Revision as of 20:27, 15 May 2023 editMarioGom (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers35,190 edits OneClickArchived "Discussion instead of reverts" to Talk:Massoud Rajavi/Archive 1← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:26, 15 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,898,045 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(14 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header |
{{talk header}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Rajavi, Massoud|blp=yes| | ||
{{WikiProject Biography | {{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Iran |importance=Low}} | |||
|class=C | |||
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}} | |||
|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low | |||
{{WikiProject Socialism |importance=}} | |||
|living=yes | |||
|listas=Rajavi, Massoud | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject Iran |class=C |importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics |class=C |importance=Low}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
Line 18: | Line 14: | ||
|archive = Talk:Massoud Rajavi/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Massoud Rajavi/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
==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.] (]) 22:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
- Back in 2005, a ] 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.<ref>{{cite|author=Bill Samii|url=https://www.rferl.org/a/1342660.html|title=Iran Report|date=26 October 2005|access-date=28 December 2016|publisher=]|volume=8|number=42|quote=Mohammad Tofiq Rahim, an official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said in an interview with Radio Farda that his organization has documentary evidence of Rajavi's role. He said that when the Kurds seized control of northern parts of Iraq with U.S. assistance at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the MEK cooperated with the Iraqi Army in retaking control of the city of Kirkuk. In the process, he charged, hundreds of the city's residents were killed by the MEK. "Everyone in Iraqi Kurdistan knows that Masud Rajavi cooperated with the Mukhaberat and security forces of Saddam Hussein not only in the suppression of the Kurds, but all the opponents of the regime of Saddam," Rahim added.}}</ref> | |||
: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 ]. ] (]) 08:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
==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."] (]) 15:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Dead or alive? == | |||
Massoud Rajavi is not dead, stop falling for Islamic Republic Propaganda! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
There seems to be some uncertainty about whether this person is dead or alive, can someone clarify, preferably with sources? ] (]) 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Well here he is giving a speech last month: | |||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQUleK5X_kY <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-javid/where-masoud-rajavi <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Is there any independent news source other than sources from the MEK verifying he is in fact alive? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Given the Shia tradition, I think he'll remain "alive" for at least another 1000 years. --] (]) 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". ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified (January 2018) == | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] 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. | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Allegations of abuse == | |||
{{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}} some content, added by {{ping|Belal2795}}. 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. | |||
] : {{talkquote|For almost two decades, under their embittered leader Massoud Rajavi, the MEK staged attacks against civilian and military targets across the border in Iran and helped Saddam suppress his own domestic enemies...Isolated inside its Iraqi base, under Rajavi’s tightening grip, the MEK became cult-like. A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, later concluded that the MEK had “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options”.}} | |||
] says {{talkquote|MEK cadres were banned from leaving, communicating with the outside world, or even moving around Camp Ashraf without Rajavi’s permission...People also began to disappear into detention, accused of disloyalty to Rajavi and his revolution.}} | |||
The ] report , | |||
{{talkquote|Rajavi instituted what he termed an “ideological revolution” in 1985, which, over time, imbued the MeK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory | |||
divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options.}} | |||
''The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997'', details more of this abuse: | |||
{{talkquote|Rajavi’s goal was to achieve total control over each member...Another tool that served Rajavi in imposing his indoctrination was “psychological manipulation”...|source=page 33-36}} | |||
{{talkquote|Rajavi kept a number of bodyguards who would threaten anyone with execution if they displayed the slightest opposition towards the leader. He claimed that anyone who did not obey him blindly had not yet reached the level of a genuine revolutionary.|source=page 42}} | |||
