Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Edit warring and longstanding text

Edit warring, even if it involves efforts to restore the longstanding text, will be responded to harshly, including with escalating blocks and article bans.

Example:

1. User X changes longstanding text.
2. User Y reverts back to the longstanding text.

<Up to now, this is allowed>

But any further reverts (starting with, to X) are now a violation of the restriction.

There is really no need to go back and fourth. Which is to say, it is prohibited to do so in this article. El_C 14:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @EmilCioran1195, Kazemita1, Saff V., BarcrMac, and Ypatch: To add to what El C said above; in recent weeks the bunch of you have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how talk page discussion is supposed to function. Discussions here are meant to build consensus, not to devolve into continuous accusation. This means you've to make proposals, and counter-proposals, and try to find a middle ground; and if there isn't a middle ground that you believe to be policy-compliant, solicit outside opinion via an RfC. All you've done at this talk page is yell at each other, and occasionally interpreted admin comments to suit your particular position. The blocks some of you just received were for sixty hours; but if I don't see evidence that you can edit this page in collaboration with people who disagree with you, then I'm fully prepared to TBAN all of you (and I don't want to hear a single word about how someone else's conduct was worse than your own). I suggest you begin by proposing ways to a) create a reasonably logical flow in the article, and b) reduce it to a reasonable size. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: Why do not you see our efforts to improve the page's quality? You tell me you involve in discussions as an Admin, but when I report a personal attack or talk to you about suspicious editing, you give no clear answer (1, 2), But by reporting to others, the copyright issue appeared or the user was warned because of his bad behavior. I really don't know what was wrong with me?Saff V. (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Saff V.: If I thought you were uninterested in improving the article, I would have TBANned you. I am warning you (all of you) instead only because I still think you can make worthwhile improvements. I said what the problem with your editing was, above; briefly, that you are stonewalling and complaining on the talk page rather than collaborating. That needs to change; this page is for discussing content, not behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Please note that BarcrMac changed the long standing version here, on 4 December, which was reverted to the long-standing version by Kazemita1. I don't know how many back and forth were in between, but BarcrMac reverted again on 11 December, without substantiating his position. Needless to mention that he tried to pretend he was reverting to the longstanding version, which is clearly false (this change was made on 4 December so it was not considered as longstanding after 7 days on 11 December. This is while BarcrMac is well aware that long standing version is "1 month ago, not two weeks"!) Anyway, Please restore to the real long standing version, before this edit. The edit is objected because it is against what the cited sources are saying. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@El_C: This edit should be reverted for the same reason. Moreover, I don't know how many other changes were made to the long standing version without substantiation. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not restoring anything myself. If you can substantiate (with actual specifics — not vague generalities) that a longstanding text version is due, you may restore to it yourself. El_C 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Barca appears to have substantiated with actual specifics their edits in this talk page in the edit summaries. You, on the other hand, have not. Alex-h (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h. Not all of it is explained. He is yet to provide reasons as to why he is against inclusion of some text and/or pro inclusion of repetitive matter. Take for example the following:

1. He keeps pushing the text about the number of people killed in prison, even though it is mentioned a few lines above. Bear in mind that I was not against inclusion of the book publication; just against excessive details that happen to be repetitive.

2. He keeps removing reliably sourced content (Oxford University Press) that relates MEK to Hafte Tir bombing.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm restoring one of the changes to the longstanding version. This change (which was repeated here) is not supported by the sources (see [11] for example) nor there's consensus over it. Despite the edit summary, "Vanamonde's suggestion" is not necessarily supporting this (I see it as self interpretation of the admins' comment). I am ready to talk over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Every body, please note that a long standing phrase, i.e. "built around its leaders Masoud and Maryam Rajavi", was moved from the lead without building consensus. I believe it should be there since its describing in what terms the group is a cult. I am restoring to the longstanding version. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Kazemita1 is continuing edit warring ([12]) ([13]). He revert saying that I "consented to this version of the article", but this is untrue. Barca (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Barca: Just take the diff between your last edit on Dec. 9th and the version I restored the article to on Dec. 13th and you will know. By the way, I left a message on your talk page asking for a friendly chat. Should I assume you are not willing to talk?Kazemita1 (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Why did you revert wholesale the IP's edits? They seemed quite uncontroversial - if not inconsequential - to me, and some of them were just fixing formatting/spacing issues. I'm afraid I think this is indicative of the "ownership" mentality of a few authors of this page. They immediately revert newcomers edits, regardless of their merits. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1 - In your last reverts, ([14]) ([15]), you added to the article this material from the edit war, which is not part of the long-standing text and which you have reverted (yet again) without consensus:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

@El C: - sorry for bothering you, it is the obvious violation of the page's restriction. The later edits of Kazemita1 included disputed material belongs to edit war! Please leave a comment, Thanks! Barca (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unable to immediately tell what's what. El_C 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - here are the diffs of Kazemita1's recent edit-warring reverts (the ones in bold happened after your warning here to stop edit-warring):

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".

