Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

RFC, 21 September 2022

Should the following sentence be removed from the article?

"During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization"

Yes or Nay? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

References

*Comment The author for this statement, Masoud Banisadr, is an ex member of the MEK who has published very little and only about detracting the MEK. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This comment is irrelevant, you just start your RfC, don't post such a comment to sway the vote towards an outcome you prefer.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC The RfC title fails WP:RFCBRIEF. In particular, the RfC is supposed to be neutral, and the title is not. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: @Wikaviani: great to finally see some new editors participating here, and do appreciate the feedback. Since you’re both uninvolved editors here, the issue with this statement is that it’s coming from an affiliated author. The point of the RFC is to determine whether this would be good enough for the given claim. How would either of you frame the RFC in a more neutral or acceptable way but still making the issue clear to others who may not know the author is affiliated to the subject? or maybe this shouldn't be mentioned in the proposal? Thanks. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would not have formulated the sentence in this way, it should present the problem in a neutral way, and to say that Bani Sadr is against the MEK isn't.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RFC obviously - both the RFC title and introduction are meant to be neutral. The title here is not, and the comment posted immediately after the question also violates the spirits of this. The whole point of seeking wider community support is to received neutral editorial input unfettered by involved opinions. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, you pay no heed to others points and start new RFCs instead. I told you in the above section that the sentence you want to delete is not only Masoud Banisadr's point of view. Masoud Banisadr is quoting MeK themselves as saying this: If one accepts the ideology, strategy and … principles of an organisation, then he or she should accept the structure of that organisation as well. Undisciplined action by a person is a sign of giving priority to personal interest over organisational interest. While Ironic Discipline is a sign of the deep dissolution of individuality of a person within the organisation and it is a sign of his total understanding of the organisation’s ideology. (MEK 1980c: 31)

MEK 1980c. An Examination of the Possibilities of the Deviation of Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific Doubt and Unscientific Doubt within the Organisation. MEK Publication.

Moreover I proposed replacing the text you want to delete with a similar text from another source. This one: "Rajavi launched what he called an ideological revolution in 1985, which over time imbued the MEK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, and sexual control (including forced divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options." Because the cultic characteristics mentioned in this alternative text simply means ...surrender their individuality to the organization(the text you want to delete)

I also proposed replacing the text you want to delete with a similar text from Cohen: When Rajavi set his ideological revolution, MeK members were required to sacrifice their lives in the name of the organization's goals and become "living martyrs". Each member was required to write a daily report about his or her daily activities and thoughts. Rajavi threatened to expose the reports to the world's media, as well as to other members and friends of any person who voluntarily resigned from the organization. The information recorded in the reports could also be used to apply emotional blackmail to members who were not obedient or who demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the organization. Again the second part of this alternative text means ...surrender their individuality to the organization(the text you want to delete)

Even if the text you want to remove is not the same as the ones I suggested, we can still replace it with one of them. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Some comments above have discussed the neutrality of the section heading, which was "RFC: Using source by affiliated person for controversial content". I've changed it to the more neutral "RFC". FYI, section headings are not copied over to the central RfC listings, and anyone following the link doesn't usually see them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Commment. Thank you User:Firefangledfeathers for fixing the RFC's title. @Andrevan: and @Redrose64: since you are both uninvolved and have a wealth of experience with RFCs, could you please advice chime in with a comment about whether this RFC is ok to continue, or should I shut this one down and start a new one? Thank you, both. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Not one of the people you pinged, but I would start over. If you can write a properly neutral RfC, this discussion becomes a distraction. As proposer, you have the right to withdraw the RfC at any time, and this discussion is a terrific reason to do so. Basically, anything that is an argument for or against should not be a part of the RfC title or statement. You are of course welcome to mention such arguments in the survey and discussion. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• RFC WITHDRAWN. I am withdrawing this RFC per comments by others. I will be starting a new one based on the advice given. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

1988 executions section - disputed accuracy

Statements from Amnesty International and other advocacy groups are currently inappropriately being presented as fact in this section, affecting its overall accuracy. I have tried to clean this up and attribute the obvious quotations and claims appropriately, but have been repeatedly reverted. It remains flawed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In particular that Amnesty claim that the executions were "extrajudicial", despite the involvement of the judiciary, is an extraordinary one and very much does fall under WP:ECREE. The only current sources for this are Amnesty and Radio Farda, a US government-funded service. As noted, the claim is inherently illogical, since in Iran the supreme leader is the head of the judiciary, so any orders or directives stemming from the supreme leader, as in the case of the 1988 executions, which were set in motion by a fatwa from the supreme leader, are quintessentially judicial. This has been raised in the talk page of 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Your recent edit introduced some useful sources with quotes that provided novel information about both the letter sent to the judiciary and estimates for the numbers of deaths. Thank you for those additions. As you will see, I have not removed any of these sources, but I have redistributed them to cite the statements that they each best support. (As it stood, there were six clustered sources, against WP:OVERCITE, so it couldn't stay like that.) The entire second paragraph now explores the political nature of the executions, as you have been calling for. Please have a good read. It would be good to find some common ground on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, you haven’t shown how there are accuracy problems in that section, so I’m removing the accuracy tag you added. Also, we don’t seem to agree how this section should be organized, so I’m restoring the original [1] version.

Let’s now discuss how the section should be organized, starting with the top paragraph.

