Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Unexplained revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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"[1]

"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"[2]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Stefka Bulgaria, the RfC is over. Can I go ahead with my version now? VR _talk 13:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This went to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_source_ok_to_support_a_major_claim_in_the_lead_of_an_article?. After reading the discussion there and here, and searching for reliable sources myself, I propose this wording:

In 1983, Masud Rajavi began to cooperate with Saddam Hussein's regime after a meeting in Paris, leading to the MEK joining Iraqi forces in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support. The decision to side with Iraq was viewed as treason by many Iranians and caused lasting harm to the MEK's reputation in Iran.

This replaces:

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.

Fences&Windows 23:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Ping VR, Stefka Bulgaria, Vanamonde, Mhhossein, MA Javadi, buidhe, Mark Worthen, Aquillion: can this proceed? Fences&Windows 23:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows I'm acting in an admin capacity here, and have no opinion on whether the change is an improvement; however, I see no procedural objections at the moment to making a change. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows what about this:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support. MEK's decision to side with Iraq was viewed as treason by most Iranians and has damaged the group's reputation ever since.

This version is shorter and I prefer it for a few reasons. The Paris meeting may not be notable for the lead, MEK joining Iraqi forces is already mentioned. Also "most Iranians" is more specific than "many Iranians" and better reflects what the sources say about how widely MEK's decision was seen as treacherous. For example the sources you mentioned write "the MeK lost any legitimacy within Iran" and "Most Iranians...could not side with an organization [MeK] that was effectively committing treason."VR _talk 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There continue to be a number of problems with this, starting with this Wikipedia article being about the MEK, not Massoud Rajavi. These sources talk about specifically about Massoud Rajavi, so logically that's where the information should be. Also saying the "MEK's decision to side with Iraq was viewed as treason by most Iranians and has damaged the group's reputation ever since." is, in the words of Ronen Cohen "difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran." So wikivoicing this in the lede of the article is problematic. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: I suggest you the Cohen GAME get stopped once for ever. How about referring to Cohen as such? "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"–The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, page 174. As you 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" and the statement is already supported by dozens reliable sources. So, no wikivoicing is happening here and your argument is nothing but WP:Original Research. Moreover, Massoud Rajavi is/was the main leader of the group, so differentiating between the group and him is not changing anything here. I think VR's suggestion is due and fully verifiable. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows Thanks for the proposal and for the ping. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with VR's version, using the sources I provided. Stefka Bulgaria, this was taken to RSN to help resolve this and I provided further sources with quotes that specifically discuss this. You need to avoid making your own interpretations that contradict what the sources say. The sources do not discuss Rajavi forming an agreement with the Iraqis as an individual, but explicitly as the leader of the MEK. The sources make clear that siding with Iraq lost them credibility in Iran - are you seriously trying to argue otherwise? Keeping these statements about a central part of the organisation's history out of the lead would be inappropriate and we need to stop filibustering. Fences&Windows 13:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria Even Ronan Cohen says:

"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
— The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, page 174

MEK's alliance with Saddam causing them to become unpopular is undisputed in scholarly sources.VR _talk 21:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think what Stefka is saying here is that other sources should form part of the equation, otherwise we're presenting one POV as the only truth of a multi-faceted situation. @Stefka Bulgaria: what other sources do you think we are missing here, and how do you think these would shape the final sentence? Idealigic (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the argument I made in the RfC, and we can have a look at that too. But the point I'm trying to make here is that the lede of the article is meant to summarize the article’s main points.

Is the meeting between Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi in 1983 (where they signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan) a major point for the lede? If we agree that it is, then let’s put that in the lede; if not, let’s leave it in the body.

What we know for certain to be the major point came when the MEK moved its base to Iraq in 1986. Aren’t the events that transpired from 1986 onwards what the majority sources say damaged the MEK’s popularity? If so, then let’s paraphrase that accordingly, neutrally and without POWs:

"In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings; a decision that decreased its support in Iran."

I think that would be a more accurate and neutral paraphrasing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The above wording makes little sense. I can't find any sources that say MEK's role in the "1991 nationwide uprisings" had an impact on its support in Iran. Secondly, using the term "decrease its support" is whitewashing what the scholarly sources agree upon - namely that MEK's attack on Iran was seen as an act of treason by most Iranians.

Finally, lets talk about how the following sentence in the lead is both WP:UNDUE and misquotes the sources that are currently used to support it:

It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.

In fact, there are more sources that call MEK a "fringe" group: NYT, CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted inNBC News.VR _talk 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There are little sources to the MEK being involved in the "1991 nationwide uprisings", period; but there is no dispute that the majority sources referring to the MEK losing popularity in Iran refer to the events that took place from 1986 onwards. Also the "Decrease in support" term is the same term used in the source you provided; which is perfectly neutral. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I agree with Stefka's version, which is more neutral and still conveys the necessary information. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think Stefka's proposal includes all the information we are seeking to add (but neutrally and accurately). Can this proceed? Alex-h (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows: Thanks for the insight. You can see VR tried to modify the lead so that it's more accurate in terms of matching the sources. Also, you can see the weird arguments raised against it [3] [4]. This is while I tried to refute those claims.

@Stefka Bulgaria: Do I need to remind you that multiple reliable sources do support MEK's involvement in the "1991 nationwide uprisings"? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, Fences and windows is an uninvolved user and his comments both here and at the RSN should be given much more weights than the drive-by "I agree"s. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have proposed a text:

"In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings; a decision that decreased its support in Iran."

I have explained that the majority of sources that describe the MEK losing popularity due to its alliance with Hussein refer to events after 1986. I am also using a neutral wording by a neutral author. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Stefka, you admitted above that there were "little sources" to support what is implied by your version. Here is a super simple way of fixing this while maintaining the status quo. Do you have any objections against this fix? I understand its not your preferred version, but can you at least acknowledge this this diff makes the article better rather than worse?VR _talk 17:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a distorted way of regurgitating what I said. I said that there are little sources to support the MEK being involved in the 1991 Uprisings, period. And I also clearly said that the allegations that the MEK lost popularity refer to the events that took place after 1986. That's per the RSs available. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Most sources that refer to MEK being perceived as treacherous by most Iranians don't cite a date but rather its collaboration with Saddam. Similarly, we should not tie this to a date, but rather with their alliance with Saddam.VR _talk 19:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: STOP repeating that "there are little sources to support the MEK being involved in the 1991 Uprisings". Almost everyone know it is not true given these sources. Moreover, Vice regent is true saying the we should not tie MEK reception by the Iranian is not something to be tied to a specific date. Stefka Bulgaria is trying to degrade the "treason" describtion used by a dozens of reliable sources down to "decreased its support in Iran". The number of usage by the reliable sources is not something to be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the version by Stefka Bulgaria is factually wrong. I am going to change the version to the consensus-version built after this long discussion given the 3rd opinion by a neutral admin. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this text about popularity should be in the lead. It has been shown in this talk page that there is evidence that the Iranian regime is paying to label the MEK as unpopular, so Wikipedia should not be used to follow that portrayal. Idealigic (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: OMG! Then I need to remind you that "The sources make clear that siding with Iraq lost them credibility in Iran - are you seriously trying to argue otherwise? Keeping these statements about a central part of the organisation's history out of the lead would be inappropriate and we need to stop filibustering" (Fences&Windows 13:38, 18 February 2021). Now you say "the Iranian regime is paying to label the MEK as unpopular!!!" would you please stop "filibustering"? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the discussion here has veered off course. My proposal here is simple, replace the words "a decision" with "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam" (as I did here). Are there any objections to this very small proposal? If not, I'll restore it. If yes, please explain your exact objection to this specific proposal without talking about anything else.VR _talk 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There are other problems with that part of the lead besides this. I studied the Kurdish Uprisings in Iraq, and I know the MEK were not involved in that. The sources in the lead don't quite support this either. Abrahamian (p. 208) doesn't look like it's supporting this. The second source, which is no longer live, says the US accused the MEK in the early 1990s of participating in this, but that is only an accusation. The third source, which is also no longer live, it also says this is an allegation. I'm also having a difficult time verifying this in the other sources that Mhhossein linked to, which were provided by sockpuppet Kazemita1. @Mhhossein: can you please provide solid reliable sources to support this? otherwise this should be removed from the lead. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be objecting against what is already in the lead, but as I understand you don't have any objection against my proposal. My proposal is only to replace "a decision" with "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam".VR _talk 03:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal makes it look like the decrease in popularity came because of 1983 connections between MEK and Hussein, something that is just not true. That is why I'm objecting your proposal. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The current version of the article makes it look like the decrease in popularity came because of 1983 connections between MEK and Hussein. My proposal is actually correcting for that to clarify that it was Rajavi's decision to align with Saddam - not necessarily his 1983 connections with Saddam - that were responsible. Where in my proposal did you see that the decrease in popularity came because of 1983 connections between MEK and Hussein? VR _talk 23:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the current version of the article conveys the inaccurate impression that the popularity issue only comes from the 1983 event. This is corrected in Vice Regent (this version is also supported by an uninvolved admin). --Mhhossein ^talk 05:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We had a similar RFC before (which closed in "no consensus") . I'd support what Idealigic is proposing. @Mhhossein:, @Idealigic:, @Vice regent: Where does it say that Saddam Hussein was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, or Operation Shining Sun? Barca (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Those operations where parts of the Iran-Iraq war. It seems you have no clear objections against Vice Regent's version, which is supported by Fences and windows, a neutral admin, and me. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• It seems this talk page discussion has been exhausted. I will be opening a new RFC with the new propositions made here and in the article. Idealigic (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are certainly wrong here. There's no exhaustion or whatsoever. Why are you repeatedly ignoring a 3rd opinion by a neutral admin here? You did not accept Vice Regent's version which is making the lead more accurately, however, you are instead proposing a factually wrong version. @Vanamonde93: I know this is a bit long, but since we have comments by an uninvolved admin here, could I ask you assess the consensus? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Fences and windows [5] who says "sources make clear that siding with Iraq lost them credibility in Iran ". So I am also OK with VR's version. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've put together the different versions in the RFC, so people can vote and explain why they think their choice is the most reasonable version. Idealigic (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As El_C stated before, RFCs should not be misused to railroad others. There's fairly good consensus here for the VR's version. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein - that's the third time you misquote El_C's "railroading" comment in this talk page. A RfC is what is expected when there is a disagreement between editors. You also have failed to answer questions about sources in this discussion. A RfC is the next logical step. - MA Javadi (talk)

That's because these RFCs are misused and solely functions to rail road the other side despite the fact that there's a consensus among the users. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As VR said back then, your question is irrelevant to this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The whole discussion seems to be about the change which has been made by VR [6]. I believe that this change will help to make the text more exact. The difference between this discussion and the previous ones is that here an uninvolved administrator has expressed his opinion, too. As far as I understand, there is no convincing argument against the "vice regent" and "Fences & Windows" arguments. Besides, it was shown that Stefka Bulgaria also contradicts wp: verifiability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

See my vote on that RFC. If you think VR's version should be the version to remain in the article, then you can vote on that RFC too. Alex-h (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite the reasons given, and also a non-involved administrator (in the discussion) who expressed his opinion with argument – so I don’t know why a RFC has been started in parallel. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to Mhhossein's ping above; there is clear consensus that the decline in support for the MEK during the middle- to late-1980s needs to be in the lead. Any further proposals need to explicitly incorporate this fact. There is no consensus on what to attribute that decline to, and if more stone-walling occurs, there isn't likely to be, meaning that the current text will remain. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Since any further proposals need to explicitly incorporate this, would this be a viable option for the RFC?:

"In 1983, Masoud Rajavi signed a peace treaty with Iraq. In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, which some sources say decreased its support in Iran. It then carried out operations against the Islamic Republic forces alongside the border including Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Shining Sun. "

If it's a viable option, then I will add it to the present RFC. Appreciate your feedback. Idealigic (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Previous discussions have established consensus (given the absence of substantive disagreement) for describing a decline in support for the MEK. Your proposal is fudging that point, and is therefore stone-walling, intentionally or otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: What about this?:

  "In 1983, Masoud Rajavi signed a peace treaty with Iraq. In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, a decision that decreased its support in Iran. It then carried out operations against the Islamic Republic forces alongside the border including Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Shining Sun."

  Here I'm using the words of a neutral scholar (Ronen Cohen) to describe the decrease in support in Iran. Would this be acceptable for the RFC? Idealigic (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what Vanamonde's response is, but your words are never like what Cohen says: "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war" –The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, page 174. Why did you pretend so? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know if you're referring to a different source by Cohen, Idealigic, but if it's this source, then your proposal is disingenous at best; that's not what Cohen is saying. At this point, you're getting dangerously close to a topic ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• My proposal here was simply to quote the source currently used in the article more correctly (a problem first brought up by Stefka). I thank Ali for noting this above. To reiterate my proposal is to replace the words "a decision" with "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam" (as I did here). It seems all the objections here are to other aspects of the lead not this very specific aspect. If no one makes an objection to this very specific proposal I will WP:BOLDly restore my change. Once again, opposing parts of the lead that are unrelated to my proposal should not be considered opposition to my change specifically.VR _talk 02:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The reason MEK is called a cult

• 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, is the reason critics have described the group as "resembling a cult". Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.

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)

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)

• @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)

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

@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)

@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)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Idealigic:. I am going to restore the reverted sentence been explained above. Any comment? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The reasons some critics call the MEK a cult are varied and wide, including the government in Iran paying substantial amounts of money to characterize the MEK as a cult in the press[7]. See also this RFC. So no, you do not have consensus to add this to the lead of the article. Idealigic (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: I can correct my sentence from is the reason to is a reason. Is it now OK with you? And the RFC you mentioned has another subject. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If we add one POV, then we need to add all, and the lead is not for that. Idealigic (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Could we consider the allegation Iran paying substantial amounts of money to characterize the MEK as a cult, as a POV in this article? Can you name some scholarly sources which deny that MEK is a cult? VR has presented 15 scholarly sources here. So, as he said elsewhere, If you can't find a similar number of scholarly sources that deny the cult allegation then your argument amounts to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read the discussions. The sections (such as the lead) need to be shortened. There is already a lot about cult in the article that needs shortening. Idealigic (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References
References

Pre-RFC discussion about “Ideology” section

Per everything talked about in this talk page, I think now is a good time when we can start fixing some sections.

Taking this advice from Vanamonde93:

• "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".[8]

I agree that the “Ideology” section is an organizational nightmare. I think it would be better organized if we divided it into 3 sections instead - “Before the revolution”, “After the revolution”, and “Current”. This way we can organize the information in each of the most important historic periods, which makes the most sense. @El C: pinging you just in case you want to add anything else to this discussion. Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree the article is way too long and that some sections can be organized better. @Idealigic: why don't you give it a try and see what the others think? In Vanamonde's suggestion they also seem to be saying the "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception". I also agree with that. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

OK I organized it in these 3 sections. I think now we can see more easily how much inessential details are in these sections (except maybe 'Current', which should be expanded since it is also the most important of the 3. So I think now we could now copy-edit each section and expand 'Current'. We can also put "Designation as X" in the "Perception" section like Vanamonde suggested. @El C: pinging you again so you are in the loop. Idealigic (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic (et al.), sorry, I'm not sure I'll have time to update myself about recent developments here in the near future. So, there is no need for anyone to continue to ping me here, absent some sort of an emergency, outright. Otherwise, if I choose to update myself, I'll do that, well... whenever. I realize this page is very active and very contested. I realize it's very complex and requires attention. But I gotta do my own cost-benefit analysis here. And, in that final analysis, some of the dispute resolution efforts I am curranty engaged at, even just today —like, for example the Tigray War or the Sri Lankan Civil War (not to mention multiple reports at WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AE)— those subjects matters are just as important to me as the MEK page is. I can't spread myself too thin at this time, I'm afraid. Good luck in being able to figure things out, for the first time in a very long time, perhaps, without a guiding hand. I realize that this may prove challenging. Again, best wishes to finding the path of least resistance. El_C 16:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, the new form is even more terrible. I disagree with transforming the section into a much harder to navigate version. The former version was better organized in terms of guiding the readers to some important points regarding MEK's ideology. Also, the link to 'Black September § Iranian guerillas' is truly relevant (just check the content and ctrl+f MEK). Just look at the sections in this merged form. The subsections are too just long and need to be divided by more subsections. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideology Before the revolution section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"According to Kenneth Katzman, the MEK’s early ideology a matter of dispute, with some scholars generally describing it as an attempt to combine “Islam with revoutionary Marxism”. Katzman also said that their ideology "espoused the creation of a classless society that would combat world imperialism, international Zionism, colonialism, exploitation, racism, and multinational corporations". According to James Piazza, the MEK worked towards the creation by armed popular struggle of a society in which ethnic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."

"Historian Ervand Abrahamian observed that the MEK were "consciously influenced by Marxism, both modern and classical", but they always denied being Marxists because they were aware that the term was colloquial to 'atheistic materialism' among Iran's general public. The Iranian regime for the same reason was "eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims"."

"According to Abrahamian, it was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam that "differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples". The MEK's ideology of revolutionary Shiaism is based on an interpretation of Islam so similar to that of Ali Shariati that "many concluded" they were inspired by him. He also said that it is clear that "in later years" that Shariati and "his prolific works" had "indirectly helped the Mujahedin"."

I think these are the most important authors and historic commentary about MEK's ideology before the revolution. Do I have consensus to make this change? If somebody has a proposed modification please say so, like Vanamonde said - Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no".[9] Idealigic (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• This suggestion by you shows you are cherry picking the admin's comment. After Stefka Bulgaria is prohibited from making super-trim proposals, are you going to do the same thing? Stop this game please. If you are not happy with the content, I suggest you to identify the portions which need to be trimmed– one by one– and then substantiate your proposal by using most credible reliable sources regarding the portion. This approach is exactly the something as before with the difference that there's no RFC here (yet). You need to say in details why you are proposing such ultra-super removal of content (did you know your suggestion cut almost ~680 words down to ~230 words?). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I ogranized the "Ideology" section into 3 sections ("Before the Revolution", "After the Revolution", and "Current"), and then started to keep the most important authors and historic points in each section. Instead of making suggestions, Mhhossein just reverted me and now is saying I can't be doing these kinds of edits, even if I open a RFC about it. I have explained that the purpose of my edit is to organize better this section and keep only important historic facts, all of this based on your suggestions. Am I doing something wrong? is it ok to open a RFC with my suggested modification? Idealigic (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Neither of you has done anything wrong (yet). If Mhhossein objects to the change, propose it here, and wait for him to explain why (Mhhossein, merely pointing to the word count is insufficient; you need to explain why any content was removed needs to be kept, and why the present organization is superior). If you can't come to an agreement (and I'm not holding my breath), initiate an RfC. Remember that an RfC with a narrower scope is more likely to gain consensus. Finally, a content suggestion; "after revolution" and "current" aren't mutually exclusive; try and make the time periods more specific; what do you mean by "current"? Is it 2000-present, or 2019-present? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ok thank you for the advice. We can divide the sections into three main eras: 1965-1979 (before Revolution), 1979 - 2003 (after Revolution), and 2003 - present (put down their arms and allied with US). @Mhhossein: like Vanamonde say, please explain why what is in the article now is better than dividing this section into the 3 main periods. Idealigic (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic Doesn't the article already divide ideology into "Before the revolution", "After the revolution" and "Current"? Secondly, is such a division reflected in scholarly sources? From what I've ready, scholarly sources correlate MEK's ideological change not to the 1979 revolution but to major events in MEK's life: its 1981 exile from Iran, its re-location to Iraq, its departure from Iraq due to the US invastion etc.VR _talk 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@VR: It is very odd that every time Mhhossein is asked something about his own edit, you reply on his behalf. As I said (and Vanamonde also say), the Ideology section has many overlapping sections. I tried to make division according to what sources say are the main periods. If you have another suggestion of how we can divide MEK periods, then make a suggestion. Saying "no", without saying why or without suggesting something else, is not constructive (Vanamonde also say this). So @Mhhossein: please answer Vanamonde's question. Idealigic (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: It's not a battleground here, please. But, as your comment implies a wrong impression, I should say that the well-recorded history of the edits by the pro-MEK users are among the most unusual things here. As for the proposed mass change, 'YOU' need to prove using reliable sources why every single longstanding sentence should be removed (the 'onus' is on you, not me). You need to elaborate on your change in a detailed manner.I have to repeat that cutting down ~680 words down to ~230 words for this page should be accompanied by details of why the changes are necessary. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I said why I think the change improves the article (it helps with the overlapping sections and makes the time periods clear). Just repeating that you disapprove changes makes building the article impossible. Vanamonde told you that "Mhhossein, merely pointing to the word count is insufficient; you need to explain why any content was removed needs to be kept, and why the present organization is superior". So explain why you think the present organization is superior. Idealigic (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course my comments were not "merely pointing to the word count". As El_C said mentioned multiple times – e.g. [10] & [11]– these discussions should not be used as "shortcut[s] for you to get what you want." Removing a lot of longstanding content should be supported by concrete evidences and justifications. El_C asked for opening "pre-RFC" discussions and yours is never serving to be such a thing. Just look at your starting comment– "I think these are the most important authors and historic commentary about MEK's ideology before the revolution". You know we are not going to act based on what 'YOU' think. Also, you said "it helps with the overlapping sections and makes the time periods clear"; What are those "overlapping"s exactly and why? From the other hand, time period should not be misused to remove well sourced topics on the ideology of the MEK, not to mention this sort of organizing based on mere chro-order can be tricky and makes the navigation of content much more difficult for the users. Moreover, I have already asked you "to identify the portions which need to be trimmed– one by one– and then substantiate your proposal by using most credible reliable sources regarding the portion," and you fail to ignore it (why?). As before, I am ready to discuss over the changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: I don't understand why you reverted Idealigic. They merely organized that confusing section into 3 easy-to-follow sections without removing any text. Barca (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you are describing such a mass change as "merely" organizing the text, and no, it's not easy-to-follow. Having more related sections can help the readers navigate much more easier. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Idealigic you need to be clearer about what you want. The Ideology section already has "Before the revolution", "After the revolution", "Current". This is not new. Is your proposal to remove "View on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", "View on the United States", "Ideological revolution and women's rights"? If so, say this clearly. If not, I'm still confused what novelty are you proposing. Secondly, provide some scholarly backing for your proposal. How do scholars go about discussing MEK's ideology? Ronan Cohen's 2009 book organizes ideology thematically and gives a section each titled "Ideology", "The Ideological Revolution" and "The Role of women". So it would seem that a subsection on "Ideological revolution and women's rights" is warranted.VR _talk 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Organization of Ideology section

Idealigic, please provide a proposal here, broken down into specific changes you would like to make, with justifications for each. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My proposal starts by organizing the headings because the current version is a confusing mess.

This section is about the MEK's ideology - something that has gone through changes with time, and we need to make this clear. It's views on "Israeli–Palestinian conflict", "United States", and "women's rights" look to have changed according to different time periods. So I propose organizing this section according to time periods.

I proposed 3 time periods with dates: "1965-1979 (before Revolution)", "1979 - 2003 (after Revolution)", and "2003 - present (put down their arms and allied with US)". This is a clearer organization, allowing the reader to know the MEK's ideology according to the different time periods.

