Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

RfC about removing contentious content from the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC closers are instructed to: ...judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Even after discounting such irrelevant arguments, the disucssion below is almost exactly evenly divided between those editors who wish to remove the disputed text and those that wish to retain it. The arguments on each side are rooted in Core Content Policies which provides no policy-based reason to distinguish between them. Multiple sources have been produced and disputed so there is no clear sourcing basis on which a consensus can be discerned. Taking this all together, the only accurate way to judge this discussion is that there is No Consensus to remove the disputed text. The usual result In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Edited to add: After discussion at my talk page, it has been pointed out that the disagreement between participants on whether these statements are supported by reliable sources has a solution. Any challenges to the reliability of the sourcing should refer to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard after consulting the List of Perennial Sources. I hope that helps future discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Shall we remove the following from the lede?:

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

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes. Per: WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:UNDUE and WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT:

• About the first part of the sentence in question:

"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"

There is only a single source that passingly mentions "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support." Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources""), this is a major/contentious and WP:UNDUE claim. Besides this passing mention, no other source has been found describing the MEK siding with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

About counter-arguments saying that the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, please note that this is already described in detail in the lede: ("In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.")

• About the second part of the sentence in question:

"a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

This goes against our WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT policies.

The MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country"; and that has also been described as "the largest Iranian opposition group".

Making any contention about the MEK's popularity (within an authoritarian regime that has banned the MEK and that is running a disinformation campaign against it to, among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”) would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede).

An actual poll to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran would be very difficult to do; as Ronen Cohen notes: "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran." Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth without opposing views; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria quoted a few sources above in a misleading way.

• He said that Ronan Cohen says MEK's loss in popularity is "difficult to prove". But I found that Cohen says "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war", The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, page 174.
• He quoted Nader Uskowi saying MEK is the "largest opposition group", but Uskowi is only referring to "opposition outside Iranian borders" (page 174, Temperature Rising).VR _talk 15:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to removing this sentence. For the first part of the sentence, WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems the relevant policy for why this should not be there. For the second part of the sentence, the other sources given by Stefka (specially the one about the Iranian regime spending hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portray it as a group without popular support) should be enough to consider this inapropriate for the lead. Idealigic (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Stefka Bulgaria many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented. For example, three sources were provided for MEK's ties to Saddam pre-1986 at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_33#Different_proposal (edit: I have provided a total of four sources for this claim below). Similarly, I provided fourteen (14) sources saying that MEK's popularity significantly declined due to its collaboration with Saddam. Here they are: Are there reliable sources that say MEK's popularity wasn't hurt by siding with Iraq? MEK being the largest opposition group doesn't directly contradict this statement.VR _talk 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: can you please present the "many, many sources" that say the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I presented fourteen (14) sources for the second part of the sentence you want to remove. Here are four sources for the first part:

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terronomics

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support.
— Vanguard of the Imam

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

^The meeting referred to by Taheri was a highly publicized meeting that took place in January 1983.VR _talk 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@VR: I was specific when I asked for (what you referred to as) the "many, many sources" which confirm a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede). Instead, you mention 14 sources that have nothing to do with the question, present 3 sources (none of which say anything about 1983 specifically), and present the one source that's already in the lede about 1983.

Since WP:bludgeoning the process is a recurring problem in these RfCs, I'll get straight to the point:

1) The collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK is already mentioned in the lede. If there are 3 other sources giving inconsistent dates prior to 1986 (which is what you've presented), these can go in the body where they can be contextualised according to their WP:WEIGHT, but in the lede they are WP:UNDUE. More specifically, the problem is that currently in the lede we have an allegation that the MEK collaborated with Hussein in 1983; this is backed by a single source and therefore constitutes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (and is also WP:UNDUE), hence this proposal to remove it from the lede.

2) About the "14 sources" you presented to support "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland": these are not polls or collected data; but rather these are opinions from different analysts. I have presented other opinion/reports that contradict this POV, for example the MEK being considered the Iranian regime's largest opposition group, or Iran blaming the MEK for the recent wave of major protests in Iran, or the following:

• "After two years of political struggle, the ayatollahs could not tolerate the growing, nationwide popularity of the MEK, and so they unleashed unbridled terror against it in the summer of 1981. The reign of terror has continued unabated. Tens of thousands of MEK activists, men and women, have fallen victim to brutal crackdowns. In the summer of 1988 alone, with a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, some 30,000 political prisoners – primarily MEK activists – were massacred. Most of those arrested and sentenced to death after the 2009 uprising belonged to the MEK. [...] Although it is irrefutable that the MEK enjoyed a constant and formidable presence in Iran, the regime has sought to ignore the MEK in its public positions, as part of an effort to eliminate its archenemy through simultaneous repression and propaganda. Toward that end, Tehran implausibly claims that the MEK lacks popular support and is inconsequential to Iranian affairs."

• "The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”

Sources representing both sides of the argument could all be teased out and contextualized in the body; instead, yourself and Mhhossein have argued that this one-sided POV be left in the lede as an undisputed fact; but it isn't an undisputed fact.

Also some of the sources you've presented are problematic. Trita Parsi, for example is the founder of NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime (the same Iranian regime that's running a disinformation campaign to brand the MEK "unpopular" and a "cult", and the same regime that is using "intimidation tactics" against journalists in the West and also in Iran).

To conclude: (and this is the last I'll say here to prevent further bludgeoing) there isn't official data or polls to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. We have sources saying the MEK remains popular, and we have other sources saying the MEK remains unpopular. What's most concerning is the −disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime to label the MEK unpopular (with Mhhossein removing this information from the article), and the fact that this "MEK is unpopular" POV is being pushed in the lede of this Wikipedia article as an objective truth (when it isn't). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Shedding light on a repeated scenario: You have repeatedly repeated the nonsense Original Research that we should be concerned about a disinformation campaign which aims MEK. You have of course received DUE and proportionate replies each time. In this comment, you have made concluding remark talking about "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign". It's quite interesting for others to realize you did pretty much the same concluding remark here (just see "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign" being repeated there). So, my response would be almost the same:"These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign...Using this [your] argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know!". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure (or organization). For example, Yasser Arafat says most Israelis came to regard him as an unrepentant terrorist, but the sources given don't cite any poll. There are many other examples on wikipedia where the (un)popularity of a group is supported by reliable sources that don't cite opinion polls. The fourteen reliable sources I cited for MEK's unpopularity are all independent of the Iranian government.

