Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 19

Recent revert by Mhhossein
@Mhhossein:

1) In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"?

2) In this edit you reverted edits that applied to the allegations made concerning nuclear scientists. Can yo please:

a) Explain exactly how these allegations are not repeated? (and then remove the material that is repeated) b) On that same edit, you also removed "According to Shireen Hunter", why? c) On that same edit, you also included "On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani." How is this "State sponsorship"?

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1-Here I removed the subsection with my edit summary reading "the source makes no judgement". However, "based in Iraq" may be useful for reaching decision.
 * 2-a: Let's compare every thing with the version after your removals; here, you removed the fact that MEK was, at the time of the assassinations, was designated as a terrorist organization. In this edit, you removed some unique details such as MEK "being financed, trained, and armed" by Mossad. This one talks about Washington's comment on the incident, which is not repeated elsewhere. The last edit comments on the ability of the MEK to perform terrorist attacks, should it really get removed?
 * 2-b: That MEK was supported by Saudis is something needing attribution? I don't think so.
 * 2-c: I did not include anything, please avoid making misleading comments on my edits. I just restored a longstanding text into the article. Also, why do you think that does not constitute "State sponsorship"? -- M h hossein   talk 14:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein:
 * 1) You have not answered the question. In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"?


 * 2a) Please leave in whatever you don't think is repeated, and removed the repeated text (which is what I tried to do).


 * 2b) Shireen Hunter is the only author I've found making this allegation, so why shouldn't this be attributed to the author?


 * 2c) You still haven't explained how this constitutes "State sponsorship":


 * "On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani.


 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the removals regarding the N scientist, I juts mentioned the portions which were unique. So, you can have your draft based on that. Communist Party was the party running the state, so MEK's letter was infact a "State sponsorship" request. Also, Shireen Hunter is NOT the only author; see, and , all saying MEK is financially supported by Saudi Arabia. --  M h hossein   talk 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2c)It doesn't matter what was the response while Milani claimed that he found the letter in Stanford University or he mentioned the MEK request of Soviet Union for temporary asylum based report of RADIO FARDA, So they are definitely connected to "Ties to foreign actors".Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I checked, the following sentences are not duplicated.
 * In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
 * A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.
 * According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel".
 * The first sentence pointed to how Israel support MEK for assassinations. The next one, the responsibility of MEK was denied by State Department spokesman. At Final sentence, it was pointed to the assassination just as an example to support that "MEK's capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years".Saff V. (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is getting clogged up without concerns really being addressed. So lets take one at a time:


 * In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lack of reply implies consent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it better to pay attention to our answer rather than repeat your question again and again! Did you look at our answers?!Saff V. (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway your answer is on page 193 of the source, MEK was exiled in 1986, but this support had belonged to 1985:
 * Saff V. (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that the MEK was exiled in 1986? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It had been mentioned at plenty of sources such as .Saff V. (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This one source you've provided doesn't say the MEK went into exile in 1986, it says that "it moved to Diyala and established Camp Ashraf in 1986." The MEK went into exile in 1981 when it moved to France and founded the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and from there it moved to Camp Ashraf in 1986 after the IRI requested France to expel the MEK (this is all in the current article). So the MEK was already in exile by 1985, so the subheading "Before exile" is inaccurate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What subheading are talking about? -- M h hossein   talk 11:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat: In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, no reply implies consensus. On to the next point. Mhhossein, in this edit, you removed "According to Shireen Hunter" (Shireen Hunter is the only author I've found making this allegation). Why shouldn't this be attributed to the author? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus for what? I don't know why you're repeatedly asking about a section which is essentially absent form the page since many days ago. Also, how many times should it be proved by sources that Shireen Hunter is NOT the only author? -- M h hossein   talk 13:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I found, MEK was in exile in 3 countries France, Iraq and Albania. Any way the main title is "State-sponsorship", whithout paying attention to categorize it into befor exile or another, the text is related to the section.Saff V. (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * About your sources concerning Shireen Hunter: this first is not a RS, the second says "page not found", and the third is another allegation by a former MEK member (many of those in this article, but they are as reliable as allegations by current MEK members). Please provide a reliable source beyond Hunter; none of the sources you provided so far can be used to Wiki-voice this allegation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to assume the first source is not reliable. Find the second here. As for the third, yes, a former MEK member is saying this, but the point that there are various sources saying this. How about this one saying "“The money definitely comes from Saudis,” says Ervand Abrahamian, a professor at the City University of New York and author of the definitive academic work on the group’s history, The Iranian Mojahedin. “There is no one else who could be subsidising them with this level of finance.” Do you want more sources? -- M h hossein   talk 12:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

1) Mintpress, an "independent watchdog, does not meet WP:RS 2) Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult, written by Trita Parsi, also does not meet WP:RS 3) “There is no one else who could be subsidising them with this level of finance.” sounds more of a guess based on eliminating possibilities than a grounded assertion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, there are unnecessary headings in this section and some irrelevant and repeated text, and it's untidy to read. I propose we change to the following:


 * Ties to foreign and non-state actors


 * On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani. Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.


