Talk:Massoud Rajavi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presumption of Rajavi's death[edit]

Stefka Bulgaria removed a recent source that says Rajavi is presumed to have died. This is significant information coming from a WP:RS because the article currently merely says it is "unknown" whether he is dead or alive. I also disagree with Stefka's demanding for peer-reviewed sources on this issue. If peer-reviewed sources can be found, great, but otherwise non peer reviewed sources are sufficient.

  • The Intercept says: "Massoud Rajavi is widely believed to be dead"
  • The Guardian says: " Rajavi has not been seen since 2003 – most analysts assume he is dead"
  • AP News says "For years, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi, the husband of Maryam Rajavi, hasn’t been seen publicly and is presumed to have died, Abrahamian said."
  • New York Times says "Massoud Rajavi, who disappeared during the Iraq war in 2003 and is believed to be dead"

VR talk 14:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly consensus supports the long-standing version that "He disappeared in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive.":[1]
  • "But after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, he went into hiding."[2]
  • "wife of PMOI founder Masoud Rajavi, whose whereabouts are unknown"[3]
  • "Masud Rajavi disappeared shortly after the U.S.-led invasion"[4]
Some recent press articles do say that he is believed “to be dead”, but other recent articles simply adhere to the scholarly consensus:
  • “Just before the Iraq War in 2003, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi disappeared. He has not been seen since, with his wife Maryam taking over his public duties.” NewsWeek
  • “Massoud Rajavi has not been heard of since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003." France 24
  • "Masoud Rajavi's whereabouts have been unknown since 2003" RFERL
  • "Massoud mysteriously disappeared from the group’s former base in Iraq during the American invasion in 2003." Sunday Times
Most sources indicate that Massoud Rajavi never ceased to be considered the MEK leader/co-leader, so there doesn't seem to be any new substantial findings to part from the scholarly consensus. As such, I'm restoring longstanding version per WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: can you explain why you removed mentioned of Rajavi's presumed death from the lead? Surely, reports of someone's death are significant enough to be included in the lead. Can you also explain why you removed reliable sources from the article? You removed The Guardian, AP News and The Intercept - all of these are reliable sources.
Secondly, scholarly consensus from recent scholarly sources is indeed that Rajavi is presumed dead:
  • "Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead." Source: Jonathan K. Zartman (Editor) (2020). Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change. ABC-CLIO. p. 209. ISBN 978-1440865022. Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead. {{cite book}}: |author1= has generic name (help)
  • "Massoud Rajavi (1948‒2015)...Rajavi went into “hiding,” with unconfirmed reports of his death emerging in 2016." Source: Amin Saikal (2019). Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic. Princeton University Press. p. 209.
All the scholarly sources you mention are before 2015, so obviously they won't mention events that have happened after them.VR talk 01:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VR: The reasons why I restored the longstanding version was explained (several times [1][2][3]): there are also recent sources supporting the majority scholarly consensus, and no new evidence has been brought forward (in either recent or older sources) concerning Rajavi's whereabouts. As compromise I've included your version in the body in a NPOV manner (using NYT and ABC-CLIO source); despite there being other recent sources using different wording. If you still believe that "Rajavi is widely presumed to be dead" should replace the lede's longstanding version ("He disappeared in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive"), then you can start a dispute resolution where we'll evaluate all sources and determine which wording is more WP:DUE (I believe the longstanding wording is more WP:DUE mainly because there are more sources supporting it and there isn't any new evidence concerning Rajavi's disappearance). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go to dispute resolution I just want to confirm one thing: you think that sources published in 2011-12 can refute events that (allegedly) happened in 2016? Is that your position?VR talk 16:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What events (allegedly) happened in 2016? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this scholarly source saying he is either dead or in hiding. I hope it helps. --Mhhossein talk 14:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Peter Chalk (2012). "Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)". Encyclopedia of Terrorism. ABC-CLIO. p. 509.
  2. ^ Steven O'hern (2012). Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps. POTOMAC BOOKS.
  3. ^ Douglas Lovelace Jr. (Author), Kristen Boon (Author), Aziz Huq (Author) (2012). Assessing President Obama's National Security Strategy. Oxford University Press;. {{cite book}}: |author1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Sean K. Anderson (Author), Stephen Sloan (Author) (2009). Historical Dictionary of Terrorism (Volume 38). Scarecrow Press. p. 454. ISBN 978-0810857643. {{cite book}}: |author1= has generic name (help)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unconfirmed report"[edit]

Vice regent, I reverted your two edits.

In this edit[4], I don't see why a source from 2011 couldn't be used.

In this edit[5], you are making WP:SYNTH out of WP:UNDUE material. An "unconfirmed report" cannot be used as a source for making the claim that Masoud Rajavi has been reported dead, especially when most sources describe him as only being missing. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made my edits, after seeing this discussion by @Fad Ariff:, @Iskandar323: and @Bookku:. Response to your objections:
  • A source from 2011 is inappropriate for the text "According to members of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi is still alive". It is now 2022, and an 11 year old source can't be used to make claims about the present. I actually wrote this in my edit summary.
  • Sorry, how am I making WP:SYNTH? Synth requires the use of two sources, what is the second source that I'm using? And how exactly is it WP:UNDUE weight? I'm not putting this in the lead. And the source is published by Princeton University Press and written by distinguished professor Amin Saikal. So it is reliable and scholarly.VR talk 01:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As @VR notes, 2011 is wildly outdated, and the source in question in this instance is unnecessary anyway since there are two other 2021 sources standing up the same statement. These bizarre and misapplied accusations of WP:SYNTH also need to stop. Taking information from a reliable source and repeating it verbatim is quite the opposite of any kind of OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2011 is not "wildly outdated". There are many recent sources that still refer to Massoud Rajavi as the leader of the NCRI/Mek. Look at this book from 2022: "Several thousand Iranian expatriates living in France smuggled shirts and banners into the State de Gerland displaying a photo of Massoud Rajavi, head of an opposition group called the National Council of Resistance." The FIFA World Cup: A History of the Planet's Biggest Sporting Event, 2022, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers , page 232. Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a book about the FIFA World Cup is something approaching a reliable source on the minutiae of Iranian politics, may God help us all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A source saying "Rajavi went into "hiding," with unconfirmed reports of his death emerging in 2016" is not the same as a "reported death" (which is what you put in the article, which is editorial synthesis because "unconfirmed reports of his death emerging in 2016" is not a "reported death". If there had been a confirmed reported death, then that’s what the source would say (but it does not say that).
Iskandar first rejected using sources from 2003, and now from 2011 too? I don’t think there is anything wrong with sources from 2003 and above since that is when Massoud Rajavi went missing. These are some of the sources I provided at the Maryam Rajavi talk page:
And here two more:
  • 7) "At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US military briefly bombed MEK camps in Iraq. Massoud Rajavi then disappeared from public life. His fate is unknown. Rumors have suggested that he is either dead, seriously wounded, or under US protections and providing intelligence related to Iran. The MEK spokespeople say he is alive and evading Iranian assassins." The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters. Volume 38. Number 4. Parameters Winter 2008. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challege" by Gawdat Bahgat
  • 8) "Crowds waved posters of group leader Maryam Rajavi and founder Massoud Rajavi — not seen since 2003 in Iraq" Arab News 2019
I also see that User:Stefka Bulgaria provided VR with more sources in previous discussions in this talk page, and Also the source by Iraniangal777 is from 2022 and published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, which is reliable. These are a lot of reliable sources! but if more clarification is needed about their reliability, we can always post the question at WP:RSN. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing semantics. 'Unconfirmed reports' are still reports, i.e.: 'reported', ergo 'reported death'. No one put 'confirmed reports' at all. It is unclear what all the sources are meant to achieve. Ok: some sources neglect to provide any details on or around his disappearance. Still, we have scholarly documentation of reports of his death in 2016, making that notable information to include regardless of what other sources may say. Articles are encouraged to provide multiple viewpoints as a matter of principle to ensure neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for clarification:Practically, at least up til now I have not contributed to the discussion @ Talk:Maryam_Rajavi I was there for just providing opinion if both parties so desired. IMHO There discussions have become lengthy and both sides need to provide synopsis of their position for benefit of other users. Bookku (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bookku:, the synopsis here is that around two questions:
      • Can a source from 2011 be used to say that "According to members of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi is still alive". I say no, because it is now 2022 and a source from 2011 can't be used to make claims about the present.
      • can we insert the following into the article "According to Amin Saikal, there were uncomfirmed reports of Rajavi's death in 2016"? I say yes, because Saikal says exactly that in his book.VR talk 12:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Inquired for applicable policy guidance regarding dates @ WP:Teahouse#BLP dates related policies and guidelines? This is just for information and record. Bookku (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Iran state broadcaster hacked with images of dissident group". Al monitor. 2022.
  2. ^ "Iran Exiles Claim Disrupting Tehran's Surveillance Cameras". VOA News. VOA News. 2022.

