Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Absence of El C

@El C: the presence of you is absolutely necessary for the article. I don't know why you don't answer the ping, If you need to be far away from MEK article or anything else, I respect your feeling but the presence of Admin is needed for the article. I am actually not going to involve you more into the article but this absence makes some issues:

• [see this disscusion], The irrelevant letter was inserted into the article, I provided my reasons (the article is too long, duplicated material, irrelevant material) but I Stefka without any attention repeat his not fair objection!
• As the RSN disscusion, it was concluded that TWT is not trustable and more discussion is needed in TP, I removed the source because of that, but Stefka reverted it because he is not sure, such a fair reason!
• In absence of you, page restrictions were violated and they misinterpret your comment for pushing your povs, please see here and here
• I really cannot understand why for making clear the "bizarre episode" we have to consume two weeks time and energy for discussing, while you could stop it by leaving a comment! You do n't control the discussion and they use this absence and don't give a fair reason.

They are just some examples!Saff V. (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Can you take look at the above complaints? as well as this edit which illustrates they don't respect to RSN discussion. I must say that they have already been blocked because of this behavior.Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• At least one of the reasons I haven't been active here of late is that the lot of you combine to make every discussion utterly opaque. By linking to previous discussions in every new talk page section, which in turn have links to previous sections, you've made it such that anyone trying to understand a dispute has to read the entire history of this talk page. So stop doing that, please; everyone knows what's been said here before, and if someone starts ignoring it, WP:AN is the place to raise that. Stefka Bulgaria, I advise you to drop the Washington Times issue. We can dispute its reliability for however long we want, but there's a more basic problem; that quote gives virtually no information. All it's doing is denying the state department said something. It has virtually no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the MEK. Also; can you please provide RS, here on the talk page, demonstrating the link between the disputed letter and the activities of the MEK? All you've given on the talk so far is a link to the article section, and I'm not reading every single source contained therein. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93: I dropped the Washington Times issue several days ago after Ypatch added a new source supporting the Washington Times statement (which was originally given at RSN).

That paragraph on the MEK page goes like this: there's a source saying "US officials" alleged the MEK was involved in the killings of nuclear scientists; and a response by a US official saying they never made such claims:

"In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists." A Senior State Department Official confirmed that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Don't you think the response by a US official is valid? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: It seems like a non-sequitur to me; the NBC is reporting anonymous officials; the State Department is saying the state department didn't say it. The two statements sound contradictory, but they are not, and as such the second adds very little information. That said, if you feel strongly, the thing to do is start an RFC (that goes for all of you, not just Stefka); not argue about it ad nauseum. Also, please answer my request for sources about the letter. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The State.gov source addresses specifically the NBC claim about "anonymous officials":

"We know that NBC has reported back in February that a U.S. Government official had said that MEK was involved in killing the scientist – nuclear scientist – in Iran as a (inaudible) for Israel."

"SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, number one here. The judgment – and it is a judgment – was made on the basis of those criteria that are enunciated by the Secretary: the public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism over more than a decade, and cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their military base. And I should add that the United States Government has not claimed that the MEK was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran. And that’s really all we’re going to have to say on that."

So we have a report by NBC saying US officials made "x" claims, and a source by a US official saying they never made those claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi @Vanamonde93: about the letter, this is what the source says:

"... thousands of Mojahedin prisoners, as well as a number of the members of other political groups, were executed in prisons inside Iran. Even many prisoners who had been released after serving thei terms were re-arrested and handed over to firing squids. Teh execution of these prisoners began with Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa in summer 1998, which read in part:

Those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain committed to their support for the Monafequin [Mojahedin], are waging war on God and are condemned to execution ... As regards the trials, use whichever criterion that speeds up the implementation of the [execution] verdict. The only official to raise his voice against the mass killings was Ayatollah Hosseinali Montazeri, Khomeini.

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."

As you can see, this is about the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

The utility of the first sentence above is still not clear to me, but, as I've said before, if you still want it in the article you should open an RfC. With respect to the letter; okay, the connection is being made by the source. Assuming its reliability is not being questioned, there's still the question of due weight; and if you can't come to an agreement about that, then again, you need an RfC. Neither El C nor I am going to solve that particular conundrum for you. Saff V., in this case you were the one seeking the material's removal; I suggest you open an RfC; and please frame it neutrally when you do. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the response, I have some questions to get your mean better. For the Washington times, I just want to know why Stefka and Ypatch didn't respect to RSN conclussion and both reverted (stefka and Ypatch my edit, if users are allowed to ignore RSN and revert edit which was done based on its conclusion just by inserting "I am not sure TWT is unreliable", (pleas see here), Really why do we use RSN? I have to say that still, TWT is standing in the article and I am going to pick it based RSN discussion as the untrustable source. On the other hand, you said that " that quote gives virtually no information." That quote means material was inserted by this edit. OK, in this way you agree to pick up material with both sources because it doesn't provide any important info.Am I right?