Given the amount of sources on this topic, a section is probably warranted.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 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? ] (]) 06:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Stefka Bulgaria}} and I'm trying to show you that what you removed was sourced to reliable sources like ]. 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.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 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"). | |||
::: (where you tried to get an RFC overturned) you said {{tq|"I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC"|}}. | |||
:::I think that this article should adhere to peer-reviewed sources (specially for controversies) because of the contentious nature of the topic, also per (which you at the time), and also per ]. | |||
:::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 ]). 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: | |||
:::. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages? 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): {{tq|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 ]). On articles that are not too large, we can include both types of sources, with more ] given to content for which scholarly sources can be found.}} ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 16:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
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 (). If some information is covered in the press relating to significant recent events (e.g. the ] ), 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 ] (]) 07:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:] means we give all significant viewpoints on a topic (including ]) in ] 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?''']''' <sub>]</sub> 13:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I think that one of the reasons we’re at 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? ] (]) 05:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::Since you have not given a good reason to exclude ]'s coverage of Rajavi (nor a good reason to exclude RAND or ]) 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 ].''']''' <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::{{ping|Vice regent}}: This discussion has nothing to do with ] (nobody is questioning the Guardian as RS). You seem to be ignoring / points. Start a RFC and we'll get others to weigh in if adding to this article is a ''good idea''. ] (]) 07:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::You originally 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 peer-reviewed sources like you wanted. I don't understand what these "pro" or "anti" quotes are and why your comment above links to <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence</nowiki>. What does it have to do with this article?''']''' <sub>]</sub> 14:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
@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 - MEK ). I don't agree with this approach. | |||
Here is my proposal for the revision of your text: | |||
{{talk quote|Massoud Rajavi advocated a classless society, saying that their struggle against Khomeini involved two kinds of Islam: “One, an Islam of class, which ultimately protects the exploiter; and a pure, authentic and popular Islam, which is against classes and exploitation.<ref>{{cite book|title=Khomeini's Ghost|page=|publisher= Macmillan|year=1980|author1=Con Coughlin |isbn=978-0810857643 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AJ6i2-s7hoQC&pg=PT203&dq=rajavi+classless+society&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGwLS_4NHyAhVCVhoKHcIdCfYQ6AEwA3oECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=One%2C%20an%20Islam%20of%20class%2C%20which%20ultimately%20protects%20the%20exploiter%3B%20and%20a%20pure%2C%20authentic%20and%20popular%20Islam%2C%20which%20is%20against%20classes%20and%20exploitation.&f=false}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution (Studies in Political Economy) |page=255|publisher= Rutgers University Press |year=1980|author1=Misagh Parsa |isbn=978-0230714540 |quote=Masoud Rajavi, the leader of the Mojahedeen, which advocated Islamic socialism an a classless society}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Ervand |last=Abrahamian |title = Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin |year=1989 |publisher = I.B. Tauris |isbn = 978-1-85043-077-3|page=186|quote=We speak on behalf of the masses who strive for the establishment of a classless tawhidi society}}</ref> After moving to France, the MEK developed into a cult of personality around Rajavi.<ref>{{cite book|title=Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change |page=209|publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2020|author1=Jonathan K. Zartman (Editor) |isbn=978-1440865022 |quote=After the MEK moved to France, it developed into a cult of personality as Massoud and Maryam Rajavi demanded complete loyalty and embraced feminism.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Historical Dictionary of Terrorism (Volume 38) |page=454|publisher=Scarecrow Press |year=2009|author1=Sean K. Anderson (Author), Stephen Sloan (Author) |isbn=978-0810857643 |quote=and its pattern of internal authoritarian rule over its followers and the personality cult Masud Rajavi}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Kurdish Politics in the Middle East |page=46|publisher=Lexington Books |year=2009|author1=Nader Entessar|isbn=978-0739140390}}</ref>|}} | |||
If you have further suggestions, I’m open to that. Just please make them here (so we avoid edit warring in the article). ] (]) 10:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Since you object to me "{{tq|insist on using a think tank and a couple of press articles}}", I've at ]. 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 ). | |||