In order to eliminate potential political oppositions, the Islamic Republic started coordinated extrajudicial killings in Iran. Under International law, the killings were considered a "crime against humanity". The executions were carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government. These executions were carried out after Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the MEK desiring to gather Iranian opposition, overthrow the Islamic Republic, and capture Kermanshah, Ayatollah Khomeini used the failed invasion as a "pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK members" along with many other individuals from other leftist opposition groups. In a 1988 audio recording of an official meeting, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK's armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which "had been under consideration for several years".

Do you agree with this as the top paragraph? Once we can agree with the first paragraph, we can move on to the second paragraph, and then the rest of the section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No. As I've noted over and over again, your proposed first sentence is dysfunctional. A) It's basically just a copyright violation of the Amnesty International report, which should be attributed in-text, not plagiarized without acknowledgement. B) It's terrible English - why use a subjugated clause when you could just write a normal sentence? C) It flows on terribly from the previous section, which is about Operation Mersad. Hence, the stable version starts: "Following Operation Mersad..." Page sections do not exist in isolation. And D) It presents a muddled ordering of ideas. The stimulus for the executions was Operation Mersad, which provided the Iranian regime with the political excuse it needed to brand the MEK as traitors and carry out the executions. The regime may have wanted to do this for years, but, quite evidently, it did not do so. Clearly therefore, and as presented in reliable sources, it is the events of Operation Mersad and the the MEK's role in it that acted as the stimulus and prime mover of these events. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We can attribute and reword Amnesty if you want, but the content is not "dysfunctional" in the least. I don't question what the article says about Khomeini using the MEK's invasion as a pretext for carrying out the killings, but I also don't question what the article says that there was a bigger scheme behind it all (many of those killed didn’t even participate in Operation Merad or do anything wrong, some weren’t even related to the MEK). Also over and over describing your edits as the "stable version" won’t make it true. The stable version is what is in the article right now. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff: The stable version is the version before I or anyone else played around with it. It is certainly not the version you have created, and if you think that you can project that image over the content simply by saying it enough times, you clearly fail to understand how evident all of this is in the editing history. You have numerous times now cried out 'stable version' while pushing your own point of view, and you should stop. The revisionism will fool no one. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Never "cried out", but yes, I had made a mistake about which version what the correct stable version. The one in the article now seems to be the correct one. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC, 24 September 2022

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.

Ok, so for most closes, I don't worry too much if my admin hat is necessarily on or not. But due to this article being under Discretionary sanctions (DS), I'll confirm, that I'm wearing my admin hat, but also that I'm not adding any additional DS. Though I am deferring to the existing notice in the DS banner in this close.

I also read several discussions and followup proposals/RFCs concerning this. (And archived several on this page.)

The result of the discussion is Remove the text - the consensus of the discussion is that it does not provide enough context on its own. And none of the various proposed clarifying text/context had consensus.

This text is therefore considered "challenged" as per the DS banner at the top of this talk page (The bolded section starting with "Consensus required...").

So per that, do not re-add this text without clear consensus on this talk page, and without adding the clarifying text/context as deemed necessary by this (and/or future) consensus.

I will implement this close by removing the text myself. - jc37 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the following sentence be removed from the article?

"During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization"

Yes or No? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey, 24 September 2022

• Yes, this sentence should be removed because it is cherrypicked without providing any context, and also because the author is affiliated with the topic. In a previous RFC other editors also said that the source "had a conflict of interest problem", and that it was "unencyclopedic" to use a conflicted source when there are "a lot of neutral and reliable scholarly sources about the MEK". The editor closing that RFC said "The discussion of the source has established that it isn't unreliable, but neither is it on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person." Then some of us attempted to replace this sentence with content from other sources, but there are disagreements about what that content should be or where it should go. What has become clear from that RFC and another discussion here is that the author is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person, so it should be removed. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Remove sentence Summoned by bot. Without more context, this is not an objective, observable fact. Provide the context about what they actually did that supports that description of it. Chris vLS (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: I provided the sentence without context with some context. The bold part is the new added context. Is it OK now or I should add more context?

• 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".

• According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Massoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war. Rajavi did not distinguish between veterans and new members in terms of status, but promoted individuals according to their blind obedience. It was at this time that the Mojahedin's organizational structure changed. Since members could no longer prove themselves via traditional means such as fighting the regime or by simply identifying with the organization’s history and ideology. According to Banisadr, during this phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization. This ideological revolution over time imbued the MEK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, and sexual control (including forced divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options.

Ghazaalch (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Remove sentence. @Chrisvls: and @Fad Ariff: have it right that this a sentence taken out of context. I would also echo that the author is not at the same level as other unaffiliated authors. As the discussion section below is showing, there are differences of opinions about which sources, and what content from those sources, should be used to replace this sentence (or contextualize such claims). But that's a separate discussion. Remove this sentence for now (and replace it only if a proposal for replacing it receives consensus). Alex-h (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Alex-h: As you have noted, there already has been an old RFC that this sentence survived. This repeat RFC was started needlessly after the OP abandoned the discussion on replacement content. Like many RFCs on this page, it has been impetulantly drawn up and circumvents real discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said before the sentence in question is not only Masoud Banisadr's point of view. Masoud Banisadr is quoting MeK themselves as saying this: If one accepts the ideology, strategy and … principles of an organisation, then he or she should accept the structure of that organisation as well. Undisciplined action by a person is a sign of giving priority to personal interest over organisational interest. While Ironic Discipline is a sign of the deep dissolution of individuality of a person within the organisation and it is a sign of his total understanding of the organisation’s ideology. (MEK 1980c: 31)

MEK 1980c. An Examination of the Possibilities of the Deviation of Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific Doubt and Unscientific Doubt within the Organisation. MEK Publication.

