Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

RFC: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran lead quotation

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.

---

Simple question: does the following quote: According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists". ... have a place in the lead of the article? (Yes/no) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe this RfC is not well posed. It lacks Neutrality. To me, the question implies that the correct answer to be given is "no". P1221 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iskandar323:, per P1221's comment above, you could pose your first question above as you RFC proposal; and pose the second part of the paragraph ("The lead of this article has previously ... is a single source, in the author's voice.") as an explanation for your vote, which is No. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok, fair enough. I haven't proposed any RFCs before, and actually having looked at others, I realise they are normally very short and to the point. That's moved. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• No: The lead of this article has previously been tagged as being too long and requiring summarization. This quote is from an academic source that is pertinent to the topic and is included in greater length in the body copy, but adds considerable length in the lead, and is arguably not neutral as it outlines the objections of the article's subject towards a third party but not vice versa. There is also the question of weight, as this is a single source, in the author's voice. Is it suitable to have this in the lead, or would it be better to remove it? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iskandar323: First you said that this was a "primary source quotation", then you said “it expresses the MEK viewpoint”, and now you say this quote represents "the objections of the article’s subject". You are wrong. This sentence gives the author’s (an expert’s) research. If the problem is the length of the lead, I provided a solution that made the lead shorter but you reverted that. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• No: Lede is a place for basic facts supported by multiple sources not a long controversial quotation with a single source. Ghazaalch (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ghazaalch: The regime attacking the MEK is supported by multiple sources in the article as a basic fact. Even the source Iskandar added recently to the lead supports this as a basic fact: "The president’s fall paralleled a period of open resistance to the Khomeinist government by leftist organizations. The IRGC promised to tackle opposition’s armed resistance "against Islam and the Quran" head on, vowing to "punish these enemies of the people for their anti-Islamic and anti-religious acts". The fighting between the IPR-aligned forces led by the IRGC and the oppositionists resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iranians, many of whom were jailed, subjected to torture, and executed by court order. The clergy-led terror not only decimated the ranks of opposition groups and their student supporters; it also targeted innocent, non political civilians, such as members of the Baha’i religious minority, and others deemed problematic by the IRP. As opposition forces suffered severe losses in the fighting, the MKO initiated a series of suicide bomobings and assassinations aimed at the clerical leadership - a vigorous campaign that continued through 1982." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Other sources cannot support a direct quotation by Abrahamian - only the work by Abrahamian can do that, unless another source quotes it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• No - As per comment above. In addition, the phrase is repeated almost verbatim in the body of the article (section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)". It doesn't make much sense to repeat the same sentence in the lede if it is not further expanded in the body. P1221 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @P1221:That can easily be fixed without removing the reasons why the MEK fought against the regime attacks from the lead (which is a key episode in the conflict between the two). I will now try to address what you suggested about the body of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Fad Ariff I understand your point, however I believe that the lead shall be as much concise as possible.

    In my opinion, the lead shall contain a brief statement like: "The MEK then initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982, because the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil rights and liberties", without putting any quotation. You can then do a deep dive on this in the body of the article, by fully quoting Abrahamian and also Afshon Ostovar, cited in the comment below. P1221 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    @P1221: yes, I agree with what you are suggesting. How about a brief statement like "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Fad Ariff It's good for me. Mine sentence was just an example, it can be written for sure in much better ways. P1221 (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Ok then, unless anyone disagrees I will replace the Abrahamian quote with this suggestion. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    This edit completely misses the point of the RFC. The issue was not the MEK "openly criticizing the Iranian government", the issue was that "The new regime not only reversed the gains of the revolution but also surpassed the shah’s dictatorial regime in several aspects. " (see quote below). Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Hogo-2020: The RFC entails a simple question about one source. Your discussion of an entirely unrelated source is off topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    Iskandar323, if you want to remove Abrahamian's quote because it's just one quote from one author, then replacing that with other sources that describe the human right abuses the new regime was doing to the Iranian people (including the MEK) would solve this. Yet you don't seem to want that either, which basically means you want to remove that information from the lead altogether, and that can't happen because this is a very important part of the history. @Hogo-2020: do you agree with the suggestion that P1221 and myself have agreed on? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Fad Ariff: This RFC is about including a single quote, yay or nay. If you want to discuss another quote, start a new RFC. But you're basically missing the whole point, which is to remove needless lengthy quotes from ANY individual authors in favour of simple sentences summarizing the key details, as is the purpose of the lead. In this edit I incorporated a line about civil rights based on your feedback, along with that of P1221 and VR. Now you seem to be going back on that and shifting goalposts. Make up your mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

    If we remove the quote about human right abuses by the new regime because this is quoted to one author, then replacing it with multiple sources is a rational solution. I agree with agree with Fad Ariff and P1221's proposal. Hogo-2020 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Hogo-2020: Are you talking about the lead or the body? You're making it very unclear. As I understand it, @P1221 suggested removing the quote in the lead and replacing it with "a brief statement", while noting that a range of quotes from multiple sources clearly do have a place, but in the body. I think the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Iskandar I am talking about the lead (I think everyone here is). In case it needs further clarification, I support removing the quote from the lead and replacing it with Fad Ariff's and P1221's proposal. The regime in Iran clamping down on civil and human rights in the 1980s is hardly a secret, and there are many sources confirming it. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• There is much more to this than the quote by Abrahamian and the source by Afshon Ostovar. This is how it's described by this scholarly work "It wasn’t long before the Iranian people realized the true nature of Khomeini’s regime. The new regime not only reversed the gains of the revolution but also surpassed the shah’s dictatorial regime in several aspects. The demolition of women’s and minority rights, censorship of all news news media and a total ban on all opposition papers, widespread corruption and fraud, along with social and economic chaos were the achievements of Khomieini’s regime. The answers that the people received for their problems was inconsideration and more violence and suppression. On June 20th, a rally organized by Mojahedin gathered 500,00 people in one of Tehran’s squares to object the total dictatorship practiced by the regime. Acting on Khomeini’s order, the Revolutionary Guards opened fire on the peaceful demonstrators, killing 50 and wounding 300. This cowardly response of killing peaceful and unarmed demonstrators clearly showed that the government was not going to tolerate any opposition towards themselves. Since then, approximately 4000 people have been executed or killed under torture by the government." "The extent of brutality was best expressed in an article by Time magazine on October 12, 1981: “While Khomeini’s Islamic Guards are executing enemies of the regime in the streets, they are also torturing suspected opponents behind prison walls, with a ferocity unequaled even by the deposed shah’s notorious SAVAK agents. Many of the prisoners who are being tortured are merely relatives of dissidents sought by the polical police.” The people’s response to all these cruelties showed itself through well-spread armed resistance and negative responses to Khomeini’s calls for cooperation with the security guards. To organize the opposition, a coalition was formed by People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), Bani Sadr, the ousted President and several other popular organizations and elements. The new democratic front called the “National Council of Resistance” (NCR) set its goals as independence, freedom, and social-economic justice for all people regardless of sex, race, ethnci background or religion." If Abrahamian’s quote is removed it should at least be replaced with an explanation of what Khomeini’s regime did in that time period. Hogo-2020 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• I want to point out that this quotation is misplaced. According to the source the timing of these accusations was "by late 1980" (p206), but currently its placed after the events of 1981. The source says this was part of MEK's "vociferous propoganda war against the Islamic Republic in general and the Islamic Republic Party in particular". Nevertheless I agree with Hogo-2020 that many of their accusations were true and can be stated in wikivoice. So as a compromise this quote can be replaced with "the MEK criticized the Iranian government's repressive policies".VR _talk 13:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Abrahamian, and the other sources describe a "reign of terror" where "many of the prisoners who are being tortured are merely relatives of dissidents sought by the political police." (nothing to do with "propaganda" or "criticism of repressive policies"). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

    The sources can quite readily say both. There can be a reign of terror AND there can be propaganda pushing, and if that's what the reliable source say, we can mention all of it, even if the information is contradictory, but, CRITICALLY, all of this sort of stuff is the sort of detail needed in the BODY of the article, which, unlike the lead, has as much space as you need to add material to. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

    "Propaganda pushing" is completely unassociated with the regime's reign of terror of early 1980s, which is the reason the sources say the MEK attacked the clerical leadership. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

VR's proposal looks fair to me. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I also agree with Hogo-2020 that much of this is true and can be stated in wikivoice. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Iraniangal777 Do you agree with replacing that quote with a brief statement like "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. Iraniangal777 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Fad Ariff: At the moment, the sentence about attacks on the clerical leadership directly follows the sentence on the regime arrested and executing MEK members. Your suggestion of inserting a phrase onto the beginning of that sentence would just confuse the narrative. The attacks on the regime weren't in response to mere attacks on rights, but arbitrary detentions and executions. VR pointed out that the Abrahamian quote referred to 1980. That is why my edit placed the paraphrased material earlier in the lead (in 1980), before the events of 1981 and the harsh regime crackdown. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  The regime was not only violating human rights on the MEK but also on the rest of the Iranian population who were protesting the new government. The sources say that when this happened the MEK then attacked the regime. The paragraph in the lead would say

  "In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June, 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état. Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers. As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights in Iran, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."