And why is MEK collaborating with Saddam in 1983 an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 was reported in newspapers[2]. Even the MEK's official website admits that Rajavi met the Iraqi PM in December 1982 and negotiated an agreement with Iraq[3]. Because this meeting was publicized in the first days of January 1983, many sources date it to 1982 instead.VR _talk 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - The stuff about 1983 is WP:UNDUE because only one source is backing this up, so this should not be in the lead of the article, and the MEK-Saddam cooperation is already in that section anyways. Then the stuff about the MEK's popularity, VR is saying that "there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure", but he is not taking into consideration other sources that say the MEK is a popular political opposition to the present-day Iranian government. To bluntly label a political organization popular or unpopular in the lead of a Wikipedia page, when there are sources that say both, should be taken with caution. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Only one source? LOL! Please follow the previous comments before commenting. Vice Regent clearly showed there are numerous sources for that ([4] and here). --Mhhossein ^talk 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I did read all comments very carefully before voting. The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 is not the same as 'In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War' (and the Tariq Aziz meeting with Rajavi is in the article already anyways). The RAND report talks about funding the MEK in 1980, and Terrornomics talks about the MEK receiving financial support 'since 1982'. In the lead there already are many reliable sources about the MEK-Hussein cooperation saying they were involved in the 1980s and 1990s in Operation Mersad, 1991 uprisings, and Operation Forty Stars. The only other unquestionable event before 1986 is the meeting with Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz, and this is already in the article. That leaves only one source to support that in 1983 Hussein funded the MEK, and this is why that is an WP:UNDUE statement for the lead. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's clarify it for you for in another way. Please respond: Is mentioning of 1983 the only issue you are pointing to? Since, even your own comment is proving MEK was receiving supports from Saddam multiple times. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My previous comment is clear. I don't think I will change your mind no matter what I write so I won't encourage this conversation further. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally, you did not say if mentioning of 1983 is the only issue you are pointing to. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No Per VR Above. There's extensive sourcing that siding with Saddam made them deeply unpopular. It is also not an exceptional claim to make, and I find the citing of WP:EXCEPTIONAL strange. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about a political party becoming unpopular after siding with an invading military force. I also must say I don't see the logic Stefka's objection that sources saying there was collaboration in 1980, 1981 and 1982, don't somehow support the source also saying there was collaboration in 1983. --Brustopher (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Brustopher you have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence, not about the MEK's popularity. You have also misunderstood the popularity portion, which is about representing all the sources, and not just a single view. Idealigic (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Brustopher is hitting the nail on the head by saying MEK-Saddam collaborations is not a big deal or an exceptional claim. Are all these wall of texts raised by OP aimed to remove 1983? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, do not make faulty generalizations that don't represent all the sources, least of all in the lead. If the MEK is the biggest opposition to the Iranian leadership, then saying that its appeal has been destroyed in Iran just doesn't make sense. According to the sources, it is unpopular for some but popular for others. When in doubt, like here, best to avoid making generalisations in the lead. The same about dates before 1986, they do not coincide, which can be maybe ok for other sections but not the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

*No also per VR. It is strange to cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL for the MEK siding with Saddam and becoming unpopular. I also don't understand why 1983 collaboration with Saddam cannot be in the article. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes thank you Idealigic for explaining, i am changing my vote because it looks like I did misread the proposal. The exceptional claim about 1983 can be in the body, and also the opinions about popularity since in the lead it doesn't reflect all information about this. Bahar1397 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bahar1397: You also have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence (there is only one source for the 1983 sentence, and the rfc is about putting this in the body since in the lead it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and that the other sources that talk about before 1986 do not support the statement about 1983). About the MEK's popularity (which is unrelated to WP:EXCEPTIONAL), the debate is that there are sources saying both that the MEK is the most popular political opposition to Tehran's government, and that it's popularity was destroyed after siding with Iraq in the 80s, so determining in the lead that the MEK has remained unpopular doesn't tell the whole story about how Tehran has "spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”, how the MEK has remained Tehran's biggest political opposition, and how determining the MEK's popularity in Iran is basically impossible because of the nature of the government there.Idealigic (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bahar1397: and @Idealigic:, there is not a single source that contradicts the assertion that the MEK had connections with Iraq by December 1982/January 1983 (the meeting in France happened right around New Year's so some sources say 1982 and others 1983 - this is not a contradiction). Yet there are multiple sources that support this claim. So this can't be considered an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim.

Regarding MEK's popularity, the lead already says "It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group". Should we remove that too from the lead? If we remove one of those statements but keep the other then we violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The statement that MEK's popularity was destroyed by allying with Saddam is backed by at least 13 reliable sources.VR _talk 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic:, I took a closer look at this source you cited. The source quotes someone calling MEK the biggest group but simultaneously agrees that their association with Saddam alienated many Iranians. Is this necessarily a contradiction?

“The PMOI’s former association with Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, when the group conducted raids into Iran during the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq war, alienated many Iranians, some of whom see them as “betrayers of the nation” according to Clement Therme, researcher fellow for Iran at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. But Rafizadeh said they remain “the largest and most organized opposition group outside and inside Iran.”

VR _talk 22:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: there doesn't need to be other sources contradicting that the MEK had connections with Iraq in 1983. There is no escaping from the fact that only one source talking about a major incident in 1983 incident is WP:UNDUE for the lead. About the popularity of the MEK, this is also disputed in the sources. Saying that POV from one side is the only truth is again POV pushing, specially when Mhhossein removes from the article that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.” Ypatch (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• No, because multiple high-quality sources (both newsorg and academic) stress on this when describing what MEK is. These are only a few examples:

The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.

— Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

...the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors.

— "Iranian dissidents in Iraq: Where will they all go?", The Economist, 11 April 2009

Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland.

— Afshon Ostovar (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.

With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq.