If somebody else wants to propose a better way of organizing the section, then lets hear it. Leaving it as it is makes the section very confusing (so please, avoid stone-walling). Idealigic (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic I think both chronological and thematic organization is needed in the article. The People's Mujahedin of Iran#History already gives a very detailed chronological organization, so I think the ideology section should give a thematic organization. I looked for the most comprehensive coverage of MEK's ideology that I could find in scholarship and I found this book (click on "contents"). It organizes by theme, not ideology. This organization makes sense given MEK's ideology is so multifaceted. Are there other scholarly works that organize this differently? VR _talk 02:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: and @Mhhossein: I provided a way to solve the headings organization in that section. If you do not agree, then provide the headings that you think would solve the raised problems with that section. I repeat my last comment - "Leaving it as it is makes the section very confusing (so please, avoid stone-walling)." Idealigic (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent, Mhhossein, and Idealigic: I think we could keep the current leading sections, but each section could be divided to some subsections allowing the readers to know the MEK's ideology according to the different time periods. I mean, we could divide the sections "Israeli–Palestinian conflict", "United States", and "women's rights" into some subsections which explain MEK's ideology in different time periods. I would start working on it if you share the books you think would help me with this. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Idealigic's suggestion of making 3 separate sections according to different time periods makes the most sense. These other suggestions makes things even more confussing than the current state of the section. Barca (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Take a look at Democratic Party (United States)#Ideology and Democratic Party (United States)#Political positions. That party has a longer history than the MEK, yet even its ideology section is organized by topic, not by time period. And Democrats have undergone major ideological change over the decades (from supporting racial segregation to embracing anti-racist policies). Same thing with Republican Party (United_States)#Political positions.VR _talk 00:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Two times I proposed a way to fix the confusing heading in the "Ideology" section, also asking that somebody provide an alternative solution if my proposal was rejected. Nobody proposed an alternative solution, they just keep saying we should organize by topic instead of time period, but they don't propose a way to fix the current bad shape of this section. Idealigic (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the point behind these unnecessary pings? VR's recent suggestion to adopt the similar idea as of the Democratic Party (United States)#Ideology and then divide the sections based on that seems logical and feasible. You are repeatedly insisting on YOUR version, which is objected by other users. I suggest going with a thematic organization where the events are presented in a chro order. Now the remaining issue would be the topics, which can be decided referring to scholarly sources on MEK. Vice regent just suggested to adopt this book by Cohen. I think we can use more than one source and reach a conclusion as to which topics work best here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to do here, Idealigic. This is the now-typical pattern of all of you being utterly unwilling to compromise; is it any surprise no changes gain consensus? Why are you just as unwilling to use a thematic organization? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Are you saying this should be the "Ideology" section in this article?

1. The Mojahedin's Ideological Development

2. An Innovative Ideology

3. Applying Mao Tse-Tung's Values within the Mojahedin's Ideology

4. The Mojahedin's Revolutionary Character

5. The Mojahedin's Ideological Content

If you're not saying this, then be clear what you are proposing the heading to be. Idealigic (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Vice regent: please respond saying clearly what your proposal is for the titles in that section. Idealigic (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Give me some time to read more literature on this subject. Here are my first thoughts:

• Islamism
• Marxism
• View on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• View on the United States
• Women and family

Again, happy to alternative suggestions.VR _talk 18:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I also think that the titles of the sections ought to be selected thematically. A mere emphasis on chronological order is not appropriate. For instance, the title "Marxism" is very significant regarding MEK group, and a remarkable part of this group is related to this issue. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

VR's "thematic" arrangement makes things even more confusing than they are now. Why do we need a subheading with the title "View on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"? Do we even know what the MEK's ideology on this is nowadays? "Women and family"? "Marxism"? The article has been arranged chronologically, from lead, to end, and a substantiated reason has not been given about why the thematic headings that VR proposed make the section easier to understand. The article is already too long, and filled with a lot of unnecessary stuff. Keep the main points, and arrange chronologically. Ypatch (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that chrono order keeping the most important events makes the most sense. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not important what they think "nowadays". I mean it's not going to stop us from writing what we know. We go by the sources as far as we can, taking WP:DUE into account. Even I want to say, "YES" the sources say how they think nowadays. Chrono order is just more confusing than what you think, since it makes the sections too long and prohibits the reader to get the most important points from the MEK's ideology. Just assume, as Ali Ahwazi said, "Marxism" is not addressed as a stand alone section, while it constitutes the core part of the group's ideological changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"It's not important what they think nowadays?" Of course it is. We can write what we know according to the dates when things happened, which would help the reader understand the evolution of the group's ideology, and not mislead them into thinking that "Marxism" is something that describes the MEK today. Peykar, the MEK's rival, was Marxist, while the MEK was Islamic. So having such thematic titles would give a false sense that these ideologies somehow apply to the MEK today, but they do not. Idealigic (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, scholarly sources spend a considerable amount of time discussing Marxism in MEK's ideology (whether positively or negatively), and so it makes sense for us to give it WP:WEIGHT too.VR _talk 01:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• How about a compromise? The ideology section starts off with a short summary of MEK's ideology and that is organized chronologically. And the following subsections are organized thematically as I proposed above (open to changes in the section headers). I hope this compromise can allow us to reach consensus.VR _talk 01:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@VR: about what you say with regards to Marxism, all I'm seeing in the article is that some scholars describe the MEK's ideology "as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism", but today the MEK say that Islam and Marxism are incompatible. What more is there to say about this? Remember we are trying to shorten the article, not expand it with more with unnecessary details. Idealigic (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, Marxism makes the core part of the MEK's ideology and hence it needs to be considered as a section title. This does not mean the article is going to be expanded, rather the materials already under "Ideology" section regarding "Marxism" will be gathered under a section entitled "Marxism". You are alleging that "today the MEK say that Islam and Marxism are incompatible" (where does it say that?); that can come under "Marxism" section, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: what would you put in a section with a "Marxism" title? Idealigic (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic Here's an example of what could go in there:

Historian Ervand Abrahamian observed that the MEK were "consciously influenced by Marxism, both modern and classical", but they always denied being Marxists because they were aware that the term was colloquial to 'atheistic materialism' among Iran's general public. The Iranian regime for the same reason was "eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims".[254]

During the early 1970s, the MEK denied government allegations that it had espoused Marxism as ideology. Nasser Sadegh told military tribunals that although the MEK respected Marxism as a "progressive method of social analysis, they could not accept materialism, which was contrary to their Islamic ideology". The MEK eventually had a falling out with Marxist groups. According to Sepehr Zabir, "they soon became Enemy No. 1 of both pro-Soviet Marxist groups, the Tudeh and the Majority Fedayeen".

VR _talk 20:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent If we are trying to trim the article, we only need the first paragraph for this, and even if we needed two, we don't need a section title for two paragraphs. Idealigic (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic What I pasted above is already in the article. I thought this discussion was about re-organization only. If you want to chop the ideology section in half, you should start a new discussion as that is a whole new can of worms.VR _talk 23:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent: More than three weeks and there's no substantiated objection against your proposal. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Rough word count of each section

In order to determine which sections need the most trimming we have to consider two things: 1) how much coverage are we giving the topic and 2) how much coverage a topic receives in literature. I'm doing #1 here:

• Lead: 639 words
• Other names: 139 words
• History: 8457 words
  • Overview: 1365 words
  • Founding: 575 words
  • Schism: 801 words
  • Political phase: 610 words
  • Conflict with the Islamic Republic: 2333 words
  • Post-war Saddam era: 731 words
  • Post-U.S. invasion of Iraq: 1169 words
  • Settlement in Albania: 790 words
• Ideology: 2124 words
• Membership: 387 words
• Designation as a terrorist organization: 1103 words
• Designation as a cult: 342 words
• Assassinations: 681 words
• Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK: 1067 words
• Assassination of MEK members outside Iran: 268 words
• Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK: 457 words
• Ties to foreign and non-state actors: 260 words
• Intelligence and operational capabilities: 254 words
• Propaganda campaign: 469 words
• Human rights record: 809 words
• Fundraising: 494 words
• Perception: 654 words

VR _talk 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks VR, but how can we determine #2? I believe it's not that easy. Do you have any suggestions? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, what does policy say in terms of how much size we are giving to each section? It seems WP:WEIGHT should guide that discussion? Someguy1221 (an admin) said seemed to favor using sources that give a broad overview to determine weight. If so, we can first compile a list of such sources and use them.VR _talk 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct, WP:DUE is the relevant policy. Someguy is of course correct that broad sources are best to determine due weight; media sources and very specific analyses are useful for detail, but less useful for determinining due weight (of course, some recent details may only be covered in media sources). Specifics of how long each section should be are a content-decision that I will not comment on. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (Yellow).svg (discussion)
• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception"

Following up on the recommendation from Vanamonde93 that "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception"[12], would anybody have a valid reason not to move the content from "Designation as a cult" to the "Perception" section? I think that move makes sense. Bahar1397 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't say that MEK is perceived as a cult, they say that MEK is a cult. This is widely reported in scholarly sources. And they back this allegation with well-documented practices of the MEK like sexual control, religious devotion of the Rajavis and limited exit options.