  That is the narrative according to the sources, and is a clear narrative. This would also resolve your objections about Abrhamian’s quote and making the lead shorter. Most of the editors in this RFC are also in favor of this change. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Fad Ariff: VR has already clarified that the quotation relates to late 1980, so it would be inappropriate to paraphrase it within the context of events in 1981. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  My proposal paraphrases from a number of sources, all of which say the new regime started to clamp down on human rights against Iranians protesting the new government, which led to the MEK attacking the regime. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

There is not enough room in the lead to discuss the reasons why MeK attacked Iranian regime, and if we provide these reasons, we should also provided the reasons why Iranian regime executed the MeK members, which would take lots of long paragraphs. The best option, therefor, is to omit the biased quotation from the lede and move the reasons and the counter reasons to the main body of the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If the problem is the length of the lead, I provided a solution that made the lead shorter but Iskandar323 reverted that. Also the reasons why Iranian regime executed the MeK members is already in the lead. The sources say that the Iran regime started first making human right abuses against protesters and MEK, and no good reason has been given for removing this from the lead. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff: You are welcome to discuss any changes to the lead that you like. But if I reverted a change, it was probably for a good reason, and per both WP:BRD and WP:ARBDS the path forward for any such changes is to achieve consensus. Just start a discussion clearly articulating the changes that you believe would improve the lead. Adding off-topic clutter to this RFC is not the way. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not "off-topic clutter" since the conclusion is that no good reason has been given for not having the regime's human right abuses against MEK and protesters in the lead of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support what most of the editors are proposing, to change that quote with "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982." For the same reasons they are saying, there are many sources for this information and it is an important part of the lead. NMasiha (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (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.

Short description political-militant 1956 to present

@Iskandar323:: In this edit that you made, what source did you use for that? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding the date? I used the date given in the infobox and lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see anything about the MEK being militant before the 1970s. The lead also links it as being a private army. Are they a private army? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the group was militant for half its existence and political for the rest, "politico-militant" seems fair enough, and yes, "private army" fits. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Then that is the wrong description. If "the group was militant for half its existence" then the article should be clear about which half. You deleted from the lead that "In June 2004, the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."this diff The Fourth Geneva Convention "was the first to deal with humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone." If the legal status of the MEK is "civilians in a war zone", then "private army" is a wrong description. I will put back what you deleted, and change "private army" to "dissidents" since this is how they are mainly cited in the press.* Fad Ariff (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this level of detail is way to specific for the lead, which is meant to be a summary. Please just talk before you waste time making sweeping additions to the already overly long lead summary. NB: That the MEK was given civilian protections in Iraq does not necessarily guarantee that the entire groups has de-militarized.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Dissident" is a summary description (and one that is cited a lot). What is your reasoning against using this description? About your sweeping changes from yesterday, I am reverting to some original text of the article since there isn't consensus for removing them yet. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dude. Dissident is in the short description now. Just be happy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, why do you keep removing the Geneva Convention status from the lead? That information shows that "the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’". Like the "dissident" description, there are many sources citing this too. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a thread about the short description, not other content, but in any case, this sentence is not needed, and is another case of unnecessary material in the lead. The Geneva Convention stuff is about the MEK disarming (and becoming civilians). The lead already states that they disarmed in 2003, so this doesn't need to be said twice. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Being disarmed and becoming civilians are two different things, so I will put this back in the lead. We can make this content shorter but please discuss first instead of making weeping changes (like you have been doing to the article). I suggest "In June 2004, the U.S. designated the MEK ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just read the sources and the material is incidentally being presented incorrectly, as the US ruling referred only to Camp Ashraf residents. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The "Camp Ashraf residents" were the MEK who were based in Camp Ashraf at the time (there were no other residents from other groups there, just them). If you would like to make the lead longer by adding "MEK, who were based in Camp Ashraf at the time", then that is an option (I don't think it's a good one), but just saying "Camp Ashraf residents" is not a correct description. I think the lead should say what most sources do. I provided sources for this and for the "dissident" description. What is your objection for these two exactly? (please reply with sources like I did) Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

'Camp Ashraf residents' is the correct description because it is the description used in the current sources. Changing this wording based on something you just think is original research (WP:OR), and counterfactual. In none of the available sources does a passage appear that supports the wording that you restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 again you did not provide any sources to support your wordings.

• Here is a list of sources supporting the wording that the MEK in Camp Ashraf became protected persons

"Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the PMOI members disarmed and were accorded "protected persons" status under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [1] by Amnesty

"In particular, PMOI maintained that it had ceased its military campaign against the Iranian regime (campaigns against the United States had never even been asserted), renounced violence, surrendered its arms to U.S. forces in Iraq, cooperated with U.S. officials at Camp Ashraf, Iraq (where its members operating in Iraq were consolidated) by sharing intelligence regarding Iranâs clandestine nuclear program, and its members received status as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [2] by American Society of International Law

"U.S. forces declared the exiles "protected persons" after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein." are the People's Mujahideen of Iran? by Reuters

"The PMOI are staunch opponents of Tehran, and received protected persons' status by the U.S. forces following the invasion of Iraq in 2003." [3] by UPI

"In 2004, the US gave the refugees ‘protected persons’ status under the Fourth Geneva Convention and, in 2009, the European Union removed the PMOI from its list of terrorist organisations." [4] by LawGazzette

"I refer to the plight of 3,500 members of an Iranian opposition group, the PMOI, based at Camp Ashraf, 60km north-east of Baghdad, who in 2004 were recognised as "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [5] by Geoffrey Bindman

"They are members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK; it is also called the People's Mojahedin of Iran, or PMOI), the leading Iranian opposition group. Based at Camp Ashraf in central Iraq where they are recognized as "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, they have since 2004 been under the protection of US military forces." [6] by Jpost

"in 2004 obtained 'protected person' status under the Fourth Geneva Convention for all PMOI members at Camp Ashraf based on the U.S. investigators' conclusions that none was a combatant or had committed a crime under any U.S. laws; disbanded its military units and disarmed the Pmoi members at Ashraf, all of whom signed a document rejecting violence and terror" [7] book by Wadie E. Said

"However, the United States argued that the MEK had been a good source of intelligence on Iran, especially on its nuclear program, and could in the future help it fight Iranian influence in Iraq; thus the United States declared the MEK "protected people" under the Geneva Convention." [8] book by Shireen Hunter

"After a year of interagency wrangling and debate concerning their status, the MEK were simply deemed "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [9] book by VanLandingham

"The MEK had turned over its weapons to the United States after the invasion, and it was given the status of "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention" [10] book by Anthony H. Cordesman

"signed a voluntary disarmament agreement iwth Coaltion forces in July 2003, in exchange for which the organization has been granted the status of "protected persons" nder the Geneva Conventions by the United States." [11] book edited by Ilan Berman

"During the Clinton years, the MEK had been added to the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list as a sop to the Islamic Republic in an effort to jump-start the "road map" to normalization between Washingtong and Tehran. Now, however, its members were protected persons under a US occupation." [12] book by Eric Edelman

"Nearly 4,000 members of the Mujahedin e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group that operated out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and which is on the State Department's terrorist list, have been granted protected person status by the U.S. military, department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said." [13] by UPI

• List of sources using the wording "dissidents"

"Iran Dissidents Pinpoint Alleged Nuclear Site" [14] by Reuters

"U.S. drops Iranian MEK dissident group from terrorism list" [15] by Chicago Tribune

"Some 3,400 Iranian dissidents are hunkered down and are now threatened with expulsion from Iraq" [16] The Economist

"Iraq plans to close Iranian dissidents' border camp" [17] by The Guardian

"Iran State TV Says Exiled Dissidents Hacked Live Broadcasts" [18] by Bloomberg

"Scores demand UN probe of 1988 Iran dissident killings" [19] by France24

"Last major group MEK dissidents leaves camp in Iraq: U.S. State Department" [20] by Reuters

"Iran state TV shows dissidents’ images after apparent hack" [21] by AP News

"Iran state TV shows dissidents' images after apparent hack" [22] by ABC News

"The People’s Mujahidin: the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change in Tehran" [23] by the Times

And there are more, but you get the point, there are many sources available supporting these terms. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 it has been almost 3 weeks since I posted 10 sources using the wording "dissidents". If you don't have an objection (one that derives from some kind of policy or sources), then I will go ahead and implement this edit. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: And I haven't known, for three weeks, what edit you are talking about. The short description has already said dissident for three weeks. Did you not check? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I'm not talking about the short description, but the description in the lead. In this edit [24], an edit that you reverted [25], I gave many citations that describe the MEK as a "dissident" organization. What is your reasoning for removing this from the lead after all the citations I provided? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The current description in the lead is fine and is supported by reliable, secondary book sources. Your disruptive edit removed published book references in favour of a gaggle of news stories, to which I would say, read: WP:NOTNEWS. Since this edit has been challenged, you may not make it again unless you gain consensus on the matter. And I remain thoroughly unconvinced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The "dissident" description is supported by many more reliable, secondary sources. What is your reasoning for not using those? You want more book citations? Just saying "it's fine" doesn't explain why you want to cite a minority view point. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