— Magdalena Kirchner (2017). "'A good investment?' State sponsorship of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi foreign policy (1979–1991)". In Christian Kaunert, Sarah Leonard, Lars Berger, Gaynor Johnson (ed.). Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781317499701.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.

— Jonathan R. White (2016), Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage, p. 239, ISBN 978-1-305-63377-3

–Pahlevun (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Pahlevun's !vote provides a number of publications characterizing the MEK as unpopular. Stefka's !vote provides a number of publications saying the MEK's popularity is disputed and also that the Islamic Republic runs a campaign of disinformation to characterize the MEK without popular support. All of this can be disentangled in Perception, but the lead is not the right place. About the 1983 quote, there is only one source backing this so that is unquestionably WP:UNDUE. Alex-h (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h, so why does the lead currently say It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group? Do you also support removing that from the lead and disentangling it lower below?VR _talk 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The MEK being considered the Islamic Republic's "biggest and most active political opposition group" is not disputed, but you are encouraged to open a new RfC about that if you think it's needed. Alex-h (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The claims that MEK "the largest Iranian opposition group" and MEK is unpopular in Iran are directly contradictory. In fact, Stefka said that in his opening statement[5]. WP:NPOV requires as to present all significant viewpoints covered in WP:RS. If you present one POV in the lead but remove a contradicting POV from the lead, then you are violating WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I already explained that the MEK being considered the Islamic Republic's "biggest and most active political opposition group" is not disputed, while the MEK being unpopular is disputed. If you keep playing these WP:IDHT games you will lose any form of credibility here. Alex-h (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

But it is disputed! The NYT calls the MEK "a fringe Iranian opposition group". MEK has also been called "fringe" by CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted inNBC News. And if you are not even willing to acknowledge that an opposing POV exists, then we should take it to WP:NPOVN.VR _talk 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If you really believe that is disputed, then open a RFC about it. This RFC is about different part of the article, so don't bludgeon the process. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h This is about the same POV in the same part of the article (lead). See my explanation in the section below.VR _talk 02:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. One passing mention in one source that "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War" makes this undue for the lead part. The same for the popularity statement, there are other sources challenging this point, so to put it in the lead fails the NPOV editing guideline. Barca (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look above, I have presented four sources, not just one.VR _talk 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

VR please stop repeating the same thing over and over. From the four sources you presented only one source is supporting (in passing mention) that "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War". That means it is undue for the lead part. Also the lead part of the article is not the place give a false conclusion that the MEK is not popular. It does not violate WP:WEIGHT if we summarize the sources according to WP:WEIGHT in the body of the article, something other editors suggested here. Barca (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There are three sources that say that mention the Iraq-MEK alliance developing in 1982-83. The reason for the difference in dates is that the meeting between Iraq and MEK happened in December 1982/January 1983, so some sources say 1982, some 1983, and some simply refer to the meeting.VR _talk 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• No, in case my position is not clear. The RfC proposes removal of two things:

• "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War".

I gave four reliable sources for this. It is not disputed by a single reliable source.

• "[Rajavi siding with Saddam was] viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

I gave fourteen (14) reliable sources for this and many more can be found. In opposition to this only a few reliable sources have been provided (and even those don't clearly state that MEK is popular). So clearly, the view that MEK is not popular should be given more WP:WEIGHT.

But even if we treat both views (MEK is unpopular and MEK is popular) as equally prevalent in WP:RS, removing this sentence would still violate WP:WEIGHT. This is because the lead mentions the POV that MEK is popular: It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group. Keeping one POV but removing the other violates WP:WEIGHT all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.VR _talk 05:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• No: the mentioned sentence says "vast-majority" of Iranian viewed MEK that is helping Saddam as a practice of treason, and it made the group unpopular-- it does not mention all the people. Other users have named plenty of sources which are verifying this sentence. Hence I disagree with the users who say it's "exceptional". We ought to give these amounts of sources a due weight, and this sentence is considered to be accurate/due. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• No: Looking at the reliable sources provided in abundance that detail both MEK-Saddam collaboration and the fact that it was viewed as treason, it's never an exceptional claim. Even these sources justify its inclusion per WP:Due weight. POVs should be weighed according to their support by the reliable sources, hence this one is worthy of inclusion.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes As per WP:UNDUE especially in the WP:LEAD Shrike (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• No: The disputed content is consisted of two sentences. Both of them were shown to be backed by plenty of reliable sources and hence WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply here. According to the mentioned sources MEK and Saddam had collaborations over a span of some years. It's interesting that I asked multiple times if their issue was solely with the word "1983" and no one replied (Brustopher also raised similar concerns and my conversation with MA Javadi clarifies my point). MEK-Saddam collaborations is a well-established fact and we don't remove the whole sentence only because of one word. For "treason" sentence, OP argues by WP:Original Research that since MEK is described as "the largest Iranian opposition group" we should ignore the very well-referenced fact that this collaboration is viewed as "treason" or "betrayal" by most of the Iranian people (Pahlevun provided a list of reliable sources for this). I will add some more:

"Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians."Newsweek

"Today they are seen as traitors by much of the Iranian public." University of Chicago Pres- P. 78

"...turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public."NYBooks

"But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors."The Guardian

"who see this group as having betrayed them fundamentally by allying with Saddam against Iran during the Iran Iraq War" P.63

--Mhhossein ^talk 04:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I found a simple mistake (and fixed it)! The source for In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support actually says By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support. This difference is critical because "by" implies anytime upto and including 1983. This would include 1982 and thus it means there are many sources for this statement. Stefka Bulgaria and BarcrMac, what do you think? I also found this claim in Ervand Abrahamian's book (page 248, Yale University Press):

Third, the Mojahedin's unbashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some of their allies. The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin...

