Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
"...the page is under WP:consensus required restriction, mainly to stop the pro-MEK users from performing mass changes"is WP:ASPERSIONS and completely false. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The idea that RFCs are being used as a shortcut to discussion is nonsense (unless it is worse than nonsense). If there is a requirement for consensus, and consensus cannot be reached by discussion, Requests for Comments are the way to obtain consensus in Wikipedia. The comment was made on my talk page (before I closed my talk page to this discussion) that moderated discussion should be used in place of RFCs. Maybe you have exhausted the patience of anyone who would try to be a moderator. It appears that User:Vanamonde93 is finished with moderation, and says that they will either topic-ban everyone, or just leave the page alone. I tried to moderate, and found that there was gaming. I have no intention of moderating any further discussion, and if any requests are made at DRN for moderated discussion, I will close them and recommend that you go to WP:ANI.
Do you really want to all be topic-banned from this page? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Idealigic: Can you explain why you have reverted this edit by Error? The source explicitly talks about the Iranian exiled group, which I think is MEK (aka NCRI). Do you see a major difference between them? --Mhhossein talk 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I have again tagged the article as having a lede section that is too long. Read the Manual of Style again. It says that if an article is between 15,000 and 30,000 words, the recommended length of the lede section is two or three paragraphs, and if the article is more than 30,000 words, the recommended length of the lede section is three or four paragraphs. The length of the article is 30,213 words; your exact length may vary depending on what word count tool you are using, but the length is very close to 30,000 words. This means that the lede should probably be three paragraphs. It is eight paragraphs. I have no intention of trying to rework the lede or trying to moderate any discussion, because I think that topic-bans are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran, or the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (Persian: سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران, romanized: sâzmân-e mojâhedīn-e khalq-e īrân, abbreviated MEK, PMOI, or MKO), is an Iranian political-militant organization,[1][2][3] that advocates overthrowing the the current government of Iran and installing its own government.[4][5][6] Its revolutionary interpretation of Islam contrasts with the conservative interpretations of traditional clergy and Ayatollah Khomeini.[7]
The MEK was founded on 5 September 1965 by leftist Iranian students affiliated with the Freedom Movement of Iran to oppose the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[8][9] It militarily attacked the Pahlavi dynasty in the 1970s[5], contributed to the Iranian Revolution, and advocated democracy in Iran, gaining support from Iran's middle class intelligentsia.[10][11][12] But after the revolution MEK fell out with new government: the MEK refused to take part in the constitutional referendum,[13] in response Ruhollah Khomeini prevented MEK members from running for office.[14] By early 1981, authorities had banned the MEK, cracked down on its supporters,[5][15][16] disrupted its protests,[17][18] and arrested and killed its sympathizers (including Mousa Khiabani and Rajavi's first wife).[19][20][10][21] The MEK conducted attacks targeting the Iranian government that lasted until 1982.[22]
In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq,[23][24] and in 1986, MEK moved its base to Iraq after France expelled it on Iran's request.[21][25] MEK's decision to side with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was viewed as treason by most Iranians.[26][27][28][29] With Iraqi help, the MEK attacked Iran during Operation Mersad,[30][31] Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun;[32][33][34][35][36] it also helped Saddam suppress the 1991 uprisings.[37][38] Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials executed thousands of MEK supporters.[39][40][41] In 2002, the MEK provided information on Iran's clandestine nuclear program.[42] Following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK moved its base to Albania.
After leaving Iran, the MEK transformed into a cult of personality.[43][44] It was formerly listed as a terrorist organization by European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan, but by 2013 each had lifted that designation.[45][46][47][48] The MEK is still designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq.[37]
I would also appreciate stylistic and policy-based feedback from Vanamonde93 (if he has the time) as he has been advocating to make this article readable.VR talk 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I was not really willing to make this report and prefered to resolve it without admin intervention. However, Idealigic is not willing for a compromise despite our efforts. It should be mention that Idealigic's previous violations were reported in the past, including here and here. Idealigic did not pay attention to our requests of self-revert ([1], [2], [3] accompanied by VR's request on his talk page). Hence, I have to report his latest violation – I think it's his 3rd violation of CRP. Now, let's see the sequence of the edits:
"very obviously helpful without changing content"and said that Stefka Bulgaria's objection was not "substantive" (Vanamnode also commented on usage of Saddam/Iraq which is not central to this report). As a result, Stefka Bulgaria's repeat of his new change to the longstanding version was not substantiated and he did not keep on discussing his points further (though he made a comment which was solely focused on usage of Saddam/Iraq and was not addressign VR's edit].