I understand where you're coming from, given the section title. But I don't think "designation as cult" is the best title for that section. Maybe we should change it to "Cult-like behavior".VR _talk 02:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions here for the title of that section. I agreed with one of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The usual stonewalling, even with a suggestion from an admin (with Mhhossein even linking to a post by a T-Banned user). Trying to put in Wikipedia's voice that the MEK is a cult violates NPOV. The cult criticisms are a disputed perception matter, so that's where the text is best suited, in the "Perception" section. Alex-h (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please kindly stop this sort of attacks. Why should not a post by a T banned user be linked here? No one is putting "in Wikipedia's voice that the MEK is a cult." Also, I would not describe that as "disputed" since the reliable sources should determine this, and the huge amount of sources on this matter are indicating what should(not) be said. Look at the VR's comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein, nobody here is attacking you, or hounding you, or nothing else like that. Please stop throwing around baseless accusations. You tried use a comment by the same Topic banned user in a RFC, and Vanamonde told you that "SharabSalaam has been topic-banned. This does not change the outcome of any previous discussions in which he participated, but it does mean his opinion carries no weight here. Bringing it up is not very helpful." Barca (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure? The last time one of the users hounded me to my WMCommons RFA...Anyway, the link to SharabSalaam comment was not meant to say there are others supporting this name, rather I tried to give Vice regent my suggestions. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Again, if you have a substantiated accusation to make, make it at the relevant noticeboard (WP:ANI, WP:SPI, etc.), otherwise they continue to be battleground behavior. @Vanamonde93: despite you telling them this, Mhhossein continues to use a Topic-Banned editor's comments in these Talk page discussions. User:SharabSalam's comments from a year ago are not relevant to these new discussions. Barca (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: it looks like my proposal is opposed by VR and Mhhossein, but supported by other editors. Would starting a RfC be the next step here? Bahar1397 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it would, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a useful outcome. I have lost any confidence that anyone here is interested in turning this into a readable page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: I'm interested in turning this into a readable page. Do you think starting a RfC about this would help towards that? If you don't think it will, then I won't open it. Bahar1397 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  An RfC is the correct thing to do. As I said above, I'm not hopeful that it will have a useful outcome, because for an RfC to be useful, it's respondents need to be interested in compromise. But don't let my cynicism stop you; go ahead and open one. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Bahar1397 instead of starting an RfC immediately, why not discuss the merits and demerits of your proposal? I gave reasons against the proposal but no one really responded to them. Mhhossein proposed "Characterization as a cult" and again no one has so far given reasons against it. Maybe we can reach a compromise (as Vanamonde encourages) and actually reach consensus.VR _talk 01:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Bahar1397 Your proposal has merit, and I support your and Vanamonde's suggestion about this. We've had many talk pages discussions on this matter, and it has been established that the MEK is not a cult, but rather that some critics have said this about the group. Having a misleading section in the article "Designation as a cult" (or "Characterization as a cult, or "Cult-like behavior") comes across as a means to "undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner."A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service Please go ahead and start the RfC. And also this "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." was written by an MEK defector, so it has a conflict of interest (as it's obvious by the quoted text). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid, this is not how we were suggested to work. RFCs should not be mis-used to rail road the opposing voices. If there are objections, they should be discussed here. Having been instructed not to open such hasty RFCs, Stefka Bulgaria should not ask other do the job. Collaboration for reaching a compromise is the only thing required here. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: are you saying here that I can't open a RfC about this if I wanted to? or that I can't make suggestions to others considering opening RfCs? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: nobody is misusing RFCs or rail roading anybody. Why are you saying this? I do think this content should be moved to the "Perception" section of the article because it is about how the MEK is perceived by some people. I asked Vanamonde if it was ok to open a RFC, and he said yes. @Vanamonde93: I hate to ask again but Mhhossein's comment leads me to think that it's not ok to open a RFC. Is it ok then? Bahar1397 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to open an RfC: just be aware that reaching a consensus is unlikely. I don't think further discussion here is going to be fruitful, largely because you are all talking at cross-purposes. You need to think about why you want the section retitled and/or merged into a different one; is it because the title needs to reflect the content, and it doesn't? Is it because the content is getting undue weight? Is it because there's redundant content? Is it because criticism has been pigeon-holed in a way it shouldn't? In the absence of any sort of consensus on this, it's unlikely that an RfC will reach a consensus; but if any prior discussion devolves into mud-slinging, then a prior discussion has no point either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There are diverse comments; but I also think that there is no need to move this section to the Perception section. Firstly, I believe that perception is not a an accurate equivalent for description or characterization which is what the sources do. Actually, what scholars do, is not perception, and there is a sort of argumentation/signaling in their work. As a result, putting the mentioned matters in the "perception section" is not a true act. Secondly, if we look at the section "perception", we will understand that the structure of this section is arranged geographically, which conforms a lot to the contents which are related to perception. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93 and others, do you think that Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Moderated_discussion would help here? We need to talk to each other, not at each other. RfCs generally foster a "voting" mentality, but instead we need consensus building. We need to understand what each other's positions are, why they have that position and how can we find a solution that satisfies all sides (to some degree).VR _talk 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  For this page in general, moderated discussion may help. For this specific dispute, it will not; it's too specific, and in the larger scheme of things, pointless; as I've said before, the reason this page is unreadable is because it is twice as long as it should be, and is mired in allegations, counter-allegations, and denials by all parties involved. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93: They are mostly citing your suggestion to justify their move. This is while compelling arguments are provided against that. At least I believe Ali Ahwazi's argumentation is fair enough and serves to show this move is not justified. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Also, why not assessing the consensus of this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  There's no discernible consensus in this discussion thus far, and no arguments provided to render the issue immune from further discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any arguments against those raised by Vice Regent and Ali Ahwazi? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There are several arguments against this raised by other editors in the conversations below. Bahar1397 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any specific response to the VR and AA's logical objections. In fact, they are explaining how the scientific analysis by the scholarly works should not be mistaken with "perception". Moreover, AA argues that the destination section you proposed is not suitable for this change. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am against deleting this section and transferring its contents to another section. Like others, the main reason for the opposition is that it is based more on a large number of scholarly and scientific sources. Like other users, I believe that these academic issues cannot be introduced as mere receptions. Why aren't scholarly and academic resources the basis for decision making? The word perception, hence, is not applicable here. As far as I know, the word perception refers to our understanding of the appearance of things, while what we are discussing here is about scientific and accurate analysis.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Vanamonde93: Would you please address this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  There's no discernible consensus in this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)