Talk:Kazem Rajavi

Geneva or New York?
Was he Iran's UN representative at the UN HQ in NY or at Geneva? Or was he accredited for both?--Severino (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bazargan
Bazargan was not prime minister at presidency of Banisadr. He was prime minister of provisional government 31.59.94.95 (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)AHN

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kazem Rajavi. 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/20121010211832/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,COUNTRYREP,IRN,,3ae6a8170,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,COUNTRYREP,IRN,,3ae6a8170,0.html

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) 15:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Colman McCarthy's op-ed
The article accessible via shows that it was published in 'Lifestyle' section of the newspaper as a 'Commentary'. As a result, it is an opinion piece that does not comply with WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTOPINION (criteria 2) and should not be use for anything more than personal opinion of Colman McCarthy with in-text attribution. Pahlevun (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
This explanation is written per WP:RESPTAG. The fact that you insist on putting the word "renowned" in the first sentence, in a clear violation of WP:PUFFERY, speaks for itself. No matter how many sources use the word, it cannot be used in Wikipedia is such way. In fact, peacock terms are used for pushing a POV, which this article suffers from badly. There has been at least three instances of failed verification:. The third failed verification reads exactly –I want to stress again, exactly– like the MEK propaganda outlets. Despite there is not even one mention of Iranian position, the article repeatedly uses quotes favorable towards MEK's position in addition to direct mentions of its own positions. Aside from the "renowned" defender of human rights (the kind that supported Saddam Hussein's regime), he has been also described as "the financial and technical wizard of the MEK", which is totally absent from this article. That sounds like a POV article. Do not remove the POV tag per WP:WNTRMT, unless the problem is resolved. Pahlevun (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added the word renowned. I added it because "renowned human rights advocate" is how sources describe Kazem Rajavi, and MA Javadi looks to have added more sources that support this. WP:PUFFERY says that words like "renowned" are "often used without attribution", but here it is being used with attribution (which makes it "Verifiable information"), and you even removed the sources used for attribution, so that seems to be edit warring. If you want to mention other information that you think is absent from the article, then add this information to the article, but don't tag the article just because you feel the sources are "favorable towards MEK's position" (something which is not verified in the sources). Idealigic (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument shows that you haven't read WP:PUFFERY, even once. For your information the article still lacks attribution and adding citations to your Wikipedia tone usage doesn't make your peacock term a fact (or "Verifiable information"). Rather than sharing what I "feel", I have thoroughly explained that this article lacks certain POVs, such as the fact that this "renowned human rights advocate" was a supporter of Saddam, and for two years, represented the regime that was harshly criticized for its human rights record during the time he was in office. Last but not the least, I am not responsible for fixing this article, as you are not as well. If you want the tag removed, include all viewpoints with due weight and then put a notice here in the talkpage. Per WP:WNTRMT, tags should not be removed when there is an ongoing discussion related to the template issue, so please don't. Pahlevun (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pahlevun, Idealigic gave quotes from the WP:PUFFERY guideline, so I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that they havent read it "even once". The sources mention Dr. Rajavi as a "renowned human rights activist", so there is no problem to include "renowned human rights activist" in the article. The Euronews source you removed by Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata, which also describes Dr. Rajavi as "renowned human rights activist", is a valid source. Why have you also removed all the "Dr" titles from the article? Instead of adding whatever sources you think could be missing, you seem to be trying to strip the subject of their accomplishments. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a problem. The opinion piece of di Sant'Agata (and alike) –not matter published where– does not meet WP:RSEDITORIAL criteria, and cannot be used for anything than his personal opinion (which in this case, I don't think that matters). We don't use titles such as "Dr.", "Prof.", etc. per Manual of Style/Biography. I think the example of WP:PUFFERY is obvious enough, and your argument suggests that you have either not read, or not understood it. Pahlevun (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "renowned" should be removed, it's always better to show how they were renowned (what did he do, what awards did he receive) than telling the reader they were renowned. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pahlevun you have not provided any sources that indicate that the sources in this article are in dispute, and so your neutrality tag isn't justified. About the "renowned" problem, a compromise could be "known for", this is something I have seen in other Wikipedia articles. Idealigic (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that you need to provide some sources to prove your position before adding tags to the article. Pahlevun, please provide sources before adding this NPOV tag again. Ypatch (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I have explained enough. Your problem is apparently not with sourcing, otherwise there's already a link to Wilfried Buchta's book above. As long as the content is a copy/paste from the mouthpieces of the MEK to this article, like the one mentioned above and the part it says Shortly after his appointment, he resigned his post in protest to the "repressive policies and terrorist activities of the ruling clerics in Iran" (copied from here or here) without a citation, this article will have a POV issue. Plus, this is Iranian position, in case you wanted to know . This article fails to mention the political nature of his activities, and brands him a simply as a professor or "human rights defender". He was a "Mujahedin-e Khalq activist" (as mentioned by Robert Satloff in his book The Politics Of Change In The Middle East), "the head of the People's Mujahideen organization in Geneva" (in words of Anthony Cordesman), "the Mojahedin's leader" (Cohen's article already in the article) or "Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) leader" (what the U.S. Department of Defense says). The lead does not say anything about his position in the current regime, during the time hundreds of executions took place. Pahlevun (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pahlevun you still have not provided any sources that indicate this article is in dispute, yet you keep edit warring your neutrality tag into it. The article already says that he was "the representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in Switzerland where each year he headed the People's Mujahedin of Iran delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission," and you have not provided any sources for what you call "nature of his activities", but you only keep edit warring despite there being a consensus not have this tag in the article. You have been warned already, and keep doing this, so I need to report this again. Idealigic (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You still have not provided sources to back up your points. I am restoring the article to 'long-standing version', which does not have a tag. I am also opening a RfC. Also about the [opinion] markers you placed next to reliable sources, you need to explain why reliable sources should be indicated as "[opinion]" in this article. Idealigic (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is already the indication of the dispute over neutrality of this article and your repetitive claims that no source is provided can be proven false by reading this section once. Your "long-standing version" was almost made in late September 2020‎ when I raised the NPOV issue afterwards and your action to remove the tag before you made RfC is questionable. Pahlevun (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Does this article need NPOV tag?
Does this article need an NPOV tag? Idealigic (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I feel a bit out of place making this RFC since the ONUS about this should be on Pahlevun who placed a NPOV tag to this article. Since Pahlevun won't stop adding this tag to the artile, and since Pahlevun has not shown any sources to explain his position, then I don't see why this tag is needed here. Idealigic (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No per Idealigic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because this article lends undue weight towards a certain point of view (which neglects particular parts of the biography, detailed here) and insistence to use editorialized language by putting excessive POV phrases like "renowned", "major opposition voice to the fundamentalist government of Iranian", "vocal in the campaign against repression in Iran", "a great advocate of human rights, who had dedicated his life to establishment of democracy in his homeland", "devotion to human rights and the cause of democracy in Iran - for which he had sacrificed his life", and frequent use of opinion pieces (instead of reliable scholarly and news sources) for citation. Pahlevun (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Renowned is not a POV word. Various sources use that to describe a person if they were, well.. renowned/prominent/whatever, sure it may be a bit lazy. Also, fundamentalism is a neutral term, sure it can be used as a pejorative, but that's not how it seems in this case. What term would you suggest instead of 'repression'? For example, if you criticize the Islamic government or believe in Bahai'ism, what happens then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Renowned' is a deprecated word per WP:PUFFERY. If an article relies too much on quotes (that happen take one certain side), and does not even once mention position of the other side, then it violates WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE and has a POV issue. Above, I have linked a reliable news source that mentions official position of Iran (one side of the story), which is not reflected in the article even once. This is all NPOV is about. This person is also described as "the financial and technical wizard of the MEK" and various sources describe him as a political activist with the MEK, instead of a human right activist. The current version of the article de-emphasizes this activity. Pahlevun (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No As a neutral party here on the RFC and having read the article, I see nothing that appears NPOV. Tchouppy (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that all different views are included in this article? Pahlevun (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No - The word "renowned" is not even in the article any more and I also don't see anything else that is NPOV. If Pahlevun thinks "all different views" are not in the article, then he can insert such views instead of tagging. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No for the reasons described by Javadi &#32;DocumentError (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)