About the letter, at first, I am going to remove duplicated material of letter's content which I illustrated above, then I can not know why you suggest opening RFC while we know there is no direct relation between letter and MEK article, as well as the letter violates wp: weight. I certainly appreciate you convince me.Saff V. (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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) 12:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As it was pointed out at RSN and several times in this TP, that statement is also backed by this US Government source, which is definitely a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Saff V.: Your responses are getting very hard to understand, and I'm concerned that you're not actually reading what I've written above. 1) Admins do not give permission for content-related edits. We can respond to edits that violate policy. There is no clear policy violation here, because while the RSN discussion shows that TWT is unreliable for some content, there's no particular reason to think it's unreliable here. 2) Yes, personally I think that sentence is utterly useless, but Stefka and others disagree; therefore, an RfC is the way to go, because again, I have no authority over content. Specifically, I cannot decide what is due weight by myself. 3) As far as I can see, the issue with the Daily Beast is a separate one; there is also no clear consensus on its use at RSN. This is something else to raise here, via an RfC, if necessary. Also; I think when you say "pick up" you mean "remove", but those two do not mean the same. I hate to say this, but for working on a contentious article, editors need a better grasp of English than your post above demonstrates. If you're working with a translator, perhaps that means you need to put more time into figuring out exactly what you're reading and what you're saying. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde As I said, I asked questions to get your mean better. I understood what you said, but I found it to be a little strange because you suggested frequently opening RFC for solving issues. Anyway, I will give it try. Also, I forgot to read the answer before publishing it. I read it right now, you are right, some words were missed, sorry.Saff V. (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch's violation of the restriction

@Vanamonde93: Sorry for the delay. Previously, I reported and edit which I thought was edit warring against the article's restrictions. Back then, EI_C responded that the edit was a bold action, not an edit war. Now, exactly after EI_C expressed his feelings, they have repeated exactly the same edit war amid the discussions. The text needs to be restored to the longstanding version and the discussions, which I believe had led to good changes to the lead, should continue. Thanks for your intervention.--Mhhossein ^talk 08:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Another straw man report. Here's the Talk page discussion about that edit, where I provided detailed analyses of the sources showing how they did not accurate represent what Mhhossein has been constantly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) trying to include in the lede. This was El_C's feedback/responses (to Mhhossein's complains) throughout that discussion:

• 6 January 2020 "Mhhossein, by all means, make a proposal to add that counterview. Stefka Bulgaria, if that is the case, then, indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted.

• 9 January 2020 "Maybe launch an RfC about this, so that you can get some outside input into this dispute... My own view, incidentally, is that to say that the MEK is a cult outright does not seem to mirror the available sources. It comes across as an hyperbole. By contrast, referring to cult-like attributes seems like a good compromise that resolves that."

• 18 January 2020 "But it wasn't removed again per se., the word "critics" was supplanted instead. If that is also a revert (if that happened before), you need to demonstrate that. 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."

• 19 January 2020 "Although the word "critics" has been repeated in one of these instances, I'm not inclined to view this as a violation or edit warring. The sentences which follow are quite different. A revert is not just word duplication, but rather also about underlining meaning."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any cause to take an administrative action here (besides the fact that all of you are arguing over which version of the page should not be in place while you argue over the rest of it, instead of just discussing the content, as you ought to be doing). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde I really appreciate your control and response actually. The case needs to admin's decision is violating this request of El_C, did YPATCH Substantiate his reverts?Saff V. (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I already pointed out that those edits were thoroughly discussed and substantiated in its TP discussion (a discussion Saff V. didn't contribute to at all). These constant trivial reports are coming across as WP:HARRASMENT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I involved by this disscusion. If anyone wants to edit the article according to اhis own opinion, then the page 's restriction, one reverting or arguing here would be pointless. My objection is to the rules violated here by Yachts. 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!Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

That discussion which you've linked to doesn't address the sources, which is what we actually did in the relevant TP discussion. Unless there's a question by an admin, I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As the user who began dedicating a topic on the disputed content, I believe there was no consensus over the disputed content. In this edit the admin suggested to go by an RFC. Please note that the longstanding version of the article already respects the admin's insight by having phrases like some people "has described it as" being MEK with others saying they "resemble" a cult (the latter literally means the group is said by some to have cult-like attributes). Also, this comment by EI_C has a major "if" and should be misinterpreted. However, as Vanamonde suggested, I will elaborate my points on the content:

• Abrahamian did not use the exact words of the 'cult being built around someone', but there are other reliable sources saying this. Actually cults are always built around something/someone. Anyway, this item, i.e. "built around its leaders", can be prone to further discussions. Probably you may explain why "cult of personality", the description used by Abrahamian, does not equate to saying the cult is being built around its leaders. Also, see CFR saying "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."
• Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". The Elizabeth Rubin's work is described by Stefka Bulgaria and Ypatch as being "damming article against the MEK" and "certainly a one-sided criticism of the group" and the description seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Likewise they said "Commentary Magazine" is another "damming article against the MEK" by another Rubin."
• The RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources. The report clearly describes the group as "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."
• CFR is not used as a direct source here but it make a general statement: "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis." So, it says "many analysts", "including Rubin", say MEK is a cult.

According to the restrictions of the page, "once a new addition or change to longstanding text are reverted, the edits must be shown to enjoy consensus before being reintroduced again". This is while the change to the longstanding version of the article was carried out without consensus being built, though the admin had clearly asked for an RFC. I will restore the longstanding version and start an RFC over it, while according to WP:ONUS "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."