VR _talk 19:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria, I took a look at Ronen Cohen source you quote above and found yet another source for MEK-Iraq alliance in 1983:

During 1983, Rajavi began building connections with the Iraqi leadership. This was done through KDPI, who were connected to Saddam Hussein. Iraq and the DPI allowed the Mojahedin to set up bases in the northern part of Iraqi Kurdistan. During the first phase, these bases were used for training and military coaching.
— Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. p. 60

VR _talk 23:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• To the closing admin/editor: these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of the overwhelming bludgeoning with confusing claims, to which an easy solution often ends up being closing with "no-consensus" (something that has been happening with most of these RfCs for the past year or so). It will take some time to weight votes/consensus carefully and weed out the bludgeoning, but that's the only way to close this RfC effectively. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, both of the facts that the proposer wants to remove are well sourced as shown by mhosein and others. They're important to the notability of the People Mujahedin of Iran, and therefore should remain in the lead. Moreover, given the larger number of sources that support these statements, this should definitely remain in the lead. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• No: They are not exceptioanl or undue. This edit attarcted my attention. If we should give weight to independent reliable sources then I see a lot of sources in this discussison speaking about close relationships of Mujahedin and Saddam. Their act of treason is described by neutral and reliable sources as well.
• The following source may be useful:

"Rajavi's decision to link the council to Iraq, which at the time was embroiled in a war with Iran, is another reason. Although many Iranians had already lost their initial sympathy for the Khomeini regime in Tehran, they considered the linkage of the council to Iraq an act of treason. In June 1986, the French government—under pressure from Tehran—forced Rajavi to leave the country. Along with approximately 1,000 members of the MEK, Rajavi then accepted an offer from Saddam Husayn to move to Baghdad. Since 1982, the MEK has been politically, militarily, and financially supported by the Iraqi regime, and since 1986 it has maintained a 3,000-to 5,000-man so-called "national liberation army" in Iraq. Rajavi alone controls the MEK, which he has organized into a Stalinist-type personality cult centered on himself."(Page 113 and 114)

"The large majority of Iranians inside and outside of the country reject the MEK because of its support for Baghdad during the IranIraq War and its continuing alliance with Saddam" (Page 116) Shiasun (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, remove. Also per Stefka Bulgaria, who explained it well. The MEK siding with Hussein is in the lead already, and the sources provided here for "by 1983" are indeed inconsistent with what they say (and most talk about Rajavi and not the MEK, so it may even be unrelated to the MEK). That is defo WP:UNDUE especially in the WP:LEAD. The sentence is then somehow WP:SYNTHED to say that the Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983 was "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland", so suddenly we are talking about the MEK and not Rajavi, and none of those given sources support that by 1983 the MEK's appeal had been destroyed for siding with Hussein. Too much lack of consistent narrative, not lead material, and MEK siding with Hussein is already mentioned there anyways. Poya-P (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Poya-P That last part was actually restored into the article by Stefka Bulgaria. So, Stefka claims the source is misrepresented, then reverts any attempts to correct the misrepresentation. Making a simple edit to that sentence can alleviate any concerns about WP:SYNTH or inconsistency.VR _talk 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, do not remove Pahlevun, VR and Mhhossein have provided many sources for these points. Well sourced points should remain.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes.

• ""In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support".

The sources about this concern a "meeting between Rajavi and Tariq Aziz", "Rajavi building connections with Iraqi leadership", and the two other sources can be added with "since the 1980s it was involved alongside Saddam Hussein in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

• ""[Rajavi siding with Saddam was] viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

The "NO" votes say this should be given more WP:WEIGHT than the sources saying the MEK is popular, but that is not neutral (NPOV violation) and the sources saying the Iranian regime is spending millions to "portray the MEK without popular support" is also a big red flag about why this should be avoided in the lead. PRDM__9 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha? No where in the page 'No voters' said UNDUE weight should be paid to that portion, rather they support DUE coverage of the content and they present numerous sources for their arguments (see comments by Me, Vice Regent and Pahlevun). Also, comments like yours, which are not supported by reliable sources or policies will be ignored by the closer. We don't do WP:OR here, so the so-called "red-flag" has no place here.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment It should be clarified that the vast majority of sources are saying something while one source is adding that probably the issue is not accurate — even that source does not reject the POV of those majority of sources. According to WP:DUE, it is clear that we should go by the most pronounced voice, i.e. MEK's sidding with Saddam bought them unpopularity.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• No It is factually and historically correct, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and has been extensively commented on and referenced by numerous journalists, historians, geopolitical commentators, and authors in academia. There is no dispute among experts in the field that the MEK aligned itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, operated from Iraqi soil with Saddam's permission, and lent substantive support to the Iraqi army during its war against Iran. Moreover it's copiously documented that this alone cost the MEK an immense amount of support from Iranians who viewed them as traitors. A search through the Washington Post alone gives multiple mentions alliance with Saddam. Example: [6]

"Historians said the decision to side with Iraq cost the group most of its support inside Iran. At the same time, former insiders said the group grew into a hermitic society controlled by its only surviving leader."

See also, [7] "Rajavi found a friend in Saddam Hussein and began to build up an army in Iraq."

This information clearly belongs in the lede, it's relevant and accurate. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• No to removal. The content is supported by a wide range of sources so it is not exceptional. To the best of my knowledge, this inclusion is not against WP:NPOV, unless there are other counter point of views which are as strong. No one in this discussion presented counter viewpoints. So, don't remove it please. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to removal. The MEK aligning itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War is already in the lead. Iranians viewing them as traiters is not NPOV and is not telling the whole story. Read the sources. There is no doubt the MEK was and is the main political opposition in Iran even though it is outlawed by the Iranian government. Rondolinda (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Rondolinda (talk · contribs) To clarify, what do you support be removed from the lead?

• 1. [MEK is] considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group
• 2. [MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians

One of them or both? If you support one removed from the lead but not the other, can you explain why?VR _talk 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello VR, to clarify, I support the whole sentence be removed from the lead. Rondolinda (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Rondolinda Which sentence? I provided two (and have now numbered them). Do you support removing both of them or only one?VR _talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, remove the whole sentence. Rondolinda's reasoning is correct, the main information about Hussein and MEK is already is in the lead, and MEK being considered "traitors" only tells one one aspect of a bigger picture. This would be like putting in the lead of Anwar Sadat that he was considered a traitor for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Yes, some people may have said this, and some sources may have covered this, but this does not represent the full picture of what happened, and putting only one side of the picture is a neutral editing violation. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. TheDreamBoat is a dromant account which comes to the RFCs whenever needed. Previously, he !voted after more than one year of dormancy and the current one comes after around a 6-month-long hiatus. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: if you're going to accuse another editor of being canvassed to this discussion, you should at least ping them. @TheDreamBoat: were you canvassed to vote here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The {{Canvassed}} template already automatically attaches a ping, Stefka Bulgaria. El_C 19:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

