Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 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, 62Auto-archiving period: 30 days

|topic= not specified. Available options:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Terrorism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Iran B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Socialism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

In the section #Human rights record there is mention of a report by the HRW named 'No Exit', and while there is little said about the content of the report (cases are only briefly named, with zero depth), there is an extensive coverage of opposition to the report, which comes from a political arena (from parliamentary advocates of the MEK) rather than human right activists.

The article currently reads:

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[437] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[298]

The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[438] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[438] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[439] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.[294]

Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report.[440]

There are several issues here:

1. As you can see from above, HRW positions is written in less than 5 lines, 118 words, 759 characters (in green) while the anti-HRW views is in more than 7 lines, 192 words 1,181 characters (in red). This is not even a false balance, the latter view is clearly given an undue weight. This WP:NPOV problem should be solved.
2. The part it says Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities is NOT what the source says. I thoroughly read the article by Patrick Kingsley, in which he says "After I left, the group put me in touch with three former American military officers who had helped guard an M.E.K. camp in Iraq after the American invasion." It later adds "But other records and witnesses gave a more complex account... Capt. Matthew Woodside, a former naval reservist who oversaw American policy at the Iraqi camp between 2004 and 2005, was not one of those whom the M.E.K. suggested I contact. He said that in reality American troops did not have regular access to camp buildings or to group members whose relatives said they were held by force. The M.E.K. leadership tended to let members meet American officials and relatives only after a delay of several days, Captain Woodside said. “They fight for every single one of them,” he said. It became so hard for some members, particularly women, to flee that two of them ended up trying to escape in a delivery truck, he recalled." Looks like a one-sided story, and a cherry-picked narrative, from what the source says.
3. The book used for the view of General Phillips (not surprisingly the same official that was put in touch Patrick Kingsley of The New York Times) is published by New Generation Publishing, a leading UK book publisher dedicated to self publishing your book, and is a violation of WP:SPS for this controversial article. That being said, the opinion of Phillips is already cited twice in the article (only one time under his own name), and while it is rebuffed by another official. Pahlevun (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for suggestions for any of the three points raised above. Pahlevun (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pahlevun: Thanks for being so precise. I think there should be some cleanings.--Mhhossein ^talk 04:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should clean up that whole section, keeping only the main points. I will propose something shortly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of clean up / summary style of text concerning Human rights information

I propose a summary style of the following text:

In 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki told the MEK it had to leave Iraq, but the MEK responded that the "request violated their status under the Geneva Convention". Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.^[1] According to Time magazine, the MEK has denied aiding Saddam in quashing Kurdish and Shia rebellions.^[2] In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports^{[by whom?]} of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.^[3] In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981.^[4]

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.^[5] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.^[6]

The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.^[7] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.^[7] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.^[8] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.^[9]

"Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report.^[10]

In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". The United Nations spokesperson defended Kobler and his allegations, stating: "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq.^[11]

Hyeran Jo, in her work examining humanitarian violations of rebel groups to international law, states that the MEK has not accepted International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits to its detention centers.^[12] According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK controlled their people most importantly by "abuse of women".^[13] According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp.^[14] Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".^[15]

Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured".^[16][17] Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution.^[18] MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,^[9] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"^[19]

Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses,^[20][21] while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.^[22]

In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.^[23][24]

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."^[25][26] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,^[27][28] “cult-like",^[29][30] or having a “cult of personality”,^[31][32] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".^[33][34][35]

Into this:

Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice accused the MEK of committing human right abuses in the early 1990s against the Shia uprising,^[36] an accusation the MEK denied.^[37] Other MEK defectors have also made allegations of human right abuses.^[38][39][21] In 2004, Amnesty International said it continues to receive reports^{[by whom?]} of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.^[40] In 2018, Amnesty International presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents.^[41]

According to Christopher C. Harmon, MEK defectors and some experts say the organization carries out "Mao-style self-criticism sessions, and total organizational control over sex and marriage."^[18] The MEK have denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,^[9] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"^[42][22]

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps". The report described interviewing former MEK members who were held in Abu Ghraib prison. Their testimonies included incommunicado and solitary confinement, beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that, according to defectors, in two cases led to death.^[43] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.^[6] A 2007 edition of he U.S. Department of State country reports, said that upon entry into the MEK, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".^[44] According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in camp Ashraf.^[45]

The MEK and four European MPs, named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), published a counter-report in September 2005 stating that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses".^[7] Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.^[7] Brigadier General David Phillips and other former US military officers also disputed the alleged human rights violations.^[46][9] In February 2006, Human Rights Watch released a statement saying they had "investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted".^[47]

In July 2013, Martin Kobler accused the MEK leadership of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". A United Nations spokesperson said "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq".^[48]

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."^[49][50] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,^[51][52] “cult-like",^[53][54] or having a “cult of personality”,^[55][32] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".^[56][57][58]

In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had been publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court also ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.^[59][60]

My proposal aims to keep the major points while removing redundant/repetitive/trivial text.

Thoughts/objections/support? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is not a proposal. You need to elaborate on your points including those so-called "redundant/repetitive/trivial text"s. Why do you think they should be removed (with details)? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give the discussions/consensus building process their due time to develop. I first throw the idea out there to see if I get any initial feedback, like you here asking for more details, or perhaps others saying this is overall a good/bad idea, etc. I will elaborate on my points, but stop making absurd accusations against me for initiating these discussions, like you've done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no accusation in my well evidenced comment. Moreover, please be careful not to just "throw" absurd ideas of mass trimmings with zero attempt at showing why a vast amount of longstanding text should be removed. I already explained how this method would is against the betterment of the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say is a method for "betterment of the page" that we all can follow? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop super-trim RFCs/discussions followed by blind comments by users who follow you. LOL! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there is exceeding detail in the article attributed to the RAND report that could be summarized/merged with other information already in the article:

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war."