Ghazaalch (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: As noted above, the academic source simply echoes the MEK's primary literature on service and self-sacrifice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: As Vice regent noted before, those who vote in this page might not read RfCs carefully before voting and seem to vote along WP:BATTLEGROUND lines. We should be hoping that the admins reviewing these RFCs do not simply count the votes. And I encourage them to read BATTLEGROUND RfCs however. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, remove. There is an overarching view that the author is problematic and that the claim is controversial. Claims of this nature would also require some kind of rational context (and I don't see any of the proposals below providing such context). Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Iraniangal777 and Alex-h: What's wrong with the context I provided above? (see the bold parts of the above proposal) Ghazaalch (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Others have already asked that you keep the discussions about proposals for new content in the section below. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

All of you are talking about the context in this section but expect me to move my question about this talk to another section? first @Chrisvls voted and said Without more context... Provide the context about what they actually did that supports that description of it. Then I provided the context and pinged the voter but they didn't give me an answer. Then @Alex voted and said @Chrisvls: and @Fad Ariff: have it right that this a sentence taken out of context with no heed to the context I provided. Then you wrote Claims of this nature would also require some kind of rational context (and I don't see any of the proposals below providing such context) Then I wanted to know if you saw the context I provided above and if yes what is wrong with it? why don't you talk about it?Ghazaalch (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion, 24 September 2022

• Comment: if this is removed and other editors think it should be replaced with new content, then I suggest something like this: According to Ronen Cohen, in 1985 Massoud Rajavi set out his ideological revolution claiming that the goal was to get people to praise him as "ideological revolutionist" while despising Khomeini and the values he represented. This would create within the MEK a desire for sacrifice, resulting in the deposing of the Islamic Republic. According to Abrahamian, Rajavi’s methods were criticized by some while praised by others. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Chrisvls: A good example of the material supporting this text was provided above in the abortive prior rendition of this RFC: When Rajavi set his ideological revolution, MeK members were required to sacrifice their lives in the name of the organization's goals and become "living martyrs". Each member was required to write a daily report about his or her daily activities and thoughts. Rajavi threatened to expose the reports to the world's media, as well as to other members and friends of any person who voluntarily resigned from the organization. The information recorded in the reports could also be used to apply emotional blackmail to members who were not obedient or who demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the organization.

Iskandar323, the problem with your proposal is that it's not neutral because (like the debated sentence in the RFC) it cherrypicks certain parts of the content that the author said. For example, I used the same author (Ronen Cohen) in my proposal, and the claims there are much more NPOV. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What rhetorical nonsense: neither is more cherrypicking than the other. But your extract is unrelated to individuality. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not at all "rhetorical nonsense". The extract is talking about what happened during the ideological revolution, and there are a variety of sources available for information about the ideological revolution. Why only pick certain lines from certain authors? For example, why not replace it with content by Ervand Abrahamian?

"In the months subsequent to the ideological revolution, the paper Mojahed published a ream of letters, speeches, poems and songs in praise of Masud Rajavi. For example, Mehdi Abrishamchi, in a four-hour speech, reiterated Rajavi’s feats, and argued that 'Masud spoke on behalf of all Mojaheds, both living and dead.' He described him as both 'great leader-thinker' and the 'Masud of his age for every age should have its Masud.'... He also credited him for having forged the ideological revolution: ‘the key that would unlock the door to the new Iranian revolution.’ He thanked him profusely for having hurled the organization into a ‘2000 degree furnace’ so that it would come out like high-grade steel. He stressed that those who could not understand the new ideological revolution should henceforth leave. He further thanked Rajavi for making the marriage ‘sacrifice’ to initiate the ideological revolution; for bearing the burden of leadership during the last fourteen years... 'Masud', he proclaimed, 'is to the Mojahedin what Marx was for Marxism and Lenin for Leninism.' He also praised Maryam Azodanlu for being both ‘the living symbol of revolutionary womanhood', and the person 'most capable of grasping the subtleties of Masud’s ideological thought.'... In another speech, Mehdi Abrishamchi confessed that if it had not been for Rajavi’s steadfastness in 1975-6 he would have lost faith in the revolution and would have succumbed to the 'right-wing defeatists.'... Similarly Abu Zarr Varadasbi, one of the few intellectuals still associated with the Mojahedin, thanked Rajavi for giving Iranians the hope that the Khomeini regime would soon be overthrown..."

For the record, I don't propose we replace it with this (since it would be similar to just using sentences that are out of context). But I do propose that we consider the big picture (context) and different assessments through a variety of supporting sources. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The line in question, from a section about the MEK's cult-like characteristics, is about the loss of individuality. I would not mind contextualizing it more, but, to date, the OP has resisted all attempt to add information providing more context, even from the most reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie. I started this section with a proposal of my own. Just because I don't agree with your proposal doesn't me that you have to resort to making aspersions. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Forget aspersions, calling anything another editor says a "lie" is a blatant personal attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction: what I mean is that what you're saying about me is blatantly and obviously false. Many times I have offered compromises, but you have not accepted them, which is why we have a RFC now. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question is a controversial sentence and if we are going to replace it with another one, we should bear in mind that the new one should be:

1. Most similar to the old one
2. be related to the section "cult of personality"
3. and be in context.

Ghazaalch (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323, per your comment to Chrisvls in the above section, here is a full book about "the MEK's primary literature on service and self-sacrifice" that we can also use (it has a lot of primary information). Whatever we add in the end, it should be in context (like several editors have said already). The current sentence in the article is really bad for that exact reason. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, FYI, Iskandar is not saying that we use the primary source alone, they say: "there are both a primary and secondary source from this from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, making it far from clear that affiliation or bias even feed into this. As was pointed out in the old RFC, this publication of Banisadr is also not a one-off: his work has been published at least twice in separate peer-reviewed publications. He should be attributed in-text though."