— is this about me? @Mhhossein: I was not canvassed to edit here. You don't know my situation or the reasons why I edit when I edit, so please remove this comment right away. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but Your edits are speaking for themselves. After more than 1 year of being dormant you sudenly jump into a RFC followed by another jump after a 6-months-long dromancy. This discussion may also be helpful for the closing admin. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Isn't Mhhossein "poisoning" the RfC process here by making canvassing accusations or linking failed SPIs without providing any evidence whatsoever to support his accusation? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, as it looks like VR has provided plenty of sources to support this sentence. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing MEK popularity from lead and WP:DUE

My point about this RfC violating WP:DUE keeps getting lost, so I'll make it here. The lead currently contains two statements on MEK's popularity:

1.

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

2.

[MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.

Many users have used sources that say MEK is Iran's biggest opposition group to say that phrase #2 is disputed, including Stefka Bulgaria,[8] and Idealigic,[9]. In fact, Nika2020 said If the MEK is the biggest opposition to the Iranian leadership, then saying that its appeal has been destroyed in Iran just doesn't make sense. All of this implies that #1 and #2 are contradictory POVs. But WP:DUE requires us to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So removing #2 while leaving in #1 is a clear violation of WP:DUE. And removing any mention of popularity might violate WP:LEAD which asks us to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. If there is such a big controversy over MEK's popularity then we have to cover it in the lead.

Finally, #2 does represent a significant viewpoint, because it has been covered in many, many sources.

Sources that say MEK-Saddam alliance made it unpopular with Iranians

"Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland."Afshon Ostovar (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3. "...the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors.""Iranian dissidents in Iraq: Where will they all go?", The Economist, 11 April 2009 "the Mojahedin’s decision to set up bases in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and fight against Khomeini from that side of the border turned out to be fatal for their sympathy amongst the Iranian people, who considered this national treason." page of 47 of Master's thesis "The Iranian Mojahedin´s struggle for legitimacy" at University of Oslo "But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors." Guardian "The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.Jonathan R. White (2016), Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage, p. 239, ISBN 978-1-305-63377-3" "Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians." Newsweek "The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy [Saddam Hussein]." Jason Rezaian in the Washington Post "More important, most Iranians disdain the MEK because it sided with Saddam Hussein in the bloody eight-year war between Iraq and Iran," Hamid Biglari in Foreign Affairs magazine "And to make up for a drop in popularity tied to its alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the group started recruiting Iranian economic migrants in the Middle East under false pretences..." MiddleEast Eye "During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process." BBC News "They don't have a following in Iran; in fact, they are widely detested for siding with the regime of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war." said by Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council "That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said." Al-Jazeera "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." Business Insider "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians." Reuters "...most Iranians regard the MEK as traitors aided by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war or, at best, a sadistic cult." Globe and Mail "And one of the reasons they have virtually zero public support in Iran these days is that they're seen as traitors having fought on the Iraqi side in the Iran-Iraq war." Paul R. Pillar in NPR "With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq."Magdalena Kirchner (2017). "'A good investment?' State sponsorship of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi foreign policy (1979–1991)". In Christian Kaunert, Sarah Leonard, Lars Berger, Gaynor Johnson (ed.). Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781317499701.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) "The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians."Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help) "While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran." Sandra Mackey "The Iranians", page 372

VR _talk 02:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

VR: That MEK is considered as "Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group" is a disputed as far as I know. For instance, take a look at this UN report:

"There are two major groups in Iran which oppose the present regime, namely the MEK and the monarchists. The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime. Monarchists operate several television stations in different countries and are actively involved in disseminating information criticizing the current Iranian regime."

--Mhhossein ^talk 22:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is disputed. But WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be presented and WP:DUE tells us that a prominent viewpoint in WP:RS must be given "prominence of placement". So it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to remove one prominent viewpoint from the lead but leave the opposing prominent viewpoint there.VR _talk 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes VR that's it, but looking at the discussions it seems Stefka Bulgaria et al. are changing their minds from time to time. First they said it's exceptional, now they say it's SYNTH (LOL!). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressing VR's and Mhhossein's concerns (part 1)

VR and Mhhossein have a history of complaining that their concerns are usually not addressed in these RfCs, so for the sake of not bludgeoning this RfC further, I'll address their concerns here as brief and to the point as I can:

This RfC proposes removing the following from the lede:

"By 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War..."

Two main reasons have been presented for endorsing this removal:

1) We already have in the lede that the MEK was

“involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

2) The sources presented talking about a MEK-Saddam Hussein collaboration in 1983 and prior are inconsistent (many talk about Rajavi and not the MEK per se, and most of the sources simply don’t support what's currently in the lede). It has been proposed that these sources be summarized in the body since in the lede they are WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH for the statement in question.

Here is a list of the sources presented for supporting this statement, and why they are problematic:

• "Third, the Mojahedin's unbashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some of their allies. The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin..."[Ervand Abrahamian's book (page 248, Yale University Press)]

(This talks about a meeting between Rajavi with Tariq Aziz and analysts suspecting that Iraqi money funded MEK projects; it would be WP:SYNTH to say this source asserts that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”.)

• "During 1983, Rajavi began building connections with the Iraqi leadership. This was done through KDPI, who were connected to Saddam Hussein. Iraq and the DPI allowed the Mojahedin to set up bases in the northern part of Iraqi Kurdistan. During the first phase, these bases were used for training and military coaching."[Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. p. 60]

(This talks about Rajavi starting connections with Iraqi leadership and Iraq allowing the MEK to set up bases in Iraqi Kuristan; it would be WP:SYNTH to assert this source supports that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”.)

• "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran."Rand report

(It would be WP:SYNTH to say this source supports that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”)

• "Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein."[Terrornomics By Sean S. Costigan, David Gold]

(This consists of a single mention in the whole book that doesn’t support “...in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”)

• "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."[Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards]

(This consists of a single mention in the whole book about Massoud Rajavi siding with Saddam Hussein by 1983 which doesn’t say anything about “financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran-Iraq war”.)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

First you forgot this source (WSJ) that I mentioned above:

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.