: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 that Rajavi caused the transformation of MEK into a cult of personality (it didn't just happen spontaneously).''']''' <sub>]</sub> 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse-top}} | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
{{collapse-bottom}} | |||
== Presumption of Rajavi's death == | == Presumption of Rajavi's death == | ||
Line 165: | Line 50: | ||
{{ref talk}} | {{ref talk}} | ||
{{collapse bottom}} | {{collapse bottom}} | ||
== Electoral tables == | |||
From my experience the tables around the electoral history of someone is usually placed near the end of the article. See examples: ], ], ], ], ] etc. Although I wonder if this is a North American thing? I find that most articles on European politicians don't have electoral tables.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
== Massoud Rajavi is no longer the MEK leader / co-leader? == | |||
{{ping|Vice regent}} you to wikivoicing that Massoud Rajavi is no longer the leader/co-leader of the MEK. What source says this? ] (]) 13:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:I the wording a bit, is that better? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 14:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
::@VR you need to really need be careful with misrepresenting sources in your edits; especially in this topic. ] (]) 20:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::The sources are now properly represented in the lede. ] (]) 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 ]. I think 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 of "recent reports" was correct. Can you elaborate on that removal? Your edit summary reads as if {{tq|"Adding POV from '''recent sources'''..."}} but your edit removes the word "recent". --] <sup>]</sup> 13:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::@Mhhossein: your post is hard to understand. Where did remove the word "recent"? ] (]) 14:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh, it just slipped through my eyes. "Recent" is not removed by you. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | ||
Line 242: | Line 108: | ||
'''One side note:''' @] & @] both of you seem to be well aware of dispute resolution mechanism including ARE working etc. Continuous slow edit warring too will get noticed at some point of time, why not deescalate a little bit and wait for inputs from new set of users and proper RFC consensus process. ] (]) 13:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) | '''One side note:''' @] & @] both of you seem to be well aware of dispute resolution mechanism including ARE working etc. Continuous slow edit warring too will get noticed at some point of time, why not deescalate a little bit and wait for inputs from new set of users and proper RFC consensus process. ] (]) 13:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
:Hi Bookku, yes, I hear you, and I agree about deescalating and using RFC consensus processes. About archiving old messages, I don't know how to do that, otherwise that seems like a better solution. How is that done? ] (]) 13:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC) | :Hi Bookku, yes, I hear you, and I agree about deescalating and using RFC consensus processes. About archiving old messages, I don't know how to do that, otherwise that seems like a better solution. How is that done? ] (]) 13:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
== Revert by ParadaJulio == | |||
{{u|ParadaJulio}}: Could you elaborate on your reason for this revert {{diff2|1159791512}}? You dismissed the changes as simply {{tq|lacking in constructive value}}, but it is not self-evident why these changes would be deemed as unconstructive. ] (]) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, I too would like to know what is not constructive and why you are following the same pattern of edits as a blocked disruptive user. As mentioned on ], this is pretty basic biographical information. I fail to see a possible objection. ] (]) 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::The change {{Tq|''This was justified on the basis of the new relationship being "a matter of revolutionary necessity''|}} is being observed in . Relating to {{Tq|''He disappeared during the ] and it is not known whether he is still alive.''|}} in the lead, Iskandar323 please elaborate why you are seeking to change this. ] (]) 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Because it's obvious, true and sourced. What's the issue? "Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead." (Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change. 2020. P.209) ] (]) 19:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::What was in the article (prior to your changes) wasn't "obvious, true, and sourced"? A has apparently already been done. ] (]) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:26, 15 January 2025
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Massoud Rajavi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Presumption of Rajavi's death
Stefka Bulgaria removed a recent source that says Rajavi is presumed to have died. This is significant information coming from a WP:RS because the article currently merely says it is "unknown" whether he is dead or alive. I also disagree with Stefka's demanding for peer-reviewed sources on this issue. If peer-reviewed sources can be found, great, but otherwise non peer reviewed sources are sufficient.
- The Intercept says: "Massoud Rajavi is widely believed to be dead"
- The Guardian says: " Rajavi has not been seen since 2003 – most analysts assume he is dead"
- AP News says "For years, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi, the husband of Maryam Rajavi, hasn’t been seen publicly and is presumed to have died, Abrahamian said."