So what is your answer to this? Ghazaalch (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch and @Iskandar323: I’m also not saying that we should use primary sources alone. Both of you suggested that we use primary sources, so what I’m saying is that there are other primary sources besides the ones you’ve chosen. Also please be mindful of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process in the "Survey" section (which is mainly reserved for survey). If you have something to ssay about if and how that sentence should be replaced (or opinions about anything else), this section ("Discussion, 24 September 2022") is intended for that. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: What I've said is that we have both primary and secondary sources supporting this statement about individuality within the MEK as an organization, both from an MEK perspective, and (according to you) an anti-MEK perspective, so there is consistency regardless of the source. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch and @Iskandar323: the problem with your proposals is that they cherrypick some material and leave out other material (the other material that it leaves out is important for context). Why don't you want other material that explains some of this content to be added? For me it really doesn't matter that it's "anti-MEK" (or the opposite), but some kind of objectivity (or context) is required, and we are very far from that at this stage. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I haven't seen an indication that you are interested in adding "context" in your suggestions so far: your suggested replacement text whitewashes the ideology by waving away all of the clearly problematic aspects of the organization's thinking as simply "a desire for sacrifice". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Denial of charges

@Ghazaalch: why did you remove[2] "The MEK denied the charges, with a representative responding that the charges were "politically motivated" and a "gift" to the Iranian government."? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It is undue weight to MEK denials.

@Ghazaalch: the information about the charges, and the information about the denial of the charges, is all extracted from the same source, so your "undue weight" claim doesn’t make any sense. The article should either show Judge Mohammed Abdul-Sahib’s accusations and Mahdi Uqbaai’s response, or not mention either one (both statements are equally due or undue). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: it really doesn't help to make a lot of changes in one edit. I would support adding the MEK's denial, though simply shortening it to "the MEK denied the charges". Also, I would support keeping the name of the court, Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, and not simply calling it "an Iraqi court", which is vague.VR _talk 01:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I added the shorted denial. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and @Vice regent: You are using around 34 words to describe the details of the accusations, and using about 5 words to describe the details surrounding the denial of accusations. How is that WP:NPOV? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: that's sort of how the English language works. If I say, "the police accused X of this, this, and these charges, while X denied the charges," I am necessarily going to give more space to the charges. Now I could say "X denied this, this and these charges, which the police made against him." This way the denial has more space. But its awkward wording because the charges were made first, so they should be covered first, before we mention the denial.VR _talk 17:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and @Vice regent: you're both avoiding the question which was about NPOV distribution of content. Covering this information as "In July 2010, an Iraqi court issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, accusing them for crimes against on Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds. The MEK denied the charges, with a representative responding that the charges were "politically motivated" and a "gift" to the Iranian government" would conform to "how the English language works" while having a similar amount of details about the accusations and the denials. If you then want to add more details about the accusations, then we can also add more details about the denial (which there is). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not giving the same weight to the accusations and denials. When the sources give more words/weight to the accusations, we should do the same, and it is not against WP:NPOV?Ghazaalch (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: what I proposed is indeed giving more weight to the accusations, so I’m restoring this content. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I'm really not seeing your NPOV objections here. The Reuters source gives significantly more weight to the court's statements than the MEK's response. It does that by devoting it 5 paragraphs vs 1 for the MEK's statement and the MEK's statement is covered at the bottom of the article, vs the court's charges are at the top.

You are trying to include every statement the MEK has made about everything, which is one of the main reasons why this article is so large and unreadable. This is contrary to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:PARAPHRASE.VR _talk 22:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: what you are saying about the source is not accurate (most of what you call "paragraphs" are really one or two sentences, and there is more to the denials of the accusations that I haven't added to the article like "Mahdi Uqbaai, a spokesman of the PMOI, said the court was pressured by the government to order the arrests."). The MEK didn't just deny the charges, it said the accusations were politically motivated. Explaining the incident in that context (rather than cherry picking parts) is what WP:NPOV is for. Even with adding this, the denials are considerably shorter than the accusations. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ghazaalch, you cannot revert consensus building without a proper argument. Restoring the denial of the charges per WP:NPOV. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

When some people are against the additions, it shows the consensus is not built yet.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Unexplained reverts

@Ghazaalch: why did you revert these edits and why did you change the name of the group from "People's Mojahedin" to "People's Mujahedin"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to an old version and explained Restoring content to the original stable version until we can agree on how the article can be organized. Concerning the word "Mujahedin", you have my agreement to change it into "Mojahedin". Ghazaalch (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes you reverted to an old version, but you did not give any explanation why. If you disagreed with those edits pls explain why. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My explanation is that we should agree on new changes before implementing them into the article. So explain them one by one in the talk page so that we could discuss them. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

But which new changes are you disagreeing with exactly? or did you just revert the whole thing without looking at what changes were made to the article? For example, why did you change "On February 1972, "four guerrillas" were sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnap attempt" back to "On 9 February 1979, four assailants were sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of terrorism and sixteen others received confinements up to ten years."? Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you explain in your edit summary why you changed "On 9 February 1979, four assailants were sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of terrorism and sixteen others received confinements up to ten years." to "On February 1972, "four guerrillas" were sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnap attempt"? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: I didn't provide an edit summary for that edit. Is that the reason why you reverted it? Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you change "On 9 February 1979, four assailants were sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of terrorism and sixteen others received confinements up to ten years." to "On February 1972, "four guerrillas" were sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnap attempt"?

Ghazaalch: because that is what it's in the source. Will you now explain why you reverted the edit? Iraniangal777 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You mean "On 9 February 1979, four assailants were sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of terrorism and sixteen others received confinements up to ten years." is not in the source? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: The first source doesn’t even mention the MEK:"Fourteen months later, on Febryary 9, 1972, Iranian military authorities sentenced four guerrillas to life in impsonment for the attempted kinapping and other acts of terrorism"

The second source just mentions that The MKO also tried to kidnap U.S. Ambassador Douglas MacArthur III in Tehran."

So why did you revert the edit?Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You mean that the first source is not talking about MeK? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: I already replied to your question. Now please explain why you reverted the edit. Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

If the first source is not talking about MeK and the second source just mention that MeK tried to kidnap U.S. Ambassador, then where did you bring the "four guerrillas" from? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: I already addressed that. Now please explain your revert. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You didn't address that. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: I already explained to you what's in the sources (The first source says:"Fourteen months later, on Febryary 9, 1972, Iranian military authorities sentenced four guerrillas to life in impsonment for the attempted kidnapping and other acts of terrorism"). That's where "four guerrillas" was taken from, so that has been addressed. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: please explain why you reverted. Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought you understood by now. Because that is what it's in the source.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: if the source says "February 9, 1972", and what you reinstated to the article says "9 February 1979", then what you reinstated is not supported by the source. Also the source doesn’t even mention the MEK, just says "four guerrillas", which is why I had made that distinction in the article. And also looking at the rest of your revert, why did you reinstate a version of the section "1988 execution of MEK prisoners" that had been previously reverted? Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The year 1972 and the revert to the unstable version of the section was a mistake and could be corrected. What is disputed here is the other parts of the source that you omitted. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: that's already several mistakes you made in your revert. If the source says "four guerrillas", then why do you dispute having that in the article? Also why did you revert the "1980s to 2004" title to "1980s"? And why did you revert "aside from the Kurdish Democratic party, few significant groups joined. This derived from the MEK's ideology of establishing an Islamic Democratic People's Republic, which secular forces of the anti-Soviet left did no think was attainable"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's discuss the issues one by one. We were talking about "Fourteen months later, on February 9, 1972, Iranian military authorities sentenced four guerrillas to life in imprisonment for the attempted kidnapping and other acts of terrorism" and you did not explain why you omitted acts of terrorism from it.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If keeping "acts of terrorism" was your only issue with that, then all you had to do was restore that to the article instead of reverting all the edits and making all the mistakes that you made. I've now fully quoted the author with "sentenced four guerrillas to life in imprisonment for the attempted kidnapping and other acts of terrorism". So now explain your revert: "1980s to 2004" title to "1980s"? And why did you revert "aside from the Kurdish Democratic party, few significant groups joined. This derived from the MEK's ideology of establishing an Islamic Democratic People's Republic, which secular forces of the anti-Soviet left did no think was attainable"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

keeping "acts of terrorism" was not the only issue with your edits, but we were going to discuss them one by one. Now explain why you removed the "acts of terrorism". Ghazaalch (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I restored "acts of terrorism" to the article on my last edit, so that content is no longer disputed. What is in dispute is your other edits, so explain your revert: "1980s to 2004" title to "1980s"? And why did you revert "aside from the Kurdish Democratic party, few significant groups joined. This derived from the MEK's ideology of establishing an Islamic Democratic People's Republic, which secular forces of the anti-Soviet left did no think was attainable"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You just restored "acts of terrorism" but didn't explain why you omitted it first, not even in the edit summary. Was it a mistake or you didn't like it? What about In August 1971, the Shah's security services arrested 69 members of the MEK, with additional arrests and executions following in 1972 that "practically shattered the organization". Further infighting within the organization followed, with a breakaway group highjacking the MEK name and identity.?Ghazaalch (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I had removed "acts of terrorism" because that had nothing to do with MacArthur or the MEK, and had removed the second content you quoted because the Schism within the MEK is already described in the section "Schism (1971–1978)". Since those two edits are not in dispute, then please stop diverting and answer why you reverted "1980s to 2004" title to "1980s" and why you reverted "aside from the Kurdish Democratic party, few significant groups joined. This derived from the MEK's ideology of establishing an Islamic Democratic People's Republic, which secular forces of the anti-Soviet left did no think was attainable". If you don't respond I will restore this content to the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you quote the page 178 of "The Encyclopedia of Kidnappings" to see who the source is talking about other than MEk? Could you also quote the part in the section "Schism (1971–1978)" where In August 1971, the Shah's security services arrested 69 members of the MEK, with additional arrests and executions following in 1972 that "practically shattered the organization". Further infighting within the organization followed, with a breakaway group highjacking the MEK name and identity is repeated?

As for the subtitles of the section "Membership" I think the long standing version is better organized unless you could convince me the new titles are much better. And aside from the Kurdish Democratic party, few significant groups joined. This derived from the MEK's ideology of establishing an Islamic Democratic People's Republic, which secular forces of the anti-Soviet left did no think was attainable is kind of unnecessary expanding of an already long article. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Increasing a sentence by some 10 words to fix information about why few other groups joined the PMOI at the time is hardly a problem, so that has my consensus. About the Douglas MacArthur kidnap attempt, many reliable sources mention that there were different suspects, so you can’t pick and choose which suspects are named and which ones aren’t, that is POV pushing (so I'm also giving consensus for that information). About the sentencing and suspects, the source names "gunmen" or "four guerrillas", not the PMOI, so the way you (Ghazaalch) had worded it made it look like the source was talking about the PMOI (but it's not) so I’m removing that too. NMasiha (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the same opinion with NMasiha here. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This is getting difficult to follow, so will separate each question. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, about the making a distinction on the membership section (1980s to 2004), that's when the MEK moved from Iraq to Europe. Their structure seems to have changed during this move, and that's how sources portray it. Why do you oppose making this distinction? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

2nd part

Content in question: "In August 1971, the Shah's security services arrested 69 members of the MEK, with additional arrests and executions following in 1972 that "practically shattered the organization". Further infighting within the organization followed, with a breakaway group highjacking the MEK name and identity"

Ghazaalch, If you want to add the Shah’s arrest of MEK members, then that's ok with me (it should be placed before the 1973 events since that took place before 1973), but the rest about the infighting within the organization with a breakaway group highjacking the MEK name is information that's already in the Schism section ("By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle". Members who did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK.[100] This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. They appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy". This led to two rival Mojahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities" etc.) Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no repetition.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch The infighting within the MEK is in the article, and also is the new group highjacking the MEK name and identity. Exactly what new information is that sentence providing? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Again I see no repetition. The second text relates details that we cannot get from the first one. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch which "details" is the second text providing that isn't provided already in the first text (or in that section)? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle". Members who did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK.[100] This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. They appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy". This led to two rival Mojahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities"Ghazaalch (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch I don’t get what you’re saying. What is the difference between the text you quoted and "Further infighting within the organization followed, with a breakaway group highjacking the MEK name and identity"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The second text relates details that we cannot get from the first one.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

3rd part

Ghazaalch, you deleted the "source needed" code for the content "Al Jazeera reported on an alleged Twitter-based MEK campaign. According to Exeter University lecturer Marc Owen Jones, accounts tweeting #FreeIran and #Iran_Regime_Change "were created within about a four-month window", suggesting bot activity". Why? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It has a source.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch can you please quote the part of the source that supports the information in the article? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the source. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

4th part

Ghazaalch, you deleted "A statement by MEK representatives said that the attacks were a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base where several people had been killed and wounded." Why? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is already too long. We are not going to make it longer with unnecessary denials and apologias.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch if length is the problem, that can be solved by rephrasing using less words. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We can add the MEK's response and reduce the word count by about half if we change the way it is written, to something like

In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10 Iranian embassies using different weapons, taking hostages, and injuring Iranian ambassadors and embassy employees. According to MEK representatives, the attacks were a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base where several people had been killed and wounded.

I'm open to other proposals, but removing this information because of "length" is not justified. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Balanced paraphrasing / summary of main points is a simple solution, and I would support Fad Ariff's proposal.Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: this is yet another one of your comments that doesn't make any sense. By removing all of the denials, you are giving all the weight to the accusations, and zero weight to the denials. I will restore this based on WP:NPOV. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, by default we know that MEK deny any bad thing done by the group or has a justification for it. We cannot fill the already long article with denials and justifications and apologetics given by the militant group. If we include them we should also include the justifications given by Iran which makes the article even longer. And we don't want that. So I restore the longstanding version. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I proposed a way to shorten the text amount for this information, but you only want to keep the accusations and remove any other content that says anything different. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think length is a problem as has been mentioned many times before. We should seriously consider creating several spin-off articles.VR _talk 01:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: We should, but no simple improvements appear to be simple on this page. E.g.: The material of the entire People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#1988 execution of MEK prisoners section was copied to 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, but subsequent editing to usefully summarize the material on this page encountered resistance. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Length is not a "problem" for adding another version of events if one uses paraphrasing. My proposal in talk reduced the length, which Iraniangal777 supported. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I do support Fad Ariff's proposal, and since that's the only proposal on the table, I have implemented the change. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

VR and I do not support. If you take a look at the rest of the article, Zarif(sarif) said that the attack or the bombing was in revenge for another Mojahedin attack, which should be added to the article too, but since we don't want this article to be too long, we will delete both.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

5th part

Ghazaalch, you deleted In 2011, Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaei and Jafar Kazemi were also executed by the Iranian government for co-operating with the MEK, despite Hillary Clinton urging Iranian authorities to release the two activists. Why? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You should explain why you should add such unimportant details to an already long article and why you should delete an important detail like a joint military invasion of Iranian Kurdistan by Iraqi forces and 7,000 MEK militants aimed at capturing Kermanshah from the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I added that. It shows how the Iranian government kills people in Iran for cooperating with the MEK (and the international reaction by Clinton), something which is not in the article. Why are you opposed to having this in the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

See edit summary.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I did read it but don't undestand how this information is an "UNDUE WEIGHT" addition [3] ? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

UNDUE weight refer to the content that discuss one aspect of the article in too much detail. This is especially true if the article focuses on an unimportant aspect of the topic while ignoring items of importance.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch I also don't get what you're saying here. The information gives basic details about something that has received international reporting and isn’t mentioned in the article. This isn't UNDUE weight at all. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: like most of your edits here, your response doesn't make any sense. Please address or this material will be restored to the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, you still have not explained how this content is UNDUE. For this reason, I have implemented the change. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As I quoted above UNDUE is especially true if the article focuses on an unimportant aspect of the topic while ignoring items of importance Fad Ariff you deleted an important content like a joint military invasion of Iranian Kurdistan by Iraqi forces and 7,000 MEK militants aimed at capturing Kermanshah, but you are insisting on restoring this unimportant content. Also NMasiha deleted an important content like In 1970 and 1971, MeK "assassinated five U.S. military technicians seconded to the Iranian military" that you kept silent about it. Why?Ghazaalch (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

6th part

Ghazaalch, you deleted For some Iranians, the marriage institution was being used as a means to challenge "unjust organization orders" at the time in Iran. For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages. Why? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Iraniangal777, You added For some Iranians, the marriage institution was being used as a means to challenge "unjust organization orders" at the time in Iran. For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages. Why? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I added that, and added it because it gives context to the events surrounding the MEK's ideological revolution. It explains how the marriage between the Rajavis became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages in Iran. Why are you opposed to having this in the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

See edit summary.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless we have multiple sources for this, this has some weight issues. It also seems confused: I have not seen Rajavi's first marriage called 'forced'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and @Iskandar323: please explain why this information is undue weight. Most of the information in that section is taken from only one source (Abrahamian 1989), so whatever logic you are trying to use here needs to work for other sources too per WP:NPOV. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You know that Abrahamian is an established subject matter expert and that there is no comparison to be made. Aside from the lack of supporting information from the source provided (it is a brief and unexplained statement), it is from an associate professor without tenure and the published work has not even been academically reviewed. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: The book "Women and the Islamic Republic: How Gendered Citizenship Conditions the Iranian State" is peer reviewed (published by Cambridge University Press) and is from 2022, making it even a better source than a book from 1989. The source is reliable, so that won’t work as a reason to exclude this content. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a book, not a journal, so no, it's not peer-reviewed. It is just published by Cambridge University Press. In any case, reliability was not the question; the question was weight. Additionally, the entire phrase "became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages" was identical to the source, and so a copyright violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: It's a published book just like the book by Abrahamian. But if you're saying the question is about weight, how do you explain having 330 words from Abrahamian’s book in that section, and not allowing 41 words from a different book there? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Almost everything stood up by Abrahamian can be also be stood up by other sources, such as Katzman. Is the same true here? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: if "Almost everything stood up by Abrahamian can be also be stood up by other sources", then provide those other sources. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I'm still waiting for the other sources you said supported Abrahamian's material. If you fail to provide them, I will revert this edit. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about material supported by Abrahamian, so the two comments above are simply nonsensical. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:you said that keeping the material by Abrahamian was ok because "Almost everything stood up by Abrahamian can be also be stood up by other sources", and then said that the material by the new source was not ok because other sources didn’t support it. So if other sources also don’t support Abrahamian’s claims, they should also be removed (per your own logic!). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to challenge some material by Abrahamian, that is a separate discussion, and you would need to point to a specific statement. What I was pointing to was the lack of multiple sources supporting this statement from someone not established as a subject-matter expert. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, the material by Abrahamian is about the same thing that Shirin Saeidi is talking about. Both sources are reliable, and both sources discuss the same topic. Since your objection to Saeidi is that its content is not backed by other sources, then it's only fair to use the same objection to also exclude the material by Abrahamian. So I'm challenging the material by Abrahamain using your own objection against Saeidi. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Regardless of other considerations, there is little comparison to be made between Abrahamian, who is an established expert on the MEK specifically, and Saeidi, who is a gender studies specialist who has simply mentioned the MEK as a brief example. But honestly, if you are all that passionate about including this material, I don't have too much objection to the second statement being included, i.e.: "For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages. - but with a slight twist. At the moment this sentence fails verification. What the source actually says is "for women involved in the organization", and this should not be generalized to all women in Wikivoice - but this can be easily fixed: since the wording already tracks far to close to the source, it would be better quoted directly anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Though this still reads quite weirdly, because nowhere have I actually seen it established that either of the Rajavis was actually in a forced marriage, so ideally a statement of this type should be preceded by a sourced statement explaining this if so. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Iraniangal777: This edit, where you remove stable material from Abrahamian seemingly just to make a point, as your post makes clear, is a poster child for WP:POINT, a recognised form of disruptive editing. I would strongly suggest that you undo that action. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Without speaking to the rest of that edit, I've restored the Abrahamian material, so that's done. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: whatever logic you are trying to use for one source also needs to apply to other sources, but that’s not what you’re doing. If your argument for removing the content by Shirin Saeidii is that it’s WP:UNDUE, then the same argument for removing the content by Abrahamian applies. I would support removing that Abrahamian text on those grounds, or including something that includes more than a single POV, like this

For some Iranians, the marriage institution was being used as a means to challenge "unjust organization orders" at the time in Iran. For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate the ideological revolution. This was signified as an "act of supreme sacrifice designed to promote collective leadership and appeal to the female half of the Iranian populace." According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani's younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization.

Let me know if you have any grounds for rejecting something like this, or you propose something for a change. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The main argument from the start has been that Saeidi is simply a not particularly expert source and one that should ideally be supported with others, nothing else. I'm not going to respond to any of the above ramblings about "logic" - Wikipedia is based on policy and consensus; it's not an amateur logician's playground. The proposed additions from Saeidi's book have very little to do with any POV; they are simply the interpretation of events from a genders studies, rather than historical or political perspective. I've said above what statement I wouldn't mind seeing included. The first statement, of the variant above: "For some Iranians, the marriage institution was being used as a means to challenge "unjust organization orders" at the time in Iran." is certainly not due, however, because it is not specifically about the MEK, making it not just a little bit, but entirely tangential to the subject of this page. A single line on this marginal gender studies perspective is more than enough coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Many WP:NINJA changes to the article

@Iskandar323: you have made many sweeping edits to the article, and as you are aware, it has taken a lot of time to make small advancements in this article. See WP:NINJA.

Many of your changes have WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV problems, a lot of the content was better explained before your edits, and many of your changes appear to be nonconstructive. For that reason, I’m reverting your edits to the original stable version of the article until you can explain them.

1) Your deletion of Arab News sources and text. You removed this from the article twice already, even after I wrote in my edit summary that "if it's a policy that Arab News is prohibited as a source for this subject, then please share this information in the talk page and I will self-revert upon review."[4]

You haven't explained where in Wikipedia it says that Arab News is not allowed for this subject, so please stop edit warring this deletion and instead address this here.

You also made many changes to the organization of the whole article. You moved sections and even changed titles of a number of sections, diminishing certain key points (such as the use of former MEK members hired by the regime against the MEK), and emphasizing others (such as moving the section "Propaganda campaigns" higher up in the article).

Why do you want to change the organization and some of the titles? What's wrong with the current titles and organization of the article?

2) For example why did you move sections like "Ideology" lower in the article and "propaganda campaign" and "Intelligence and operation capabilities" higher up in the article?

3) Why did you change "Fundraising" to "Funding"? (and then move it higher in the article, and then added "Ties to foreing and non-state actors" as a section within it?)

4) Why did you add "Cult of personality" as part of "Ideology"?

5) Why did you change the title "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" and "Disinformation through recruited MEK members"? (and then blurred both sections by moving content between them?)

6) Why did you add the "Organization" title to the section "Membership"?

7) You also changed that the MEK was considered Iran's "largest and most active Iranian exile organization" only up until 2010, even though in the talk page newer sources have been provided.

8) Why did you add BSN tags on [5] [6] [7] [8]? What is wrong with these sources? Is it that they are opinions of academics published as opinion articles?

9) Why did you remove "The MEK claims that in 1996 a shipment of Iranian mortars was intended for use by Iranian agents against Maryam Rajavi."?

10) Why did you remove"MEK was reportedly among the most prominent targets of the attacks."?

11) Also the way you worded the New York Times report about hackers hacking the MEK seems more confusing than the original version. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer some questions, but this wall of text is a bit ridiculous, especially when many have extremely commonsense answers when given just a moment's thought, e.g.: 8) - all of the sources tagged were blog/opinion pieces. I explained the Arab News removals in this edit summary. No diffs have been provided for any of the other questions, making it hard to relate them to the changes being referenced. Reversion is best reserved for disruption/vandalism. Even assuming the other changes were questionable, that alone is not cause for casual reversion. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323: I could not have posed my objections any easier to follow, I’ve even numbered them for you, so I would appreciate it if you follow that format.

8) Are opinion pieces by subject-matter experts published in reliable sources not considered reliable? Please provide a link to a policy about this. If this what is in policy, then there might be several other things we need to remove from the article.

You have not explained none of your other edits, so I can’t comment on them at this time. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I explained this on your talk page. Asking editors endless questions is covered in WP:BADGER. Your sense of entitlement to question and review any changes in advance (here and elsewhere) is straight out of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, i.e.: "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.". Your question: "What's wrong with the current titles and organization of the article?" is analogous to the guideline quote: "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all.". As I have mentioned above, you have not provided the diffs with any of the questions above, making them difficult to review for other editors, and for most, you also have not explained the perceived problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

New added content

Ghazaalch, reverting this addition here because this sort of content in the article already, and about this change here I fixed the strange syntax. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Quot the content the you say is repeated in the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them." "This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq"." Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Where in this quotation we read that According to a colonel who was in daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, some members who wanted to leave had to flee?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

1988 execution of MEK prisoners

@Fad Ariff: why did you delete a joint military invasion of Iranian Kurdistan by Iraqi forces and 7,000 MEK militants aimed at capturing Kermanshah, from the section ‘’ 1988 execution of MEK prisoners’’?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unjust deletions

1st part

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

2nd part

@Fad Ariff: why did you delete They appealed to all opposition groups to join NCRI, but failed to attract any except for the Kurdish Democratic Party. The failure is mainly associated to MEK's religious ideology.

3rd part

@Fad Ariff: why did you delete Gunmen ambushed MacArthur's limousine while he and his wife were en route to their house. Shots were fired at the vehicle and a hatchet was hurled through the rear window, however MacArthur remained unharmed. On 9 February 1979, four assailants were sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of terrorism and sixteen others received confinements up to ten years.

All of these edits have edit summaries. An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page located on top of the diff (see H:ES). In this case my edit summary was "Restoring version by NMasiha. There isn't "emphasis" on other groups here. Nmasiha made the challenge that "About the sentencing and suspects, the source names "gunmen" or "four guerrillas", not the PMOI, so the way you (Ghazaalch) had worded it made it look like the source was talking about the PMOI (but it's not)". If there is something you don't understand about that, you can start there (ditto with your other questions). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)