Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 27

Questionable reverts
can you please explain your last reverts? 1 and 2. The edit summaries you added don't seem resolve why all this info was removed. Ypatch (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Find "RfC about including the MEK's current principles" to know why this revert was done. As for this one, in "other names" see "the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI" ans also "many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous". Also, "It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group" and "According to Abrahamian, by 1989 many foreign diplomats considered MEK to be "the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations" in lead and body of the article. -- M h hossein   talk 05:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein - El_C already warned you (twice) not to be vague with your responses. Please say why you reverted this edit ( "in detail rather than just with see this diff.")


 * As for the the other revert you did, this is the information you removed:


 * "The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran). For this reason the Iranian government considers the MEK "as its main threat", making constant demands to Western countries to make restrictions of MEK activities as "a pre-condition for improving relations."


 * That information is not repeated in any of the quotes that you provided, so please substantiate your reverts. Ypatch (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am not seeing any warnings. By the way, please read WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Firstly, again please review the quotes. "(a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran)" seems like a silly joke. This is in contradiction to the content of this page. Finally, You can't push some POVs as facts ( For this reason, MEK being a "main threat", Iran asking others to "make restrictions" and etc). -- M h hossein   talk 06:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry again to ping you (I know do this often recently). I put this into the article:


 * 1) The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran). For this reason the Iranian government considers the MEK "as its main threat", making constant demands to Western countries to make restrictions of MEK activities as "a pre-condition for improving relations.