- New York Times says "Massoud Rajavi, who disappeared during the Iraq war in 2003 and is believed to be dead"
VR talk 14:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The scholarly consensus supports the long-standing version that
"He disappeared in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive."
:
"But after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, he went into hiding."
"wife of PMOI founder Masoud Rajavi, whose whereabouts are unknown"
"Masud Rajavi disappeared shortly after the U.S.-led invasion"
- Some recent press articles do say that he is believed “to be dead”, but other recent articles simply adhere to the scholarly consensus:
“Just before the Iraq War in 2003, MEK leader Massoud Rajavi disappeared. He has not been seen since, with his wife Maryam taking over his public duties.”
NewsWeek“Massoud Rajavi has not been heard of since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."
France 24"Masoud Rajavi's whereabouts have been unknown since 2003"
RFERL"Massoud mysteriously disappeared from the group’s former base in Iraq during the American invasion in 2003."
Sunday Times
- Most sources indicate that Massoud Rajavi never ceased to be considered the MEK leader/co-leader, so there doesn't seem to be any new substantial findings to part from the scholarly consensus. As such, I'm restoring longstanding version per WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: can you explain why you removed mentioned of Rajavi's presumed death from the lead? Surely, reports of someone's death are significant enough to be included in the lead. Can you also explain why you removed reliable sources from the article? You removed The Guardian, AP News and The Intercept - all of these are reliable sources.
- Secondly, scholarly consensus from recent scholarly sources is indeed that Rajavi is presumed dead:
- "
Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead.
" Source: Jonathan K. Zartman (Editor) (2020). Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change. ABC-CLIO. p. 209. ISBN 978-1440865022.Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead.
{{cite book}}
:|author1=
has generic name (help) - "
Massoud Rajavi (1948‒2015)...Rajavi went into “hiding,” with unconfirmed reports of his death emerging in 2016.
" Source: Amin Saikal (2019). Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic. Princeton University Press. p. 209.
- "
- All the scholarly sources you mention are before 2015, so obviously they won't mention events that have happened after them.VR talk 01:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @VR: The reasons why I restored the longstanding version was explained (several times ): there are also recent sources supporting the majority scholarly consensus, and no new evidence has been brought forward (in either recent or older sources) concerning Rajavi's whereabouts. As compromise I've included your version in the body in a NPOV manner (using NYT and ABC-CLIO source); despite there being other recent sources using different wording. If you still believe that "Rajavi is widely presumed to be dead" should replace the lede's longstanding version ("He disappeared in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive"), then you can start a dispute resolution where we'll evaluate all sources and determine which wording is more WP:DUE (I believe the longstanding wording is more WP:DUE mainly because there are more sources supporting it and there isn't any new evidence concerning Rajavi's disappearance). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Before we go to dispute resolution I just want to confirm one thing: you think that sources published in 2011-12 can refute events that (allegedly) happened in 2016? Is that your position?VR talk 16:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- What events (allegedly) happened in 2016? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Before we go to dispute resolution I just want to confirm one thing: you think that sources published in 2011-12 can refute events that (allegedly) happened in 2016? Is that your position?VR talk 16:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @VR: The reasons why I restored the longstanding version was explained (several times ): there are also recent sources supporting the majority scholarly consensus, and no new evidence has been brought forward (in either recent or older sources) concerning Rajavi's whereabouts. As compromise I've included your version in the body in a NPOV manner (using NYT and ABC-CLIO source); despite there being other recent sources using different wording. If you still believe that "Rajavi is widely presumed to be dead" should replace the lede's longstanding version ("He disappeared in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive"), then you can start a dispute resolution where we'll evaluate all sources and determine which wording is more WP:DUE (I believe the longstanding wording is more WP:DUE mainly because there are more sources supporting it and there isn't any new evidence concerning Rajavi's disappearance). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I found this scholarly source saying he is either dead or in hiding. I hope it helps. --Mhhossein 14:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
References |
---|
References
|
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
"Unconfirmed report"
Vice regent, I reverted your two edits.