Marriage information[edit]

Iskandar323, I reverted your edit on the basis of WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICK, so do not reinstate it unless the issue has first been resolved in the talk page (see WP:ONUS). The marriage between Maryam and Massoud is already mentioned in this article. There is a detailed section about the MEK going through the ideological revolution in the MEK article. If you’re interested in expanding that information, that’s the section (and article) where to do it (I will expand that section further shortly). Cherrypicking one aspect of the ideological revolution and putting it in this article would be a WP:NPOV fail. Also adding all of the aspects of the ideological revolution to this article would be irrelevant since this is mainly about the MEK (which is where the detailed information about this is already mentioned). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: Ok, so you didn't like the information in the reliable source - what does that have to do with WP:NPOV? If you think there is contrasting information in other reliable sources, why aren't you adding that? WP:NPOV requires fairly representing alternative views, but you are not adding alternative views or even stating what these alternative views are; you are just deleting reliably sourced content. To claim that material is cherrypicked or not NPOV, you have to actually present what information you think is being missed, which you have not done in the slightest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the title from "Ideological revolution" to "Marriage information". That is a misrepresentation of the issue since the new information you were trying to add was about the MEK’s "ideological revolution". If you want to add information about the MEK’s ideological revolution (which Massoud’s marriage to Maryam Rajavi was only a small part of), then the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights" deals with that in context. We could move that section to this article so that the information is in context, but that would create an WP:UNDUE section within this article, so keeping it in the MEK article is just better editing. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add the reliably sourced content that I added. Here the marriage to Maryam Rajavi is mentioned, but the well-documented political nature of the union is not mentioned, nor is the fact that it required Maryam Rajavi to divorce her existing husband. The material that I added made no mention of any "ideological revolution"; it noted that the divorce of Maryam Rajavi from Mehdi Abrishamchi and her remarriage to Massoud Abrishamchi was justified on the basis of "revolutionary necessity". Divorce for politics is unusual, hence the interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323, the reliability of the source is not in question. Read the section "Ideological revolution and Women’s Rights" (located in a page you're very familiar with), and you will see that what you are mentioning is about the MEK's "Ideological revolution". I already said a few times that I reverted you because of WP:CHERRYPICKING (or WP:PLAYPOLICY?), WP:NPOV, and WP:ONUS ("While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") Since I already started a RFC about this same content you are trying to add in a different article [6], then you could now request input from new users through the RFC consensus process for this article here. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of the talk page[edit]

@Fad Ariff You seem to have deleted very old messages, some of them seem to be decade old or so. Why not archive then just deleting which might seem subjective to some other users?


One side note: @Fad Ariff & @Iskandar323 both of you seem to be well aware of dispute resolution mechanism including ARE working etc. Continuous slow edit warring too will get noticed at some point of time, why not deescalate a little bit and wait for inputs from new set of users and proper RFC consensus process. Bookku (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookku, yes, I hear you, and I agree about deescalating and using RFC consensus processes. About archiving old messages, I don't know how to do that, otherwise that seems like a better solution. How is that done? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by ParadaJulio[edit]

ParadaJulio: Could you elaborate on your reason for this revert [7]? You dismissed the changes as simply lacking in constructive value, but it is not self-evident why these changes would be deemed as unconstructive. MarioGom (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too would like to know what is not constructive and why you are following the same pattern of edits as a blocked disruptive user. As mentioned on Talk:Maryam Rajavi, this is pretty basic biographical information. I fail to see a possible objection. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The change This was justified on the basis of the new relationship being "a matter of revolutionary necessity is being observed in the MR page. Relating to He disappeared during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive. in the lead, Iskandar323 please elaborate why you are seeking to change this. ParadaJulio (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's obvious, true and sourced. What's the issue? "Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead." (Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change. 2020. P.209) Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was in the article (prior to your changes) wasn't "obvious, true, and sourced"? A similar analysis has apparently already been done. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massoud_Rajavi&oldid=1219420099"