Talk:National Council of Resistance of Iran

Recent reverts

 * You reverted several changes with two edit summaries that do not seem to address the scope of the reverts. Would you mind explaining your rationale for these reverts? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MarioGom: Several of your changes did not seem to be warranted. For example reducing the "10-point plan" to a third of its content, or removing that Mohammad Hossein Naghdi was killed by "assassins", or removing: "President Abolhassan Banisadr was supportive of the MEK and believed the clerics should not govern Iran directly, and was removed from power. Both Massoud Rajavi and Banisdar escaped Iran in 1981 during a campaign by the Iranian government to eradicate the MEK from Iran.". You also removed: "The Foundation of the NCRI allowed Massoud Rajavi to 'assume the position of chairman of the resistance to the Islamic Republic and provided an outlet for the Mojahedin to codify its ideological models for a future government to replace that of the mullahs.' In January 1983, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and NCRI President Massoud Rajavi signed a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. According to James Piazza, this peace initiative became the NCRI's first diplomatic act as a true government in exile. In 1983, elements united with NCRI began to depart the alliance because of conflicts with the MEK". All of this is sourced and important to the article. JoseJan89 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of 10 point plan
So, the summary I proposed for the third lede paragraph is: Its current program is outlined in Maryam Rajavi's 10 point plan, calling for universal suffrage, freedom of speech, commitment to human rights, separation of religion and state, gender equality, independent judiciary, protection of national and ethnic minorities, equal opportunities in employment entrepreneurship, protection of the environment, and a non-nuclear Iran.
 * Ok. I'll start unpacking the discussion about the various topics you brought up. I summarized the 10 point plan in the lede and added a direct link to the NCRI website for the official 10 Point Plan text, since this is a valid use of a primary source (WP:ABOUTSELF). I thought this was an improvement over the current text because:
 * The current text about "Platform's core concepts" does not even mention this is formally known as the 10 Point Plan or that it was introduced by Maryam Rajavi. And while it is based on a blog post that summarizes the 10 point plan, the text in the article mentions 8, not 10 points.
 * Current sources are: 1) a blog post and 2) an obscure primary source of Maryam Rajavi declarations. If we had a good independent, secondary, reliable source about the 10 Point Plan, it would be worth to use it. In the absence of this, why not cut the obscure indirection and just link to the official 10 Point Plan page, and briefly summarize it in the lede?
 * The current summary misrepresents the 10 Point Plan and is original research or inappropriate synthesis. For example, it states as one of the points that the NCRI seeks a westernization of the Iranian justice system. The word westernization is not in the 10 Point Plan in the NCRI page or in any of the currently cited sources. Not even the word West. This does not accurately represent the rhetoric used by the NCRI. Where does it come from? Instead of having our own creative summary, we can just have a neutral summary highlighting that one of the points seeks an independent judiciary (something the 10 Point Plan does state).

That is without prejudice of adding another passage to the history section about the introduction of the 10 Point Plan in its historical context.

MarioGom (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see "The Fight for Iran: Opposition Politics, Protest, and the Struggle for the Soul of a Nation" (by Ilan Berman, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2020), pages 16 to 18.  We can use that source without having to remove most of the plan points. JoseJan89 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Would you mind reading my comment again? I don't think you addressed anything I said. MarioGom (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. The source you provided is actually important because the current text in the article is a copy of it. This means the current text is a copyright violation. I will reinstate my edit once I get to my desktop computer. Please, do not reinstate it, since copyright violations can result in a block. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The text was copied from https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/making-sense-mek-65496 by Stefka Bulgaria (now blocked). It originally had in-text attribution, which was lost in subsequent edits, and it also went through rewordings that led to the current state, which as I explained is a misrepresentation. There is no point in having a bad summary based on a second hand summary of the 10 point plan from a blog. MarioGom (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The copyvio and citation have now been fixed. The current paraphrase adheres to the book citation, so please do not remove it. JoseJan89 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still not a proper quote because the text does not clarify where the quotes come from, but that can be fixed. I guess your preferente is including the full 10 point plan. I have no issue with that, but as I explained initially, it doesn't seem appropriate to have a rephrased 10 point plan based on another rephrased version. We could include my summary in the lede, and a full literal quotation of the official 10 point plan in a section later in the article. What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been checking how a full quote would look like, but the end result is quite long... MarioGom (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I paraphrased the text, and the citations in the section clarify where I paraphrased it from. What else do you think is missing? Also what do you mean by "full literal quotation of the official 10 point plan"? Isn't that what was in the article before it was paraphrased? JoseJan89 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. It was never a literal quotation of the original plan (or any later version from the NCRI), but a copy of a summary from a book. Anyway, the full text is somewhat long, so the full quote would be too much. I don't plan to push for further changes in this direction at the moment. MarioGom (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)