-Mhhossein ^talk 15:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think you were asking for discussion on the content. Please take a look at it "We have an admin approval on the previous version"!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@EI C: They revert under your name, can you please comment on this? Yptach was blocked just recently for this sort of behavior. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's the discussion, of which Mhhossein has not participated in over a week. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My latest comment, which were objections against the change to the longstanding version, is still left with no response. That's what shows you were not able to build consensus and kept mis-interpreting the admin's comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Longstanding text" and "per talk" are not magic words". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

They are not, that's why Ypatch should not have carried out edit war amid the ongoing discussions! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

They have discussed, and so have I, and so has El_C; that's consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Until EI_C is not commenting here, you can simply attribute whatever you like to him! For the record, my latest substantiated objection was never responded. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria, I do not see a clear consensus for the version that currently exists; all El C is saying is that the organization cannot be directly described as a cult, which Mhhossein's version does not do. The RfC below is supposed to establish a new consensus, specifically with respect to what version is compliant with WP:DUE. Until then, you ought not to be edit-warring over long-standing content. Ypatch, please self-revert, and allow the RfC to take its course. Mhhossein, please don't revert this yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the intervention. Ypatch has repeated the revert 3 times against both the article longstanding version and the admin's comments. I reported his edit, which I thought was edit warring against the article's restrictions. Back then, EI_C described the edit as being a bold action, not an edit war. But, how many times that bold edit could be repeated? He repeated the edit. And now he again repeated the same edit against the longstanding version of the article. Consider that he was previously blocked for the same edit warring behavior. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93 This is what Mhhossein inserted back into the article: "Various scholarly works[71][72][73], media outlets[74][75] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi". What we establish with Ypatch and El_C was that the sources did not mirror those claims, and that 'reverting to the long standing text' shouldn't be an excuse for putting something in the lede that isn't represented by the sources. Can you please comment? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Your are again misinterpreting El_C's comments. Anyway, I showed  here and here that the text is supported by reliable sources. So, don't downgrade my substantiated objection, which you two failed to respond, to a low-level excuse. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria There's a difference between giving certain sources undue weight (something which is largely a matter of judgement) and actively misrepresenting sources (which falls foul of WP:NOR, and is something an uninvolved admin can issue sanctions for). I see evidence that the weighting of sources in that sentence is contentious. I see no evidence that that sentence contains clear-cut original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93: For about the last year or so, all RfCs in this Talk page have ended in "no consensus", which has left text in the article that isn't properly represented by the majority scholarship. We actually need someone neutral to look at the sources and make a decision based on that. I tried this by taking issues to Third opinion, but Mhhossein refused to comment there, and I was told by El_C that they aren't obligated to comment, which leaves the issue in the article in place. It is through such processes that fixing text in the article has been prevented, even with RSs at hand. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That is sometimes the fate of contentious pages on a project such as this one. You're welcome to solicit more input by posting neutral notifications at relevant wikiprojects, but ultimately the absence of consensus is always likely to be a problem. Even if El C or myself decided to step away from acting as admins here, and worked to rewrite the page, there's no reason to assume that our version will be any more palatable to the other editors than the current material that is under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93:: Another violation of the restrictions by Ypatch, which should be reverted: The whole story is discussed here but, briefly, the user reverted against the article longstanding version, although it was once reverted by me and was being discussed (just see his edit summary). No consensus was reached when he changed the longstanding version. My argument was that we needed to avoid misquoting Ariane M. Tabatabai by removing a selected part of his words! This is the complete version:

  "Most recently, the group was suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel, until the 2015 nuclear deal.17 The group’s capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years – especially since the 2003 Iraq war, with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, who provided it with financial and logistical support 18– but it continues to be one of the main terrorist groups identified as a threat by Tehran."

  --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That text was removed because that information is repeated in the article a couple of time already, and that was clearly explained in that TP discussion. As notified earlier, "long standing text'" is not a magic word or substantiated reason to justify a revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

