Talk:Camp Ashraf/Archive 1

Deleted content
The content currently being deleted is cited in the sourced reference MEK perations against the Kurds "In 1991, when Iraq's Shiite Muslim and Kurdish populations answered the call of then-President George H.W. Bush to rise up and overthrow Hussein, mujaheddin tanks rode to the dictator's rescue. The Iranian exiles opened fire on Kurds and blocked roads leading south, where Hussein's remaining regular forces had their hands full with the Shiites." Hardnfast (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alledged human rights violations.
I came across this blog post, which by itself isn't verifiable or notable, however the videos are by their nature so.(Editing seems unlikely, only the location where it is still be verified.) part 1, part 2. My edit was (apparently automatically) reverted, please try incorporate something about this, and this as references in the article. See the link to user_talk for more rationale. 88.159.74.89 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
The opening paragraph of this article says "Camp Ashraf is currently an Iranian refugee camp in Iraq guarded by the United States military[citation needed]." Apparently Iran's Jame Jam television channel reported on July 6 that “American military forces have announced their readiness to hand over” Camp Ashraf to Baghdad, which gives the MEK six months to leave its territory. Is this true? If so, who is guarding Ashraf now? Khoikhoi 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I question the use of the word "refugee" because neither the UNHCR or International Committee of the red Cross recognize the residents of Ashraf as refugees. Only the MEK and its related organizations call themselves this. I worked this issue while in Iraq. Individuals who have fled Ashraf and renounced their membership in the MEK have been certified by the UNHCR and regarded by the ICRC as refugees. None of the residents of Ashraf - all adults btw - have UNHRC or Iraqi government refugee IDs or residency permits. They are "guarded" internally by MEK members in uniforms. Outside Ashraf, the Iraqi Army works with local law enforcement authorities to provide security. The US Army brigade that previously "guarded" Ashraf never had presence inside the site nor searched the site for weapons. Zzzdoglie (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not clear why one would call it a REFUGEE camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.116.228 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of people
About how many people reside at Ashraf? It should be in the first sentence or two of the lead section. 500 people? 50,000 people? Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A: It is claimed to be about 3534 people as of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.201.53 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of date
This article is two years out of date.71.108.139.2 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100224080058/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2V14grg3qwQZJW7Smsqtdxtrc8QD9CGK98O2 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2V14grg3qwQZJW7Smsqtdxtrc8QD9CGK98O2
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120921025323/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1383417.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1383417.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140510203359/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSSma5fiGoQrJGqqYdiBsiEaKvIw?docId=0f5167c52e004fd9b6b7bec6f31078e9 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSSma5fiGoQrJGqqYdiBsiEaKvIw?docId=0f5167c52e004fd9b6b7bec6f31078e9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5io7JDsaA?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2Flibrary%2Fpubs%2Frn%2F2002-03%2F03rn43.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn43.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502170644/http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/DeBoerZieck--Depaginated2.pdf to http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/DeBoerZieck--Depaginated2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228191052/http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861 to http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=15210597&ch=4226714&src=news
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929094108/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=29780 to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=29780

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverts without explanation
I tried to make a series of improvements to this articles, but they were reverted by LissanX without explanation. I provided my explanations for each edit in my edit summaries. If they need more discussion, we can discuss here, but please do not revert without any explanation. 122.155.9.26 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was this removed?
removed this content under the edit summary "Updates". I'm afraid "Updates" tells us nothing about why the following content was removed:

VR talk 05:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And why was this removed?
removed the following content under the edit summary "Arrangement cleanup":

