Talk:Massoud Rajavi/Archive 1

Untitled
There seems to be a lack of information on this page, taking a look at the history, specifically here. There seems like there is some relevant information that has been removed.

NPOV
This This entire article reads like an official biography of Mr. Rajavi, and cites no sources. In fact, it is copied in abbreviated form from http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/17/32/, the organization Mr. Rajavi founded. Dchall1 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed the "pov check" template, as the article now includes sources. --Martinor (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting this article to the version found on the NCRI website. Thanks! Dchall1 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I question the reference to an Iraqi link and terrorism. Whether or not the NCR is a terrorist organisation it has nothing to do with al Qaeda. The sentence as written suggests that al Qaeda is the only terrorist organisation in the world!124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've rewritten most of the article, and added sources for most of the information. However, much more seems to be known about Maryam than about Massoud, so the article could still use some fleshing out. Dchall1 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Massoud Rajavi.jpg
Image:Massoud Rajavi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion instead of reverts
Rather than continually reverting this page, please discuss large-scale edits. There's a new thread on talk:PMOI to centrally discuss changes to this article and related. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could the editors who keep removing the section about Rajavi's meeting with Saddam Hussein please explain why they are doing this? Funkynusayri (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead or alive?
Massoud Rajavi is not dead, stop falling for Islamic Republic Propaganda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.103.42 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some uncertainty about whether this person is dead or alive, can someone clarify, preferably with sources? PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well here he is giving a speech last month:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQUleK5X_kY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.113.57 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence in this video of when it was recorded! If he is alive, and well, then why doesn't he show his face? Why mamke radio messages, read out by someone else, so that we never know who exactly wrote it? Of course, for those who only follow MEK news, they would never know this. When you only listen to your news source and believe it entirely without a minor second thought, you do not know the truth. And the truth is beyond any person or form of government. Sadly, he is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.96.44 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-javid/where-masoud-rajavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.96.44 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any independent news source other than sources from the MEK verifying he is in fact alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.54.210 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the Shia tradition, I think he'll remain "alive" for at least another 1000 years. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible death

 * The fact that Rajavi is very possibly dead and hasn't been seen in any capacity in 12 years is of the utmost importance. The phrase "he has not made any public appearances" has a specific meaning that the individual in question has chosen to withdraw from public life. It is wholly inappropriate for a situation like this. We have a number of reliable sources that suggest Rajavi's death, and the language used "may be dead" is a close parahprase of the source: "Iran opposition leader maybe dead: reports". Denarivs (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * All of this is speculation and rumors. This is unconfirmed information that should not be given undue weight and should follow NPOV guidelines.36Balloons (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the information is unconfirmed but it is reported by a number of of reliable sources. His death is not undue weight, it's critical information. Denarivs (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massoud 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/20060927092405/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/

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) 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Reverted to previous edition, since statement added from source is not explicitly mentioned by the source per WP:OR. The source says "An arrest warrant has been issued against 39 leaders and members of the organisation including the PMOI's head Massoud Rajavi" and not that these people are wanted or are fugitive as claimed. The source also reports on a rejection of these claims: "Mahdi Uqbaai, a spokesman of the PMOI, said the court was pressured by the government to order the arrests. "This is a politically motivated decision and it's the last gift presented from the government of (Prime Minister) Nuri al-Maliki to the Iranian government," said Uqbaai."TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Section: Iraqi 2010 arrest warrant
The paragraph below has been removed from Iraqi 2010 arrest warrant because extraordinary claims require extraordinary WP:V verification, and extraordinarily WP:RS reliable sources. One source stating an organisation allegedly had “documentary evidence” is not sufficient.TheDreamBoat (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

- Back in 2005, a Patriotic Union of Kurdistan official said that his organization has "documentary evidence" that MEK was involved in killing and suppression of the Kurds in 1990s and asked for arrest and trial of MEK leaders.
 * You misunderstood the verification and reliability concepts. The claim is " a Patriotic Union of Kurdistan official said..." and it is not extraordinarily nor questionable, because the source caliming "he said" is reliable. The question is not whether the PUK claim is right or not, that's why it is attributed to them and not presented as fact. Pahlevun (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Electoral tables
From my experience the tables around the electoral history of someone is usually placed near the end of the article. See examples: Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Justin Trudeau, Justin Amash, Tim Ryan (Ohio politician) etc. Although I wonder if this is a North American thing? I find that most articles on European politicians don't have electoral tables.VR talk 15:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse
removed some content, added by. I don't understand Stefka's rationale, as the sources accuse Rajavi of abuse in their own voice. I also think that Belal2795 could have worded the content better. Allegations of abuse appear to be supported by the sources.

The Guardian says:

The Intercept says

The RAND report says,

The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, details more of this abuse:

Given the amount of sources on this topic, a section is probably warranted.VR talk 22:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @VR: I removed allegations from MEK defectors, which are not reliable for this topic area - (I explained it in my edit summary). Do you agree that we should stick to scholarly peer-reviewed sources for controversial statements in this (also controversial) topic area? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * and I'm trying to show you that what you removed was sourced to reliable sources like The Guardian. I gave you the quote above. The author of that piece, Arron Merat, is not an MEK defector AFAIK.
 * Scholarly sources should be given more weight than non-scholarly reliable sources. Which means for articles that are too big, content only sourced to non-scholarly sources should be removed first (unless there's a good reason scholarly sources don't exist for that content, eg its a recent development). For an article like this, which has room to be expanded, it would be OK to use non-scholarly sources but scholarly sources are still preferred.VR talk 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @VR, I don’t think anyone here confused Arron Merat with an MEK defector; and the Merat quote wasn’t what I removed from the article (I removed what pertained to accusations from "MEK defectors").


