Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
People's Mujahedin of Iran | In Progress | Stefka Bulgaria (t) | 11 days, 6 hours | Stefka Bulgaria (t) | 3 hours | Stefka Bulgaria (t) | 3 hours |
International Ice Hockey Federation | Closed | Jabbi (t) | 1 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 16 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 13:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 |
Current disputes
People's Mujahedin of Iran
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs)
- Idealigic (talk · contribs)
- Ghazaalch (talk · contribs)
- Mhhossein (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The dispute is over this sentence in the lede of the article:
"...a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."
I have proposed changing the wording to what I find is a more in line with WP:NPOV (and better represents sources):
"...which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Meeting_with_Tariq_Aziz
Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Sentence_in_the_lede
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think that just by looking at the available sources (the ones currently in the lede of the article, as well the ones presented in the talk page discussion), an assessment can be made on whether the current version should be kept or if it can be changed into something more neutral.
- @Mhhossein: like Idealigic writes below, stone-walling is the problem. A review by a non-involved moderator who looks at the presented sources should help resolve this stalemate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by idealigic
I support changing the sentence to something less POVish (like what Stefka is proposing).
There has been a lot of stonewalling in the talk page (this proposal was presented about one month ago in the talk page), so I also support a Dispute Resolution.
Here is a compilation of the sources in the article and in the talk page which also suggest a more neutral wording:
In the article:
This has weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.
[1]
there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war.
[2]
its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
[3]
During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process
[4]
In the talk page:
It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization
[5]
Prior to its exile, the MeK was the most popular dissident group in Iran. It lost much of its popularity due to its willingness to fight with Saddam—the instigator of the destructive Iran-Iraq War—and to kill Iranian conscripts
[6]
MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
[7]
And this one (that also support a more neutral version)
However, the envisaged military and popular support in Iran did not materialize.
[8]
It is clear that the majority of the sources support a much more neutral wording. The stonewalling in the talk page has prevented a version that represents what the majority of the sources say about this. DR help is necessary here. Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Summary of dispute by Ghazaalch
- If destroying the MEK's appeal means losing MEK’s popularity, so we could say that MeK is no longer attractive to the people in Iran. But it does not mean that it is hated by the people in Iran.
- So we have three proposals:
MeK might be attractive a little yet:
MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
[1]During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process
[2]
- MeK is not attractive any more, or, its popularity is destroyed (what we currently have in the article):
However, the envisaged military and popular support in Iran did not materialize—at least in part because the MeK had allied itself with the instigator of the war and had killed Iranian conscripts
[3]
- MeK is hated:
its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
[4]Once it settled in Iraq and fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people
[5]
- Of course, there are more sources for each proposal that I could provide them if needed. For the time being, however, I just searched RAND report (written by multiple writers), which I think should be considered as the most comprehensive & reliable research in this subject. Thus, based on what I searched till now, I would like to take the middle proposal, which is currently in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
References
|
Summary of dispute by Mhhossein
I believe it is too soon for DR to be started since the discussion is still ongoing on the article talk page. It appears that Stefka Bulgaria thinks negative things are not neutral – we know they are two difference concepts. He has not even responded to my query. --Mhhossein talk 05:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you explain why you have jumped into DR without trying to resolve the issue on the talk page? I see the discussion is still ongoing. --Mhhossein talk 14:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
People's Mujahedin of Iran discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. The other editors must be notified on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. They've all been notified in their talk pages now. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
First Statement by Moderator (MEK)
I will try to moderate this dispute, but I will caution the editors that I will have very little patience with complaints about the behavior of other editors. Complain about the wording of the article, but not about stonewalling, or about wasting of time. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Read the rules, and comply with the rules. My own opinion is that the lede section is much too long, but that is not the issue. It appears that there is one controversial sentence buried in the middle of the lede that is the issue. Is that correct? Will each editor please make a statement, of not more than two paragraphs, as to what they think should either be changed in the article, or what they think should be left the same? Do not reply to each other. Address your answers to me, and to the community. If there are any questions about procedure or policy, ask them up front, because otherwise I will assume that you understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
First Statements by Editors (MEK)
@Robert McClenon: This is the controversial sentence in question:
"...a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."
I propose changing the wording to something more neutral (I proposed "...which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran."
, but I'm open to other suggestions).
Also per your suggestion that the lede is too long, I would also support removing this sentence altogether (since the claim that the MEK is unpopular in Iran "is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."
[1]). Also there ins't a survey of any kind (be it neutral, independent, or credible) regarding the MEK's appeal in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I would support changing that sentence to
"which decreased its support in Iran"
(based on the sources shown in here and in the talk page of the article). Or what Stefka is proposing is also fine. I would also support removing this sentence to help make the lead shorter. Thanks. Idealigic (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)- That it "is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran" is itself a disputed claim which has nothing to with the mentioned sentence in the lede. For Robert McClenon's information: Stefka Bulgaria has used the "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" to wash away criticism regarding MEK. This poor argument has been criticized by the admin watching the page (here and here). This new argument is closely similar to that. Moreover, the discussion is ongoing Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Sentence in the lede hence this DR is something out of process. --Mhhossein talk 11:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Second Statement by Moderator (MEK)
There are already two RFCs running on the article talk page, and we will decide this by another RFC. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Will each editor please provide their preferred wording for the controversial sentence. If we can agree, then the matter is resolved. Otherwise we will use another RFC. Be specific and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Second Statements by Editors (MEK)
@Robert McClenon: I propose changing the wording to something more neutral like "...which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran."
Or Idealigic's suggestion ("which decreased its support in Iran"
) is also ok by me.
This proposal is based on WP:NPOV per the majority of academic sources supporting a more neutral wording (as you can see on the article's TP discussion). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, thank you for your assistance. I support changing the sentence to something less POVish (like what Stefka is proposing, either one). Idealigic (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Third Statement by Moderator (MEK)
Do we have agreement to change the wording to "...which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran"? If so, we can close this dispute as resolved. If not, I will put together an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Third Statements by Editors (MEK)
- I agree with the change. Thanks Robert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-1845192709.
It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran.
International Ice Hockey Federation
Closed discussion |
---|