Idealigic was warned against being Tbaned by Vanamonde some months ago. Pinging @Vanamonde93: for their attention. --Mhhossein talk 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This report by Mhhossein is deceptive and continued battleground behavior.
It was not me but Vice regent who broke the article’s CRP restrictions (yet both Vice regent and Mhhossein are trying to blame me for it):
"The MEK and Iraq jointly several operations against Iran:"
and
"After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress the 1991 uprisings"
This text that VR added never formed part of the previous longstanding version (you can check any version before May 1 2021). Additionally, consensus over the terminology (“Saddam vs Iraq” and “Iran vs IRI”) had not been achieved yet.
"The MEK and Iraq jointly several operations against Iran:"
and
"After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress the 1991 uprisings"
Even though I later said to these editors that I’m not interested in reporting them and to stop with the distorted accusations [6], Mhhossein still reports me. Idealigic (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"very obviously helpful"(but still objecting to "Saddam" vs "Iraq"). After that the only objections on talk were about the "Saddam" vs "Iraq" wording in context of Iran-Iraq war and I didn't restore that in my June 8 revert. No other aspect of my edit was objected to for more than month.VR talk 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
There are issues with Mhhossein’s report. It is confusing (I believe, on purpose in hopes of getting me topic-banned without just reason, which would not be the first time) and deceptive.
“First change to the longstanding version”diff does not specify which edit or text is disputed, but instead shows a combination of edits by Stefka (making the whole thing hard to follow).
“Objection to the first change was made [38] by Vice Regent”diff shows VR’s objections, but not the responses or counter-objections from other editors.
“First change to the longstanding version was restored by Stefka Bulgaria”diff. Mhhossein here is saying Stefka broke the restrictions, but Stefka only reverted VR’s edit, but like I showed above, the disputed text that VR added to the article never formed part of the then-lonstanding text:
"The MEK and Iraq jointly several operations against Iran:"
"After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress the 1991 uprisings"
“he [VR] implemented the modified version later.”claim is deceptive: VR restoring the same disputed text he tried to insert a month earlier is breaking the article’s CRP restrictions.
“That said, the revert by Idealigic is a clear violation of WP:CRP”claim is deceptive: 1) VR restoring an edit that had been previously reverted is the “clear violation of WP:CRP” 2) The version I reverted to had been in the article for over a month, which means it now formed part of the longstanding version (per the consensus on this talk page) 3) numerous arguments had been presented in the talk page objecting the replacement of the words "Saddam vs Iraq” and “Iran vs IRI" (at least enough to merit a RfC to resolve the dispute). Idealigic (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Idealigic: Briefly, I would like to tell you that 1) VR restored to a version which was described by Vanamonde as being helpful, 2) according to the moderating admin Stefka Bulgaria's objection was not "substantive" 3) You are specifically responsible for YOUR latest revert. Other things should be discussed separately. Anyway, to reach a compromise, will you perform a self revert to the "helpful" version? --Mhhossein talk 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"Conversely, VR, you really ought not to be changing terminology without a proper explanation; why change "Iraq" to "Saddam", in particular? I'm trying to AGF here, but the most obvious explanation is that "Saddam" has a negative emotional association that "Iraq" does not”
"Vanamnode also commented on usage of Saddam/Iraq which is not central to this report". I told you once more that ""Saddam vs Iraq" is not central to my report". You know why? Since VR's edit on 8 June is not touching 'Saddam vs. Iraq'. But, your edit, which is clear violation of CRP, is still reverting other "helpful" clarifications.
"...After that the only objections on talk were about the "Saddam" vs "Iraq" wording in context of Iran-Iraq war and I didn't restore that in my June 8 revert. No other aspect of my edit was objected to for more than month."
shortening "Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)" to "Iran" is very common all over wikipedia, news and books.' 10 comments were made after that (including by Idealigic, Stefka, Vanamonde, TimesAreChanging and Mhhossein) but none objected to that particular shortening. After waiting a month, on June 7, I restored the wording. It is only after that Idealigic objected.VR talk 14:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent: there is nothing misleading about my diffs.
On 20:04, 4 May 2021 Vanamonde93 said your edits (which had been reverted by Stefka) were helpful, but that "you really ought not to be changing terminology without a proper explanation; why change "Iraq" to "Saddam", in particular?”
. That shows you needed to provide some kind of explanation about why you wanted to change terminology (which you didn't provide).
The “IRI vs Iran” terminology issues in your edits were also objected to (by Stefka), but the “Saddam vs Iraq” terminology then became the focus of that thread ([7][8][9][10]). However a consensus was never determined about the use in the lead of either “IRI vs Iran” or “Iraq vs Saddam”.
Instead of opening a RfC or asking an admin (specially about content that had been reverted in an article with Consensus Required restrictions) you just restored your edit without checking or asking anyone.
And your edit consisted of changing "It was involved in" to "The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran:"
, and also "and the 1991 nationwide uprisings" to "After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress"
, and also “the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris” to "after France expelled the MEK from Paris at Iran's request”
(involving a mix of terminology that Stefka had objected to and that Vanamonde had asked you to explain). In your edit summary you wrote "Please note that my edit doesn't add or remove any content"
, which is also deceptive because you added the disputed terminology to the lead.
But the best part is that then you and Mhhossein join forces here twisting this around in the hopes of "admin action" against me for this CRP violation that you made (with Mhhossein also making an unsubstantiated drive-by CRP-VIO accusation against Stefka Bulgaria, you know, because why?). Idealigic (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
"Operation Shining Sun"to the lead of the article.
Mhhossein did this despite prior warnings (such as this one, and actually did it more times). I also asked Mhhossein about it (a couple of times) but he never addressed it or admitted wrongdoing.
And another one:
After Mhhossein is told to perform a self-revert (and self-reverted), he provided more sources trying to restore that France is an allied of the MEK, even though none of the sources support that contentious claim.
Idealigic (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
My biggest issue with Idealigic is that he is using CRP in combination with silly objections as a WP:STONEWALLING tactic.
"The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran" (where does it say that in the sources?). I provide quotes from WP:SCHOLARLY sources for that text (including those that were already in the article but Idealigic didn't bother to check).
strains credibility".
This is WP:SEALIONing and its causing so many users to get frustrated with lack of progress on this talk page.VR talk 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[49][62][63]". Since this RfC was opened to question the phrase
"and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.", and since the subsection below, "Follow-up proposal", had very low participation, I think the points are moot. So if editors want the new phrase removed, then a fresh RfC should be opened. Good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we remove from the lead "and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."
and explain in the body of the article what all POVS from reliable sources say about this disputed statement? - MA Javadi (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
"the 1991 nationwide uprisings."and MA Javadi admitted that some of the sources indeed "can’t be linked to the 1991 Uprisings." The rest of MA Javadi's also don't endorse the view that MEK wasn't involved in the 1991 uprisings, but merely report MEK's denial. Yet, Mhhossein provided 12 sources, including a source published by Oxford University Press, that state MEK's involvement in 1991 uprisings as a fact. Thus MA Javadi's argument is WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR talk 14:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
MeK officials strenuously deny any involvement in the atrocities against the Shia and Kurds, alleging that they were attacked by combined Kurdish and Iranian forces and that the MeK did not even defend itself.22 However, the allegations of the group’s complicity with Saddam are corroborated by press reports that quote Maryam Rajavi encouraging MeK members to “take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,”23 as well as the timing of Saddam’s conferring the Rafedeen Medallion—a high honor in the Iraqi military—on Masoud Rajavi.[1] Ghazaalch (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Should we remove from the lead the sentence "It was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."
?
"taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic", so the core of that information is already in the lead. Also the lead is too long as many have already said. Idealigic (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
"taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic"to the operations; so that's sorted. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Stefka Bulgaria: When there is a section in the article arguing the operations, then we should at least have the names of the operations in the Lede. Why don't you instead propose removing a long quotation like he MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists"
, which have no link and is not important enough to devote a section to it? Why should we remove the usual links from the Lede and replace it with unusual ones? Again I refer you to this discussion if you really want to see which parts of the article should be removed. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic"is already mentioned in the lede (now with a link to the details of the operations). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the fact that the previous report was turned into a real mess by Idealigic, I have tabulated the most important things here:
Edit | Text change | Explanations |
---|---|---|
1- Longstanding version: [13] | The portion* that this report focuses on: "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[51] In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris.[48][52] In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad,[53][54] Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun,[55][56][57][58] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[46][59][60]". | |
2- Stefka Bulgaria's edits (3 intermediate revisions): [14] | Text after edit: "In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris,[48][55] so in response, it re-established its base in Iraq. The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[56][57][58][59] It was involved in Operation Mersad,[60][61] Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun,[62][63][64][65] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[46][66][67]." | |
3- Vice Regent's partial modifications [15] | changes it to "In 1986," | Later, Vice Regent's [16] partial modification was described by Vanamonde93, the moderating admin, as being "very obviously helpful without changing content". Though, he particularly questioned the change from Saddam to Iraq. |
4- Stefka Bulgaria reverted Vice Regent and showed his objection to Vice Regent's modificaions. | Stefka Bulgaria's revert [17] | 1- Stefka Bulgaria's objection was described by Vanamonde93 as not being "substantive". 2- So, Vice Regent's version was effectively the consensus version. |
5- Vice Regent implemented some of his modifications (the consensus version) almost a month later in light of Vanamonde's comment and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. | "In 1986," | 1- Iraq was not changed to Saddam this time. 2- No one had shown substantiated objection to this edit (per the admin's comment). |
6- CRP violation by Idealigic: Some hour later Idealigic reverted Vice Regent. | Idealigic's revert [18] | Idealigic had made zero comments/objections regarding the Vice Regents's modification [19]. He did not discuss that change even later. |
*Other text changes are not subject to this report and can be discussed separately.