'Dissident' is a very vague word; all it means is 'someone who dissents' - it is perhaps useful in the short description, but it would add little in the lead, which already explains precisely how the groups dissents, i.e.: by politically and militantly opposing the Iranian government. This is expounded in the lead in some detail. Casually throwing in the word dissident would not describe anything new or different. And 'dissident' alone lacks the implication of militancy, which is a rather central historic feature of the MEK's identity. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead's description says that the MEK "is an Iranian political-militant organization" Then the short description (that you added) says the MEK was a militant group from 1970s to 2003, and a dissident group from 1956 to present. How is the short description matching the description in the lead? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize the short description still had the second part - I've removed that now since WP:SHORTDESC actually requires less than 40 characters. As I mentioned above, 'dissident' is broad terminology and can easily encompass all sorts of meanings. It adds little value or meaning, but we can put 'Iranian dissident political-militant organization' if it makes you feel better. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

"Removal of designation" text tightening

I worked on the section "Removal of designation", making some summaries and tightening of the content. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing I reverted your edit and you need consensus before implementing controversial edits. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Ghazaalch: You reverted all my recent edits but did not give any explanation why they are "tendentious" or "controversial" (as you are saying here), so please explain your reverts. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with @Ghazaalch that the article is already too long and that we should in general be looking to remove material, not add - that is in regard to the new additions. With regards to the material on the MEK's terror designation, I had my own concerns even before this revert was made about the removal of details relating to accusations of bribery and the specific amounts involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff:, some of the materials of this article are against MeK, and some of them are in favor of the MeK. You are focusing on shortening the first part([26]) and expanding on the second part([27][28]). And this is not fair. Ghazaalch (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree this is fairly obvious in your edits @Fad Ariff, as well as the way in which your edits seem to often revert the removal of any obviously pro-MEK material while ignoring the removal of other details. Now I don't know if this is a form of subconscious or conscious bias, but if the former, I suggest you become more conscious of it and avoid it while editing (regardless of your personal feelings). Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I have made the article short in some sections, and you also reverted that. For example the "Removal of designation" I tightened the text. The information I tightened is repetitive. Why did you revert that? Also why this revert? or this one?

You also reverted content that is backed by reliable sources, and still have not explained. For example

"The MEK also proposed that Islam is a dynamic religion whose role is to "advance and encourage human development" including "a fair distribution of wealth, democratic freedom and the individual’s right to elect political representatives and choose their personal lifestyle."" Why did you remove it?

"During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK." Why did you remove it? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Read my comment above in case you happen not to see it.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I did read your comment above carefully. Are you saying that I cannot add new information from good publishers to this article because the information is "in favor of the MeK", and that is "not fair"? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If the article is too long and should be shortened, then it must be done in a neutral point of view. Shortening anti-MEK content and expanding content that benefits the MEK is a kind of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and needs to be undone. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ghazaalch is saying that my recent edits in this are “tendentious”, but to me Ghazaalch is stonewalling well founded edits. For example the content I added to the article (highlighted in green above), Ghazaalch removed it because he says this is “expanding content that benefits the MEK.” I understand that the article needs shortening, and I have tried to do this in some parts, but Ghazaalch also reverted those edits. Following this logic, editors are not able to add anything to the article that Ghazaalch sees as “content that benefits the MEK” (something I don’t think it’s true), even if this is new information supported by reliable books. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fad Ariff, if you have tried to shorten the article then you shouldn't have added the contents (highlighted in green above) that already been covered in the article: MeK's ideology, for example, which is a mixture of Islam and Marxism, is already discussed in details in the section, "Ideology". Rajavi’s position toward terrorist attacks is also covered in the section "Assassinations". So the article is already too long and no need to repeat its contents all over the article.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a matter for administrators. It is a content dispute and should be resolved by the usual methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I have shortened the “Ideology” section per your comment. Could you kindly show where in the article it is repeated that "During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK."? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

These kinds of assertions are in contradiction with the numerous assassinations done by MeK. See the "Assassinations" section. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: The "Assassinations" section doesn't talk about the period during the Islamic Revolution at all, so there isn't any "contradiction". Fad Ariff (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

For a short period of time Rajavi saved his people from government retaliation by preventing them from attacking the government. Does it worth mentioning it in an article that is already too long? And what does it has to do with promoting Rajavi's position in the Mojahedin Khalq Organization? The source says He succeeded in looking after the organization during the Islamic Revolution by preventing it from acting violently against Khomeini’s government, just as Khomeini did to the Fadaian Khalq (a guerrilla organization which was more devoted to Marxist components than the Mojahedin).17 Rajavi’s successful management raised his prestige within the organization... Ghazaalch (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It frankly seems like it would be more relevant on a page about Rajavi, as it reflects more upon his actions and leadership choices than on the history of the organization itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: you did not answer my question. @Iskandar323: this is also about the MEK, not just Rajavi. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: you made this revert saying that Ghazaalch says the article is too long while adding more cult content to the article...?. If you agree with me that the article is too long and you revert what I add, then why you insist on restoring what I reverted? And why you took this case to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? What is the dispute here? we both are doing the same thing. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and you still don't answer. This is why I took this case to Dispute resolution noticeboard, so you may answer there and we can resolve this. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You seem to think that you can dictate WHEN other editors respond to you. Many of us are not overly pre-occupied with a single area of Wikipedia and actually edit various different things. We might respond in a day, in days, or weeks - until someone responds, and agrees with you, you have no consensus. There is not some sort of time-out because you don't get an answer quickly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I have been asking since April 8, and answers like "is not fair" don't explain the deletion (just like your last comment). @Ghazaalch I reverted your edit because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article (while the information in this dispute is not in the article). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: It is often quite hard to tell which question and what content you are talking about, because you keep tagging comments onto the end of this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff; what do you mean by cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article? You mean what I added is already covered in five different places? Where in the article is there something like what I added?Ghazaalch (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch; these are some lines that I copypasted from the article

"Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult"

"6.Cult of personality

"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"."[351][352] Various sources have also described the MEK as a "cult",[119][353] "cult-like",[354][355] or having a "cult of personality",[356] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[357][358][359] 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.[16][page needed] During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

"According to Abbas Milani, lobbyists paid for by the Iranian regime campaigned against delisting the MEK calling it a "dangerous cult".[386] There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK.

"A Cult That Would Be an Army: Cult of the Chameleon (2007): Al Jazeera documentary directed by Maziar Bahari.

"List of cults of personality"

To add to this, you added a full paragraph by one source about why RAND Corporation writes that Rajavi’s policy turned the MEK “into a cult” (something that already resembles "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".. On the other hand what I added is not mentioned in the article at all. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, What you presented above is just a short section discussing cultic characteristics of the MeK, not five sections. And what I added to this section is: RAND Corporation writes that Rajavi's policy of turning MEK into a cult began with the failure of Operation Eternal Light. Rajavi hinted in his remarks that the operation had failed "due to insufficient devotion to the overthrow of the IRI among the MeK rank and file, who were instead distracted by sexual interests as a result of their coeducational housing." and that the operation had not achieved its objectives. To correct this, MEK members were told to divorce their spouses and live in gender-segregated residences. "Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family." Rajavi also utilized Saddam's funds to build enough medical clinics, schools, training centers, and even a prison (which called reeducation center) in order for his people to have less contact with outside world., which is different from what you mentioned above. There are different aspects for the cult Rajavi founded and there is no reason that we should cover only one or two of these aspects. RAND report dedicated a whole section, namely Cultic Characteristics of the MeK to these aspects, with the following subsections:

Sexual Control

Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership

Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation

Emotional Isolation

Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure

Deceptive Recruitment

Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation

Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options

Patterns of Suicide

Ghazaalch (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

While all very broadly about cult-like elements, the material introduced by @Ghazaalch is of a substantively different nature and reflects on different aspects of the group. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 and @Ghazaalch It's all about the same thing (alleged cult-like elements, something already in the article covered in different sections), so not of "substantively different nature". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Well this is where consensus comes in. And at the moment, you do not have it, whereas two of us think this is complementary material. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a shortcut to shutting down any meaningful conversation about the content. A reasonable explanation for removing "During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK" still has not been provided. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, by following your logic that It's all about the same thing... not of "substantively different nature", we cannot add anything to any section. Because the content of any section is all about the same thing (it's all about the title of the section). By the same logic we cannot add anything to the article because it's all about the same thing (it's all about the People Mojahedin Organization of Iran). Ghazaalch (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, there is a big difference between a topic that is already covered in the article, and a topic that isn't. Topics that are already covered in the article don't need to be expanded (they can still be edited though), and topics that aren't in the article should be ok to be added. You still have responded why the content that I want to add to the article (which isn't covered in the article) isn't ok to be added. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think writing an answer, no matter what it is, and no matter if it is already responded, would help you justify your Tendentious editing, so go on. I won't be part of this nasty discussion any longer. If I were an admin, I would blocked People like you from discussing; and from editing, in the first place. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch you are personalising the discussion. I answered your question, but still have not answered why the content that I want to add to the article (which isn't covered in the article) isn't ok to be added. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