 * 1) With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam",

The sources are reliable, and the information is not repeated in the article. I asked Mhhossein in this talk page why he removed this from the article, but he keeps eluding the question. I know you've been suggesting RfCs lately, but in this case Mhhossein has not even presented some kind of applicable substantiation for his reverts. Ypatch (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What you call "eluding" the question was actually referring you to an old RFC regarding your suggestion. Moreover, I commented on the problems with the other sentence, i.e. the senescent on MEK and NCRI. This is a really destructive pattern that you keep pinging the admin without trying to build consensus. -- M h hossein   talk 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , Mhhossein has provided arguments for those reverts; the argument that he has not is rather tendentious, and I'm beginning to lose patience with the extent to which all of you constantly scream for help whenever someone you are arguing makes the slightest misjudgement. Please try to build consensus for that addition here., As an aside, speaking purely from an organizational perspective, including information about the NCRI under "Other names" is patently silly; if you're concerned with repetition, you should move it elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I really don't see the arguments clearly. Maybe I'm missing something here?
 * "The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran)" is not the same as ""the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI" or "many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous". The two quotes in the article don't talk about the popularity aspect or how big the MEK is within the NCRI.
 * "With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" - the RfC you linked to was a no-consensus about adding MEK ideals in the lead of the article. What is the problem with adding this in the body of the article? Ypatch (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two are not entirely redundant, but they are partially redundant, and are also partially contradictory. Resolving those issues is your responsibility, as the person wishing to add the content. Similarly, you need to establish consensus for adding the second piece of content, because Mhhossein believes it does not accurately represent the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, about the first edit, isn't it ok that they are "partially contradictory"? (I thought that adding different POVs was good as long as they came from reliable sources). About the second, the content I added does accurately represent the sources, this is why I pinged you, because a substantiated objection hadn't been presented. Mhhossein, please respond. Ypatch (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an improvement (Ypatch has referred to RFC I am talking about). The next step is ask him read the comments saying reliable sources are not consistent with this description. In other words, you should not push your desired description of MEK into the lead. I am not going to list all of those sources but for instance take a look at this book saying MEK is "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology" and this one calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin". Which opinion should go to the lead? Also please work on the redundancy and contradictory claim of the source, for the first two portions. -- M h hossein   talk 05:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, I'm not asking to "push my desired description into the lead", I'm asking to put this in the body. What is your objection with that? Ypatch (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which portion are you talking about? -- M h hossein   talk 07:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This one - what's wrong with adding this in the body of the article?
 * With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam",
 * Ypatch (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest preparing a draft including other POVs such as "Islamic extremist Mojahedin", "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology". -- M h hossein   talk 06:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you a specific question about a specific edit, and you respond about other edits that we haven't even discussed. Can you please answer my question? (you are welcome to start a new talk page discussion about other information you want to include). Ypatch (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They are closely interrelated so the reader should get to know various POVs on the principles of the group. I mean whether or not it follows "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are points to be addressed by care. I think we need to weigh them according to WP:DUE. -- M h hossein   talk 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: "anti-fundamentalist" tells us the group's ideology concerning fundamentalism. On the other hand, "extremist" or "radical" are slanderous POVs. See the difference? It is well established that the MEK is the Islamic Republic's main political opposition. I understand why certain people would like to brand the MEK with slander, but "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The mater of ideology or like is just WP:OR and I don't tend to argue based on that. No, they're not slanderous POVs, rather POVs supported by reliable sources and I am not going to differentiate between "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam". My objection is exactly based on the WP:NPOV. -- M h hossein   talk 06:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, are you saying that adding "anti-fundamentalist" as part of the MEK's ideology is WP:OR? The source supports this claim; how would it be WP:OR? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Actually, "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack thereof. You are distinguishing between them via OR! You say one is ideology and the others are not. That's the OR issue. -- M h hossein   talk 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So then, you agree that "anti-fundamentalist" counts as part of the MEK's ideology? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It largely depends on the reliable sources. So what? -- M h hossein   talk 13:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The source was already given, and it's a reliable source. So the same question remains: why are you objecting this edit if it's coming from a reliable source and provides WP:NPOV insight into the MEK's ideology? (please be concise and to the point with your response). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Mhhossein appears to be refusing adding that the MEK is ""anti-fundamentalist" because we should then also say the MEK is "extremist and "radical". What a joke. Ypatch (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems I had not been clear enough. That MEK is following "anti-fundamentalist" is just a POV, not a fact. Likewise is saying they have "Islamic extremist" or "radical Marxist-Islamist" ideology. Which POV should be included? Should we even include such contradicting POVs into the lead? -- M h hossein   talk 06:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, you are contradicting your own arguments. You just said that '"anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology', and when asked if you agree that this forms part of the MEK's ideology, you responded "depends on the reliable sources". I point out that this is backed by a RS, and now you are again dismissing the source/statement saying that "anti-fundamentalist" is just a POV. This is textbook Status quo stonewalling, and you win; I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't misquote me please. There's no contradiction. You provided a source and the POV is still a POV. My argument is that there are various POVs regarding the MEK's principles (some of them are "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam"). You can not SELECTIVELY include one of them having a certain POV or even state those POVs as if they're facts. You failed to say why one should be included and the others should not. -- M h hossein   talk 13:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * can you please explain how Stefka "misquoted" you exactly? Didn't you first say that "anti-fundamentalist" is a "description of the group's ideology? Also, you were told that if you want to start new discussions about other parts of the MEK's ideology, you could, but this discussion is about this quote, and you have not said what is wrong with adding this quote. Ypatch (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "...or lack thereof". So what? I also said other things such as we can not "SELECTIVELY include one of them having a certain POV or even state those POVs as if they're facts". You are trying to include a POV into the lead which is contrast to the other POVs. Clear enough? -- M h hossein   talk 06:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So you said ""anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack thereof." What does that even mean? Is it or is it not the group's ideology? POV and ideology are different things! Ypatch (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Look (you all), my points are clear; we won't push some certain POVs into the lead specially when the POVs are contradicting. Can you realize the contradiction among the sources? For the Nth time we can not "SELECTIVELY include one of them [those descriptions], [each] having a certain POV, or even state those POVs as if they're facts." Which part is not clear enough? -- M h hossein   talk 13:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how "Anti-fundamentalist" is a POV? (earlier you said it was a "descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack thereof."). Ypatch (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a POV (Point Of View) by an author or lack thereof. A POV can be a description of an ideology, painting, incident or etc. In this case we have some conflicting POVs which go against each other. -- M h hossein   talk 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That's very interesting WP:OR, but it's not accurate. Here are the deffintions according to Cambridge dictionary: "Anti-fundamentalist" is not "an opinion", it is "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based." Ypatch (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of view: "a way of considering something", "an opinion".
 * Ideology: "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based.
 * Are you serious? Please stop going this way. That "Anti-fundamentalist" is the MEK's ideology is the author's (or lack thereof)! I know the differences between ideology and POV. -- M h hossein   talk 08:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you are trying to say "That "Anti-fundamentalist" is the MEK's ideology is the author's POV (or lack thereof)!? That's WP:OR. Ypatch (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you are seriously advised to review WP:OR. Don't harass me please furthermore. -- M h hossein   talk 07:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you can't be throwing around accusations of "harassment" without there being any harassment. "Fundamentalism" is "defined as strict adherence to some belief or ideology" . So "Anti-fundamentalist" is, by definition, part of the MEK's ideology. You are trying to debate that this is just the author's POV (or lack thereof)!, but, by evidence of the definition I provided, this is not the case. You refuse to accept past talk page consensus, refuse accept admins' RfC consensus, and instead throw around accusations of harassment when I asked about your inconsistency in rejecting "Anti-fundamentalist" as an ideology, something that is defined in dictionaries as an ideology. Ypatch (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's crystal clear and I can't help you more than this. Which of the following is true?
 * -MEK follows "Anti-fundamentalist" ideology/principle/....
 * -MEK follows "Islamic extremist" ideology/principle/....
 * -MEK follows "radical Marxist-Islamist" ideology/principle/....
 * The mentioned RFC closure is already exerted and please don't throw 'refuse-to-accept' accusations further more without having an evidence. I am not going to talk about them here. -- M h hossein   talk 13:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)