 * Here (where you tried to get an RFC overturned) you said "I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12]".


 * I think that this article should adhere to peer-reviewed sources (specially for controversies) because of the contentious nature of the topic, also per Levivich’s assessment here (which you seemed to support at the time), and also per WP:NOT.


 * If we are going to include details on controversies, then we would also need to explore what sources say about Rajavi’s best-known aspects (per WP:NPOV). I don’t believe this would make the article better, but if we decide to go this route, I think we should at least adhere to peer-reviewed sources:


 * "If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources.". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you clearly state your position? Are you saying we must only use scholarly sources for MEK anywhere on Wikipedia? Under what circumstances (if any) do you think it is ok to use non-scholarly but very reliable sources on MEK?
 * Here is my initial position (which I might change through feedback): scholarly sources must be given more weight than non-scholarly reliable sources, though both are acceptable. On articles that are too large, and hence content needs to be trimmed, we prioritize content sourced to scholarly sources over content sourced only to non-scholarly reliable sources (per WP:DUE). On articles that are not too large, we can include both types of sources, with more WP:WEIGHT given to content for which scholarly sources can be found. VR talk 16:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My own stance is that the core of the article/topic area should be neutral (having the least possible amount of “pro-whatever” or “anti-whatever” material) and based on peer-reviewed scholarly sources. I tend to agree with Levivich that the press are all over the place with controversial topics such as the MEK, so if we start to look for “pro-Javadi” and “anti-Javadi” quotes, this article will soon turn into another MEK-like fiasco. For that reason, press sources should be handled with care here (Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). If some information is covered in the press relating to significant recent events (e.g. the Iranian diplomat terror plot trial ), then I can’t see why that couldn’t be included through press sources. But edits involving pro-whatever and anti-whatever quotes would only snowball things into chaos - as it did on the MEK page Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV means we give all significant viewpoints on a topic (including WP:CRITICISM) in WP:DUE proportion. We don't exclude verifiable facts just because they make a subject look bad. And pretty much any fact can make a subject look good or bad, in the eyes of the beholder. How does your stance relate to Guardian's coverage of Rajavi above?VR talk 13:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that one of the reasons we’re at ArbCom right now with this is because throwing policies at each other has proven not to solve the underlying issues in this topic area.


 * BTW, which “verifiable facts” are being excluded here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you have not given a good reason to exclude The Guardian's coverage of Rajavi (nor a good reason to exclude RAND or The Intercept) I will go ahead and restore them with better wording then that chosen by Belal. If you still disagree with these sources, we'll take this to WP:RSN.VR talk 06:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion has nothing to do with WP:RSN (nobody is questioning the Guardian as RS). You seem to be ignoring / straw man-ing points. Start a RFC and we'll get others to weigh in if adding "pro" and "anti" contentious quotes to this article is a good idea. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You originally removed the content claiming sources were "dubious". Can we agree that at least some of the sources you removed (eg. The Guardian) were not "dubious" but in fact quite reliable? The content was never sourced to MEK defectors, although the wording implied it did, which I agree was problematic. I haven now removed that wording and restored some of the material. I have also added peer-reviewed sources like you wanted. I don't understand what these "pro" or "anti" quotes are and why your comment above links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence . What does it have to do with this article?VR talk 14:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@VR: You’ve made numerous changes to this article with your desired narrative and without regard to points made in the talk page (which you’ve distorted for the most part). There are so many peer-reviewed sources available on this topic, yet you insist on using a think tank and a couple of press articles (against your own past statement - MEK dejavu). I don't agree with this approach. Here is my proposal for the revision of your text:

If you have further suggestions, I’m open to that. Just please make them here (so we avoid edit warring in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you object to me "insist[-ing] on using a think tank and a couple of press articles", I've asked this question at WP:RSN. I think the think tank report is acceptable in this context, and probably one of the best sources we have (a lot of work went into producing that report and it since been cited by academics).
 * The first sentence of your proposal has nothing to do with alleged abuses under Rajavi's rule, please start a new discussion on that. The second sentence is fine, but it omits the fact that [scholarly sources say that Rajavi caused the transformation of MEK into a cult of personality (it didn't just happen spontaneously).[[User:Vice regent|VR]] talk 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Massoud Rajavi is no longer the MEK leader / co-leader?
you changed the article's narrative to wikivoicing that Massoud Rajavi is no longer the leader/co-leader of the MEK. What source says this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording a bit, is that better? VR talk 14:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @VR you need to really need be careful with misrepresenting sources in your edits; especially in this topic. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are now properly represented in the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That "while"
@Stefka Bulgaria: Your recent edit has made things worse implying "a relationship where none exists" as per MOS:EDITORIAL. I think VR's version is more neutral. I don't know why you have changed VR's well attributed version. The "while" you added is producing "implications that are not supported by the sources", unless you can show this is supported by reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 08:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: I don't believe using "while" presumes any particular implications, but nevertheless I've changed it based on your request. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it is not my request actually. The guideline explicitly prohibits the editor from using these words. Another point is that if your removal of "recent reports" was correct. Can you elaborate on that removal? Your edit summary reads as if "Adding POV from recent sources..." but your edit removes the word "recent". -- M h hossein   talk 13:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: your post is hard to understand. Where did my edit remove the word "recent"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, it just slipped through my eyes. "Recent" is not removed by you. -- M h hossein   talk 14:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)