MEK killed between 1981 to 1982

@Iskandar323: Why the revert?[29] "Between June 1981 and April 1982, approximately 3500 MEK members were killed." Fad Ariff (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is that a direct quotation? There is no excerpt from that source in the existing citation ... and there is no url to a location where the source can be searched, e.g.: Google Books. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I provided the book name and a page number, but here is the excerpt from the source. "Though claims and counterclaims by both sides often tend to be vastly exaggerated, independent sources confirm that between June 1981 and April 1982 approximately 3500 of the Mujahidin were either executed or fell in numerous street battles of the Pasdaran and armed groups of various revolutionary committees throughout the country." Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - the confusing thing was the way in which it was added before - inserted between an existing statement and its citation. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Chronology

Iskandar323, I reverted some of your chronology edits. The schism divided the MEK into two opposing groups, so it wasn't only an "ideological" separation. This needs its own section since it is a difficult topic. According to the sources, many Muslim MEK were put in jail during this period, and the Marxist group that came out of the schism took on a different role. Mashing all of this together makes the section confusing, so this is why I reverted some of your edits. If you want to work on the chronology then let's work on it here through consensus, but please do not edit war like you did in your last edit. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is edit warring here, it is you @Fad Ariff. This material was already mashed together and confusing, and you have provided no credible reason as to why you reverted my effort to chronologically re-order and restructure it into something half readable. Every one of these edit summaries saying "explained on the talk page" is disingenuous. For instance, here, you have not explained a single thing that was wrong with my edit. You have opined about how complex the subject is, but you haven't presented a single concrete example of something I did wrong in my edit, either by presenting a source or a statement incorrectly or by transgressing some sort of Wikipedia policy or guideline. This is what you need to be doing. Instead you are exemplifying WP:JDL by explaining what you don't like, but failing to actually outline an actual problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I am reverting edits you made to the article, but you continue to edit war your edits into the article. The reason why I reverted you is that I think that the chronology "Early years (1965–1971)" and then "Schism (1971–1978)" is better organized than what you did in lumping together "Activities in the 1970s" (with a small section "1973 ideological schism"). Like I already explained, the Schism was not only "ideological", as you have put in the title headline, it was also political and led to a bloody rivalry between two groups (it’s all explained in the section). What I would do is change the years "Early years (1965–1973)" and then "Schism (1973–1978)", and then move anything that is unrelated to the Schism to a more relevant section (if you agree, we can do that). Some other problems with your edits is that the section "Schism (1973–1978)" talks about activities by the two opposing groups, so having it all under a main headline "Activities in the 1970s" gives the wrong notion that this section is only about the MEK’s activities during the 1970s, but the section also includes activities of the new group that "adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity." (Mujahedin M.L. Marxist–Leninist or Peykar). For example, you also put in the section "Activities in the 1970s" that "The group conducted several assassinations of U.S. military personnel and civilians working in Iran during the 1970s", which in the "Schism" section explains that "The Country Reports issued in April 2006 stated: "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killings of Americans, and later was executed.[111][112][113] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK.[114] Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK. A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution".

Like I already say, if you want to work on the chronology then let's work on it here through consensus, but you have not yet explained any of your edits, and since it is you who is changing the article’s original version then you at least need to explain your edits instead of continuing to edit war. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You do realise that you can just edit without reverting, right? It is possible to build upon the work of others, not only reactively rip it down. You could just try, for once, editing with others, not against others. Perhaps try just improving on what I have already done. I find it hard to believe you cannot see the existing chronology problems. I am talking things like have dates in the 60s after dates in the 70s - pretty simple stuff. Not everything needs to be agreed in advance. That way nothing would ever get done. Sometimes it is best to just go with the flow and dynamically improve the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: If you think that reverting twice in 24 hours and 3 minutes is safe, where reverting twice within 24 hours is not, think again. This is a well-known WP:GAMING strategy for those attempting to avoid the letter of the law in terms of WP:1RR, while still violating its spirit. It is also pretty classic edit warring. I would invite you to self-revert and work with, not against my edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, please stop with all the accusations and character assassinations. I will only discuss the content. I showed how your edits had problems, so it's now your turn to explain what content specifically you want to move and where. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: True, it is a behavioral issue, and I hardly enjoy having to explain WP:1RR to you over and over again. Self-revert or we will discuss at WP:AE. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Shortening of section "Removal of designation"

All of the active editors in this talk page seem to agree that the article needs shortening, and this RFC suggests shortening the section "Removal of designation".

To avoid confusion that we faced in some past discussions, this RFC consists of 3 separate sections:

1) Discussion

2) Shortening proposals

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why

Please add your comment, shortening proposal (if any), or vote in the relevant section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC) My proposal shortens the section "Removal of designation" to 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph about the delisting by Luxembourg European Court and UK, the second paragraph about the delisting by EU and US, and the third paragraph about views of the delisting. If you have a different proposal, place it in the "Shortening proposals" section so that others can vote which proposal is best. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1) Discussion

• An RfC statement should provide a brief and neutral statement of the problem. Your statement is fairly brief and fairly neutral - but it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the problem. Did you read WP:RFCST? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have tried to better familiarise myself with RfCs. My proposal about shortening the section "Removal of designation" is provided in the section below ("Removal of designation" shortening proposal by Fad Ariff"). My proposal shortens the section to 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph about the delisting by Luxembourg European Court and UK, the second paragraph about the delisting by EU and US, and the third paragraph about views of the delisting. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Then this should be explained in the RfC statement itself, becauls people coming in cold (which is what happens when you fire off an RfC) must not be expected to dig around. But keep it within WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The question here is that why you are focusing on shortening this section, while there are other sections that are longer than this? As I said above If the article is too long and should be shortened, then it must be done in a neutral point of view. Shortening anti-MEK content and expanding content that benefits the MEK is a kind of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Vice regent had also previously commented on this: 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. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, we have to start somewhere. If you think there are other sections that need more attention, then the solution is to make a proposal about that. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• As VR pointed out below, we should trim the more POV sections, such as "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" and "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" etc. Also we should split out or summarize the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. By contrast the detailed history of MEK is covered in detail in most scholarly or comprehensive sources on the group. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• @Fad Ariff:Looking briefly through Membership, I would say that section needs a lot of cleaning up. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: VR's comment that Fad Ariff's proposal is a "violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:V" is erroneous.

• Claim about WP:NPOV vio: Having "Some former U.S. officials vehemently reject the new status and believe the MEK has not changed its ways" in the article would be the same as having "former U.S. officials vehemently support the new status and believe the MEK has changed its ways" - both scenarios involve junk content. This article is not a forum about what a group of people think or believe, it's an article about facts supported by academic consensus (or at least it should aim for that).
• Claim about WP:DUE vio: Fad Ariff's proposal condenses this information, it doesn't remove it.
• Claim about WP:V vio: The proposal doesn't imply "that the primary opposition is coming from Iran", it implies what it says: ""Others criticized the delisting, including Iran state television."

VR: if you would like the reduction of text to read differently, try instead making a proposal. Far Ariff's proposal is fine as is. Alex-h (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

2) Shortening proposals

• Split History Section - (summoned by bot) - I have no background on this subject or real interest, but my gut reaction looking at the page is that the history section could easily be split into History of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and then the history section on this article could be reduced to a couple paragraphs of summary. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• "Removal of designation" shortening proposal by Fad Ariff Fad Ariff (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"In 2008, the Luxembourg European Court of First Instance upheld that there was no justification for including the MEK in the EU terrorist list and freezing its funds. The Court then allowed an appeal to delist the MEK from the EU's terror list. An attempt by EU governments to maintain the MEK in the terror list was rejected by the European Court of Justice, with ambassadors of the 27 member states agreeing that the MEK should be removed from the EU terrorism list. The United Kingdom lifted the MEK's designation as a terrorist group in June 2008.

On 26 January 2009, the Council of the European Union also removed the group's terrorist designation, becoming the first organization to have been removed from the EU terror list. Delisting allowed the MEK to pursue tens of millions of dollars in frozen assets and lobby in Europe for more funds. It also removed the terrorist label from MEK members at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. On 28 September 2012, the U.S. State Department formally removed MEK from its official list of terrorist organizations following a decision by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and lastly in Canada on 20 December 2012.

The delisting came after years of lobbying efforts by the MEK. The group also gained the support of American officials, many of them paid to give speeches calling for delisting. Others criticized the delisting, including Iran state television. Clinton said in a statement that the decision was made because the MEK had renounced violence and had cooperated in closing their Iraqi paramilitary base."