This is also the first time in the RfC that you've brought up WP:SYNTH concerns and we should get an outside opinion at WP:NORN. But would you agree that a slight rewording of the sentence would eliminate any such concerns:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had openly sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war and received financial support from him...

VR _talk 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That source is an opinion piece by an author known for ontroversies and fabrications; so best to avoid that one. About your other suggestions, I'm not interested in bludgeoning this RfC more than it already has been. All points have been addressed, and as it was explained to you already, a RfC "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog.". Let an experienced editor/admin close this already before it drags into "a mess that nobody can follow anymore" territory. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria you raised concerns about WP:SYNTH for the very first time on December 6. Prior to that no one in this RfC had talked about SYNTH. But just one hour after raising that concern you said "let an experienced editor/admin close this". WP:Communication is required. There has been no discussion over possible SYNTH. Now, what is your opinion on the small modification I proposed above?VR _talk 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Others have presented objections to removing this from the lede besides my WP:SYNTH argument. The reality is that the quote voted to be removed:

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

remains WP:UNDUE for the lede: only a couple of sources support "by 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support", and neither of them say anything about "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." (the sources that talk about the MEK losing popularity in Iran refer to the MEK collaborating with Hussein - something that's is already in the lede - and not about Massud Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983).

I hope I have been clear here. Please let someone close this already. I won't respond to any more pings. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria I have tweaked the text to more closely reflect the source, so that should no longer be a concern. We can reword "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam" to "MEK's alliance with Saddam" etc.

Solid WP:RS have been provided for all the following facts: by 1983 MEK and Iraq had a relationship that consisted of Iraq giving money and material support to MEK, MEK giving intelligence to Iraq, and Rajavi and Iraqi Deputy PM had met and formed an agreement (Jan 1983). Three of the sources say Rajavi had "sided" with Iraq by 1983, which is what is already there, but I'm open to a different wording.VR _talk 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is yet another source:

As it went into exile, MEK’s willingness to side with Saddam’s Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war disturbed its already diminished cadre. During a key 1983 meeting between Masud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz, an alliance was forged.
— Ray Takeyh, Council of Foreign Relations,[10]

VR _talk 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressing VR's and Mhhossein's concerns (part 2)

This RfC also proposes removing the following from the lede:

"[MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

Iran is unfortunately one of the worst censored countries by their governments (see Censorship in Iran). The regime in Iran has outlawed the MEK there, so to wiki-voice in the lede of the article "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." would be a gross misrepresentation of all the RSs.

(Above) VR made the argument that removing this would be a "violation of WP:DUE" because we need to "represent all significant viewpoints", but he is suggesting we only represent the sources arguing that the MEK is unpopular, he is not asking that we also include the sources that argue the MEK is popular (which have been provided throughout this RfC) or the sources saying that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI [MEK and portrayed it as a group without popular support”].

For that reason, this is a problematic statement for the lede that would be better teased out and explained by all viewpoints in the body. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, I'm in favor of the status quo (and against your proposal), because currently the lead presents both viewpoints. You want to remove one viewpoint but not the other. Doesn't that violate WP:DUE?VR _talk 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone who voted in this RfC has already made their positions clear, including myself. I have addressed both yours and Mhhossein's concerns, and now it's time for an experienced editor/admin to close this RfC, so I won't comment here further for the sake of that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources are provided for "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" you are saying it's being wiki-voiced? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: You say the following sentence is disputed:

Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians

Can ONE of you say which sources have disputed this? In what terms is it disputed? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The RFC is still open. Who would have thought? Likewise I think this question should be replied. They say it's disputed but what are the sources against it? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Ali Ahwazi and it seems there are more things to be discussed yet. Stefka Bulgaria you need to reply this question. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Read the numerous votes/comments in the RFC explaining why this sentence is problematic for the lede of the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No one asked for why the sentence is problematic. Please, bring ONE source saying "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians" is disputed. I am assuming you are failing to support your position by reliable sources. No where in this RFC it was shown the this sentence is disputed. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria If you have missed this comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, read the RFC's comments. Nobody is saying this is disputed or unsupported by sources. I've said this should be removed per WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT: If we have sources saying the MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country" and also that the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign against it to, among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support” then saying they're considered "traitors" in their own country would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede). As Ronen Cohen notes: "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran." Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Like Nika2020 said, this is a "faulty generalization". In another RFC closed last year here, the closing admin said "It would also be quite possible to give neither figure in the lede, and just describe the controversy in the body text, although nobody in the discussion even considers this. I don't know why not." So we are here trying to take such advice on board, and put controversial generalisations in the body (along with POVs from other RSs, so it's better contextualized there). Also, this text is talking about Rajavi siding with Hussein and not the MEK per se, which is even more problematic for the lede and needs to be better explained in the body. I doubt you'll be happy with this or any explanation I give, so I won't be responding here anymore hoping that someone will close this RFC. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I will give you a thorough response. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I will address your comment segment by segment:

• #1-The first five lines your comment (from "For the last time,..." up to "As Ronen Cohen notes:"...because of the nature of the government in Iran."[5])

In this segment, you are combining materials from multiple sources, some of them being news sources, "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is a clear a SYNTHESIS and should be avoided. As you already said. "Nobody is saying this ["Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians"] is disputed or unsupported by source." So, no synthesis please. Moreover, WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT is not applied here because there's no counter viewpoint against the the disputed content in the scholarly or news sources.

• #2- The rest of your comment (from "For the last time,..." up to the end).

In this part you are referring to "faulty generalization". Actually, no generalization is done. There are vast amount of scholarly sources saying Saddam-MEK's collaborations led to MEK being called traitor (which you said is not disputed anywhere by no one). This text is so strongly supported by the various sources, be it scholarly or not, that is never problematic for the lead. Finally, if your issue has now condensed to the level of 'names should change', then it shows you are now accepting the issue is generally not refutable but the details should be changed. So, again, "faulty generalization" is just a baseless pretext.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References
References

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.

Undue weight given to anti-HRW views

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

The article currently reads:

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

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

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

There are several issues here:

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

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

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

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

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

I propose a summary style of the following text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"." Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like", or having a “cult of personality”, while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".

Into this:

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

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

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

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

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

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"." Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like", or having a “cult of personality”, while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Summarize intelligence campaign

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

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

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

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

Into:

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

VR _talk 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Stefka Bulgaria did you get a chance to draft a proposal? If not, I'll go ahead with mine and we can always improve it later.

References
References

Unexplained revert

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

The source in question says

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

I wrote:

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

Stefka reverted it to

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Again I looked at the source, page 73 and the author doesn't say "against the Iranian Armed Forces". So I removed this as per WP:V"[11]

"I took another look at the source and the decision being referred to by Ostovar is that of fighting, so I made that clear. I also gave the quote so others can see that this adheres better to WP:V"[12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason MEK is called a cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reasons some critics call the MEK a cult are varied and wide, including the government in Iran paying substantial amounts of money to characterize the MEK as a cult in the press[13]. See also this RFC. So no, you do not have consensus to add this to the lead of the article. Idealigic (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

References
References

New restriction proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To know him better see this bizarre SPI. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you see this bizarre SPI? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Mhhossein. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What a funny comparison! I could guess you would raise this well evidenced SPI report up. My reports had an interesting feedback; It seems like a fact that pro-MEK socks are always here to support the agenda of MEK. I suggest you put the battleground language aside. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your report was closed for negative findings and the check user told you "fish CheckUser is not for fishing". I have not idea how you construe that as "interesting feedback" or how that backs up your aspersions that there is sockpupettry in this page. Alex-h (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There had been a dozens of sock-puppets pushing pro-MEK POVs and they were discovered (which is not weird given MEK's Propaganda campaign). So, yes, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK (People's Mujahedin)"[14]. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't count "dozens", and it's good that they're blocked, just like it's good that anti-MEK users Expectant of Light and Kazemita1 (editors which you've sided with a lot by the way) were also blocked for suspected sockpupetry. If you have any other suspicions, post your concerns at WP:SPI. Alex-h (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Confused

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mhhossein: have you seen this post by Idealigic?

Here are two points that may be helpful:

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

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

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

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

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

Mhhossein: I wish you'd change your demeanour in these discussions. Despite all of my attempts at getting along with you, you keep on writing these angry and distorting posts. I'll drop whatever stick you want, now why don't you do the same so that we can plan a way of working together. You can comment on Idealigic's suggestion of following Vanamonde's long list of advice that he has given in this talk page. That would be a good start. Alex-h (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks. Stop that immediately please. These so-called "angry and distorting" comments are 'facts' regarding the history of the page which should not be forgotten. YOUR collaborative attempts should be demonstrated via your deeds. Saying good things is very easy. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I did not make any personal attacks against you, and I have also not "attacked" El_C, as you distortedly say. I think El_C is a great admin, and also I'm trying to work with you here, but you just keep making the collaboration process so difficult. Anyways, like I told you in my talk page, please stop throwing accusations around. If you think I have done something wrong, ANI is the place to go. Alex-h (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Baseless revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic principles for working together here

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

About general collaboration -

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

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

About RFCs -

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

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

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

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

About problems in the article we can focus on fixing -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support following this list of advice. I cannot think of why we wouldn't use the advice provided by admins here. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Suppport ALL editors in this talk page seem to want more admin involvement. Here is a lexicon of ways to improve the page and the collaboration from one of the involved admins. It's an obvious support. Barca (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Ypatch (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic are you selectively quoting the admins? For example, you quote this comment from Vanamonde93, but fail to mention where he says In general, scholarly sources are better than media sources in neutral countries, which are better than media sources in countries involved in a geopolitical conflict. But in one of the RfCs Stefka proposed balancing scholarly views against media sources. And among the media sources, he used Arab News - which is controlled by a party to the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. I agree with applying admins' advice, but lets not be selective about it.VR _talk 07:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent Thank you for your comment. I saw your post at RSN, which did not receive consensus for saying that Arab News was unreliable for the MEK article. About that RfC, it did not "proposed balancing scholarly views against media sources", it just provided an additional view from media sources (written by qualified authors) that wasn't covered in scholarly sources, and there's nothing wrong with that. So I agree that we can add this suggestion from Vanamonde to the list. Do you have any other suggestion from Vanamonde that you think should be in the list? Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Besides the fact the fact that some desired comments by admin is being cherry-picked, an important consensus of avoiding super-trim RFCs is ignored. LOL! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein Thank you for your comment. Stefka Bulgaria telling El_C that he wouldn't open RFCs with a wide scope anymore does not mean that there is a restriction or consensus on the article prohibiting such RFCs. As you already know, Vanamonde initially told Stefka Bulgaria that there was nothing stopping him from opening such RFCs, and as both admins have already informed you, putting such a restriction to this article is not enforceable. I think the best thing to do with this is to take RFCs on a case by case basis and opening preliminary pre-RFC discussions like El_C suggested. If you have any other suggestions let me know. Idealigic (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, don't twist the facts please by cherry picking the admin's comments. El_C is clearly against Stefka Bulgaria's super-trim RFCs. I am even going to say that, since this page is under WP:Consensus Required resctriction, ultra large RFCs should not be misused as a "shortcut" to reach your goals. So, be it Stefka Bulgaria or others, pure discussion (without "railroading") should be adopted as the only tool for building consensus in this TP. The very fact that you tried 1st) taking me to the ANI, 2nd) reporting me at the SPI, 3rd) attacking El_C and have now adopted another strategy–just after I tried to propose a new restriction– is very meaningful. I hope it would led to betterment of the page. After all, in your bullet points you said nothing regarding the problems behind these trimmings. Stability is the most important thing which is required here.

But if you need to know which is the best framework here, I tell You stability should be the most important criteria, as El_C said and I agreed with him. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein Thank you for your comment. We'll add "Stability" as another criteria (although this is a hazy term, but we could just ask El_C when we need a clearer explanation). If you have any other criteria you'd like to add let us know! Thanks! Idealigic (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good to see that editors are working it out together in this talk page thanks to advice from administrators. Hopefully there won't be so much disagreement in the next RFC. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Quesitonable Potentially Self-Published Sources

For example, " Alireza Jafarzadeh (2008). The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis. St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 205–6. ISBN 978-0230601284" is actually a self-publication of one of the PMOI's affiliates. This article is littered all throughout with giant blocs of non-NPOV text cited to self-published resources or resources that are unavailable for scrutiny when you try to confirm them. I think this article necessitates a template of questionable factual validity and a request for other editors to improve its integrity. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• @BarcrMac: Your baseless revert has removed tags from the paper which were fully explained before your prompt action. What did you mean by "tags need to be discussed"? You need to perform self revert.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The (now banned) editor who added those tags was vague about how the whole of the article suffered from factual inaccuracies.

You then made a revert that looks like a violation of the article's restrictions:

- At 07:02 - 18 January 2021, an IP (216.15.119.215) added a tehrantimes.com source to the article (to say that France is an ally of this organization).

- At 17:02 - 22 January 2021‎, I reverted this edit with claim that Tehrantimes.com is not a good source for that.

- At 12:09 - 23 January 2021, Mhhossein reinstated the edit to the article (without first obtaining consensus for it on the talk page).

- You were informed of the article's restrictions in your talk page, and were previously warned to stop making inappropriate reverts to this article. You need to self revert ASAP. Barca (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Barca: I was not aware of this edit, which shows the removed content was not longstanding. I have no problem with a self-revert via a single click, but, sources like this are still supporting this fact. Right? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Your link is not working. @Vanamonde93: and @El C: did Mhhossein technically violate the restrictions to the article again? shouldn't he self-revert? Barca (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm not seeing consensus for that edit here, so yes, please revert yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted myself, but am going to restore this well sourced fact given the following reliable sources [32], [33], [34]. It's a well established fact that MEK were based in France before relocation to Iraq so it needs to be mentioned in the infobox France had been once an ally of MEK.--Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Barca: I told you I was ready to revert and your act of pinging an admin for such a simple thing is very disgusting. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barca: I am going to restore the content given my explanations and the reliable source supporting it. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:Can you at least say what exactly you want to add to the article? Barca (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Barca: You know it well since it's already discussed in details (why are you asking again?). France should be added to the infobox as the ally of MEK per sources like [35], [36], [37]. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein, if I ask you, it's because it's not clear, so comments about pretending to know what I know are uncivil. You also need to read the sources with more care. Not one of the sources you provided says that France is an ally of the MEK. Having a base in France is not the same as being an ally of France. France–Iran relations are in good standing, so trying to WP:OR France as an ally of the MEK (who are the Islamic Republic's nemesis) can be seen as a serious misjudgement and misuse of Wikipedia. Barca (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-RFC discussion about “Ideology” section

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

Taking this advice from Vanamonde93:

• "First, the article is way too long. 50kb of prose is a good target; 60-70kb is not a disaster; 106kb is indicative of a serious need for pruning and/or spinning off subsidiary articles. Second, it's an organizational nightmare. The ideology section, for instance, has so many overlapping sections ("current" overlaps with "after the revolution", and the three topic-specific sections overlap with each of the earlier ones). The "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception".[38]

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

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

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

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

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

Ideology Before the revolution section

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

---

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

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

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

I think these are the most important authors and historic commentary about MEK's ideology before the revolution. Do I have consensus to make this change? If somebody has a proposed modification please say so, like Vanamonde said - Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no".[39] Idealigic (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course my comments were not "merely pointing to the word count". As El_C said mentioned multiple times – e.g. [40] & [41]– these discussions should not be used as "shortcut[s] for you to get what you want." Removing a lot of longstanding content should be supported by concrete evidences and justifications. El_C asked for opening "pre-RFC" discussions and yours is never serving to be such a thing. Just look at your starting comment– "I think these are the most important authors and historic commentary about MEK's ideology before the revolution". You know we are not going to act based on what 'YOU' think. Also, you said "it helps with the overlapping sections and makes the time periods clear"; What are those "overlapping"s exactly and why? From the other hand, time period should not be misused to remove well sourced topics on the ideology of the MEK, not to mention this sort of organizing based on mere chro-order can be tricky and makes the navigation of content much more difficult for the users. Moreover, I have already asked you "to identify the portions which need to be trimmed– one by one– and then substantiate your proposal by using most credible reliable sources regarding the portion," and you fail to ignore it (why?). As before, I am ready to discuss over the changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Organization of Ideology section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Mojahedin's Ideological Development

2. An Innovative Ideology

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

4. The Mojahedin's Revolutionary Character

5. The Mojahedin's Ideological Content

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

Note to watchers

The quality of the interactions on this page has degraded once again. I want to remind everyone, particularly those of you in the section immediately above, that personal commentary here is not acceptable. Comments need to be strictly about content; commentary about users needs to go to the appropriate admin noticeboard, or user talk, or to be left out altogether. I will sanction further ad hominem commentary on this talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring again

Dear @Vanamonde93: This looks like more edit warring in the article:

- At 09:26, 2 January 2021, @Ghazaalch: added this text to the article.

- At 19:00, 2 January 2021, @Idealigic: reverted this edit with the claim that the text is "not relevant to today's MEK or to the lead".

- At 08:38, 6 February 2021, Ghazaalch reinstated the edit to the article (without consensus).

Barca (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• There was no objection to my last comment here [42] so I thought it was kind of consensus. In any case I reverted my edit. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ghazaalch, please obtain consensus here before reinstating contentious content in the future; Barca, did you ask Ghazaalch about their reinstatement before bringing me in? And did you check that they knew about the page-level sanctions? Unnecessary escalation isn't a good way of signalling a collaborative intent. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I will. I did not know on what condition a consensus is obtained. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: You need to build consensus before adding new things or removing longstanding contents. If you think this change should be reinstated, open a topic and try to substantiate your change build consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought the big banner at the top of this talk page was enough for them to know about this, but I have also let them know now in their talk page. Thank you. Barca (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What is the use of opening topics when people avoid talking/reaching consensus? I have already opened two topics here and here.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: Then you should see if you have substantiated your proposed change. If you think this is the case, you can kindly ask Vanamonde93 to assess the consensus in that discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I will. Thank you. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)