NO consensus was built for changing the longstanding version. Your arguments are pretty much the same as those you used to alter the lead!!! Btw, "explained in that TP discussion" is not a magic phrase, consensus should be built and Ypatch's edit came amid an ongoing discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That edit had my consensus; it didn't have yours, but that's hardly a surprise. More importantly, it was substantiated. A substantiation and a 2 against 1 consensus seems like a legit reason to advance the editing process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2 to 1? Is it a football game? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not jumping in on your side this time, Mhhossein. Repetition is an obvious reason to ignore the "longstanding" rule, and I find your arguments against removal not to be substantive. We need to represent sources accurately, but that does not mean every sentence for which a source is used needs to represent the totality of the source. The author's point about assassinations has clearly been made elsewhere, and as such the author isn't being misrepresented. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comment. But I did not want to ask you jump on my side. I was reporting a harmful act, i.e. determining the consensus unilaterally, which goes against the stability of the article. He did the second revert amid an ongoing discussion and it was clearly against the article restriction. The admin, who originally suggested WP:CONSENSUS, urged multiple times to avoid determining the consensus unilaterally. Regardless of whether or not the edit was right, I am reporting the very act of edit warring two times amid an ongoing discussion by a user who was recently blocked for edit warring and whose recent edit warring turned out to be against the consensus. I hope I am clear. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, now that you're commenting on the content, please say how selectively leaving "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years" is not misrepresentation of him, despite the portions of his comment saying "[MEK] continues to be one of the main terrorist groups identified as a threat by Tehran". For what reason that but should be ignored ? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Removing information that's already repeated twice in the article is not a "harmful act", so please tone it down.
• 2) In that TP discussion, you never address the repetition, but just keep repeating "misquote" over and over again, which does not address the issue (repetition).
• 3) You accuse Ypatch of "edit-warring", which, under the same criteria, could also be applied to you (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, etc.)
• 4) In the initial relevant TP discussion about this, you did not even participate. Then, a few days later, you reported Ypatch to El_C for "misquoting", but what Ypatch had actually done is remove the info that's repeated in the article.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I am not taking a position on the content; I'm evaluating the arguments all of you are presenting with respect to policy and common sense. Making an argument that has a basis in policy and common sense is a good thing. Repeating that argument that doesn't, is tendentios behavior. At this moment, you are being somewhat tendentious, because a) You've misunderstood how WP:NPOV applies to that quote, b) you keep talking about the longstanding version even though El C and myself have both made it clear at various points that there need to be other reasons to keep content in the article, and c) now that I've disagree with your position, you are shifting the goalposts, and pointing to a part of what the source says that wasn't removed or added in the edit you are disputing. My comment was not about the source in its entirety, but about the assassination portion, as you would have realized if you had read it dispassionately. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: I was accused of "shifting the goalposts" and being "tendentious" by you, but I guess you would not say that if you had gone through the comments. See my comments ([1] and [2]) where I have explained Tabatabai's comment should not be used out of context. I reported two cases where Ypatch had done edit warring. The first one, which you admitted was not in accordance to the EI_C's commetns, was concluded with no warning or even advice to Ypatch. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In light of the admin action you took, could you say why the following edit series was not a violation of the page's restriction:

1. Stefka Bulgaria removed the terms "Various scholarly works, media outlets" from the lead.
2. I restored to the longstanding version and tried to substantiate my objection here. Please note that I opened a new TP topic for the disputed issue.
3. Ypatch removed them without trying to build consensus.
4. Ypatch removed them again. Note that the edit turned out to lack consensus.

Your explanations will help me understand the restriction better. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

When did I ever say that edit was okay? I told Ypatch explicitly that his edit was not okay, and asked him to self-revert. Saff V.'s violation today was the latest in a string of edits that evinced a battleground attitude; which is why he was sanctioned. Discretionary sanctions are, as the name implies, discretionary. To be clear, a considerable number of editors here have been risking sanction with their behavior for a while now; as I've said more times than I can remember, please return to discussing the specifics of the content, and not each others' behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: You know Ypatch was once blocked for the same violation and his recent violation could bring him something more than 'self-revert'. Anyway, "discussing the specifics of the content" requires stability of the article and it, at the same time, helps the stability. I believe Saff V was wrong. But I would like to know why a sanction did not apply for the Ypatch's case? I am not even asking to do it now, just want to know how the discretionary works. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I already told you. Discretionary sanctions are applied when admins feel their benefits (containing disruption) outweight their costs (fewer editors to build an article). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

We all participated in the talk page discussion The paragraph on MEK's cult nature/charcteristics, including Ypatch. During that talk page discussion, I analysed the sources thoroughly showing that "Critics have described the MEK as having cult-like attributes" was more in accordance with the majority sources than what Mhhossein proposed ("Various scholarly works,[68][69][70] media outlets[71][72] has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi"). El_C's feedback (to Mhhossein's protests) about this was the following:

• 6 January 2020 "Mhhossein, by all means, make a proposal to add that counterview. Stefka Bulgaria, if that is the case, then, indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted.

• 9 January 2020 "Maybe launch an RfC about this, so that you can get some outside input into this dispute... My own view, incidentally, is that to say that the MEK is a cult outright does not seem to mirror the available sources. It comes across as an hyperbole. By contrast, referring to cult-like attributes seems like a good compromise that resolves that."

• 18 January 2020 "But it wasn't removed again per se., the word "critics" was supplanted instead. If that is also a revert (if that happened before), you need to demonstrate that. 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."

• 19 January 2020 "Although the word "critics" has been repeated in one of these instances, I'm not inclined to view this as a violation or edit warring. The sentences which follow are quite different. A revert is not just word duplication, but rather also about underlining meaning."