Extended content
References

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why

• Support split history section. (bot summoned) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal by Fad Ariff because it shortens the section in a neutral way. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support split history section, as the most natural way to calve off perhaps a third of the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iskandar323: we should be starting the splitting out or summarizing the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. By contrast the detailed history of MEK is covered in detail in most scholarly or comprehensive sources on the group.VR _talk 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Well perhaps ... and as noted below, there is no roadmap for it anyway. Support struck. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Fad Ariff's proposal. The "Removal of designation" section doesn't need to be longer than three paragraphs covering the central points of the designation removal (Fad's proposal). About the "split of the history section", I would also support that in principle but that seems irrelevant to this RFC (and a roadmap for that split hasn't been laid out either). Alex-h (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• At first glance I do not support splitting the history section to merely "a couple paragraphs". The history of the MEK is probably the most WP:DUE part of this article. It is also the most neutral section and really we ought to be trimming more POV sections like "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" and "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" etc.VR _talk 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I do not support this kind of trimming either. Instead of cutting down the content we don't like, as VR pointed out above, we should trim the more POV sections, such as "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" and "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" etc. Also we should split out or summarize the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. By contrast the detailed history of MEK is covered in detail in most scholarly or comprehensive sources on the group.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support the proposal from Fad Ariff as well since that section (and the article) would benefit from that kind of copy editing. The section "Terrorist designation" is one of the largest of the whole article (20,740), and doesn't need to be that long. I also do not support the splitting of the history section since that would create many WP:DUE problems. Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal (by Fad Ariff) because the article sections need condensing and this section is very long. About the other proposal, I also do not support splitting the history section into "a couple of paragraphs".NMasiha (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Fad Ariff's proposal as a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:V:
  • WP:NPOV vio: The proposal presents itself as a "summarization" yet all it does it simply remove from the section information that is critical of MEK. This onesidedness is a violation of WP:NPOV. For example the proposal retains "the decision was made because the MEK had renounced violence" but removes "former U.S. officials vehemently reject the new status and believe the MEK has not changed its ways". It retains a lengthy list of those who supported the designation removal but the proposal omits the list of those who opposed it.
  • WP:DUE vio: Some of the information the proposal removes is sourced to multiple secondary sources. For example, MEK's paid speech campaign is mentioned by so many reliable sources, yet completely omitted from the proposal. Sources that say this include: Christian Science Monitor[30], The Guardian, U.S. News[31], Washington Post[32], this scholarly book (chapter written by professor or political science at University of Oklahoma) published by Routledge, this scholarly book (written by a professor at Penn State), and another scholarly book (published by Rowman & Littlefield) and this book (published by Taylor & Francis).
  • WP:V vio: Fad Ariff proposes "Others criticized the delisting, including Iran state television." This implies that the primary opposition is coming from Iran, which is not true. It was opposed by 30 scholars and diplomats inside the US[33] including Ervand Abrahamian who is the foremost scholarly source on the MEK, and the National Iranian American Council[34]. In fact, some sources have noted the opposite of what Fad Ariff implies, namely that many of those opposing MEK's de-designation as terrorists also opposed the Iranian regime: ("it goes without saying that neither of these press organs is typically amicably disposed toward the Iranian regime"[35]).VR _talk 03:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Fad Ariff's proposal per VR's rationale. There are clear NPOV and due weight issues in the proposed cut. Essentially all that the proposal does is omit all of the information about the MEK's lobbying efforts, despite the significant media coverage of it, and therefore does little except tendentiously tilt the content away from neutrality. It is basically selective censoring. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: per what I said above and that these kind Tendentious editings are aimed at omitting anti-MeK contents.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Fad Ariff's proposal Like Alex-h's says, I also don't see any violations or "tendentious editing" in this proposal. The three-paragraph summary for that section is absolutely fine. Iraniangal777 (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Consolidate RAND Corporation claims with other claims about this topic

I reverted this edit [36] because adding a whole paragraph of a tangled topic using just one source doesn't seem like the best idea in an article that is already too long (as the same editors that added the content said) and has neutrality problems. Also the preceding paragraph makes similar claims and has similar problems. I suggest consolidating the RAND corporations claims with other claims about this topic into one paragraph so that we end up with a more multifaceted and concise coverage of this topic. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

How could you stand a long quotation with a single source in the lede, but can't stand a paragraph with a single source in a section other than the lede, which has enough room for expansion too? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

About the quotation in the lead, you can see that I (and others) voted in favor of replacing that quote with a brief statement like "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982." This is something that is supported by several reliable sources. If you agree, you can go ahead and make that change, but this talk page section is about "Consolidating RAND Corporation claims with other claims about this topic", so please keep within topic. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

About your replacement for the quotation in the lede, I should say that mentioning a reason (pretext) for MEK's attacks, and not mentioning any reason for Iran attacking MeK is not neutral, and, as I said before, there is not enough room in the lede for such reasons and counter-reasons, so they should be moved to the main body of the article. Another problem for such quotation is that it is based on a single source. It is more reasonable to have a content with a single source in the main body of the article than having it in the lede. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• I can't make out any substantive objections about my proposal, so I will work on moving this and other information to sections where they are more suitable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You say one thing and do another thing. Instead of restoring what you reverted, you empty the cult section from its other contents too. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect, but since we seem to be struggling to agree, perhaps we should both take a step back and try to find some common ground. I was previously in agreement with you that the article should be shortened, so I was surprised to see you add more content about cult POV. Will revert your edit to the original text until we have found some common ground. I will start a new RFC where I will make a proposal, and you can post your proposal there too. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Is there a particular reason why you keep parroting my language? I'm struggling to tell whether I should be honoured or vexed by the homage. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, I do not know why it is incorrect. Saying one thing and doing another thing is an act of hypocrisy, and the "hypocrites'" is another name used for The People's Mojahedin of Iran. I am repeating what I said before: If you agree with me that the article is too long and you revert what I add, then why you insist on restoring what I reverted? And why you took this case to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? Ghazaalch (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

About reverting more cult comparisons added to the article

@Ghazaalch: and @Iskandar323:

I am reverting this edit[37] because

1) Anne Singleton’s MEK cult comparisons is not a good source for this article. See for example [38] and [39].

2) Abrahamian (“The Iranian Mojahedin”) is already cited in the article describing the MEK having a "cult of personality".

3) The article already has content about cult comparisons, so instead of adding more comparisons we should edit concisely yet representing the sources (instead of making the article longer and more confusing which something both of you previously protested against).

Please start a proposal for redrafting this content in this article, or I can do this if you don’t have the time. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: There are currently multiple other editors (i.e.: a consensus) who support this material. You can discuss it in talk, but you shouldn't defy consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You have now just reverted in clear defiance of the consensus of multiple other editors. Please self-revert or be reported. I'm very serious. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus because I gave a substantive objection. There is also only you and Ghazaalch who are trying to implement this edit . You should be discussing here instead of making report threats. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: When two editors disagree with you in a conflict area, you should not be casually reverting. That you do not understand this is an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your reasons are an ad hominem attack on a reliable source based on a primary document from a government with a conflict of interest, and supported by a dodgy Arabic news platform, basically pushing WP:FRINGE. Deleting Abrahamian because he's 'already cited' ... so what? And then its the usual bollocks about the article being too long (WP:IJDLI). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff:, you are saying that 2) Abrahamian (“The Iranian Mojahedin”) is already cited in the article describing the MEK having a "cult of personality"., but what Abrahamian already says is a few words, in which he calls MeK a cult and not more.("having a "cult of personality",[356]" ). Now you are saying that we should not use more content from his book? You are saying that because Abrahamian once called MeK a cult, he does not have the right to explain why he did so? And you say we do not have the right to add the explanations to the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I'm not saying that. By your own words, the article is "too long and should be shortened, then it must be done in a neutral point of view".[40] If we are going to add things like "why Abrahamian called MeK a cult", then we should do so neutrally and concisely while trying to show some kind of academic consensus (which Abrahamian is a part of). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Yet you actually made no effort to balance the statements, or to make them more neutral/concise, and instead, you deleted all of Ghazaalch's additions out of hand on the pretense of the three explanations above that clearly do not stand up to close scrutiny? What exactly about the added Abrahamian statements were lacking in neutrality? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I will provide a proposal about how we can organize all of the cult content in the article after the WP:AE case has ended. Fad Ariff (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: So apart from the tired 'article too long' response, is there any particular reason why we shouldn't be providing the explanation of the foremost expert on the MEK on why the PMOI has been characterised as a cult (beyond the pre-existing single phrase)? You who fought for an Abrahamian quote in the lead. You have a better source in mind? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 That is the second time[41] that you have alluded that I’m "fighting for keeping an Abrahamian quote in the lead". Where did I "fight" to keep an Abrahamian quote in the lead? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323, using a source by the Federal Research Division is not a "ad hominem attack", and saying that the US government has a "conflict of interest" with Anne Singleton is silly. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Hogo-2020: The ad hominem component is the undermining of the source; the US government has a conflict of interest given its antagonism towards Iran. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Needless to say, government messaging is never considered reliable, secondary information, and such aspersions need corroborating with such sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, that is not an "ad hominem attack" or "aspersions". Fad Ariff's reasons are valid, so you certainly do not have consensus here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The US government is a primary source for their own politically motivated, highly partial assessments, i.e.: useful for reference, but not reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Anne Singleton. The assessment in question is about Anne Singleton, and you have not provided anything that explains why a Federal Research Division report would be an incorrect or "highly partial" assessment for that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, all the government document actually tells us, if anything, is that Singleton certainly has intimate knowledge of the MEK. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

