami". Ypatch (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., your recent edit is not in accordance with the discussion we have been having. If, in your own words, "bizzare episode" is about " "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami", then there is nothing wrong with quoting the author after that information. I will now add it as such. Ypatch (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I misunderstood but why. Because I constantly have to hear an unacceptable duplicate answer. I asked you, "Can you say how the reader should know that "bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami"?" YOU did n't answer and asked "according to the author, what does "bizarre episode" refer to exactly?" I answered and repeted again and again, yes "bizarre episode" refers to "Rajavi’s divorce of his second wife the daughter of Banisadr -and marriage to Maryam Abrishami" but how the reader can find out that? I read the book and found that. why are you against to make it clear for readers? @Vanamonde93: can you leave a comment, I really bother for this discussion, there is no fair objection and made me repeat my answer!Saff V. (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion is among the more bizarre episodes on this talk page. Drop it, the lot of you. I would advise removing the quote altogether, because it reads like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph. If you insist on using it, though, it's abundantly clear what is being described as "bizarre", and further prolonged discussion is pointless. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

100% agree. I will follow Vanamonde's recommendation of removing the quote altogether. It's one thing to include criticism of the MEK where criticisms are WP:DUE, but a different thing is trying to include any and all possible POV against the MEK (such as this "bizarre" word). Ypatch (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Per Vanamonde's suggestion?Vanamonde suggested that "I would advise removing the quote altogether, because it reads like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph. If you insist on using it, though, it's abundantly clear what is being described as "bizarre", and further prolonged discussion is pointless. " He never said to remove "bizarre". This material is supported by RS. Also the text that comes before the "bizarre episode" includes some POVs and we have to mention "bizarre episode" for balance. Please build the consequence and let to know other opinions then edit the article!Saff V. (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with Ypatch's compromise of only removing the "bizarre" part and keeping the rest of that quote, but since Saff V. has objected that, then I'll go with Vanamonde's advice: "I would advise removing the quote altogether, because it reads like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph.". Removing it on that basis. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Doesn't the edit violate the restriction of the page? How about self-interpretation of your comment? Did you really say to remove only the "bizarre" word? It is interesting Stefka removed the quote that he formerly was added to the article!Saff V. (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V: I don't understand why you keep on complaining about edits you yourself just reverted. About my own edit, I initially tried to abide to what the author was saying (without adding the WP:OR that you and Mhhossein have been trying to include to that quote), but then I agreed with Vanamonde's assessment that this reads "like someone is trying to shoehorn every last bit of criticism into the paragraph". Instead of substantiating why that criticism is necessary, you report me here to Vanamonde, and then to ANI. Yourself and Mhhossein have reported me for such things dozens of times; which to me comes across as WP:BULLYing (also the reason why EL_C may have stopped participating in this page). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My previous comment refers to Ypatch and the violation of page's restriction not you. Please do not try to make a reason for Admin's absence there is no reason.Saff V. (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am suggesting that none of that quote, the adjective "bizarre", or the rest of it, adds to any understanding of the subject. However, that's not binding on you, obviously, and if you still disagree an RfC is the way to go. It would be among the silliest RfCs I have seen. I would remind you that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; we summariza what sources say, not reproduce them in their entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Review the page's restriction

Some edits such as this one show that "consensus required" doesn't work well for the MEK article. it allows users to misuse it. I suggest to change the consensus required to 1RR. Any ideas are welcome.Saff V. (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. We should have done that from the first days we decided on WP:CONSENSUS. This will keep the page against the edit warrers. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

leadership

Please substantiate this revert. There are some issues with that:

1. if there are grammatical problems, you can do copy edit rather than removing it.
2. You wrote that "MEK leadership and cult/marriage info is already described in detail in other parts of the article." this material, "More ever swearing an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran is part of the MeK membership ceremony. The blame of Rajavi leadership is forbidden", are not related to cult or marriage and there is nothing about them in the article. Please provide them, if there is.
3. Creating a section with the title of "leadership" is common in similar articles, see [[1]] and [[2]]. we have an article about the Iranian political-militant organization which is included a section about leadership, but there is nothing for leadership. It is vital who are leaders and What are the main features of leadership, therefore we have to make a separate section for it.Saff V. (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.: What is the exact information that you're trying to include in the article, and why is that information necessary? (that isn't already repeated). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The exact information to be included in "Leadership" section is exactly all what you can say about the leadership of the group and the transfer of power between the leaders. Such a section is found in many other similar articles; you can see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda, for instance, both featured with "leadership" subsection. So, your argument for removal of the whole section, as opposed to modifying it, is not correct. It is very clear that after 'leadership' is created, the related materials from other parts of the article should go under it, as much as possible. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You're currently generalising. Please be specific about what information you're looking to include there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You're escaping from the very fact that the article should have this section. The content may need further discussions. The section is going to be created if you don't have substantiated objections against it. For the start, it will have basic facts regarding the leadership of the group. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I don't have an objection against the creation of this section, I'm just asking what it is that you're trying to include there (what Saff V. previously included was either repeated, illegible, or trivial info, which the article does not need). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Which of the material of this edit is duplicated, illegible, or trivial info? If you think the article does not need them, it is your POV!Saff V. (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

1) "Masoud Rajavi designated himself and Maryam leader and co-leader of the MeK (and, by extension, of Iran) for life." This is already in the article:

• "Leaders: Massoud Rajavi / Maryam Rajavi, deputy commander-in-chief[8]"

  ;

  "In 1980, the MEK was under the control of Massoud Rajavi, one of the few surviving members of the MEK’s Central cadre."

  ;

  "pro-democracy demonstrations across the country invoked by MEK leader Massoud Rajavi"

  ;

  "On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader."

  , etc...

2) "While the transformation of MEK into a cult was begun, the concept of leadership was used in the MeK chant “Iran-Rajavi, Rajavi-Iran” as well as informal title the present Imam (Imam-e Hal) was used widely by MeK membership."

• Trivial (and POV).

3) "Masoud Rajavi tended "to compare his own marriage to that of the Prophet Muhammad".

• Trivial (I don't understand why Saff V. and Mhhossein insist on filling this article with random text about Rajavi's marriage)

4) "More ever swearing an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran is part of the MeK membership ceremony. The blame of Rajavi leadership is forbidden."

• Illegible

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no objection against the creation of this section, SO I created it. In addition, the issue of Illegible sentences was solved. About sentences that Stefka said they are "Trivial", I think it is just his POV and the opinion of other users is needed.Saff V. (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff, the section you created about "leadership" still doesn't make much sense. Why do you want to add "membership ceremony involves swearing an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran." Criticism of the Rajavi leadership is not permitted" add to the article? The other info you removed from their sections is also not warranted.? The other material that you moved into that section was better placed in their previous sections. This is not an improvement to the article, so I'm reverting it on that account. Ypatch (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You have to build the consequence then edit the article. Up to now, there is no objection to create this section and I solved the Illegible issue mentioned by Stefka. I added that material because RS supports them.Saff V. (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff, you need to read more carefully these conversations we are having here. The problem is not with creating a "Leadership" section, the problem is with the type of information you have been trying to include there. You still have not answered my question, and you continue to add things that don't add anything to the article except superficial criticisms. Ypatch (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If there's no objection against having the section, the you probably need to consider stopping removing the section. If you there's something to be modified, you can avoid being general by saying "superficial criticisms" content is added and suggest details to be added. All of us here are apparently saying the section should be created by you are showing otherwise in practice by removing the section. If there's anything to be improved, it won't happen by whole removal of the section. Btw, I can see Saff V has changed the content in light of Stefka Bulgaria's comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus building

@Saff, without consensus or even reaching a middle ground, you can't continue to push your own conclusions into the article about controversial edits that we have been trying to discuss here (as you have done in your recent set of edits). I've rolled them back on that basis. Please discuss them here with other editors before inserting them again. This is what consensus building consists of (you should know this by now). Ypatch (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You have shown to violate this process repeatedly, so that advice looks weird to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)