The analysis of sources and El_C's feedback seem to add up to a substantiated reason for Ypatch's edit. Still, that edit was reverted and a RfC was launched. Something similar is currently happening on the TP discussion Other names, where Mhhossein and Saff V. are saying the MEK is commonly referred to as "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult" based on two (biased) RSs and a number of fringe publications (I will provide an analysis of those sources soon). That will also likely end up in a RfC, which will also likely end up in "no-consensus" (as it has been here with every other RfC for over the past year), leaving that derogatory name, which isn't backed by the majority scholarship, in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process please. There's nothing new in these wall of texts. You have repeated them almost verbatim. Ypatch's edit turned out to be a violation. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde:So, sometimes a user, with a background that of Ypatch, may violate a restriction and still be untouched because of those "benefits" and "costs"? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

Please add link to Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK) for https://mek-iran, as this is the official website for this organization, not referenced in this article. 65.158.226.226 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a valid link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Allegations by former MEK members in the article

There are way too many statements by former members of MEK in this article. They are sprinkled in different sections with criticisms of MEK that don't really confirm anything except maybe trying to put the MEK in a bad light. Some of them coming from Iranian government-related institutions such as Nejat Society. Some just tell us is that these former members of MEK have criticized the MEK, nothing more. I will remove the more WP:POV and WP:UNDUE ones, and propose that the rest are edited (we don't need so many). This is what I will remove so far:

• "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."

• "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."

The first doesn't tell us if the MEK were in conflict with Hussain following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, and the second does't tell us if the MEK was in conflict with the Kurds (and we already know the MEK was in conflict with the Iranian Revolutionary guards). Ypatch (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Both sentences are well sourced and "if the MEK were in conflict with Hussain following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980" or "if the MEK was in conflict with the Kurds" is not a proper justification for such a removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. What do these statements add to the article? Ypatch (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the first one shows how MEK have probably changed his viewpoints throughout its life and the second one shows the group's alliance with Saddam Hussein. So what? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop removing the comments by former members without having them discussed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that your substantiation for reverting? If so, it's not a substantiated revert. We already have in the article the different viewpoints the MEK has gone through, and we already have in the article the group's alliance with Saddam Hussein. Both these topics are already described at length in the article, so please provide a substantiated reason for your revert, and remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Ypatch (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I know "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" but you can't simply remove a major viewpoint on that basis. POVs regarding MEK's alliance with Saddam should be mentioned in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

These are not "major viewpoints"; but rather, POV from MEK defectors which in fact don't add any new details about these events. I agree they should be removed from the article, mainly per WP:NPOV but also because the MEK's ideology and collaboration with Hussain are already in the article and covered by better and more neutral sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is your personal viewpoint regarding the issue. No, I disagree its removal from the article as I explained. You may launch an RFC though. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, these are just testimonies from former MEK members about things already in the article, they are not "a major viewpoints". You're stonewalling here. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria et al.: Masoud Banisadr is not simply a former MEK member, he is a scholar authoring books and articles so his views should be distinguished from what you are portraying here. Also, "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards"1 is very widely used by sources by various reliable sources. That said you are free to launch an RFC for these two sentences. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We've had this discussion several times before. Massoud Banisadr is a former MEK member who's few published works solely consist of portraying the MEK in a bad light. Also, your argument for keeping "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" is a straw man argument: This is a statement by a former MEK member, nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not going to censor Massoud Banisadr's comments only because YOU think he is "portraying the MEK in a bad light". What do you mean by "bad light"? Are those who support MEK's cause good guys? As for the MEK's massacre of Kurds in Iraq, I provided a link to show how repeatedly the quotation is used. Your attempt to remove the comments published by reliable sources without providing sufficient reasoning is highly questionable. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: sorry to hassle you again with my pings. There is a majority consensus here that these two quotes from past members of the MEK don't add anything new to the article except more superficial criticism from former members of MEK. These are the two quotes:

• "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."

• "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."

Stefka, Alex-h, and myself (and also Icewhiz in an older talk page discussion) agree that this is the case, while Mhhossein keeps arguing in favor of keeping them.

Is Mhhossein Filibustering the consensus process here by "Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing."? Ypatch (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, bias and unreliability are two different concepts. A source may be critical of the MEK and still be reliable. The real question is whether a source is getting undue weight or not. If there's three (four?) of you arguing to remove the source, and only one editor is arguing to keep it, that is fairly substantial consensus, though it wouldn't hurt to formalize it through an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde. Yes, there is a majority consensus here, so I will remove the disputed content. Per WP:ONUS, Mhhossein can launch a RfC so that he can build consensus before inclusion of the disputed contents. Ypatch (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Polling is not a substitute for discussion and none of the users have responded to why they are going to censor Massoud Banisadr's comments only because they think he is "portraying the MEK in a bad light" and why the quotation "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards"which id heavily covered by the sources, should be removed. Vanamonde: I suggest going by asking a 3rd opinion (an un-involved and neutral user) or by launching an RFC.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I find at least three reliable sources mentioning the quote by Rajavi asking to kill the Kurds (see [3], [4] and [5]). Also, Masoud Banisadr is a an author and former member of MEK. I believe his views should be weighed more than other former members. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The quote which appeared in NYT is also repeated in the report by RAND (p. 62). Also, the command is described by Center for American Progress as being infamous. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This revert by Mhhossein is edit warring against the achieved consensus in this talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