So yes, unless anyone can tell me why Singleton wouldn't know about the MEK, when she clearly knows it well, we can restore that. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar, you're deflecting. The US report says that Singleton was threatened into cooperating with Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) against the MEK: "The recruitment of a British subject, Anne Singleton, and her Iranian husband, Masoud Khodabandeh, provides a relevant example of how MOIS coerces non-Iranians to cooperate. ..... Soon after their marriage, MOIS forced them to cooperate by threatening to confiscate Khodabandeh’s mother’s extensive property in Tehran. Singleton and Khodabandeh then agreed to work for MOIS and spy on MEK. ..... She agreed to cooperate with MOIS to save her brother-in-law’s life — he was still a member of MEK at the time. During her stay in Tehran, she received training from MOIS. After her return to England, she launched the iran-interlink.org Web site in the winter of 2002." Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not deflecting, thanks. Wikipedia doesn't prejudice sources, it qualifies them. Such sources just need to be properly attributed and contextualized. In any case, how does a state of potential duress in 2002, pre-Iraq war, per-Camp Ashraf etc., pertain to an academic subsequently relating about their experiences nearly a decade later in 2011? That's a lot of IFs. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: your comments are deflecting

"ad hominem attack on a reliable source based on a primary document", "the US government has a conflict of interest", "such aspersions need corroborating with such sources", "The US government is a primary source for their own politically motivated, highly partial assessments", "all the government document actually tells us, if anything, is that Singleton certainly has intimate knowledge of the MEK.

Although I would call this more gaslighting than "deflecting". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, suppose you are right that the contents written by Singleton are not reliable, but in your edit you have reverted/deleted the content written by Abrahamian and Cohen who are highly reliable. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that is when you made an extraordinary fuss about specifically keeping a drawn out Abrahamian quote presenting his version of the MEK's take on things in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I don’t why you keep on repeating this. I didn't "fight" or make "an extraordinary fuss" about that, on the contrary . Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, The accounts by Singleton are not reliable, this is not me saying this, it’s in the US report source. About Abrahamian, I replied about that in different responses.[42][43][44]

About Cohen (pages 44 and 180), the content I removed was mainly quoting Abrahamian and Singleton. Cohen does have views of his own, for example:

"However, the Mojahedin’s original ideology had not changed because of the leader’s needs, but because of the continuous struggle against the Islamic Republic’s constraints. Those changes gave birth to characteristics that resembled those of a cult worshiping its leader."

I would be in favor of merging something like this together with Abrahamian and what's already in the article. I already said that I would prefer waiting after AE has ended before proposing a draft, but nevermind, I’ll propose a draft as soon as I can (you can both propose a draft yourselves if you don't agree with mine). Also, since you and Iskandar323 seem very determined on adding more cult content to the article, then can we also add the other Cohen quotes that you reverted because the article "is already too long"? [45][46] Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, when a source is reliable, it is reliable. You as a pro-MeK user cannot assess the book and say this part of the book is reliable, because it is based on this primary source and that part is not reliable because it is based on that primary source. If you could assess the primary sources yourself, why do you use the secondary sources? Ghazaalch (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch it has already been explained a few times why Anne Singleton's analysis is not reliable for this article, even if it is published in Cohen's book. Fad Ariff is proposing that you use Cohen's actual analysis instead (which is reliable), but as usual you refuse to listen. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That hasn't been explained remotely. Pointing to a US report complaining that Singleton an Iranian agent does not automatically discount her as a source by a long shot. And incidentally, even if she were an explicitly pro-Iranian regime voice (not confirmed), we could still include her as a reliable source, because ... balance. Pro-regime voices are still voices. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff and Hogo-2020. Although I disagree with you that attributing a text to Anne Singleton by a reliable source is not allowed to be added to this article, but to reach consensus I would single out Anne Singleton's analysis from the reverted text, and would restore the rest of the text that is merely based on Abrahamian's analysis. But if you revert this too, I would have to file a new request concerning you two in this page. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume we have a consensus here, so I'm recovering deleted content.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because trying to dismiss the body copy exposition of this from an individual considered to be perhaps the foremost subject-matter expert on the MEK is frankly ludicrous. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch and Iskandar323: you both ignored my requests to add the analyses by Cohen to this article (an author you describe as "highly reliable").

• "Because of conflicts and the major support the MEK received among different minorities and Iranian sectors, Ayatollah Khomeini published a fatwa that prevented the group from taking part in elections of the new government."

• "During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which that raised his status within the MEK."

• "The MEK also proposed that Islam is a dynamic religion whose role is to "advance and encourage human development" including "a fair distribution of wealth, democratic freedom and the individual’s right to elect political representatives and choose their personal lifestyle."

• "However, the Mojahedin’s original ideology had not changed because of the leader’s needs, but because of the continuous struggle against the Islamic Republic’s constraints. Those changes gave birth to characteristics that resembled those of a cult worshiping its leader."

Please respond. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what most of those quotes, except for the last one, have to do with cult comparisons. Feel free to add the last quote to the cult section. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I will try to merge the last quote with content in the article. And I will open the other points in a different section so you may respond about them. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This removal [47] could have easily been merged into what’s already in that section. That section is very disorganized, and it could be fixed by just having an overview of for and against views about this. @Iskandar323: and @Ghazaalch: since you are both very involved here, do you agree fixing this section this way? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That all depends on whether you can manage that in a balanced way. You might also want to consider diversifying your editing interests. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, the content you linked above was not removed from the article. It was just returned to the section it was belonged. So my answer is NO. You cannot remove what is critical of MeK from the section "Human rights record" under the pretext of moving it to cult section and then merging it with other contents in cult section.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This content can easily be simplified in a neutral way. Abrahamian citing the MEK as having a cult of personality is already in that section. I think Cohen's analysis is more insightful and brings a new perspective, so I'm placing it with that. What "former MEK members and detractors" say is already in the article, so I'm also shortening that content (and the RAND report repeats what the other sources say about former MEK members and others calling the MEK a cult, and the MEK denying this). Also Abbas Milani saying that the Iranian regime has campaigned against the MEK calling it a "Cult" is already covered in this section. I will try to work on this section following the WP:FIXIT guideline. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Shortening of section "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK"

Iskandar323, what do you think about working together in shortening this section? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: You and others said you want to shorten the section "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK". I just shorten this section to two paragraphs. Also please stop edit warring about infoplease. If you think that this kind of information coming from one source should be in wikivoice, the give your reasons why and get consensus. My reason for reverting you is that I don't think this kind of information covered by only one source should to be in wikivoice (see also WP:WIKIVOICE). Also the attribution seems to be coming form the book "Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East" and not the Piazzi source. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I don't want to shorten any section specifically. I am just conscious that the overall article is too long and too confusing. I have already shortened it a bit by removing the non-scholarly anecdotal news content (because WP:NOTNEWS), but unfortunately I cannot agree to the usefulness of your recent attempted reduction of the section. As I said in my edit comment, Abrahamian and Katzman are two of the leading subject-matter experts, so the content is highly reliable and it doesn't make any sense to haphazardly remove it simply for the sake of a bit of shortening. Since you have been arguing vociferously to keep an Abrahamian quote in the lead; I can't quite understand why you are so hasty to remove similar material here. In any case, since we seem to be struggling to agree, perhaps we should both take a step back, consider the article as a whole, and try to find some common ground on areas to improve before making further changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: since we seem to be struggling to agree, perhaps we should both take a step back and try to find some common ground, like you say. I will revert to the original text until we have found this common ground, so please stop edit warring in the meantime. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m reverting Iskandar323 modifications back to the article's original text for the following reasons.

1) Iskandar323's removal of "According to infoplease.com". I am reverting this because I don't think this kind of information covered by only one source should to be in wikivoice (see also WP:WIKIVOICE).

2) Iskandar323's removal of "other dissidents". I am reverting this because that is what the is in the source.

3) Iskandar323's removal of "There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." I am reverting this because it’s published by a reliable source and is WP:DUE.

4) Iskandar323's removal of "In 2018, U.S. District Court charged two alleged Iran agents of "conducting covert surveillance of Israeli and Jewish facilities in the United States and collecting intelligence on Americans linked to a political organization that wants to see the current Iranian government overthrown". During the court process, it was revealed that the two alleged agents of Iran had mostly gathered information concerning activities involving the MEK. The two men pleaded guilty in November 2019 to several charges including conspiracy and "acting as an undeclared agent of the Iranian government". The Justice Department said that one of the men arrived in the US to gather "intelligence information" about the MEK (as well as Israeli and Jewish entities). The other admitted to taking photographs at a 2017 MEK rally in order to profile attendees. In January 2020 Iranian-American Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar was sentenced by a U.S. court to 38 months in prison for conducting surveillance on American MEK members. In September 2020 The New York Times published a report where researchers alleged that opponents of the Iranian regime had been targets of a cyber attack by Iranian hackers through a variety of infiltration techniques. MEK was reportedly among the most prominent targets of the attacks."

Iskandar323’s reason for removing all of this (“non-scholarly anecdotal news content (because WP:NOTNEWS”) seems not relevant because this content is is not "anecdotal" and is covered by enough reliable sources to make it a notable thing that happened with relation to this topic. I don’t support removing all of this information, but I do support shortening this (and some other content in that section).

Taking in consideration Iskandar323’s objections about my attempted edit of that section, this is my proposal for shortening or copy editing that section.

According to Abbas Milani, lobbyists paid for by the Iranian regime have called the MEK a "dangerous cult". There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK. Yonah Alexander stated that Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents have conducted "intelligence gathering, disinformation, and subversive operations against individual regime opponents and opposition governments. [...] According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution". According to Ervand Abrahamian, the Iranian regime "did everything it could" to tarnish the MEK "through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxist hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘electics’".

The Iranian regime also blames the MEK for the Imam Reza shrine bombing and the Makki Mosque attack in Zahedan in 1994, despite a Sunni group calling itself "al-haraka al-islamiya al-iraniya" claiming responsibility for both attacks. According to the NCRI, in a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image. The Iranian regime is also believed to be responsible for killing NCR representative in 1993, and Massoud Rajavi's brother in 1990, and has also been known to conduct surveillance of MEK members abroad. According to Katzman, the Iranian regime is concerned about MEK activities and are a major target of Iran's internal security apparatus and its campaign as assassinating opponents abroad. The Iranian regime is believed to be responsible for killing NCR representative in 1993, and Massoud Rajavi's brother in 1990. The MEK claims that in 1996 a shipment of Iranian mortars was intended for use by Iranian agents against Maryam Rajavi.

If we can use this version as a good first draft, then let's do that. If not, then someone else please provide a first draft that we can use to fix that section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Infoplease is not currently cited as a source - if you want to quote infoplease, you need to find that information on infoplease and attribute it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Incidentally, it is not WP:CIVIL to continuously accuse other editors of edit warring, regardless of the context. Cease and desist or be reported. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

According to the source, infoplease.com is where the figure is coming from, so I think we are correctly citing the source and haven't seen a substantive explanation about why this figure should be in wikivoice. Do you have any comments about my draft for shortening this section? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff; your Tendentious edits shows that you are not a good candidate for shortening the article; and as Vice regent said, when shortening the article we should concentrate on omitting the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. I will be waiting for VR, themselves, to the do the shortening. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
References

MEK Involvement in protests and riots in Iran

Multiple sources and the organization itself admitted they are funding "special units of rebellion" to cause riots in Iran in their conference.

At a MEK conference where Rudy Giuliani was the guest, he said the following: Giuliani suggested that the current wave of protests in Iran was being orchestrated from outside.

“Those protests are not happening spontaneously,” Giuliani said. “They are happening because of many of our people in Albania [which hosts an MeK compound] and many of our people here and throughout out the world.”

MEK potential and admitted involvement in Iran's riots must be mentionned, specially the 2019 deadly protests, but just generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunet (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC: Shortening and reorganize a paragraph in the article

Should the following paragraph be shortened and move some parts to more relevant sections?

According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Massoud 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. During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To avoid confusion that we faced in some past discussions, this RFC consists of 3 separate sections. Please add your comment, shortening proposal (if any), or vote in the relevant section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

1) Discussion

• Thank you for participating. If you think my proposal needs fixes, please make a suggestion in this section or write your own proposal in the section just below. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• • I would suggest not opening RFCs unless you have concrete proposals. You can ask for proposals first, and then open an RFC when the different possibilities are clear. Vague and unimplementable RFC waste everyone's time. MarioGom (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• • First starting asking for this proposal here[48], then tried to implemented the edit here[49], and then the edit was reverted by Ghazaalch here[50]. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

2) Proposals

Shortening proposal by Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• "According to RAND Corporation policy report it experienced a shortfall of volunteers after its settlement in Iraq. The MEK sought Iranian dissidents and Iranian economic migrants through what RAND describes as "false promises of employment" and other types of support. According to the RAND report, these new recruits were brought into Iraq illegally and were asked to submit identity documents for "safekeeping". Also according to this report, the MEK recruited Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war."

This content is about MEK recruitment, and so I suggest moving this content to a section like "Membership (1980s)"

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Massoud Rajavi began to work towards an "ideological revolution" that required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis"

This content is about MR starting an "ideological revolution", and so I suggest moving this content to a section like "Ideological revolution and women's rights"

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why

• Support proposal by Fad Ariff because it shortens some wordiness and an author who seems directly conflicted with the MEK. It also moves the content about "Ideological Revolution" and "Recruitment" to more relevant sections. This helps the article be a little tidier and better organized (something that most of the active editors in this talk page seem to agree the article needs). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RFC. This should be a procedural close. You can just propose a change without opening an RFC. If there are multiple positions and consensus cannot be reached, then you can open an RFC with a concise description of options. MarioGom (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• MarioGom see my comment in "Discussion". Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The article is badly organized, and this is a good attempt at starting to organize it. NMasiha (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Pointless RFC, as MarioGom said, as this could have just been a normal discussion. RFCs should be reserved for intractable problems, but for what it's worth oppose proposal by Fad Ariff, because all this achieves is to strip out the parts about "near religious devotion to the Rajavis" and the entrapment - basically watering down the findings. And I would have to ask why? Good ways of cutting material are eliminating duplication, and replacing news reporting (like random trial details of assassins and spies) with the emergent secondary analysis as it appears on scholarly literature. Simply watering down secondary analysis is not a useful way of making the article more informative. Stripping out select negative material is, as Ghazaalach in particular has mentioned several times, not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Comments

Can I suggest some quite minor changes to wording:

"According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK experienced a shortfall of volunteers after its settlement in Iraq. ....

"According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Massoud Rajavi began to work towards an "ideological revolution" that required members to undertake increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis".

Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Burrobert: Your proposal seems fairly uncontroversial. It does not really require a discussion unless someone objects/revert. MarioGom (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Right-ho thanks. Burrobert (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of content by Cohen

@Ghazaalch: and @Iskandar323: you both ignored my requests to add the analyses by Cohen to this article (an author you describe as "highly reliable").

• "Because of conflicts and the major support the MEK received among different minorities and Iranian sectors, Ayatollah Khomeini published a fatwa that prevented the group from taking part in elections of the new government."

• "During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which that raised his status within the MEK."

• "The MEK also proposed that Islam is a dynamic religion whose role is to "advance and encourage human development" including "a fair distribution of wealth, democratic freedom and the individual’s right to elect political representatives and choose their personal lifestyle."

Please respond. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I replied [51] saying I didn't know how they were related to the cult of personality, which was the discussion it was in. I assume you want to put these other quotes someplace else, but it's unclear where, so, because of what, I can hardly comment on whether it would be due - not knowing the context or whether these additions would duplicate existing material. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and @Iskandar323: here are your reverts (with "context") of analyses by Cohen:[52][53][54]. Please respond why you deleted this from the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with Cohen and everything to do with your mass revert ... your trigger-happy reverting becoming a bit of a bad habit - speaking of: why are you reverting Abrahamian again? I fail to see how "The regime has made many claims about the MEK, and the article covers many of them already" is a reason. Sounds like WP:IJDLI. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: and @Ghazaalch: Without deflecting from the question, please respond why we cannot have these analyses from Cohen in the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded. Stop deflecting from actually absorbing the answer. And feel free to actually answer questions yourself, lest you also 'deflect' there. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the regime executing MEK because they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)"

@Ghazaalch: on this revert[55] you deleted "the Iranian regime executes MEK members with the justification that they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)" carrying on an "unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers"", but where does the article mention that the regime executes MEK members because they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)"? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This statement, like many other, is useless information without context. It is very general. Such a blanket statement cannot refer to all MEK executions ever. It would be nonsensical. What time period does this refer to? What is the context? I imagine plenty of MEK members have been executed for more straightforward terrorism charges, at least since designated as such. Much more context needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: If it's the context and time period that is troubling you, that is an easy fix. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and @Iskandar323: Abrahamian writes this in the present tense (and his book was published in 1989). So we can quote him as "According to Abrahamian's 1989 book, the Iranian regime executes MEK members with the justification that they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)" carrying on an "unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers". If you do not respond, it will be assumed that there is consensus on your side for adding this to the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to say Abrahamian: he is a reliable, secondary source, so Wikivoice is fine. Maybe: "In the late 1980s, the Iranian regime carried out executions of MEK members with the justification that they were "monafeqin (hypocrites)" carrying on an "unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers". Basically it's for treason - does the book not mention an official charge? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Before giving you an answer I would like you give a reasonable explanation to the following question in the following subsection. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the explaining why MEK is called a cult by Abrahamian

@Fad Ariff: on this revert[56] you deleted "Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members., but where does the article mention the reasons why Abarahamian called MeK a cult? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of information

@Ghazaalch: Why did you delete[57] from the article that "The MEK and their allies did well during the 1979 elections even though they were not able to get their own members to be elected"

Also on this revert [58] you deleted "The MEK’s view was that Islam was a religion that "favoured human equality, social justice and national liberation" and "By the summer of 1981, the MEK’s appeal had become strong enough to challenge the Iranian regime"

Also on this revert[59] you deleted "After the June 1981 uprising against the regime had failed, Massoud Rajavi and Banisadr received political asylum in France. While in France, Rajavi claimed he would replace the regime with a "Democratic Islamic Republic" I am using the same author you have been saying we should use for this article!

Also on this revert you deleted[60] "According to Ronen Cohen, the continuous struggles against the Iranian regime’s constraints led to the MEK having characteristics of a cult of personality about its leader, Massoud Rajavi." The source is by Ronen Cohen, another author you and Iskandar323 have been saying we should use for this article.

What is up with this? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The first statement is pointless. Either the MEK did well or they did not. They did not. No members were elected. NOT winning seats in an election is not notable. If this encyclopedia recorded things that were notable for their absence, the work would never end. On the second statement, I'm not sure why we care about the MEK's opinions about Islam - seems a tad off-topic. No opinion on the rest at this time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of information

@Fad Ariff: Why did you delete[61] from the article that According to the RAND report, former MeK members and detractors are accused of being Iranian agents or dupes, however, interviews with US military and civilian authorities, information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf, indicate that these denials are untrue.

Also on this revert[62] you deleted The regime further claimed that MeK officials were living comfortably in Europe while urging their youth members in Iran to perform suicide missions. It also launched a propaganda around the idea that Marxism and Islam were incompatible, and that Marxism was out to destroy Islam because it was 'materialistic.' I am using the same author you have been saying we should use for this article!

Also on this revert you deleted[63] Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members. The source is by Ronen Cohen, another author you have been saying we should use for this article.

What is up with this? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If the material was in the stable version of the article, and the removal is disputed, you can restore it pending the attainment of a consensus for its removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The first and third diff I explained here [64][65]. The second diff I explained in my edit summary[66], in the case you didn’t see it "The regime has made many claims about the MEK, and the article covers many of them already". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

None of the links you provided above have given a reasonable explanation. You just give an answer to my questions to show that there is no consensus and to revert my additions. So as Iskandar323 said here, you are trying to manipulate the consensus-needed rule. This is kind of Gaming the system. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: In addition, only ever providing links back to previous answers, and never simply re-providing your answers is incredibly unhelpful. It would take you less time to re-state your case than it would for you to look up prior comment diffs. This serves little purpose other than to waste the time of both yourself and other editors, unless obfuscation is your objective with these trails of breadcrumbs. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The diffs are there to show you that these have been answered several times already. Because you do not have new questions about these diffs, then I cannot provide new answers for you. Fad Ariff (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: If you open a fresh discussion, it is reasonable to expect you to state all your points at least once in that same discussion, not open fresh discussions and then provide de-contextualised links back to earlier discussions. How the actual fuck is anyone meant to have time to follow that shit? It's overexpectant. Either state clearly state your points or the questions you want answering in the discussion itself or don't open them. The key is in the name: discussion. It's not ANI or AE, where your posts diffs; it's a discussion. I'll respond to anything you post in an active discussion, but not links. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Objections to copy editing in the lead

Iskandar323, I am reverting several of your many changes to this article because they appear to be nonconstructive.

• [67] It was the IRI government that made the request, not "Iran"
• [68] It is considered the IRI’s most significant opposition group.
• [69] it was better explained before your edit
• [70] This stamp is by the Islamic regime (already in the infobox box of Hafte Tir bombing).
• [71] Operation Mersad was already linked as "Operation Eternal Light"
• [72] The lead has not been shortened, so it is still too long.
• [73][74] Long paragraphs are difficult to read, so I think the lead was clearer before you re-arranged it. We need four paragraphs that aren’t overwhelmingly long. If you are interested in shortening and arranging the lead, we can open a new talk page discussion about that.

Also, please pace yourself when making changes to this article. You are making many edits, and many of those are nonconstructive, and it makes things very difficult to maintain order. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I told you to stop the hair-trigger reverting. This is extremely unconstructive and unproductive. All of these clearly explained edits collectively moved amount to less material than a single, average one of your consistently poorly explained largescale edits. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" IS "Iran" for the purposes of the country making a request of another country, and it is incredibly odd for you to suggest otherwise. We likewise do not refer to "France" as the "French Republic". It is not the "Islamic Republic of Iran" making a request of the "French Republic"; it is Iran making a request of France. If you think otherwise, you are pushing a very strange position. Again, mind your language in your edit summaries like this one - you are not rescuing anything, you are reverting to a version that you simply prefer (also with an almost non-existent edit summary: 'see talk' is not a summary). Talk moves and gets archived. Edit comments endure. On the third diff, the lead confusingly mentions the coup twice, with a sentence about rising support about the intelligentsia in the middle - I was obviously eliminating the duplication and poor sentence order. The removal of the Hafte Tir Bombing image is extremely poorly reasoned. I suggest you reconsider. It is produced by the Islamic regime ... umm, yes, governments produces stamps. So what? It is already in the infobox box of Hafte Tir bombing ... ummm, that is a different page ... so what? Neither of these are reasons, let alone policy or guideline-backed reasons. Not for the first time. Operation Mersad and Operation Eternal Light are separate operations - they just link to the same page ... for now. Again, not a reason. That or you did not read the target page. Long paragraphs are not a crime, but yes, by reverting a whole range of edits you did successfully make the lead longer again. Congrats. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, you were already warned not to modify the posts of other editors[75].

I didn’t revert to a version I preferred, I reverted to the article’s original version. Many of your edits were unconstructive, that is why I reverted them.

The theocrats have had a feud with the MEK since 1979 (not the country, the government). It is the governing theocratic state who have been trying to get rid of the MEK since 1979 (and it was they who made the request to France).

I reverted your edit of the Hafte Tir Bombing stamp because this would be like posting images of MEK members that were assassinated by the regime and describing them as "martyrs" on the Islamic Republic of Iran page. It doesn’t make sense.

I reverted your edit about Operation Mersad because in its page it is described as "Operation Eternal Light, MeK's codename)", so unlike what you are saying I did read the target page.

Regarding the lead, I tried to make it shorter before, but you reverted that. Since we don’t seem to be agreeing about the lead, why don’t you open a talk page discussion or RFC instead of making many changes to the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you wrote neutral talk discussion headers, instead of using them to cast aspersions, I wouldn't feel the need to change them. The 'governing theocrats' as you call them are the state, just as the 'governing democrats' are the state in the US, or the 'governing conservatives' are the state in the UK. You don't get to pick and choose how you refer to a country's foreign policy based on who is in government. An official stamp about a bombing demonstrates its historical significance, and the article needs more pictures. I want a policy-based reason for excluding that too. You are welcome to include historical images of MEK members that were assassinated by the regime - please do if you have some, as that would be a useful addition. Operation Mersad is still a separate operation, so why would you not include it in a list of operations in the infobox. In fact, Operation Mersad is the primary topic of the target, so one were to include one and not the other, one would keep Mersad and dispense with Operation Light Eternal (Forough Javidan). Also Operation Light Eternal is the same as Operation Forough Javidan, not Operation Mersad, so you may have read the page, but none too carefully. Re: the lead, low-level copyediting is not the sort of stuff to take to RFC. Like this, it would be a waste of community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "Iskandar323’s many new changes to the article" [76]. Did you not make many changes to the article recently? How can this be "casting aspersions"? Fad Ariff (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't personalize talk page discussions. I am just an editor. The topic is edits in the lead. The aspersion is that 'Iskandar323 has done something bad'. Not neutral. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus required rule infringement

I left a notification on Ghazaalch's talk page about their violation and my reasons for reverting their edit, but they have not yet responded. Even though I have explained this revert a couple of times already[77][78], Iskandar323 wants me to explain my objection "based on policy", so the policy for reverting this would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject"). Fad Ariff (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This page is along way away from being WP:NOTEVERYTHING and a couple of brief paragraphs on certain aspects of this group by a subject-matter expert is certainly not 'everything'. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a guideline that is a repository of other guidelines - which guideline, specifically, within WP:NOTEVERYTHING, do you think applies in this case, i.e. discounting subject-matter expert material? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It is useless to discuss with you Fad Ariff, because as I said previously [79][80] you do not discuss to reach consensus but you discuss to justify your reverts and to show that there is no consensus on restoring the reverts. I would explain your Gaming the system in details where I know there are some admins watching and moderating our discussions.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)