Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions about People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Fork out
I'm total newcomer to this article, so feel free to shoot my proposal down. I think this article looks WP:TOOBIG and might benefit from some forking. For example, maybe we can create articles on History of the People's Mujahedin of Iran and Ideology of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (currently a redirect) as those look like the biggest sections.VR talk 04:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- The main problem with the article is that it currently has a lot of POV quotes. If each quote came from a reliable person and added new information, then that would be a different matter, but in many cases it's a collections of quotes calling the MEK a cult (a large portion from ex-MEK members), and the argument some of us have made here is that the reader doesn't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said the MEK is like a cult. A sentence is enough for this. If we were able to copy-edit some sections this way condensing repeated POV redundancy, that would massively improve the article. Alex-h (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think my proposal is a good compromise as it allows things to be summarized on this page and the content, which many users think is not redundant and want to keep, is still available at a more specialized page.VR talk 14:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- The users repeatedly show ([1], [2], [3]) they are confusing "verified" (not WP:verfiability) with "notable, due etc". They think only verified materials should be included in the Wikipages. --Mhhossein talk 07:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- To followup: yes, yes, each of the two sides wishes to redact the things it does and they do not often align. I see that activity here has been reduced — has this article achieved stability? If so, forking could be the next thing that's worth hashing out. The reader deserves concise summaries alongside links to forks when further expansion is due. Which this article currently fails to do. El_C 12:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article still has NPOV problems. I personally would not be opposed to forking some sections. If the OP has a particular suggestion, we could explore the route further. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm asking about stability — of course, each side will continue to see NPOV issues probably indefinitely as the price of compromise and the the consensus process. Forking would be good because this article is a bit unwieldy. I would encourage someone well versed in the article and its sourcing material as well as past discussions here to be bold and start us off. I think the best way would be to go one section at a time and author or refactor the fork while trimming the main article. But that should be done slowly and through the use of drafts. El_C 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I could give it a try. Will slowly work on this as suggested and make a proposition when I have a draft ready. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- That will end no where if the result should be something like the recent ridiculous RFCs you opened. They were attempts at censoring many DUE portions of the article. --Mhhossein talk 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @El_C: I have been following the developments of this page for a while. The issue is not POV or like. I agree the issue is stability. The recent RFCs signal the strategy behind reshaping the page. You can find in the archive where I discovered plenty of gamings and edits with misleading edit summaries. This page had been the goal to a pro-MEK sock farm in the past and I believe that would be wise to be cautious about the closely similar developments. That said, forking should be done carefully to avoid POV forks and it should be accompanied by guideline based discussions/arguments (selective ignoring of the reliable sources that MEK is the target of misinformation campaign is not of course a guideline based argument!). --Mhhossein talk 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, all I've done here is try to adhere to the suggestions of others, and yet you continue to routinely cast aspersions and rehash failed reports you've submitted against me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- "adhere to the suggestions of others"? Can you show who suggested to mass remove well sourced and DUE portions of the page? --Mhhossein talk 13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, all I've done here is try to adhere to the suggestions of others, and yet you continue to routinely cast aspersions and rehash failed reports you've submitted against me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I could give it a try. Will slowly work on this as suggested and make a proposition when I have a draft ready. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm asking about stability — of course, each side will continue to see NPOV issues probably indefinitely as the price of compromise and the the consensus process. Forking would be good because this article is a bit unwieldy. I would encourage someone well versed in the article and its sourcing material as well as past discussions here to be bold and start us off. I think the best way would be to go one section at a time and author or refactor the fork while trimming the main article. But that should be done slowly and through the use of drafts. El_C 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article still has NPOV problems. I personally would not be opposed to forking some sections. If the OP has a particular suggestion, we could explore the route further. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- To followup: yes, yes, each of the two sides wishes to redact the things it does and they do not often align. I see that activity here has been reduced — has this article achieved stability? If so, forking could be the next thing that's worth hashing out. The reader deserves concise summaries alongside links to forks when further expansion is due. Which this article currently fails to do. El_C 12:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- The users repeatedly show ([1], [2], [3]) they are confusing "verified" (not WP:verfiability) with "notable, due etc". They think only verified materials should be included in the Wikipages. --Mhhossein talk 07:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think my proposal is a good compromise as it allows things to be summarized on this page and the content, which many users think is not redundant and want to keep, is still available at a more specialized page.VR talk 14:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent suggested forking out some sections, El_C agree, and I offered to help with what both Vice regent and El_C suggested. If you don't want me to do this, then by all means you can go ahead and get us started. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- "I'm asking about stability — of course" --I would not interpret it as "agreement". I'm concerned about that "stability", that's why things need to be discussed before any action is taken. Forking means leaving important things and taking the rest to a separate page. I am afraid you can be wrong selecting those important things like here. --Mhhossein talk 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- This bound to be a long, painstaking process. But I am optimistic that it is doable and I maintain that it is worth doing in the interest of improvement. El_C 13:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I also think this could be good for the article, and I'd be willing to try to make it work if Mhhossein is willing to collaborate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- This bound to be a long, painstaking process. But I am optimistic that it is doable and I maintain that it is worth doing in the interest of improvement. El_C 13:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)