OUNS is NOT a relevant policy here! The content has been there for a long period of time. It's on the other party to establish consensus based on solid arguments to removed the content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam: The users have ganged up against me. @Vanamonde93:: I have performed a self revert in compliance with the page's restriction. I did not know I had reverted it once but please see my previous comments saying how the quote is covered by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: First Mhhossein edit-warred here by going against the consensus in this Talk page discussion, then he reverted to avoid sactions, but then SharabSalam put back that edit without even participating in why the content was removed in the first place. Ypatch (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have full-protected the page. Any further edit-warring after protection lapses will be met with a block. Mhhossein, it's no use throwing sources at me; I'm not the one you have to persuade. When due weight is all that is being judged, the talk page discussion here was sufficient for determining consensus; Indeed, talk page discussions are generally the best way to reach consensus, because RfCs take time and effort. RfCs have been necessary here because none of you is every willing to modify your positions after rational discussion, and so outside opinion is necessary. Mhhossein, the only reason you are not blocked right now is because you self-reverted. Now that SharabSalam has supported your position, I agree that an RfC is the best way to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your response. Didn't SharabSalam violate the restrictions by bold-editing back into the article something that he had not even participated on in the first place? It took some time for all editors to comment here, getting some kind of consensus, and just in one minute, all is reverted back. Ypatch (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, SharabSalam, and you all made reverts that were inappropriate. I'm sorely tempted to block all of you; please don't give me further reason to do so. Open an RfC, and focus on presenting a coherent and reasonable argument there. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam didn't violate any restrictions. You deleted a long standing content that is sourced to solid sources. I don't see any reason for deleting that content except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And I have made a comment above about your WP:GAMING of ouns. OUNS is not on the longstanding content. Removal of sourced long-standing content should has consensus first.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a self-revert after I checked the article history. Nothing happened in practice! --Mhhossein ^talk 03:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Page under full protection

The page is under full protection and, from my viewpoint, it shows the page restriction had not been able to bring the stability to the page completely. I am pretty much sure the situation of the page is now so much better as a result of the restriction suggested by El_C. However, this restriction requires the admins to keep eye on the development of the talk page discussions without being involved in them. The following points can be considered for the betterment of the article:

• From the very first days ([6], [7]) I was against pinging El_C too much since I believed the users should be able to discuss the issues themselves and would better avoid asking for comment for every single issue which. I was actually afraid of this situation.
• From the other hand, determining consensus by the users involved could also damage the page situation and nullify the restriction of the page. On multiple occasions I condemned this action by the involved editors.
• GAMING the system by performing the edits which were already discussed and archived should be avoided, unless there's a fresh consensus for that (there are some topics on this (see this for instance).
• 1RR can be considered as a measure to strengthen the WP:CONSENSUS restriction.

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Other names

I have reverted this edit by Mhhossein because the section "Other names" aims to indicate other names that the group commonly known by ("People’s Jihadists" is not one of them). Since we're on this topic, and though this is brought up in a previous TP discussion, in the section Other names there is also the name "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult", which is also WP:UNDUE (there seem to be only two sources referring to the group with this derogatory name). Unless there is a substantiated reason to keep this, I propose removing it per WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Cult of Rajavi and/or Rajavi Cult is an infamous name which was coined by NYT and is now widely used by sources referring to MEK. Others have also referred this name. For instance, "Another form of corrupted Sufism and Jihad in Islam is the cult of Rajavi."[8]. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, please provide sources to substantiate your claim (two sources are not enough to refer to a political group with any derogatory name). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The pov of NYT is not a good example of undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, 1 or 2 sources are not enough to determine the MEK had the alternative name "Rajavi Cult". That is why this name is WP:UNDUE. You need more sources to establish that "Rajavi Cult" is another name the MEK goes by. Please provide them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider the POV of NYT as a minority views? This article of NYT is so significant, it has been used as a reference in other RSes (like Taylor & Francis which publishes books and academic journals, Greenwood Publishing Group, part of ABC-CLIO, University of Colorado). In addition sources including 1, 2 and 3 support it.Saff V. (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.: I don't know if you're trying to confuse me by re-using the same sources quoted in other publications, or if this is a WP:COMPETENCE problem. To resume, these are the only available RSs that have called the MEK a "Rajavi Cult":

• A 2003 article by Elizabeth Rubin
• Article by mcclatchydc.com (which I'm not even sure constitutes WP:RS)

Either list more RSs that (independently) refer to the MEK with this derogatory name, or that derogatory name will be removed from the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to confuse you, I am going to say that you might misunderstand what wp:undue demands! The NYT source gives proper weight to the material and it wouldn't be the views of tiny minorities.Saff V. (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's you, Saff, who doesn't quite understand WP:UNDUE, which says that "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Ypatch (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, WP:UNDUE is being misused here. We're not going to act based on the Stefka Bulgaria's self-made criterion here. The term is wide spreadly used in other reliable sources, as shown by Saff V. Moreover, "Rajavi Cult" (Persian: "فرقه رجوی") is indeed one of the terms alternatively used when referring to MEK in Persian language media. Your attempt to remove this name is highly questionable. Paul Sheldon Foote, a California State University professor, has also used the term. Likewise, the name is used by Juan Cole. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

None of those two sources are WP:RS. If that's all you have been able to come up with, then using this disrespectful name is certainly WP:UNDUE. Ypatch (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly using UNDUE and downgrading those authors as being non reliable has apparently no cost here. Come with a reason please and review my comment again. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Another one. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Those sources don't look like they meet WP:RS, so I'm removing them. If you disagree, you can ask at WP:RSN for others to comment. Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not how things work. I am going to restore if you can not elaborate in what terms the sources are not reliable. Merely saying 'the sources are not reliable' is not a license for such a wholesale removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither of you has in any way discussed what makes these sources reliable or not. Further edit-warring over this, especially in the absence of any substantive discussion, will be met with sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

These new sources that Mhhossein added do not appear to be WP:RS, which is needed specially for adding this sort of name-calling. The first clue that these sources are not reliable is in their titles, but also Middleeasteye.net, Opednews.com, and juancole.com are not suitable sources to support that the MEK is often referred to "The Cult of Rajavi". Someone with Mhhossein's editing experience should know this. The 2003 Rubin piece seems to be the closest thing to a reliable source that describes the MEK as "The Cult of Rajavi", which would make this name-calling WP:UNDUE because it has been cited by the minority sources. That is my substantiation for removing "Cult of Rajavi" from the article. What's Mhhossein's reasoning for keeping it? Ypatch (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't appear to be reliable source is not a proper justification. You have judged the sources based on the titles, which is pretty much wrong and inaccurate, and I know with my experience what a reliable source constitutes. Middle East Eye is a credible news organization benefiting from the contribution of Jamal Khashoggi, Moncef Marzouki, Alistair Burt, Daniel Kawczynski among others. That's weird to see the source is questioned in terms of its reliability. Also, Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, is an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East. You can see his previous views regarding Iran. I would not simply discredit his works just for nothing! That's why the sources are reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quick analysis of the sources that Mhhossein is saying are enough to support the claim that the MEK is commonly referred to "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult.":

• "The Cult of Rajavi" by Elizabeth Rubin. Ypatch described this in a previous TP discussion as "The Elizabeth Rubin piece comes across as a "damming article against the MEK", certainly a one-sided criticism of the group. Perhaps worth unraveling with other views elsewhere in the article, but in the lead section of the article it becomes WP:UNDUE POV." I agree with this assessment; may be ok for the body, but certainly not for "Other names".

• "How Iranian MEK went from US terror list to halls of Congress" by Middle East Eye which, according to RSN, it's a controversial source at best. The article, just like the Rubin article, is a "one-sided criticism of the group."
• "Trump Luminaries at Iranian Jihadi Cult Conference in Paris while Excluding Nice Iranians from Immigration" by Juancole.com. Really? Do I really need to explain why this shouldn't be in a controversial article?

These are the 3 sources Mhhossein is using to keep in the article that the MEK is commonly known as "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult." I also agree with the assessment that someone with Mhhossein's editing experience should know better; yet, here we are. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Using Mhhossein's own words, "The first sentence in WP:UNDUE reads as such: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The user who is trying to insert this material should explain how a paragraph should be dedicated to this 'minority view'?" Ypatch (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: Are you hounding me from page to page? Anyway, this is not a minority view. The term is frequently used in Persian-language media and multiple independent works use the same title for them. @ Stefka Bulgaria:

• Ypatch's comment is not the criteria for us here so please don't repeat that again. Calling a source "damming article against the MEK" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Elizabeth Rubin's work came in a highly credible media and has been referred to by multiple other sources since then. No where in this discussion I can see the MEE source is being described as a "controversial source at best". User:E.M.Gregory, who is proven sock puppet said it was not reliable! Kingsindian said there was nothing wrong with that and Nishidani said there was no reason to exclude it.
• YES, you need to explain why Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, who is an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East, is not a reliable source here.

--Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, if this is not a minority view, then provide substantial sources (you've been asked for this already).@Vanamonde93: Mhhossein has been asked to provide sources showing that the MEK's "other name" is "The Cult of Rajavi". He insists that the three he presented are enough. Is that the case? Ypatch (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Read my comment again and please don't mislead the admin by misquoting me. Note that "the term is frequently used in Persian-language media" and inside Iran they are widely referred to as "Rajavi Cult" (Persian: "فرقه رجوی"). I have provided three other independent sources using the term in a similar manner. Moreover, Rubin's usage of the term in NYT, has been mentioned in plenty of reliable sources. I can list them at your request. I recommend you to review WP:UNDUE once again. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I realise my ping may be a hassle, BUT Mhhossein added to the article that the MEK's "Other name" is "Cult of Rajavi". Mhhossein based this on 3 sources (only 1 of which is WP:RS). Even if all 3 sources were WP:RS, that still would fall under WP:LABEL and WP:UNDUE. We already have one name calling by the Iranian regime about the MEK in the article ("Monafiqeen (Persian: منافقین‎, lit. 'the hypocrites')"), and Mhhossein is adding "Cult of Rajavi" as a legitimate "Other name" of the MEK. Do you see my concern? Ypatch (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be inaccurate to say solely the "Iranian regime" is using the term. For instance this source say: "However, they have little support inside Iran, where they're seen as traitors for taking refuge in an enemy state and are often referred to as the cult of Rajavi, coined after the leaders of the movement, Mariam and Massoud Rajavi." This term is widely used in Persian-language media. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is fundamentally a content decision, and as such I'm not going to weigh in on it. An RfC is likely the way to go here. I will note in passing that there's a difference between how common a viewpoint needs to be to be included in the article with in-text attribution, and how common it needs to be to be included in Wikipedia's voice. Listing something as another name for the group is a use of Wikipedia's voice. A source that is good enough for the author's view to be included with attribution may not be enough for this sort of designation. I say may, because I haven't actually looked at the totality of the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. From your note, I will attribute to the author to what the author says. The majority of these sources that Mhhossein has provided quote this author, so it's good enough for the author's view point. Ypatch (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Is there any consensus for this removal? I see the edit a part the user's destructive editing pattern. On what basis did the author downgraded the "content decision", for which a RFC was suggested, to this move? I prefer to seek your comment before anything else. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not a removal; that's quoting the author and placing the quote in a relevant section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is correct; that's not a removal, that's a reorganization, supported by this discussion, which I judge to be sufficient consensus for it unless and until someone provides more sourcing for the "Cult of Rajavi" designation. This discussion is sufficient not because of the numbers of editors on either side, but because of the number and quality of sources for that information (or rather, the lack thereof). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think an important part of my comments were ignored. "The cult of Rajavi" or "Rajavi cult" is largely used Iran, mainly in Persian language sources. This statement is supported by reliable sources saying: "However, they have little support inside Iran, where they're seen as traitors for taking refuge in an enemy state and are often referred to as the cult of Rajavi, coined after the leaders of the movement, Mariam and Massoud Rajavi." To further prove the point, I have listed just some of the sources using the title:

• Extreme right of Europe and Netanyahu's new mission to Rajavi Cult, by the Tehran Times.
• "Behaves like Rajavi Cult but claims to be open minded", a piece by Kayhan newspaper.
• "The fourth escape by the heads of Rajavi Cult", by Al-Alam.
• From Nifaq to the Rajavi Cult, a book published by Dideman publication.
• "A big impact to the Rajavi Cult", by Irdiplomacy.
• "Munafiqin and a big delusion called 'Alternative'/Why the Rajavi Cult has no popularity inside Iran?", by Shafaqna.
• "The eternal death of Rajavi Cult in Mersad operation", by IRDC.

As a middle ground suggestion, now that I have provided a substantiated objection, I think the title would better be restored to the its longstanding place with a note saying the title is mainly used inside Iran (or something like this). This should be included in accordance with WP:DUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to be persuaded about this. I will help trying to judge talk page consensus later, but I'm not opining on the specific question of due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I know, but your previous judgement of consensus apparently did not consider my emphasize on the Persian language sources. That's why I have raised it again with more details. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have one derogatory name calling used by the clerics against the MEK on that section; we don't need more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not see in the sources "clerics" saying something. One of the sources I provided says clearly "However, they have little support inside Iran, where they're seen as traitors for taking refuge in an enemy state and are often referred to as the cult of Rajavi..." They attacked and killed Iranian people and sided with their enemy Saddam. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Could I have your feedback to my previous comment? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We've been over this. A couple of sources saying something doesn't mean that that's the common trend. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process please. There's a common trend and I can provide more sources. However, I need to have the Vanamonde93's comment first. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just start an RfC; given that some sources exist, this is entirely a content dispute, and I am not opining. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: This is my question exactly. It was a matter of content dispute from the beginning and you had said an RFC had to be started. However they performed the edit without any RFCs or like. Now, I am asking to act based on Wikipedia:Consensus required by restoring to the longstanding version given my substantiated objection and then start an RFC over the proposed change. A new consensus was determined without my sources being weighed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Longstanding text" and "per talk" are not magic words". You need sources to support your edits, and the majority of sources clearly do not support that "the cult of Rajavi" is a common name of this group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I said an RfC had to be started if consensus couldn't be reached on the talk page. Then enough editors opined here that there was a consensus of sorts. Now there's a difference of opinion again, so an RfC is again necessary. So please start one, and stop worrying about which version of the text remains in place while the RfC occurs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I am saying the previous alleged consensus DIDNOT consider the Persian language sources why I had raised before this. Also, by "enough editors" do you mean Stefka Bulgaria and Ypatch? How about me and Saff V. objecting the change? The fact that Stefka Bulgaria is persistently interrupting my communication with is itself signaling something! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm not "interrupting" you, I'm adding info that you're omitting (and this is a TP discussion, where editors should be welcomed to include their input, no?). As noted earlier in this TP, we already have one derogatory name calling in that section. Saying that "Cult of Rajavi (derogatory name often used by Iranian clerics to refer to the MEK) is one of the MEK's "common names" is not only WP:UNDUE and WP:POV, but also WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, when I judged the existence of consensus in that conversation, you had not provided adequate evidence of reliable Persian language sources saying what you said they did. Please also remember that you would, by definition, need sources clearly independent of the Iranian government, while also being reliable, which isn't easy to find. For the last time, please start an RfC, and present your sources there, together with a substantive analysis of why they are reliable. Stefka Bulgaria, the number of contentious labels is irrelevant. All that matters is how much support they have in RS. Please do not make any more arguments about how many derogatory labels have been applied. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References
References