In this edit, I don't see why a source from 2011 couldn't be used.
In this edit, you are making WP:SYNTH out of WP:UNDUE material. An "unconfirmed report" cannot be used as a source for making the claim that Masoud Rajavi has been reported dead, especially when most sources describe him as only being missing. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- I made my edits, after seeing this discussion by @Fad Ariff:, @Iskandar323: and @Bookku:. Response to your objections:
- A source from 2011 is inappropriate for the text "
According to members of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi is still alive
". It is now 2022, and an 11 year old source can't be used to make claims about the present. I actually wrote this in my edit summary. - Sorry, how am I making WP:SYNTH? Synth requires the use of two sources, what is the second source that I'm using? And how exactly is it WP:UNDUE weight? I'm not putting this in the lead. And the source is published by Princeton University Press and written by distinguished professor Amin Saikal. So it is reliable and scholarly.VR talk 01:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- A source from 2011 is inappropriate for the text "
- As @VR notes, 2011 is wildly outdated, and the source in question in this instance is unnecessary anyway since there are two other 2021 sources standing up the same statement. These bizarre and misapplied accusations of WP:SYNTH also need to stop. Taking information from a reliable source and repeating it verbatim is quite the opposite of any kind of OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- 2011 is not "wildly outdated". There are many recent sources that still refer to Massoud Rajavi as the leader of the NCRI/Mek. Look at this book from 2022:
"Several thousand Iranian expatriates living in France smuggled shirts and banners into the State de Gerland displaying a photo of Massoud Rajavi, head of an opposition group called the National Council of Resistance."
The FIFA World Cup: A History of the Planet's Biggest Sporting Event, 2022, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers , page 232. Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)- If you think a book about the FIFA World Cup is something approaching a reliable source on the minutiae of Iranian politics, may God help us all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- A source saying
"Rajavi went into "hiding," with unconfirmed reports of his death emerging in 2016"
is not the same as a "reported death" (which is what you put in the article, which is editorial synthesis because "unconfirmed reports of his death emerging in 2016" is not a "reported death". If there had been a confirmed reported death, then that’s what the source would say (but it does not say that). - Iskandar first rejected using sources from 2003, and now from 2011 too? I don’t think there is anything wrong with sources from 2003 and above since that is when Massoud Rajavi went missing. These are some of the sources I provided at the Maryam Rajavi talk page:
- 1)
"Masud Rajavi was (and still is) the leader of Mojahedin-e Khalq."
Routledge book "Literary Subterfuge and Contemporary Persian Fiction: Who Writes Iran?" from 2019 By Mohammad Mehdi Khorrami. - 2)
"The faces of Mujahedin-e-Khalq leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi briefly disrupted state TV programming"
- 3)
"MEK leaders Massoud Rajavi and his wife, Maryam Rajavi"
- 4)
"Massoud Rajavi - leader of the MEK but has not been seen in public since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq."
Potomac Books publisher "Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps" from 2015 by Steven O'hern. - 5)
"Opposition to the Iranian regime The People's Mujahidin of Iran (mujahidin e-khalq) Leader: Massoud Rajavi (in exile in France from 1981 to 1986, then in Baghdad)."
Harvard University Press book "The Iran-Iraq War" from 2015 by Pierre Razoux. - 6)
"The dominant militant force in opposition against the Islamic Republic of Iran was Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). Led by a husband and wife team, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi..."
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers book "Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism" from 2017 by Mathieu Guidère.
- 1)
- And here two more:
- 7)
"At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US military briefly bombed MEK camps in Iraq. Massoud Rajavi then disappeared from public life. His fate is unknown. Rumors have suggested that he is either dead, seriously wounded, or under US protections and providing intelligence related to Iran. The MEK spokespeople say he is alive and evading Iranian assassins."