 * According to Ronen Cohen, Israel's foreign intelligence agency maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s. Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States. According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.


 * According to Ervand Abrahamian, while dealing with anti-regime clergy in 1974, the MEK became close with secular Left groups in and outside Iran. These included the confederation of Iranian Students, The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, and the People's Front for the Liberation of Oman, among others. The MEK sent five trained members into South Yemen to fight in the Dhofar Rebellion against Omani and Iranian forces.


 * Any objections? (if so, please provide your proposed text) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold on! You're ignoring all the sources; Why do you think Trita Parsi is not reliable? MEK's receiving support from Saudi Arabia is not restricted to these sources:
 * Newsweek
 * National interest
 * The american conservative
 * -- M h hossein   talk 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mhhossein: First, I am not "ignoring all the sources", so please don't make baseless accusations. Second, I proposed a text that helps clean up the section. Can you please do the same so we may try to reach a compromise? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a baseless accusation, see the sources! As for your suggestion, I support the current status and subsections.-- M h hossein   talk 13:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The text I proposed includes numerous RSs, so I'm not "ignoring all the sources". Second, you haven't presented an argument against my changes. For instance, on what basis do you justify keeping the subheading "After exile"? and subheading "State-sponsorship", which only consists of one sentence? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section. -- M h hossein   talk 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On what basis that justifies keeping the "State sponsorship" section? Also, you still haven't addressed the "After exile" subheading. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter which the material belongs to After exile or before that, All of should be included in "State sponsorship" section.Saff V. (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On September 3rd I proposed a clean up of this section. Can either of you propose your clean up of this section please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed your suggestion and I explained it was not necessary to make such an edit. See my previous comment in this thread. -- M h hossein   talk 02:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Over a week ago, I proposed a clean up of the "Ties to foreign actors" section, mainly involving the removal of what seem unnecessary subheadings: "After exile" (no need for this since we don' have a "Before exile" subheading anymore), "State sponsorship" (a subsection that only consists of one sentence, and be merged under section's current heading), and "Non-state actors" (which can be merged together with the section's current heading):


 * Ties to foreign and non-state actors


 * On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani. Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.


 * According to Ronen Cohen, Israel's foreign intelligence agency maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s. Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States. According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.

I then asked Mhhossein and Saff V. to provide a proposed text if they objected, but they have not. It just feels like an unwillingness on their behalf to come to a compromise. I've waited for over a week but they're not providing any alternative solutions,. What can I do here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * They are not required to provide a proposed text (if they prefer the existing one), nor are they required to compromise — though that is, of course, encouraged. What you do in the case of an impasse is pursue dispute resolution. El_C 06:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria Why do you want to change it to provided paragraph of this edit?Saff V. (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On my part, I have shown my willingness for reaching a compromise. I have already detailed my objections in my previous comments. -- M h hossein   talk 03:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel you have shown a willingness to address the specific concerns raised here; but rather, you simply seem to object them, so will take this to dispute resolution as El_C has suggested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria I repeat my question again, Why do you want to change it to provided paragraph of this edit?Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Saff V.: If you read my previous posts, you should find detailed responses to your question. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide link?Saff V. (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've proposed here that the section Ties to foreign actors has unnecessary sub-sections that can be merged into a single section title: "Ties to foreign and non-state actors". To this, Mhhossein replied that "IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section". I find this to be an unsubstantiated response because the material currently under "State-sponsorship" only consists of one sentence that can be merged with the rest of the section, and Mhhossein is also failing to address the other subsections "After exile" and "non-state actors" (which can also be merged without any issues).