• "The RAND Corporation policy report on the group suggests that between 1979 and 1981 it was the most popular dissident group in Iran, however, the former reputation is diminished to the extent that it is now "the only entity less popular" than the Iranian government."

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds.

• "As RAND Corporation policy reported, MEK supporters seek donations at public places, often showing "gruesome pictures" of human rights victims in Iran and claiming to raise money for them but funnelling it to MEK.

• "The High Court ruled to close several MEK compounds after investigations revealed that the organization fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits for children of its members sent to Europe."

• "after finding no "verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran""

I propose summarizing this information and removing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims; this is my proposal:

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution".Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. It also required members increased devotion to the organization and its leaders."

  (I propose moving this to the section Ideological revolution and women's rights, where the "Ideological revolution" is discussed).

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds.

• "According to a report by RAND Corporation policy reported, the MEK has engaged in fund raising, some of which have been found to be fraudulent."

Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fair enough proposal. Go ahead. Alex-h (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Stefka, are you saying all of the claims you removed are WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Because multiple RS can be found for at least most of the claims you propose removing.VR _talk 18:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that some were WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and some were just bloating details that could be summarised into main points (conforming to summary style and to WP:DUE). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this summary. The main points have been kept. Idealigic (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria so which ones do you think are WP:EXCEPTIONAL? I find the recent edits don't preserve all the main points.VR _talk 21:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefka Bulgaria I don't find this removal[11][12] to be justified. Can you answer above which of the information is exceptional?VR _talk 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Vice regent Why don't you find that edit to be justified? Shouldn't we be using summary style in the article like Vanamonde said? Barca (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't accurately summarize the content removed and it moves it out of the relevant section. For example, this edit removes completely MEK luring people into the organization under false pretenses and then trapping them. This is mentioned in many scholarly sources, so this content is no WP:EXCEPTIONAL.VR _talk 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the idea here is that there is a lot of text being drawn from a single source (we've had much shorter sentences removed on the basis that they we taken from a single source); and we should indeed be editing in summary style. Can you please provide the other scholarly sources you mention? we could then determine a more suitable summary based on multiple sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These removals look far more than a summarization. They are not even exceptional. The recruitment methods along with other removed points from the RAND report should not be removed.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stefka Bulgaria I asked you which claims were exceptional, but you haven't specified them. So at this point your EXCEPTIONAL argument is unsupported and your edit should be reverted. As for sources about MEK luring members under false pretenses here are some scholarly sources:

...members from Iran who were lured to Iraq under the pretense that they were seeking job opportunities with a company based in the West. Prospective employees would usually first be brought to Turkey for job interviews, where they would then be told that their formal interview would take place at the company’s main office in Iraq, where the final decision would also be made on their employment. Upon their arrival, they would be informed that the company they were in contact with was in fact the MEK, their passports would be confiscated, and their indoctrination into the MEK would begin.
— Terronomics, p 71-72, Routledge

{{talkquote|The composition of the Mujahedin was rather varied as a result of numerous recruitment drives...Many were lured to Iraq under false pretences, such as the prospect of employment, study or resettlement.|source="From internment to resettlement of refugees: on US obligations towards MeK defectors in Iraq" (PDF). Melbourne Journal of International Law. 15 (1).

There are also many news sources that talk about this, but I think scholarly sources deserve higher weight.VR _talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that MeK fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits, the RAND report cites two sources:

• Krikorian, Greg, “Response to Terror; Five Tied to L.A. Case, Germany Alleges; Crime: Police Charge Suspects with Cheating the Government of Millions, Which Reportedly Went to a Group the U.S. Classifies as a Terrorist Entity,” Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2001, p. A4.
• Moni, Karim Haggi, Dossier of Facts on the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, The Netherlands: Iran Peywand Association, 2003.

So such a claim can't be regarded as exceptional.VR _talk 18:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose summarising some of the text in revolution and women's rights since there seems to be a lot of excessive details about marriages and divorces (mostly coming from a single source):

"Shortly after the revolution, Rajavi married Ashraf Rabii, an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood". Rabii was killed by Iranian forces in 1982. According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution". On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. It also required members increased devotion to the organization and its leaders. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani’s younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."^[1] Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."

This is a mess and needs to be summarised. Any feedback/suggestions as to what we could summarise it to would be great. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent Do you wan to work with me on fixing this section through summary style? Just please remember that summary style requires some kind of summary. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, yes absolutely! Do you want me to propose something?VR _talk 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please propose something. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent will you propose something? or should I? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria seeing how you didn't approve of my summary below, why don't you go first this time?VR _talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of clean up / summary style of text concerning "Ideological revolution and women's rights"

I propose summarising this mess of redundant and repetitive text:

"According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK "declared that God had created men and women to be equal in all things: in political and intellectual matters, as well as in legal, economic, and social issues".^[2] According to Tohidi, in 1982, as the government in Tehran led an expansive effort to limit women’s rights, the MEK adopted a female leadership."

"According to Ervand Abrahamian "the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions"."^[3]

"Shortly after the revolution, Rajavi married Ashraf Rabii, an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood".^[4] Rabii was killed by Iranian forces in 1982. On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani’s younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."^[1] Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."^[1]

"According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war.^[5] During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization, an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."^[6]

Into this:

"According to Tohidi, in 1982, as the government in Tehran led an expansive effort to limit women’s rights, the MEK adopted a female leadership. Ervand Abrahamian notes that the MEK "declared that God had created men and women to be equal in all things: in political and intellectual matters, as well as in legal, economic, and social issues". Abrahamian also notes that "the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions". Massoud Rajavi married Ashraf Rabbii (an MEK member regarded as "the symbol of revolutionary womanhood", but she was killed in 1982 by Iranian forces). On 27 January 1985, Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu (Maryam Rajavi) as his co-equal leader, announcing that this would give women equal say within the organization. According to a report by RAND, Rajavi's ideological revolution required an increased study and devotion to the MEK leadership, which led to a shortfall of volunteers."

My proposal aims to keep the major points while removing redundant/repetitive/trivial text.

Thoughts/objections/support? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain sentence by sentence why the removal should be carried out.--Mhhossein ^talk 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein thank you for your input. I'm proposing a summary style of this text (meaning removing redundancies/POV/trivialities and keeping the most important points so that we can clean up the section). If there is a particular text that I removed that you'd like to keep, please indicate why you think it needs to be kept. From my end, the text I removed was deemed trivial/unrelated to the MEK (a lot of it was about relationships between the leadership and not the MEK per se). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, your explanation is too vague given your proposed wholesale removal of content. Please go based on sentence by sentence basis. Otherwise I am going to propose a restriction banning the users from such mass removals (which has already made the whole TP an endless vortex). Let everyone know, in details, why each sentence has to be removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein what do you mean by "Otherwise I am going to propose a restriction banning the users from such mass removals "? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This means that users HAVE TO respond to every single change they make. You can't just say all of these are "trivial/unrelated to the MEK" without even showing how and why. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein please note that Wikipedia is a voluntary project; we're here because we want to make a better online encyclopedia, that's all. You can ask for further clarification about a proposed edit, but there is no need to make "restriction banning" threats. I was nothing but cool to you here, so there was no need for that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "restriction banning" notion is not a threat, rather a due scheme which I am thinking on devising to "to make a better online encyclopedia". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you'll be "banning users" that you don't agree with is a threat; and it was uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: making threats is not how consensus is built in talk pages. @Stefka: can you give more detailed explanation why you request this text reduction? Idealigic (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria Would you like to help me summarize the section People's Mujahedin of Iran#Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK I would like to preserve all the facts in that section while reducing the number of words and removing redundancies.VR _talk 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would be glad to help; should I propose something? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start small and work paragraph by paragraph. Here's a simple one. Summarize this:

According to terrorism specialist Yonah Alexander, in May 2005 Iran's Ministry of Intelligence ran a disinformation operation against the MEK by deceiving Human Rights Watch into "publishing a report detailing alleged human rights abuses committed by MEK leadership against dissident members. The report was allegedly based upon information provided to Human Rights Watch by known Iranian MOIS agents who were former MEK members working for the Iranian Intelligence service."

Into:

According to Yonah Alexander, Human Rights Watch was deceived when its 2005 report that accused the MEK of human rights abuses was based on testimonies of former MEK members working for Iran's Ministry of Intelligence.

VR _talk 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria if there is no objection I will assume there is consensus for this edit and go ahead and make it.VR _talk 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR, if we're starting to remove certain author introductions such as "terrorism specialist", then we should also do that to the many other such author introductions in the article; do you agree? About your proposal, I think we could do better on the overall syntax/clarity. Let me draft a proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to evaluate author introductions on a case by case basis. Which other examples do you have in mind?VR _talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This removal is reverted since the table is already categorizing the content as "other designations". For the benefit of the users, Australian consolidated list include "all persons and entities who are subject to targeted financial sanctions under Australian sanctions law" and are subject the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Also, this source clearly says "The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: Neither Australia or the United Nation has designated the MEK a terrorist organization (or anything similar). Without resorting to WP:OR, please explain how the text you added in Designation as a terrorist organization fits in that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those countries are not being introduced as designating MEK. You can see the table uses a different qualifier for these items. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: That's exactly the reason why I removed it from that section: those statements have nothing to do with the MEK being designated as a terrorist group. We can add the MEK being placed in a "Consolidated list" by Australia and the United Nations saying the "MEK was involved in terrorist activities" in another section; those statements are misleading where they currently are. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a subsection of the current section "Designation as a terrorist organization"?VR _talk 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "designation" here; yet this was added to "Dessignation as a terrorist organization". This obviously does not belong to that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table is clearly detaining the designation. What's your suggestion? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria can you explain this revert? I changed the wording to reflect the source better as per WP:V. Do you disagree with that? If you agree that my wording is closer to what the source is saying, than your revert is a blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Admins have previously taken a very strong stance against any misquotations of sources.VR _talk 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question says

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support...Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed MKO's standing in its homeland.
— Vanguard of the Imam, page 73-74

I wrote:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support. Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.

Stefka reverted it to

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.

But just yesterday Stefka themselves said that the source talk about the MEK losing popularity in Iran refer to the MEK collaborating with Hussein - something that's is already in the lede - and not about Massud Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983. It makes zero sense to keep a wording in the lead that is not quoting the source properly. @Vanamonde93: and @El C: because this article is under special restrictions. Note that TonyBallioni once boldly removed a WP:V violation citing WP:IAR (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_34#Removal) after L235 told them about it.VR _talk 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR, continuously editing text which is part of a lengthy RfC is only creating new issues, opening new discussions, and making the RfC almost impossible to follow. Like I said in my edit summary, please stop editing this text until that RfC has concluded. If you want to focus on WP:V violations, Mhhossein put in the article "...armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded", which is not supported by any of the sources. Why don't you ping admins about that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make false claims anymore. I just reverted the edit. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: Yes, MA Javadi removed that from the article because it was not supported by the any of the sources (thus failing WP:V), and you put this back into the article. Why did you do that if that statement isn't backed by any RS? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria: Your edit will be reverted if you have no policy based justification for your revert. VR has justified his edits; FYI:

"Again I looked at the source, page 73 and the author doesn't say "against the Iranian Armed Forces". So I removed this as per WP:V"[13]

"I took another look at the source and the decision being referred to by Ostovar is that of fighting, so I made that clear. I also gave the quote so others can see that this adheres better to WP:V"[14]

If you think these explanations are not correct, you need to provide counter arguments based on policies. Vice Regent edits are correcting the page based on the sources and you just reverted back to the wrong version. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that this text is part of an ongoing RfC; it's not only disruptive to have it modified continuously while the RfC is open, VR's edits are also not solving the current disputes with that sentence. His edit is also not faithful to the source (in that source, "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" pertains to events after 1986, not 1983.) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, insisting what you consider a WP:V violation to remain in the article for the sake of an RfC is WP:POINT-y behavior. My wording is faithful to the source (as shown above) and I never wrote "1983" when referring to "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam".VR _talk 08:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR: You placed the sentence right after the 1983 event and before the 1986 events, which is chronologically wrong (the source you're using placed it after the 1986 events). We could put the text after the 1986 events (like the source you're using), but the text itself is disputed (per the lengthy arguments made on that RfC); so, for the last time, please wait until that RfC has concluded before continuing to edit that text. Also like I said, if you want to report WP:V violations, you can comment on what Mhhossein added back to the article (which isn't supported by any source at all). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument regarding the chronological order is not policy based and applicable. The author says "Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO’s standing in its homeland." Siding with Saddam in his war with Iran happened in 1983 and in 1986 they just moved their headquarter. He emphasizes that it was MEK's siding with Saddam that made majority of Iranian people call them traitors. So, the author does not say "Unsurprisingly, the decision to relocated his forces to military camps inside Iraq was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians..." That said your comment seems like pure stonewalling. Do you have more objections or these were all you have concerned you? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that we need to be faithful to the source (arranging events according to how they developed) and to WP:NPOV (considering all available RSs, and not just our preferred ones); both of which are policy based. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you have two arguments (though I wouldn't describe them as 'arguments'):

1: "we need to be faithful to the source (arranging events according to how they developed)"

VR's version is exctly trying to make the text faithful to the source. I already explained VR's version is not contradicting the source, specially in terms of chro order. Nothing is twisted. All what the author says is reflected in the VR's version. Moreover, your comment is not policy based. I guess this sort of stonewalling can buy you something which is not pleasurable.

2: "we need to be faithful to WP:NPOV (considering all available RSs, and not just our preferred ones)."

You created this argument just recently. Can you explain how VR's amendment violates NPOV? There's a longstanding text which is clarified by VR. This clarification is not adding/removing new POVs. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Stefka Bulgaria has reverted VR's clarification of the text. He has provided explanations which are refuted here. Moreover, he has made contradictory claims here; In this comment he claims the text —which is the main subject of this RFC —is "disputed", while, in response to my question, he said "Nobody is saying this ["Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians"] is disputed or unsupported by source." I believe VR's edit is making the text more accurate and faithful to the source. Would you please evaluate the consensus? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the lay reader there is no difference between these two pieces of text, and so this strikes me as yet another utterly pointless debate. If none of you are going to budge, then you need to open an RfC, and since it was VR who sought to make the change, you need consensus for his version. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vanamonde. I deem the objections raised here are not reasonable and are already rebutted, so it's not a matter of budging. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this ANI discussion, what do others think about implementing a restriction that involves generally avoiding media outlets and mainly sticking to academic/scholarly sources?

Here are some examples that Alex-h provided at ANI of "third-tier" journalism that could be removed from the article on that basis:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”^[1]

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.^[2]

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."^[3]

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."^[4]

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."^[5]

Anyone else have more such examples? What do others think about implementing source restriction in the article as a whole? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let that discussion reach a conclusion then we will discuss the proposed changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about if we should implement source restriction in the article or not. You, Mhhossein, seem to be in favor of using scholarly sources over journalistic sources. So, what do you say? should we remove the journalistic sources that Alex-h pointed to, or are you just interested in removing the journalistic sources saying the Iranian regime is running a disinformation against MEK? Idealigic (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic, Alex-h and Stefka Bulgaria: I really think you are missing critical points from the AN discussion. I ask you follow the comments, specially those by Levivich and El_C. As opposed to your understanding, "source restriction" does not necessarily mean source removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein can you then please clarify, to your own accord, what "source restriction" implies? Please be clear about what "critical points" I've may have missed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that scholarly sources be given higher weight than news media sources. This is especially critical when they contradict. In case of cult statements you used news sources as a counterbalance to scholarly sources. Is that the case here? For example, do any scholarly sources contradict Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters?VR _talk 13:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are talking about different things here. About the RFC itself, the news sources are not in direct contradiction to the scholarly sources; the news sources just add a different POV (that isn' in the scholarly sources or the article). About the other news sources listed above, according to your own argument, if there isn't a scholarly source directly contradicting it then that means it merits inclusion? There will be many instances where scholarly sources have no business debunking trivialities published in fringe media outlets. That doesn't mean that those trivialities published by such outlets should be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria you said, the news sources just add a different POV (that isn' in the scholarly sources or the article). If something can't be found in scholarly sources then it should be given much less weight than material that is in scholarly sources.VR _talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources listed above are not found in scholarly sources. Shall we summarize them according to their weight? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should start by removing things that are only supported by single non-academic sources. Barca (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think when there is a sentence like "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".[70][71][72]", in the lede, we should add a short reason for the sake of the readers who want to know why. Like the following:

MEK's ideological revolution during which its members had to surrender their individuality to the organization,^[1][2] is the reason critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".^[3][4][5] Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.^[6]

Besides, the ideological revolution is an important phase in MEK's evolution which is not mentioned in the lede. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ideological revolution of MEK took place years ago. It is not relevant to today's MEK or to the lead. Idealigic (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria: @Idealigic:. Why are you reverting my edits while I am using reliable sources and what i added to lead is just a short summary of what you can see in the main body of the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this RfC. The consensus was to keep that sentence as is. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: None of those options refer to the reason why this organization is a cult. Do you have a reason for opposing this? Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: I kept the sentence as is, just added another sentence with a different subject, before the previous sentence. For the sake of the readers who may want to know why MEK is called a cult.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing this page since ~3 years ago. Since then, I have been experiencing a continuous effort aimed at reshaping the history of the subject. I addressed multiple series of unilateral mass edits (For instance see "Shedding light on the 5th round of dubious edits"-It was followed by 6th round!). At last long, a very helpful restriction, i.e. Wikipedia:Consensus required, was implemented after I complained about the edit war waves by the pro-MEK users (see "New wave of edit war"). It was a great improvement indeed, thanks to El C's suggestion.

I hope I can express the current concern clearly in the following sentences. Despite the aforementioned restrictions there's still something wrong with the procedures here. Looking at the edits by the Stefka Bulgaria, there are numerous occasions where they carried out large diffs so that even Icewhiz who used to hold closely similar POV as Stefka Bulgaria advised him to avoid a "very large diff, with an even larger talk page wall of text", a request which was accepted by Stefka Bulgaria at the time. However, the user has been trying recently to mass remove a lot of well-sourced content all of a sudden, mostly without going through the details of as to why:

• Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 32#RfC about more allegations from former MEK members
• Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 33#RfC about Merging "Human rights record" and "Designation as a cult" sections into a single section
• RfC about more allegations from former MEK members
• RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article
• special:diff/996965892
• special:diff/997411214

Most of these discussions will just waste a lot of energy and time mostly because the OP fails to explain his suggested removals. While, if there are limitations regarding the amount content to be discussed each time, users have to address the dispute in a more specific manner which certainly results in more suitable outcomes. This is what came to my mind after some years of being involved here and I hope it leads to betterment of the page. @El C and Vanamonde93: Your thoughts please. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, I don't understand your proposal in any concrete sense. I don't understand how you expect the notion of limitations regarding the amount content to be discussed each time is to be codified. Not saying the idea is necessarily a dead-end, but my immediate sense is that as far adopting such a moratorium, it does seem rather novel. El_C 19:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Sorry for not being clear enough. Actually, if something like this is implemented here, the users don't have to deal with a huge amount of changes at once. See this for instance. The OP says he is going to remove a lot of well sourced content because he thinks they are redundant (without even trying to say why and how!). Discussion over mass changes to the longstanding version should be avoided in this page since it has shown to be just energy/time wasting and also makes consensus building very difficult. We can determine a criteria for this based on the bytes to be added/removed/changed. -Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you continue to make baseless accusations against me here. I recently opened two new talk page discussions, and we've just started discussing cleaning them up through a summary style approach (something suggested by Vanamonde93 here). I will explain why the specific sections require clean up, and any change made will be done through the usual consensus building process. Threatening to ban users for doing this (like you've done here) or trying to get admins to censor such talk page practices (which are common throughout Wikipedia particularly when cleaning up articles with major POV/editing problems) is... well, I'll let the admins here decide what that is. I have in fact cleaned up a lot of POV and unverified claims from the page through consensus (much of it which you were against removing, such trying to suggest that black people in a picture are a crowd rented by the MEK, which is completely WP:OR). So please stop casting aspersions against me. Any edit made here is explained and done through a consensus building process, and just because you don't agree with them does not give you grounds to make baseless accusations against me or to try and implement absurd restrictions to the talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is not going to prevent the summarization of the content, rather it functions to pave the way towards this goal. So you should not be concerned. However, the trend of your edits are clear enough so let's not go through them (so my words are not aspersions or accusations). Also I would like to ask you not label your mass removals as "a summary style approach". A suitable "summary style approach" should be accompanied by substantiations, preferably based on the reliable sources. However, you tend to organize poorly discussed mass removal discussions, which in turn would create a lot of unnecessary back and forth for the users. You are describing those RFCs accompanied by tag teaming as consensus building process. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Mhhossein's new restriction proposal is practical —my sense is that it isn't, at least in its current form— does not mean that the impetus behind it isn't real and pressing. To me, it looks like it is. That there is a problem, which mostly revolves around Stefka Bulgaria's overzealous trimming. El_C 18:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: Many thanks for the insights. I know there are vague points in this restriction, but I meant to point out a serious issue happening here. Do you have any suggestions so that we can let this impetus turn into a practical framework? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a proposal about byte-count is going to be helpful here. I recognize where the impetus is coming from, but such a proposal is only going to make it easier for any and all proposals to be stuck in limbo forever. This is not to say smaller proposals are not better; they are; but legislating against large ones isn't going to be helpful, and is near-impossible to enforce. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: Thanks so much for your input. Do you have any suggestions avoiding the messy RFCs nearly always aimed at making overzealous trimmings? There's a trend in this talk page. You don't need to discuss the changes anymore. Start a RFC, bludgeon the discussion, increase the number of !votes and there's a 50% chance of winning! In this way, you even don't need to justify your proposed mass changes. Discussion is being undermined continuously in this talk page. I guess something like El C's suggestion of "a pre-RfC consultation" should be taken more seriously. I am just saying my thoughts and always need your insights. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really intend that as an outright requirement when I suggested that, though in the case of Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it should be...? El_C 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like Barca says, Stefka is a good editor and they have been a great contributor to this page. Opposing POV editors might disagree, but IMO he has been a needed presence in this page. Instead of singling out editors (I don't think any editor here has their hands clean, specially Mhhossein), it would be good to have a roadmap worked out so that we can all work better together instead of against each other. Alex-h (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I think there is a general feeling of confusion in this talk page about how to clean up the POV in this article. Vanamonde93 suggested not adding more POV or allegations to it, but instead summarise what is already in the article. Some editors have tried to do this, but it seems this is not working since there are disagreements about how much should be trimmed and what points should be kept and what points should be removed. I think it would be helpful if an administrator established some basic ground rules about how to clean up POV in this controversial article. At first this might be a work-in-process, but it might later develop into a way we can all agree is the best way to fix this article. Thank you. Barca (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having the requirement that every RfC be closely moderated by an admin is a really good suggestion. I have found many RfCs initiated by Stefka to contain policy violations and to sometimes not make any sense. His supporters support him without critically examining the proposal. He rarely listens to his opponents, but does listen to admins like Vanamonde93, TonyBallioni etc. (I can provide diffs to back this up).VR _talk 16:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what precisely is being asked here, but I get the sense that whatever it is, it goes beyond the purview of an admin's role. It may be best for participants to refine what "ground rules" they, themselves, wish to see applied to this page, rather than wait for a kind of edicts from up high. The general notion of being respectful by not coming across as trying to railroad the opposing side ought to probably serve as a guiding tenant, though. El_C 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria is a good editor. VR please stop turning these discussions into battleground. My question is on how we can all work better together. Barca (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, when I wrote above about being respectful by not coming across as trying to railroad the opposing side, I did mostly have Stefka (and their RfCs) in mind. I was even more blunt in the section directly above. My sense is that there has been a recent degradation in the quality of collaboration on this page, with a good brunt of it falling on their shoulders. El_C 14:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a degradation in the collaboration in this page for a long time, and it's not due to Stefka's RfCs. There has been so much stonewalling on this page that RfCs have become the only available means of making any improvement to the article. Opening RfCs is what was encouraged in this talk page, so bashing an editor for doing just what was suggested is very disappointing. You may not agree with the RfCs, but several have received consensus, and that is perfectly within policy. MA Javadi (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think super-trim RfCs that cut 800 words to 40 words can serve as some sort of a shortcut for you to get what you want, I may, indeed, end up becoming quite the disappointment for you. El_C 09:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'm asking an admin to actively examine every RfC to ensure it doesn't violate policy. Let me give you two examples.

1. For a previous RfC on reducing cult section, Stefka proposed the text "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". Eight users came and supported this - eight! Clearly none bothered to actually check Stefka's references. I checked the source, didn't find the quote, so I politely asked twice to get the page number. Then admin L235 noticed the same issue and also asked. No response. It wasn't until TonyBallioni intervened that the text was removed.
2. For the RfC that reduced the cult section, Stefka initially proposed the text "other sources have dismissed these claims." Just like #1 this was a violation of WP:V. I pointed out that the sources said no such thing. Stefka maintained his position that he quoted sources correctly. Then Vanamonde93 saidtwice that Stefka hadn't quoted sources properly, before Stefka changed the text.

I can give several more examples. Normally, users are supposed to keep each other in check. That doesn't work here because some users support Stefka no matter what. They don't bother to check his proposals. One has even admitted to not reading the RfC before he supports Stefka. This is why we need an admin who can critically examine if a proposal violates a policy or just plain common sense.VR _talk 16:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good luck in finding one! Yes, I share your concerns there. I suppose I can just use WP:GS/IRANPOL to mandate Stefka to moderate their approach. I may well end up doing just that. El_C 16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka being picked on unilaterally is very perplexing and a let down. Has anybody bothered to check VR's accusations for accuracy?

1. "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence": Many souces for this statement were provided, even though Mhhossein reverted a lot of it from the article [15][16][17]. Also Stefka did respond[18] to the source VR is talking about. The opposing side could have been content with the many sources that were provided to support this statement, but instead they removed them!

2. This point just shows that the RFCs in this talk page were being monitored by Vanamonde, who made suggestions that were followed. This shows that Stefka follows advice when making these RfCs, and far as I can tell, nobody told Stefka or anybody else here that they couldn't make these RFCs, on the contrary, they were encouraged to open them. Mhhossein was accused of adding things to the article that were a violation of WP:V, and nobody commented on that, least of all VR. This looks like "trying to railroad the opposing side", which Mhhossein has been trying to do to Stefka since I became involved in this page. Alex-h (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to boast (but to boast), but I think my reputation for being even-handed and detached in the topic area is... well, pretty stellar. Same with Vanamonde93. Has he, as you claim, seen the super-trim RfCs and gave them his seal of approval? I suppose it's possible, but I tend to doubt it. El_C 23:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m allowed to express my opinion, I think Vanamonde has been a much more impartial and overall better admin here. Even though he blocked me when I reported Saff V., at least Vanamonde checked the sources carefully and took action against deceitful editing.

There have been many instances when Mhhossein had been reported for similar things, like here. That looks like a problem that continues to this day (I can provide more diffs to back this up).

Stefka has always been willing to work together and listen to admin’s advice in this page, not the case with Mhhossein. Ypatch (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ypatch. Generally speaking, if creating large RfCs is frowned upon, I won't open/initiate those anymore. In fact I won't initiate RfCs for a while here; I'll pass on the pleasures of cleaning up the POV here to the other editors involved. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Vanamonde has been the admin who has been the most neutral and has spent the most time trying to look at problems. I think we have advanced a lot here since Vanamonde has been involved. @El C: you have been very responsive and sympathetic to Mhhossein's complaints, but are nowhere to be found when there are complains against Mhhossein's edits. I can think of at least one other instance where Mhhossein violated the warning you gave them. Would you like to see it? Idealigic (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. But this is familiar enough for me. Sometime, the pro-MEK side didn't like me, sometime it was the anti-MEK side. I guess it's pronouncedly the pro-MEK side's turn now. Which makes sense: the pro-MEK side seems to have taken advantage of some sort of a vacuum lately, and since I pointed that out, some of them are trying a bit extra-harder than usual, even to the point of trying to discredit me now. What's that old saying? No good deed? Goes to show that ideology comes first on this page, though this isn't unique to the pro-MEK side — again, they're just on a bit of a roll lately, it seems, and me wishing to moderate that is most unwelcome by them. As always, I am undaunted. El_C 08:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: Pro-MEK users are clearly trying to keep you away from this page (understanding the motivation behind it is not rocket science). I guess your proposal of Consensus Required have effectively benefited the stability of the page. It has largely stopped them. From the other hand, they tried to railroad me by taking me to ANI or SPI (both led to their failure). The developments of this page are getting weird. Say something which is not desirable for them and all will turn against you. Mandating Stefka Bulgaria to moderate their approach via WP:GS/IRANPOL would be another great improvement to this page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that I would not be opening these RfCs anymore (even though no administrator ever told me not to open them, and even though most non-involved editors/admins endorsed the close of the last RfC). @Mhhossein please don't drag me into this conversation anymore. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, that is a distortion, at best. There were no "admins" (plural) involved in that still-open Admin board discussion you link to — there was one, singular admin who participated, and that was me. And don't even get me started about your recent bizarre SPI report... Anyway, you think any admin wants to touch this page? Do I need to spell out the obvious about why this page is unlike any other IRANPOL page, whatsoever? Let's see: the article about the country of Iran (80 million people, long history) — less than 20 TP archives, which start at 2003. This MEK organization article (a few thousand people, late modern history) — almost 40 archives, which start at 2007. And, sure, let's revise history and pretend I'm not the one who brought stability to this page as of Archive 10. But it's okay, I don't need to be popular. My dedication is to the project. Whether participants dis/like me, ultimately, isn't really a key factor for me. Never was, never will be. El_C 15:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I always thought you were a good admin; I've never said otherwise. I understand your points raised about the complexity of this page and about opening large RfCs (I won't be opening them again). I love Wikipedia too, and want to help build it; not cause problems. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria. I appreciate that, I truly do. I also realize that you, yourself, never said anything to the contrary about me, ever. And as I also suggested multiple times, a better way may be to open a preliminary pre-RfC discussion about what this or that RfC question should look like, a venture which I encourage you to engage in. But the point I've been trying to make is that super-trim RfCs that, for example, reduce 800 words into 40 words — that is not okay. It serves to undermine a lot of the progress that was made here throughout the years and, really, comes across as one side railroading the other. Who knows, maybe next year I'll be arguing the same against the anti-MEK side trying a similar thing. Wouldn't surprise me. El_C 15:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like you El_C! :) some users here are just politely proposing to look at other issues in this talk page, that's all! You're the best, mate! Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/bows El_C 16:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @El C: for your kind response. I also appreciate the patience and the good will you've had with the lot of us here (on both sides), which speaks volumes about the kind of person/editor you are. I'm taking a trip so need to step away from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks; hopefully the collaboration process in this talk page becomes more unified during my absence. For those editors who may not be aware, El_C was the first admin who truly got involved in this page, placing guidelines that we could all follow and stopping a whole bunch of crazy edit wars, so a lot is owed to him here. Look after him! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, Stefka. I appreciate you presenting that in the way that you did for readers of this talk page who may otherwise be unfamiliar with where we are now and how we got here. Also, I'm not really committing to returning here full time. I told all of you a long time ago that having a page-dedicated admin is not a really a thing on Wikipedia. Yet it became that with me for a very long time. I also note that, as much as I speak about being "undaunted," I was actually driven out from here, after an anti-MEK editor accused me of being a pro-MEK partisan (how times have changed!). To the credit of both sides, that editor was pretty universally chastised. But during my break, I realized how much this page was taking out of me, so I pretty much stayed away. Luckily, not long after, Vanamonde appeared on the scene to fill the void (and together with him, I briefly came out of my MEK retirement to create WP:GS/IRANPOL). Now, he may return to actively monitor this page, or not. And if not, participants may end up not having choice but to collaborate without an in-house, MEK-dedicated admin to watch over things.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Good speed on your travels! (Not at all a risk-free proposition during pandemic times, by any stretch.) Kind regards, El_C 17:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry @El C: I was not aware about your past participation here, and if my comment came across as undermining your work, I take it back. Sometimes I get caught up in the debating, and I need to learn not to do that. The year is only starting so that's one resolution I will pursue in 2021! Sorry again. Idealigic (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Idealigic. I appreciate the apology —which I am happy to accept— as well as the reflection and introspection. Good on you! El_C 18:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not aware, the consensus required restriction came into effect after I complained about the edit war waves ignited by the pro-MEK users (see "New wave of edit war"). @El C:: Does this discussion require a closure? Stefka Bulgaria should not open super large RFCs from now on. That should be written somewhere (in a closure statement here or in WP:GS/IRANPOL) for future. Be it Stefka Bulgaria, or other users, same thing may happen as you said, and the conclusion reached here can be beneficial by then. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: have you seen this post by Idealigic?

Here are two points that may be helpful:

1)"Discussions here are meant to build consensus, not to devolve into continuous accusation." diff

2) "A very specific proposal with a very wide scope is less likely to gain consensus than a series of proposal addressing the various parts of the issues you bring up. There is nothing stopping you from continuing this RfC, but please bear this in mind." diff

In the second point, Vanamonde is telling Stefka that there is nothing stopping him from opening RFCs with a wide scope. You are continuously accusing Stefka. El_C's concerns have been taken seriously, and Stefka said he wouldn't open these RfCs anymore, and you're still trying to get Stefka's name down at the IRANPOL GS page. IMO, I think the collaboration in this talk page would be much more improved if Mhhossein were also to take a break from this page for a short while. I think all the pinging and accusations would stop, and we could focus on fixing the article. Just with that it's worth the try. Alex-h (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still talking about Stefka Bulgaria's overzealous trimming? Those RFCs were used as "shortcut" and "railroading the opposite side". Stefka Bulgaria is free to open super-trim RFCs and I don't guarantee the rest. Given the recent discussions and El_C's serious I'm not expecting a pleasant outcome. Regarding collaboration, you have proved it is not what you are seeking. Even here in this discussion, YOU tried to attack @El C: but suddenly used kind words against him (who know why???¯\_(ツ)_/¯) when he clearly said he would not allow this pattern of super large RFCs.

Collaboration??? Right now you are talking about the possibility of acting against things we discussed yesterday. What kind of collaboration is it? Drop the stick please. That's why I ask @El C: to at least write a closure summary. After El_C quitted watching the page last time, YOU started violating WP:Consensus Required, despite the fact that it was the result of a strong consensus. We (me and Saff. V) asked El_C multpiple times to watch the page again but NONE OF YOU were concerned regarding this (because YOU could freely keep on everting without an admin watching the page). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: you made this revert[19]. But scholarly sources say the MEK has an Islamist ideology:

• "[MEK] is a militant Islamic-Marxist organization that seeks to overthrow the Shi'ite Muslim government in Iran.Peter Chalk. Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 508."

"the MEK with its...Marxist-Islamist ideology inspired by Shariati...the MEK's Islamist dimension made it difficult for Khomeini and the IRP to label the organization as the enemy of Islam. Iran's Reconstruction Jihad: Rural Development and Regime Consolidation after 1979. Cambridge University Press. p. 74."

"The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that was formed to opposed Western influence in the shah's regime.Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Brookings Institution Press. p. 178."

"...the Marxist Islamist group the People's Mujahedin of Iran...Iran’s Foreign Policy: Elite Factionalism, Ideology, the Nuclear Weapons Program, and the United States. Routledge. p. 23." Ghazaalch (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ghazaalch:. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Stefka Bulgaria:. MEK ideology is too complicated to be reduced to "Islamist ideology". Barca (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is not a matter of voting right or wrong. We should refer to neutral sources for the right answer.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through this page’s archives and here is a list of Vanamonde’s suggestions about working together and also about how we should be editing the article. I think that we can use this as “basic principles” we should all be following here. @El C: if you have any other suggestions, it would be great to have your input too (also you, @Vanamonde93:).

About general collaboration -

• "Discussions here are meant to build consensus, not to devolve into continuous accusation. This means you've to make proposals, and counter-proposals, and try to find a middle ground; and if there isn't a middle ground that you believe to be policy-compliant, solicit outside opinion via an RfC. I suggest you begin by proposing ways to a) create a reasonably logical flow in the article, and b) reduce it to a reasonable size."[20]

• "Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no"." [21]

About RFCs -

• "A very specific proposal with a very wide scope is less likely to gain consensus than a series of proposal addressing the various parts of the issues you bring up. There is nothing stopping you from continuing this RfC, but please bear this in mind." [22]

• "An RfC determines fresh consensus. As such, arguments about how long something has been in the article carry exactly zero weight."[23]

• "Repetition is an obvious reason to ignore the "longstanding" rule We need to represent sources accurately, but that does not mean every sentence for which a source is used needs to represent the totality of the source." [24]

• "you keep talking about the longstanding version even though El C and myself have both made it clear at various points that there need to be other reasons to keep content in the article"[25]

About problems in the article we can focus on fixing -

• "First, the article is way too long. 50kb of prose is a good target; 60-70kb is not a disaster; 106kb is indicative of a serious need for pruning and/or spinning off subsidiary articles. Second, it's an organizational nightmare. The ideology section, for instance, has so many overlapping sections ("current" overlaps with "after the revolution", and the three topic-specific sections overlap with each of the earlier ones). The "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception".

• "I could go on; but the basis of the problem is that supporters and detractors alike have just stuffed this full of "X said Y about the MEK", which doesn't make for a coherent narrative at all. At the risk of sounding cynical, a lack of clarity in the prose doesn't help either POV, so the lot of you ought to be working on this issue." [26]

• "There are way too many quotes, and way too much he-said-she-said, for this to be helpful to the general reader."[27]

• "as I've repeated any number of times, this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here)."[28]

• "Redundancy in any article is a problem regardless of POV."[29]

• "I'm making a general observation that the article covers allegations and counter-allegations in far too much detail. Which ones are removed or kept is for talk page discussion to determine."[30]

• "Fringe points of view need to be excluded entirely. For instance, if the article is discussing supposed propaganda by the MEK; a title such as "propaganda campaign" should only be used if a preponderance of high-quality sources agree that such a campaign exists. The allegations still need to be described even if the sources supporting them are only a substantial minority; and in that case, "propaganda campaign" would no longer be appropriate as a title. I am not in a position to comment on which of these outcomes is appropriate; if you cannot come to an agreement, an RFC is indicated. If you need help framing a neutral RfC that would attract substantial community input, feel free to ping me again."[31]

If we don't take admin's advice, then what is the point of asking for it? So I think if we all are in accord with these basic principles from Vanamonde (and hopefully also from El_C), this would help us work together and we wouldn't have to ping admins for every little thing in the future. Idealigic (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]