"Arrangement cleanup" does not seem like an adequate explanation. The source cited for that content indeed supports it. It says "" VR talk 05:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion
In TheDreamBoat editions (especially 1 and 2), major parts of the article have been omitted without a convincing explanation. Contrary to this user's claim, some of the deleted content is not mentioned in any article. For example, there is nothing about Soltani and others. It seems that all edits of this user should be analyzed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just minimised the claims from MEK members. I still left in "Some people that defected from the MEK have made allegations of sexual assault" (with sources), which is what all those claims were about. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed content sourced to the Washington Post, National Interest, a book published by the Brookings Institution and The Guardian, under the edit summary of "Copy edit". This is way beyond copy editing, and since you did not justify your removals, I will revert them.
 * This edit also has the misleading edit summary of "Some copy editing" but goes much beyond copy editing and removes significant amounts of material. Please justify this too.VR talk 03:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the names of the (alleged) victims should probably not be mentioned in this article and instead simply what is accused to have happened should be mentioned. Does everyone agree? VR talk 03:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not a problem if the names are removed, but the issue of harassment itself must be raised. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * VR, you say that "the names of the (alleged) victims should probably not be mentioned", but then you mention Batoul Soltai, Zahar Moini, Fereshteh Hedyati. You need to have some consistency please. The issue of the allegations is raised in the article, despite these being allegations by MEK. For this reason it does not need its own section. Mentioning that this happened is enough, and the article is mentioning it. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * VR, I see that you also added some opinion pieces, sources that quote other sources already in the article, and a think tank source (for defamatory allegations, which already in itself is a delicate topic). TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the sources I used? New York Times, Washington Post are reliable per WP:RSP. The claims from both these sources were added with attribution. I'm open to further rewording, but I oppose removing these entirely like you've done. Do you dispute the reliability of Brookings Institution? The National Interest source isn't the greatest so we can remove that. Your recent revert is edit warring, and I urge you to follow the WP:BRD cycle.VR talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * TheDreamBoat, there are a lot of sources that give details of long-term human rights abuses that took place in Camp Ashraf (see for example this source). These took place at various times (by MEK, by Iraqi forces etc). Just as we detail the abuses at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, wikipedia shouldn't shy away from detailing the abuses at Camp Ashraf. VR talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

VR, In your edit you used a blog to support "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured."

In that same edit you used a think tank source to add that "Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution." (the think tank does not even seem to mention Camp Ashraf).

Then in that same edit you used this opinion piece to write that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured.

Then some of the sources that are reliable, don't support the content they are used for. For example, NYT source doesn't say anything about Batoul Sotani (and that's not an isolated case)

These are very serious accusations, and you are using think tank and opinion pieces, or sources that don't support the content. I am concerned that you don't see this. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These are indeed very serious accusations, all the more troubling since all 4 of them are baseless.
 * TheDreamBoat wrote: VR, In your edit you used a blog to support "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured."
 * Response: My revert used this source (published in the Washington Post and authored by Jason Rezaian himself) which says WP:RSOPINION allows for using opinion pieces as long as they are attributed, which they are in the case.
 * Thedreamboat wrote: In that same edit you used a think tank source to add that "Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution." (the think tank does not even seem to mention Camp Ashraf).
 * I just did a search on the pdf of the source and "Camp Ashraf" is mentioned 21 times in the source, including on the page that is cited:
 * As for whether the source is reliable, I asked you before if you thought the source was unreliable but you didn't give an answer. Can you tell me if you think it is unreliable? Here are the authors of that source, you may examine their qualifications yourself. Both authors appear to be connected to various academic institutions.
 * Thedreamboat wrote Then in that same edit you used this opinion piece to write that"the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured.
 * See first point. WP:RSOPINION allows using opinion pieces with attribution and that statement was qualified with "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked...".
 * Then some of the sources that are reliable, don't support the content they are used for. For example, NYT source doesn't say anything about Batoul Sotani (and that's not an isolated case)
 * One of the inline citations at the end of the Batoul Sotani allegations is The Guardian article, which says says
 * Finally, the reason I reverted you, is because you removed a significant amount of sourced content under an edit summary that did not adequately explain issues with the content. When you were asked on talk to explain, your response was again inadequate. I'm open to rewording the content as I've said previously.VR talk 17:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First, "TheDreamBoat" must create a consensus on the talk page. Also, Brookings is valid enough. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks for restoring the longstanding version. As per above, I would like to summarize these two paragraphs as:

If there is agreement, I can go ahead and implement that. I also want to point out that the article currently goes into excruciating detail about Iraqi government abuses against Camp Ashraf residents. So why can't the article cover MEK's abuses at the same location? VR talk 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can also add this:
 * I'm also open to other edits and additions.VR talk 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that the version you are trying to restore was added by a banned sockpuppet, who I cannot ping because they cannot edit this page. I don't see anything wrong with TheDreamBoat's edit. How much we decide to expand a topic depends on editorial consensus, and to me this does not need so much expansion. If you want to expand this subject matter further, please explore WP:DR processes where you can explain why such expansion is necessary. When you do that, I will participate, but for the time being I'm restoring the shorter version. I am also changing "MEK" for "PMOI" and "MKO" to maintain some consistency in the page. Ypatch (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit by Kazemita was made on May 15, 2019. They don't seem to have been under any ban at the time so I don't think this edit is covered by WP:BANREVERT. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo."
 * Secondly, your statement "we decide to expand a topic depends on editorial consensus" is not entirely true. We have to respect WP:WEIGHT and if certain views are given significant coverage in RS then those must be given appropriate weight on wikipedia as well. WP:WEIGHT specifically says "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered."VR talk 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ypatch, and good catch. VR, nobody said the edit is covered by WP:BANREVERT. That the edit is controversial and done by a controversial editor. You seem to be arguing that detailed allegations from some people claiming to members or past members of the MEK deserve WP:WEIGHT. The article already mentions the allegations, but if you want to describe them in more detail, which seems to be what you want to do, then what is being said is that you need some kind of consensus for that. If you start a WP:DR process like Ypatch recommends then I will also participate. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the May 15, 2019 edit was not challenged for 2.5 years, it can be presumed to have WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. WP:NOCONSENSUS says As such, the content should be reverted back prior to TDB's bold edits. VR talk 16:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article has been in the article for over 2 years. It seems that in this case, consensus is needed to delete the content, not to add it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been in the article for over 2 years. It seems that in this case, consensus is needed to delete the content, not to add it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-insertion of disputed content without discussion
As Vanamonde93 mentioned, your entire activity has been limited to one comment in the RFC of this page; and with this edit I doubt if you are following the exchanged comments. You have entered a conflicting text into the mentioned article without responding to the legitimate objections raised by Vice Regent. This activity of you isn't considered to be constructive for consensus building. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ali Ahwazi: I am looking at this page and following the exchanged comments. I put back in the article something that is part of an ongoing RFC so we can establish consensus through the RFC before anything else. If you have something to say about the content itself, please go ahead and comment. I will do the same. Thanks. Bahar1397 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But the text you added to the article has no consensus and has many drawbacks (explained by Vice Regent). This is not a constructive editing procedure. You have added something for which you have never had any discussion on the talk page and you have not given any answer to the problems of the text. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOLD, I put back the summary of the content which is part of the ongoing RFC. I'm sorry you think the content has drawbacks, but others think differently. Instead to keep at it here, I would recommend you comment on the RFC instead. Bahar1397 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:bold "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes." You made no efforts for creating consensus and no one made a response to the objections. You are responsible for the content added and it is sanctionable. The content you added a WP:V violation as Vice Regent said. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I put back content that is part of an ongoing RFC. I will address your comments in the RFC from now on, which is what we are supposed to be doing. Since you are requesting more details in my posts, I will provide more details. Bahar1397 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(on Jan 28) restored a sentence making claims about a "Col. Leo McCloskey", who might still be alive. The claim was:

The first citation at the end of the sentence doesn't contain "Leo" nor "McCloskey". The second citation (currently a dead link) does not appear to be a reliable source because it is a lobbying group lead by Alejo Vidal-Quadras who has financial ties to the MEK. I pointed out this unreliability on Jan 27, so I'm surprised Bahar restored this.

Given McCloskey associations with the MEK, this claim doesn't surprise me, but all claims about living persons must be reliably sourced. Even something published by McCloskey himself would not be a good source as the text quotes McCloskey making accusations about third parties (WP:BLPSELFPUB). I know there is currently an active RfC, but if this is indeed a BLP violation, we should not wait until the RfC's conclusion before removing such a violation. If I'm misinterpreting policy, please correct me.VR talk 04:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this source -




 * It doesn't look this source or McCloskey's testimony is a BLP violation, although I would attribute and write this differently. I will provide my proposal at the RFC section. Bahar1397 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)