The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters. Volume 38. Number 4. Parameters Winter 2008. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challege" by Gawdat Bahgat - 8)
"Crowds waved posters of group leader Maryam Rajavi and founder Massoud Rajavi — not seen since 2003 in Iraq"
Arab News 2019
- 7)
- I also see that User:Stefka Bulgaria provided VR with more sources in previous discussions in this talk page, and Also the source by Iraniangal777 is from 2022 and published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, which is reliable. These are a lot of reliable sources! but if more clarification is needed about their reliability, we can always post the question at WP:RSN. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are arguing semantics. 'Unconfirmed reports' are still reports, i.e.: 'reported', ergo 'reported death'. No one put 'confirmed reports' at all. It is unclear what all the sources are meant to achieve. Ok: some sources neglect to provide any details on or around his disappearance. Still, we have scholarly documentation of reports of his death in 2016, making that notable information to include regardless of what other sources may say. Articles are encouraged to provide multiple viewpoints as a matter of principle to ensure neutrality. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- A source saying
- If you think a book about the FIFA World Cup is something approaching a reliable source on the minutiae of Iranian politics, may God help us all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- 2011 is not "wildly outdated". There are many recent sources that still refer to Massoud Rajavi as the leader of the NCRI/Mek. Look at this book from 2022:
- Comment for clarification:Practically, at least up til now I have not contributed to the discussion @ Talk:Maryam_Rajavi I was there for just providing opinion if both parties so desired. IMHO There discussions have become lengthy and both sides need to provide synopsis of their position for benefit of other users. Bookku (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Bookku:, the synopsis here is that around two questions:
- Can a source from 2011 be used to say that "
According to members of the NCRI, Massoud Rajavi is still alive
". I say no, because it is now 2022 and a source from 2011 can't be used to make claims about the present. - can we insert the following into the article "
According to Amin Saikal, there were uncomfirmed reports of Rajavi's death in 2016
"? I say yes, because Saikal says exactly that in his book.VR talk 12:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Inquired for applicable policy guidance regarding dates @ WP:Teahouse#BLP dates related policies and guidelines? This is just for information and record. Bookku (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Can a source from 2011 be used to say that "
- @Bookku:, the synopsis here is that around two questions:
References
- "Iran state broadcaster hacked with images of dissident group". Al monitor. 2022.
- "Iran Exiles Claim Disrupting Tehran's Surveillance Cameras". VOA News. VOA News. 2022.
Marriage information
Iskandar323, I reverted your edit on the basis of WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICK, so do not reinstate it unless the issue has first been resolved in the talk page (see WP:ONUS). The marriage between Maryam and Massoud is already mentioned in this article. There is a detailed section about the MEK going through the ideological revolution in the MEK article. If you’re interested in expanding that information, that’s the section (and article) where to do it (I will expand that section further shortly). Cherrypicking one aspect of the ideological revolution and putting it in this article would be a WP:NPOV fail. Also adding all of the aspects of the ideological revolution to this article would be irrelevant since this is mainly about the MEK (which is where the detailed information about this is already mentioned). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Fad Ariff: Ok, so you didn't like the information in the reliable source - what does that have to do with WP:NPOV? If you think there is contrasting information in other reliable sources, why aren't you adding that? WP:NPOV requires fairly representing alternative views, but you are not adding alternative views or even stating what these alternative views are; you are just deleting reliably sourced content. To claim that material is cherrypicked or not NPOV, you have to actually present what information you think is being missed, which you have not done in the slightest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- You changed the title from "Ideological revolution" to "Marriage information". That is a misrepresentation of the issue since the new information you were trying to add was about the MEK’s "ideological revolution". If you want to add information about the MEK’s ideological revolution (which Massoud’s marriage to Maryam Rajavi was only a small part of), then the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights" deals with that in context. We could move that section to this article so that the information is in context, but that would create an WP:UNDUE section within this article, so keeping it in the MEK article is just better editing. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I want to add the reliably sourced content that I added. Here the marriage to Maryam Rajavi is mentioned, but the well-documented political nature of the union is not mentioned, nor is the fact that it required Maryam Rajavi to divorce her existing husband. The material that I added made no mention of any "ideological revolution"; it noted that the divorce of Maryam Rajavi from Mehdi Abrishamchi and her remarriage to Massoud Abrishamchi was justified on the basis of "revolutionary necessity". Divorce for politics is unusual, hence the interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Iskandar323, the reliability of the source is not in question. Read the section "Ideological revolution and Women’s Rights" (located in a page you're very familiar with), and you will see that what you are mentioning is about the MEK's "Ideological revolution". I already said a few times that I reverted you because of WP:CHERRYPICKING (or WP:PLAYPOLICY?), WP:NPOV, and WP:ONUS (