Idealigic was asked to perform a self revert multiple times ([20], [21], [22], [23] and [24]) but he did not accept the requests. He never discussed the above changes before/after his reverts (Saddam vs. Iraq is not central to this dispute). Mhhossein talk 13:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to determine which sections need the most trimming we have to consider two things: 1) how much coverage are we giving the topic and 2) how much coverage a topic receives in literature. I'm doing #1 here:
VR talk 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
broad overviewto determine weight. If so, we can first compile a list of such sources and use them.VR talk 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we move the information in "Assassinations" so that it reads chronologically within the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
doesn't have any context about the attacks. Could you name the contexts related to assassinations, one by one? Then we can discuss which information are related together, and would decide on moving them to the section they belong. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you name the "contexts" and "reasons" which you say led to the assassinations, if there is a reason, beyond the fact that MeK wants to overthrow the Islamic republic of Iran. And if there is really such a reasons, why shouldn't we move them to the "Assassinations" section? The answer is easy. You don't like the title above the section (as you don't like the "cult" one), and want to remove it.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"By the middle of the year 1980, clerics close to Khomeini were openly referring to the MEK as "monafeghin", "kafer", and "elteqatigari". The MEK, instead accused Khomeini of "monopolizing power", "hijacking the revolution", "trampling over democratic right", and "plotting to set up a fascistic one-party dictatorship"."
"In February 1980 concentrated attacks by hezbollahi pro-Khomeini militia began on the meeting places, bookstores and newsstands of Mujahideen and other leftists[154] driving the left underground in Iran. Hundreds of MEK supporters and members were killed from 1979 to 1981, and some 3,000 were arrested.
"On 22 June 1981, IRGC and Hezbollahis responded to anti-regime demonstrations against the dismissal of President Abolhassan Banisadr, to what came to be known as "reign of terror" in Iran. The Warden of Evin prison announced the firing squad executions of demonstrators, including teenage girls.[155] 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. The MEK was the first group carrying out suicide attacks in Iran."
"According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih".
"In 1981, Massoud Rajavi issued a statement shortly after it went into exile. This statement, according to James Piazza, identified the MEK not as a rival for power but rather a vanguard of popular struggle: Our struggle against Khomeini is not the conflict between two vengeful tribes. It is the struggle of a revolutionary organisation against a totalitarian regime... This struggle, as I said, is the conflict for liberating a people; for informing and mobilizing a people in order to overthrow the usurping reaction and to build its own glorious future with its own hands."
"Assassination" and "conflict" are two different words which are used differently.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it.(WP:SUMMARY). MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
"The MEK advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970's."[27]) They did the same to the officials of Shah government. Those are Assassinations carried out by MEK. --Mhhossein talk 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
"Should MEK-linked assassinations before 1981 be put in the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"?Answer: NO.
"Should MEK-linked assassinations after 1988 be put in the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"?Answer: NO. All the content in the "Assassinations" section is relevant to the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section. I thought this was clear already. This has been repeated many times, so I won't repeat it anymore. Barca (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
One of the answers to this question could be that; having different sections with different/special titles make the article more interesting and more readable. The other answer could be that the readers are not interested in reading all the article. They want to pick the information they need as soon as possible.Now the other question arise here is that why some people insist on merging the sections; starting from Cult section, continuing with Assassination one, and so on? Ghazaalch (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)