Would you agree that Mhhossein's response is unsubstantiated? If so, may I go ahead with fixing this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP:FALSEBALANCE can be viewed as a non-response response. El_C 14:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have another proposal. We keep the "state-sponsorship" subsection and remove the "after exile" one. This way Stfka's concern that some of the subsections have only one line is addressed. Furthermore, the following sentences in the current form of the article directly relate to "state-sponsorship" and is another reason to keep the title:

"Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States.[366] According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.[171]"

Moreover, one would expect "after exile" is preceded by "before exile" which currently does not exist. Therefore, to cause a minimum change in the article and cover Stefka's concerns, I say we simply remove the "after exile" subsection. I ask everyone to comment, , , Kazemita1 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kazemita, if you want to include further text, we can discuss the WP:DUE and WP:RS backing up the claims. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and make these changes based on WP:FALSEBALANCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You seem to willfully ignore people's comment that resonates WP:Disruptive editing in mind. First of all, I did not propose to include anything. I just suggested a different way to merge sub-sections as an alternative to your proposal. Second, El_C did not agree to removing a sourced content; he responded to your merging request.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This TP discussion has been going on since august 16th; you only joined this discussion after El_C confirmed that "WP:FALSEBALANCE can be viewed as a non-response response". I also took this discussion to DRN to try and discuss this with Mhhossein there, but he refused, and failed to address the concerns here too. My other edits (mostly concerning removing repeated material) were all explained in my edit summaries. If you have any specific concerns, you may start a new TP discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just look at your edit to which El_C responded and you know what I mean.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One edit concerns what has been discussed in this TP, and the others are not discussed in this TP but explained in the edit summaries. Doesn't all the text in the "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section conform to its current title without any issues? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * El_C: Did you allow to make such an edit? In what terms are IR POV with regards to this Iran opposition group is considered WP:FALSEBALANCE? --  M h hossein   talk 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In a terms of when additions are rejected on the basis of a lack of a counter-view. Which does not preclude anyone from adding such a counter-view as sourced content. But as a basis for an objection, it's a non-starter. As for your question: it's always best to include a diff when employing terms such as "such an edit" — that way I know what you're actually talking about. Please be cognizant about making this easy for me to immediately parse. El_C 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible violation of restrictions

 * El_C: Is not this edit a violation of the article's restrictions? Note that the mentioned portion was previously removed by Stefka Bulgaria on 15 August 2019 which was then reverted by me. We then engaged in discussing the issue (you can see my elaboration on my objection and Saff V.'s comment). Then, after this edit, where Stefka Bulgaria asked to consider one dispute at a time since he thought things was "getting clogged up without concerns really being addressed", we continued talking about merging the subsections and the group's exile dates, and there was no more talks on the sentences regarding the assassination of the nuclear scientists. But, in the violation of the article's restrictions, he again restored the disputed content, without trying to build consensus. In light of your previous warning to him and cases such as this which you said his change "should probably not have been made without further discussion", I ask you to address the issue. I avoided reverting and would like you to take care of his violation yourself. -- M h hossein   talk 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: I've self-reverted per your concerns. Now, can you justify why this text, which is repeated in the article, should be kept? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not how it works Stefka. "Per WP:ONUS, longstanding text is not viewed on par with new text being introduced.". You are the one who is supposed to justify newly introduced changes to the longstanding version. Which right from the start has issues. Alos, El_C stated

here what I have been telling you from the beginning. just revert the article to the longstanding version shown here Kazemita1 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC).Kazemita1 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Admin comment please Can you please comment on this blatant violation? --  M h hossein   talk 05:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever violation has become moot due to it having been self-reverted. If you disagree with an addition, please provide a substantive objection to it so that the editor introducing the edit knows what they are responding to. El_C 05:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As can be clearly seen here the diffs show that Stefka removed sourced content from longstanding text. So it is Stefka who is supposed to justify it by providing substantive reasons. And no, he has not self-reverted all of his changes yet. So the violation still stands.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it the way this agreement work? we can violate, if the violation is discovered, we can then revert? He needs to be warned for this violation. Also, the violation still stands! -- M h hossein   talk 06:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, within reason, self-reverting is indeed allowed upon discovery. As for substantive reasons, I thought that's what the section above is about. El_C 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefka removed the following sourced content from longstanding text: "American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran."

"During the years MEK was based in Iraq, it was closely associated with the intelligence service Mukhabarat (IIS)"

The content was well sourced and not repeated. Moreover he merged subsections without proper justification. There were alternatives as I had mentioned earlier.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C:...and what would happen if I had not discovered his violation. I mean, be it discovered or not, he just made it knowingly and it is just reasonable to ask him not repeat this again. It is some sort of edit war amid an ongoing discussion. -- M h hossein   talk 10:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't "made it knowingly" 2) I have addressed it below (while you still haven't, but seem mainly concerned with me receiving a warning instead) 3) In the future, you can let me know and I'll fix it (see WP:AGF). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: You've complained about an edit I made, but as usual, have not addressed the edit itself. I'll make it as easy as possible for you to address it. This is what I removed:




 * Because it's repeated already here:










 * Can you give your reasoning as to how this text is not repeated (and as such, should not be removed)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This subsection is dedicated to your violation, so please don't bludgeon it with other stuff. Instead can you say why you ignored our discussion and reverted into your desired version? Btw, you can see my explanations in the section dedicated to these assassinations. -- M h hossein   talk 10:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot find your substantiated objection for this edit anywhere. Could you please provide it here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka:You are appealing to Straw man fallacy in not justifying your edit. I told you that the following is not repeated anywhere in the article and yet you removed it:
 * "American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran."--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement is not supported by the source (this was explained on my edit summary). Let's sort out one edit at a time, starting with the edit that Mhhossein complained about. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe have some of these items as explanatory notes, because there is indeed some repetition here. That would be a good compromise. please decide whether these bold edits really worth the trouble for you, or whether it would just be easier to make proposals on the talk page first and go from there. El_C 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In this section, Mhhossein made a complain to you saying that an edit I made was in violation of the article's restrictions. I then self-reverted per Mhhossein's comments, and asked him to address the edits themselves (which, to me, were perfectly valid edits). It's been over a week and Mhhossein hasn't addressed the edits, he's only reply was "This subsection is dedicated to your violation, so please don't bludgeon it with other stuff.". I have two questions:

1) Because Mhhossein hasn't addressed the edit, can I restore it back into the article?

2) Isn't this the same continuing behavioural pattern where instead of trying to better the article through suggestions or improvements, he reverts the whole thing and just complains/objects without a constructive way forward towards reaching consensus?

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * indeed, this article is edited actively, so if you issue objections, you need to be prepared to follow up within a reasonable time frame. Thanks. El_C 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello every body, yeah we need to be active...anyway, I agree the first portion, i.e. "NBC news reported that U.S. officials...", is truly repeated, so do it please. But I am against removing the other since that does not belong to the NBC news affair and is used in another context. Removal of the quotation leaves the Ariane M. Tabatabai's statement imbalanced and POVish. -- M h hossein   talk 18:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

are you saying that this:

is not repeated here?:

Is that correct? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't say you had not understand what I meant by "Removal of the quotation leaves the Ariane M. Tabatabai's statement". See the complete sentence: "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."" -- M h hossein   talk 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because the statement is attributed to Ariane M. Tabatabai, then that means that it's not repeated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, don't misquote him. -- M h hossein   talk 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What? can you please answer the question? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words. -- M h hossein   talk 15:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, Just mentioning the Tabatabai's sentence could make the article unbalanced if attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists are picked up from the rest of sentence.Saff V. (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

in this TP discussion I complained that this sentence:

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."

is basically repeated here:

"In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."

I asked Mhhossein to present a valid objection for not removing the first sentence since this incident was already mentioned in the article, and his response was "Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words". Then Saff V. objected by saying "Just mentioning the Tabatabai's sentence could make the article unbalanced if attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists are picked up from the rest of sentence". I can't see why what Saff V. and Mhhossein are saying justifies including a repeated event in the article. Can you please weigh in? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Find a way to merge whatever isn't repeated into one overarching narrative, would be my immediate suggestion. El_C 22:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Saff V. and @Mhhossein: can you please present a merger of this text (as instructed by El_C) that you'd be happy with? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * by the respect to Admin comment, Merger of these two separate text break the balance of each section which they are mentioned and made a new problem!Saff V. (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And the evidence of refusing to work together towards a consensus keeps piling on... The text is repeated, literally repeated. El_C suggested a merge of the text, and I give you the option to merge it as you see fit, but you won't even compromise in your own terms. if I suggest a compromise, they just refuse it, so I give them the option to suggest a compromise, and they refuse that as well. The text here is clearly repeated, and we can easily merge Tabatabai's statement together with the statement by U.S. officials since they are both saying the same thing. Doesn't this continuing refusal to compromise disrupt the editing process? (I'm not looking for these editors to receive further sanctions or warnings, just want to honestly understand why this is permitted). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was just that — a suggestion. It was not an instruction. You have your dispute resolution requests to use as a resource, so try to get some outside input. If the balance of two sections becomes affected from a merge, as Saff V. is arguing, that is something that is worthy of further discussion. El_C 16:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of the article's restrictions?
Kazemita1 inserted some text into the article; then Barca reverted that text, and then SharabSalam re-inserted that text again. This text is not part of the long-standing version of the article; so isn't this a violation of the article's restrictions? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Barca has failed to substantiate their objection on the article talk page. El_C 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I'm still slow to understand the procedure in this article. I thought it would be good to take this to RSN, where I received some comments. The source is ok, but it's wrongly attributed to the UKBA, it should be attribute to the "US State Department." I will fix it. Barca (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)