"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
) Since I already started a RFC about this same content you are trying to add in a different article , then you could now request input from new users through the RFC consensus process for this article here. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Iskandar323, the reliability of the source is not in question. Read the section "Ideological revolution and Women’s Rights" (located in a page you're very familiar with), and you will see that what you are mentioning is about the MEK's "Ideological revolution". I already said a few times that I reverted you because of WP:CHERRYPICKING (or WP:PLAYPOLICY?), WP:NPOV, and WP:ONUS (
- I want to add the reliably sourced content that I added. Here the marriage to Maryam Rajavi is mentioned, but the well-documented political nature of the union is not mentioned, nor is the fact that it required Maryam Rajavi to divorce her existing husband. The material that I added made no mention of any "ideological revolution"; it noted that the divorce of Maryam Rajavi from Mehdi Abrishamchi and her remarriage to Massoud Abrishamchi was justified on the basis of "revolutionary necessity". Divorce for politics is unusual, hence the interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You changed the title from "Ideological revolution" to "Marriage information". That is a misrepresentation of the issue since the new information you were trying to add was about the MEK’s "ideological revolution". If you want to add information about the MEK’s ideological revolution (which Massoud’s marriage to Maryam Rajavi was only a small part of), then the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights" deals with that in context. We could move that section to this article so that the information is in context, but that would create an WP:UNDUE section within this article, so keeping it in the MEK article is just better editing. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Archiving of the talk page
@Fad Ariff You seem to have deleted very old messages, some of them seem to be decade old or so. Why not archive then just deleting which might seem subjective to some other users?
One side note: @Fad Ariff & @Iskandar323 both of you seem to be well aware of dispute resolution mechanism including ARE working etc. Continuous slow edit warring too will get noticed at some point of time, why not deescalate a little bit and wait for inputs from new set of users and proper RFC consensus process. Bookku (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bookku, yes, I hear you, and I agree about deescalating and using RFC consensus processes. About archiving old messages, I don't know how to do that, otherwise that seems like a better solution. How is that done? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Revert by ParadaJulio
ParadaJulio: Could you elaborate on your reason for this revert ? You dismissed the changes as simply lacking in constructive value
, but it is not self-evident why these changes would be deemed as unconstructive. MarioGom (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I too would like to know what is not constructive and why you are following the same pattern of edits as a blocked disruptive user. As mentioned on Talk:Maryam Rajavi, this is pretty basic biographical information. I fail to see a possible objection. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The change
This was justified on the basis of the new relationship being "a matter of revolutionary necessity
is being observed in the MR page. Relating toHe disappeared during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it is not known whether he is still alive.
in the lead, Iskandar323 please elaborate why you are seeking to change this. ParadaJulio (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)- Because it's obvious, true and sourced. What's the issue? "Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead." (Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change. 2020. P.209) Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- What was in the article (prior to your changes) wasn't "obvious, true, and sourced"? A similar analysis has apparently already been done. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's obvious, true and sourced. What's the issue? "Massoud disappeared in 2003, believed dead." (Conflict in the Modern Middle East: An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change. 2020. P.209) Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The change
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Iran articles
- Low-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class socialism articles
- Unknown-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles