Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 45 ← Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 → Archive 55

Short description political-militant 1956 to present

@

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

Adding the date? I used the date given in the infobox and lead.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I don’t see anything about the MEK being militant before the 1970s. The lead also links it as being a private army. Are they a private army? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that the group was militant for half its existence and political for the rest, "politico-militant" seems fair enough, and yes, "private army" fits.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Then that is the wrong description. If "the group was militant for half its existence" then the article should be clear about which half. You deleted from the lead that "In June 2004, the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."this diff The Fourth Geneva Convention "was the first to deal with humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone." If the legal status of the MEK is "civilians in a war zone", then "private army" is a wrong description. I will put back what you deleted, and change "private army" to "dissidents" since this is how they are mainly cited in the press.*[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Fad Ariff (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Once again, this level of detail is way to specific for the lead, which is meant to be a summary. Please just talk before you waste time making sweeping additions to the already overly long lead summary. NB: That the MEK was given civilian protections in Iraq does not necessarily guarantee that the entire groups has de-militarized.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
"Dissident" is a summary description (and one that is cited a lot). What is your reasoning against using this description? About your sweeping changes from yesterday, I am reverting to some original text of the article since there isn't consensus for removing them yet. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Dude. Dissident is in the short description now. Just be happy.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 17:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar, why do you keep removing the Geneva Convention status from the lead? That information shows that "the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’". Like the "dissident" description, there are many sources citing this too.[11][12][13][14][15] Fad Ariff (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a thread about the short description, not other content, but in any case, this sentence is not needed, and is another case of unnecessary material in the lead. The Geneva Convention stuff is about the MEK disarming (and becoming civilians). The lead already states that they disarmed in 2003, so this doesn't need to be said twice.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Being disarmed and becoming civilians are two different things, so I will put this back in the lead. We can make this content shorter but please discuss first instead of making weeping changes (like you have been doing to the article). I suggest "In June 2004, the U.S. designated the MEK ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I've just read the sources and the material is incidentally being presented incorrectly, as the US ruling referred only to Camp Ashraf residents.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 08:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The "Camp Ashraf residents" were the MEK who were based in Camp Ashraf at the time (there were no other residents from other groups there, just them). If you would like to make the lead longer by adding "MEK, who were based in Camp Ashraf at the time", then that is an option (I don't think it's a good one), but just saying "Camp Ashraf residents" is not a correct description. I think the lead should say what most sources do. I provided sources for this and for the "dissident" description. What is your objection for these two exactly? (please reply with sources like I did) Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
'Camp Ashraf residents' is the correct description because it is the description used in the current sources. Changing this wording based on something you just think is original research (
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • List of sources using the wording "dissidents"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@
Iskandar323 it has been almost 3 weeks since I posted 10 sources using the wording "dissidents". If you don't have an objection (one that derives from some kind of policy or sources), then I will go ahead and implement this edit. Fad Ariff (talk
) 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 I'm not talking about the short description, but the description in the lead. In this edit [24], an edit that you reverted [25], I gave many citations that describe the MEK as a "dissident" organization. What is your reasoning for removing this from the lead after all the citations I provided? Fad Ariff (talk
) 11:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The current description in the lead is fine and is supported by reliable, secondary book sources. Your disruptive edit removed published book references in favour of a gaggle of news stories, to which I would say, read:
Iskandar323 (talk
) 11:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The "dissident" description is supported by many more reliable, secondary sources. What is your reasoning for not using those? You want more book citations? Just saying "it's fine" doesn't explain why you want to cite a minority view point. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
'Dissident' is a very vague word; all it means is 'someone who dissents' - it is perhaps useful in the short description, but it would add little in the lead, which already explains precisely how the groups dissents, i.e.: by politically and militantly opposing the Iranian government. This is expounded in the lead in some detail. Casually throwing in the word dissident would not describe anything new or different. And 'dissident' alone lacks the implication of militancy, which is a rather central historic feature of the MEK's identity.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

I didn't realize the short description still had the second part - I've removed that now since
Iskandar323 (talk
) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Iran Dissidents Pinpoint Alleged Nuclear Site". Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ "U.S. drops Iranian MEK dissident group from terrorism list". Chicago Tribune.
  3. ^ "Where will they all go?". Chicago Tribune.
  4. ^ "Iraq plans to close Iranian dissidents' border camp". The Guardian.
  5. ^ "Iran State TV Says Exiled Dissidents Hacked Live Broadcasts". Bloomberg.
  6. ^ "Scores demand UN probe of 1988 Iran dissident killings". France24.
  7. ^ "Last major group MEK dissidents leaves camp in Iraq: U.S. State Department". Reuters.
  8. ^ "Iran state TV shows dissidents' images after apparent hack". AP News.
  9. ^ "Iran state TV shows dissidents' images after apparent hack". ABC News.
  10. ^ "The People's Mujahidin: the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change in Tehran". The Times.
  11. ^ Siobhán Wills (Spring 2010). "The Obligations Due to Former 'Protected Persons' in Conflicts that have Ceased to be International: The People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran". Journal of Conflict & Security Law. 15 (1). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 March November 2021. US forces had been surrounding the camp providing protection for seven years from the time they took control of the camp in 2003 until January 2009. During this period the United States repeatedly asserted that the camp's inhabitants were 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  12. ^ "FACTBOX-Who are the People's Mujahideen of Iran?". Reuters. U.S. forces declared the exiles "protected persons" after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
  13. ^ "DETAINEES HELD INCOMMUNICADO RISK TORTURE" (PDF). Amnesty. Retrieved 16 March 2022. Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the PMOI members disarmed and were accorded "protected persons" status under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  14. ^ "Why Iran's agents hound political refugees in distant Albania". Arab News. Retrieved 16 March 2022. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam, occupying US forces disarmed the residents of Camp Ashraf and signed a formal agreement that promised them the status of "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlines the rules for protecting civilians in times of war.
  15. ^ "Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)". CSM. Retrieved 16 March 2022. This stems, in part, from the MEK's agreement, at the United States military's request, to disarm and move into camp Ashraf in northeastern Iraq. The U.S. military extended protections under the Geneva Conventions for Camp Ashraf residents.

MEK Involvement in protests and riots in Iran

Multiple sources and the organization itself admitted they are funding "special units of rebellion" to cause riots in Iran in their conference.[1]

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

“Those protests are not happening spontaneously,” Giuliani said. “They are happening because of many of our people in Albania [which hosts an MeK compound] and many of our people here and throughout out the world.”[2]

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

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1043769680849248256?s=20&t=fAz6AwsD5Um4Q9MvlEKMog
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/30/rudy-giuliani-mek-iran-paris-rally

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

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

@
WP:WIKIVOICE). Also the attribution seems to be coming form the book "Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East" and not the Piazzi source. Fad Ariff (talk
) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 13:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323: since we seem to be struggling to agree, perhaps we should both take a step back and try to find some common ground, like you say. I will revert to the original text until we have found this common ground, so please stop edit warring in the meantime. Fad Ariff (talk
) 13:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

WP:WIKIVOICE
).

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

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

WP:DUE
.

4) Iskandar323's removal of "In 2018, U.S. District Court charged two alleged Iran agents of "conducting covert surveillance of Israeli and Jewish facilities in the United States and collecting intelligence on Americans linked to a political organization that wants to see the current Iranian government overthrown". During the court process, it was revealed that the two alleged agents of Iran had mostly gathered information concerning activities involving the MEK.[1] The two men pleaded guilty in November 2019 to several charges including conspiracy and "acting as an undeclared agent of the Iranian government". The Justice Department said that one of the men arrived in the US to gather "intelligence information" about the MEK (as well as Israeli and Jewish entities). The other admitted to taking photographs at a 2017 MEK rally in order to profile attendees.[2][3] In January 2020 Iranian-American Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar was sentenced by a U.S. court to 38 months in prison for conducting surveillance on American MEK members.[4] In September 2020 The New York Times published a report where researchers alleged that opponents of the Iranian regime had been targets of a cyber attack by Iranian hackers through a variety of infiltration techniques. MEK was reportedly among the most prominent targets of the attacks.[5]"

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

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

According to Abbas Milani, lobbyists paid for by the Iranian regime have called the MEK a "dangerous cult".[6] There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK.[7][8] Yonah Alexander stated that Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents have conducted "intelligence gathering, disinformation, and subversive operations against individual regime opponents and opposition governments. [...] According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution".[9] According to Ervand Abrahamian, the Iranian regime "did everything it could" to tarnish the MEK "through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxist hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘electics’".[10]

The Iranian regime also blames the MEK for the Imam Reza shrine bombing and the Makki Mosque attack in Zahedan in 1994, despite a Sunni group calling itself "al-haraka al-islamiya al-iraniya" claiming responsibility for both attacks.[11] According to the NCRI, in a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image.[12] The Iranian regime is also believed to be responsible for killing NCR representative in 1993, and Massoud Rajavi's brother in 1990,[13] and has also been known to conduct surveillance of MEK members abroad.[14][15][16][17] According to Katzman, the Iranian regime is concerned about MEK activities and are a major target of Iran's internal security apparatus and its campaign as assassinating opponents abroad. The Iranian regime is believed to be responsible for killing NCR representative in 1993, and Massoud Rajavi's brother in 1990. The MEK claims that in 1996 a shipment of Iranian mortars was intended for use by Iranian agents against Maryam Rajavi.[13]

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

@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
According to the source, infoplease.com is where the figure is coming from, so I think we are correctly citing the source and haven't seen a substantive explanation about why this figure should be in wikivoice. Do you have any comments about my draft for shortening this section? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Extended content

References

  1. ^ "2 alleged agents of Iran arrested for spying in US". The National Interest. 18 August 2011. Archived from the original on 23 August 2018. Retrieved 1 August 2018.
  2. ^ "Iranian Agents Plead Guilty To Collecting Info On Opposition Group In The US". Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  3. ^ "Two Individuals Plead Guilty to Acting as Illegal Agents of the Government of Iran". Archived from the original on 13 November 2019. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  4. ^ "Iran Silent on 12 Iranians Detained by US Despite Pledge to Swap Prisoners Again". Voice of America.
  5. ^ Bergman, Ronen; Fassihi, Farnaz (18 September 2020). "Iranian Hackers Found Way Into Encrypted Apps, Researchers Say". New York Times.
  6. ^ Milani, Abbas (18 August 2011), "The Inside Story of America's Favorite Terrorist Group", The National Interest, retrieved 1 August 2018
  7. ^ "European visit to Albania exposes Iran's misinformation campaign", United Press International, retrieved 11 December 2018
  8. ^ "Tehran's Influence Operations a Threat to Journalistic Independence", Townhall.com, archived from the original on 7 December 2018, retrieved 11 December 2018
  9. ISBN 978-0275996390
  10. ^ Abrahamian 1989, pp. 143–144, 256.
  11. ISBN 978-0-944029-39-8
  12. ISBN 978-0230601284
    .
  13. ^ a b Katzman 2001, p. 104.
  14. ^ "2 alleged agents of Iran arrested for spying in US". The National Interest. 18 August 2011. Archived from the original on 23 August 2018. Retrieved 1 August 2018.
  15. ^ "Iranian Agents Plead Guilty To Collecting Info On Opposition Group In The US". Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  16. ^ Bergman, Ronen; Fassihi, Farnaz (18 September 2020). "Iranian Hackers Found Way Into Encrypted Apps, Researchers Say". New York Times.
  17. ^ "Two Individuals Plead Guilty to Acting as Illegal Agents of the Government of Iran". Archived from the original on 13 November 2019. Retrieved 13 November 2019.

Comments

Can I suggest some quite minor changes to wording:

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

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

Burrobert: Your proposal seems fairly uncontroversial. It does not really require a discussion unless someone objects/revert. MarioGom (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Right-ho thanks. Burrobert (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran lead quotation

There seems to be a clear consensus that weighting a single lengthy quote in the lead is undue and not summary style; the phrasing As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982. garnered general, if not universal, support as the replacement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Iskandar323 (talk
) 15:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3
    .

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

If the problem is the length of the lead, I provided a solution that made the lead shorter but Iskandar323 reverted that. Also the reasons why Iranian regime executed the MeK members is already in the lead. The sources say that the Iran regime started first making human right abuses against protesters and MEK, and no good reason has been given for removing this from the lead. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323 (talk
) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not "off-topic clutter" since the conclusion is that no good reason has been given for not having the regime's human right abuses against MEK and protesters in the lead of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support what most of the editors are proposing, to change that quote with "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982." For the same reasons they are saying, there are many sources for this information and it is an important part of the lead. NMasiha (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of content by Cohen

@

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

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

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

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

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

I replied [26] saying I didn't know how they were related to the cult of personality, which was the discussion it was in. I assume you want to put these other quotes someplace else, but it's unclear where, so, because of what, I can hardly comment on whether it would be due - not knowing the context or whether these additions would duplicate existing material.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323: here are your reverts (with "context") of analyses by Cohen:[27][28][29]. Please respond why you deleted this from the article. Fad Ariff (talk
) 11:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
My revert had nothing to do with Cohen and everything to do with your mass revert ... your trigger-happy reverting becoming a bit of a bad habit - speaking of: why are you reverting Abrahamian again? I fail to see how "The regime has made many claims about the MEK, and the article covers many of them already" is a reason. Sounds like
Iskandar323 (talk
) 15:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323: and @Ghazaalch: Without deflecting from the question, please respond why we cannot have these analyses from Cohen in the article. Fad Ariff (talk
) 12:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I responded. Stop deflecting from actually absorbing the answer. And feel free to actually answer questions yourself, lest you also 'deflect' there.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Consolidate RAND Corporation claims with other claims about this topic

I reverted this edit [30] because adding a whole paragraph of a tangled topic using just one source doesn't seem like the best idea in an article that is already too long (as the same editors that added the content said) and has neutrality problems. Also the preceding paragraph makes similar claims and has similar problems. I suggest consolidating the RAND corporations claims with other claims about this topic into one paragraph so that we end up with a more multifaceted and concise coverage of this topic. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That is incorrect, but since we seem to be struggling to agree, perhaps we should both take a step back and try to find some common ground. I was previously in agreement with you that the article should be shortened, so I was surprised to see you add more content about cult POV. Will revert your edit to the original text until we have found some common ground. I will start a new RFC where I will make a proposal, and you can post your proposal there too. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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

About reverting more cult comparisons added to the article

@

Iskandar323
:

I am reverting this edit[31] because

1) Anne Singleton’s MEK cult comparisons is not a good source for this article. See for example [32] and [33].

2) Abrahamian (“The Iranian Mojahedin”) is already cited in the article describing the MEK having a "cult of personality".[1]

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

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

@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus because I gave a substantive objection. There is also only you and Ghazaalch who are trying to implement this edit . You should be discussing here instead of making report threats. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Your reasons are an ad hominem attack on a reliable source based on a primary document from a government with a conflict of interest, and supported by a dodgy Arabic news platform, basically pushing
Iskandar323 (talk
) 13:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff:, you are saying that 2) Abrahamian (“The Iranian Mojahedin”) is already cited in the article describing the MEK having a "cult of personality".[1], but what Abrahamian already says is a few words, in which he calls MeK a cult and not more.("having a "cult of personality",[356]" ). Now you are saying that we should not use more content from his book? You are saying that because Abrahamian once called MeK a cult, he does not have the right to explain why he did so? And you say we do not have the right to add the explanations to the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I'm not saying that. By your own words, the article is "too long and should be shortened, then it must be done in a neutral point of view".[34] If we are going to add things like "why Abrahamian called MeK a cult", then we should do so neutrally and concisely while trying to show some kind of academic consensus (which Abrahamian is a part of). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I will provide a proposal about how we can organize all of the cult content in the article after the
WP:AE case has ended. Fad Ariff (talk
) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 06:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 That is the second time[35] that you have alluded that I’m "fighting for keeping an Abrahamian quote in the lead". Where did I "fight" to keep an Abrahamian quote in the lead? Fad Ariff (talk
) 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, that is not an "ad hominem attack" or "aspersions". Fad Ariff's reasons are valid, so you certainly do not have consensus here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The US government is a primary source for their own politically motivated, highly partial assessments, i.e.: useful for reference, but not reliable.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 15:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with Anne Singleton. The assessment in question is about Anne Singleton, and you have not provided anything that explains why a Federal Research Division report would be an incorrect or "highly partial" assessment for that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, all the government document actually tells us, if anything, is that Singleton certainly has intimate knowledge of the MEK.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 06:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
So yes, unless anyone can tell me why Singleton wouldn't know about the MEK, when she clearly knows it well, we can restore that.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 06:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iskandar, you're deflecting. The US report says that Singleton was threatened into cooperating with Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) against the MEK: "The recruitment of a British subject, Anne Singleton, and her Iranian husband, Masoud Khodabandeh, provides a relevant example of how MOIS coerces non-Iranians to cooperate. ..... Soon after their marriage, MOIS forced them to cooperate by threatening to confiscate Khodabandeh’s mother’s extensive property in Tehran. Singleton and Khodabandeh then agreed to work for MOIS and spy on MEK. ..... She agreed to cooperate with MOIS to save her brother-in-law’s life — he was still a member of MEK at the time. During her stay in Tehran, she received training from MOIS. After her return to England, she launched the iran-interlink.org Web site in the winter of 2002." Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not deflecting, thanks. Wikipedia doesn't prejudice sources, it qualifies them. Such sources just need to be properly attributed and contextualized. In any case, how does a state of potential duress in 2002, pre-Iraq war, per-Camp Ashraf etc., pertain to an academic subsequently relating about their experiences nearly a decade later in 2011? That's a lot of IFs.
    Iskandar323 (talk
    ) 09:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: your comments are deflecting
"ad hominem attack on a reliable source based on a primary document", "the US government has a conflict of interest", "such aspersions need corroborating with such sources", "The US government is a primary source for their own politically motivated, highly partial assessments", "all the government document actually tells us, if anything, is that Singleton certainly has intimate knowledge of the MEK.
Although I would call this more gaslighting than "deflecting". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Yes, and that is when you made an extraordinary fuss about specifically keeping a drawn out Abrahamian quote presenting his version of the MEK's take on things in the lead.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 11:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323, I don’t why you keep on repeating this. I didn't "fight" or make "an extraordinary fuss" about that, on the contrary . Fad Ariff (talk
) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, The accounts by Singleton are not reliable, this is not me saying this, it’s in the US report source. About Abrahamian, I replied about that in different responses.[36][37][38]

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

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

I would be in favor of merging something like this together with Abrahamian and what's already in the article. I already said that I would prefer waiting after AE has ended before proposing a draft, but nevermind, I’ll propose a draft as soon as I can (you can both propose a draft yourselves if you don't agree with mine). Also, since you and Iskandar323 seem very determined on adding more cult content to the article, then can we also add the other Cohen quotes that you reverted because the article "is already too long"? [39][40] Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

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

@Ghazaalch it has already been explained a few times why Anne Singleton's analysis is not reliable for this article, even if it is published in Cohen's book. Fad Ariff is proposing that you use Cohen's actual analysis instead (which is reliable), but as usual you refuse to listen. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
That hasn't been explained remotely. Pointing to a US report complaining that Singleton an Iranian agent does not automatically discount her as a source by a long shot. And incidentally, even if she were an explicitly pro-Iranian regime voice (not confirmed), we could still include her as a reliable source, because ... balance. Pro-regime voices are still voices.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 08:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, because trying to dismiss the body copy exposition of this from an individual considered to be perhaps the foremost subject-matter expert on the MEK is frankly ludicrous.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 10:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323
: you both ignored my requests to add the analyses by Cohen to this article (an author you describe as "highly reliable").

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

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

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

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

Please respond. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to what most of those quotes, except for the last one, have to do with cult comparisons. Feel free to add the last quote to the cult section.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I will try to merge the last quote with content in the article. And I will open the other points in a different section so you may respond about them. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This removal [41] could have easily been merged into what’s already in that section. That section is very disorganized, and it could be fixed by just having an overview of for and against views about this. @
Iskandar323: and @Ghazaalch: since you are both very involved here, do you agree fixing this section this way? Fad Ariff (talk
) 12:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
That all depends on whether you can manage that in a balanced way. You might also want to consider diversifying your editing interests.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 12:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion of information

@Ghazaalch: Why did you delete[42] from the article that "The MEK and their allies did well during the 1979 elections even though they were not able to get their own members to be elected"

Also on this revert [43] you deleted "The MEK’s view was that Islam was a religion that "favoured human equality, social justice and national liberation" and "By the summer of 1981, the MEK’s appeal had become strong enough to challenge the Iranian regime"

Also on this revert[44] you deleted "After the June 1981 uprising against the regime had failed, Massoud Rajavi and Banisadr received political asylum in France. While in France, Rajavi claimed he would replace the regime with a "Democratic Islamic Republic" I am using the same author you have been saying we should use for this article!

Also on this revert you deleted[45] "According to Ronen Cohen, the continuous struggles against the Iranian regime’s constraints led to the MEK having characteristics of a cult of personality about its leader, Massoud Rajavi.[2]" The source is by Ronen Cohen, another author you and Iskandar323 have been saying we should use for this article.

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

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

References

  1. ^ a b Abrahamian 1989, p. 139; Clark 2016, p. 65.
  2. ^ Cohen 2009, p. 64.

Deletion of information

@Fad Ariff: Why did you delete[46] from the article that According to the RAND report, former MeK members and detractors are accused of being Iranian agents or dupes, however, interviews with US military and civilian authorities, information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf, indicate that these denials are untrue.

Also on this revert[47] you deleted The regime further claimed that MeK officials were living comfortably in Europe while urging their youth members in Iran to perform suicide missions. It also launched a propaganda around the idea that Marxism and Islam were incompatible, and that Marxism was out to destroy Islam because it was 'materialistic.' I am using the same author you have been saying we should use for this article!

Also on this revert you deleted[48] Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members. The source is by Ronen Cohen, another author you have been saying we should use for this article.

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

If the material was in the stable version of the article, and the removal is disputed, you can restore it pending the attainment of a consensus for its removal.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 07:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The first and third diff I explained here [49][50]. The second diff I explained in my edit summary[51], in the case you didn’t see it "The regime has made many claims about the MEK, and the article covers many of them already". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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

@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 06:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The diffs are there to show you that these have been answered several times already. Because you do not have new questions about these diffs, then I cannot provide new answers for you. Fad Ariff (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Iskandar323 (talk
) 10:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus required rule infringement

I left a notification on Ghazaalch's talk page about their violation and my reasons for reverting their edit, but they have not yet responded. Even though I have explained this revert a couple of times already[52][53], Iskandar323 wants me to explain my objection "based on policy", so the policy for reverting this would be

WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject"). Fad Ariff (talk
) 09:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This page is along way away from being
Iskandar323 (talk
) 11:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It is useless to discuss with you Fad Ariff, because as I said previously [54][55] you do not discuss to reach consensus but you discuss to justify your reverts and to show that there is no consensus on restoring the reverts. I would explain your Gaming the system in details where I know there are some admins watching and moderating our discussions.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is certainly quite big, but I do not see how any of Ghazaalch's or Iskandar323's edits fall under a policy listed under
WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Yue🌙
01:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Yue Abrahamian is already cited in the article comparing the MEK to a "cult of personality". Here are some lines that I copypasted from the article in general about this:

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

"6.Cult of personality

"The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."[351][352] Various sources have also described the MEK as a "cult",[119][353] "cult-like",[354][355] or having a "cult of personality",[356] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[357][358][359] According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war.[16][page needed] During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

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

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

"List of cults of personality"

We can turn this article into a collection of quotes or we can follow WP:NOTEVERYTHING and instead have a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Fad Ariff (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, so I think we've just agreed and established that there was no pre-existing or duplicative body of material outlining the perspective of Abrahamian, the foremost expert on the MEK, on the cult-like aspects of the group. Returning again to
Iskandar323 (talk
) 08:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I see established here is that certain parts in the article are a mess of selected quotes. Why can't we summarize these quotes into a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" as the guideline says? Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This thread is not about summarizing, it is about the wholesale rejection of material from a subject-matter expert based on a rationale not currently explained by policy.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 07:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If we are summarizing accepted knowledge, then that means we are not rejecting material. This policy would likely help fix the article’s messy collection of selected quotes. A RFC with proposals is needed, and I will get one going. Iraniangal777 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Removing material is not summarizing. Summarizing is reducing text while keeping the essence of what it says intact, with due weight with respect to sources.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 07:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Separately, I'm not sure what you mean by 'accepted knowledge', but I assume you mean the contents of the stable-ish version of the article. Is that right?
Iskandar323 (talk
) 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
There obviously is disagreement about how to summarize the important points about this content, which is why I started the RFC below. But then Ghazaalch started a whole bunch of useless RFCs and included my RFC to that pile, and then you requested help from an admin because “Surely this is not a functional RFC format?” After Fad Ariff disassociated my RFC from Ghazaalch’s pointless RFC pile (as it should be since it was never meant to be part of that mess), you withdrew the admin help request? What’s going on? Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I requested admin help because it wasn't my place to fix it, but then the merged and then separated listing started creating problems with duplicate RFC listings in the central RFC repository, so I reverted to your stable version. The request referred to the original mess, before Fad Ariff also inappropriately intervened.
Iskandar323 (talk
) 09:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

When you cannot prove yourself using reliable sources you rush into pointless RFCs to railroad your opponents, and I should have added more cases to your RFC to see how pointless is it. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the best approach, but yes, resorting to RFCs when you don't get the answer you are looking for, or can't argue you case based on sourcing and policy, is deeply onerous. RFCs should be used to resolve disputes, for example over the reliability of certain sources, and not simply in an attempt rubber-stamp proposed changes that have failed to garner consensus in prior talk page discussions. Community time is limited and this page already had two active, unclosed RFCs before the latest additions. Not appreciating this smacks of either
Iskandar323 (talk
) 09:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran/Archive_51&oldid=1112769712"