1. 15:30, 13 December 2019
2. 10:52, 13 December 2019
3. 18:13, 4 December 2019
4. 17:14, 29 November 2019
5. 05:50, 29 November 2019

• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"

1. 15:30, 13 December 2019
2. 10:52, 13 December 2019
3. 08:20, 6 December 2019
4. 18:19, 4 December 2019

Barca (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you try bringing this to their attention? Specifically, about these two items? El_C 23:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Their response to this was "@Barca: Just take the diff between your last edit on Dec. 9th and the version I restored the article to on Dec. 13th and you will know." but as you can see by the diffs this is simply continuing edit-warring. Barca (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear @El C:, I am left with no choice but to say Barca is being untruthful here. Here is Barca's last edit on December 9th, right before the edit warring started, in which he consented to the addition of the following statements:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

Please, note that he did not edit the article any further for two days after that and one would naturally think this is a sign of consent. Two days later, on Dec. 11th when me, Ypatch and Emilcioran were all blocked and could not comment on any of his edits he deleted the above mentioned statements. He is now trying to present the facts as if I cheated. To show you further evidence, here is Emilcioran's edit and Ypatche's edit -who even though were opposing my edit- all included the above mentioned statements. In other words I am trying to say there is consensus on the version of the article I restored after recovery from block. And finally this is the diff between my edit right after recovery from block and Barca's last edit on Dec. 9th that shows they are the same word for word.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, You were making many reverts in single edits, some of which I agreed with, and some of which I didn't, but because they were done in single edits, they were difficult to dissect. About these two lines Barca is pointing out, I did not consent to adding this to the article nor did I give consensus, so please don't say this on my behalf. You've been removing and adding info through your self-made consensus, and you seem to still be doing this. Ypatch (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ypatch, I do not say anything on your behalf; your edits do. You did not raise any concerns against Barca's edit on December 9th neither in the talk page nor via your edits in the article. As a matter of fact when I tried to change the article, you restored it to the version proposed by Barca. According to WP:CON, this means you either fully agreed to Barca's edit or you found his edit a good compromise. In either case, consensus is implied.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can you please check this? The diffs show obvious edit warring, and Kazemita1's justification for them is baffling. Barca (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As an FYI, another admin investigated this matter in edit warring noticeboard per Barca's report right here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And the admin say "that 'Joe Smith supported this version in a past dispute' surely doesn't prove that it enjoys consensus to go in right now." Because there is no consensus, I'm restoring to long-standing version (just like Mhhossein did recently. Barca (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be careful if I were you, given another admins ultimatum regarding this article:

"Edit warring, even if it involves efforts to restore the longstanding text, will be responded to harshly, including with escalating blocks and article bans."

I invite you to respond to my proposal that I had left on your talk page to find a middle ground thru discussions.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Line break

Sigh. Although Kazemita1's contention that there is consensus for their edits seem to be tenuous, at best, BarcrMac reverting to the "longstanding version" ... "just like Mhhossein did recently" without trying to further discuss the content of the edits themselves was a mistake. A mistake for which they were blocked for 2 weeks. Key word here is substantiate. Substantiate your edits well in advance, with a focus on the content. The timeline and what constitutes longstanding text is key, also, to be sure — but this isn't a legal game where you prove what the longstanding text is and everything else stalls from there on. There needs to be, dare I say, lively discussion about why this or that is or isn't appropriate for the article. Again, please do better, everyone, and engage the content rather than the restriction rules. El_C 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: You blocked Barca for reverting to the longstanding version of the article. Didn't Mhhossein do exactly the same thing a few days ago (here and here)? Didn't Kazemita1 restore material to the article without consensus (here and here)? why wasn't he blocked for this also? Ypatch (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Because they at least attempted to substantiate by discussing the actual content — was I not clear about that? El_C 03:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Yes, you were clear, but didn't Barca attempted to substantiate by discussing the content here? Ypatch (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That was ten days ago and does not seem to relate to the same series of edits. El_C 19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The edits are about these two sentences:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• ""shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

And Barca's discussion ten days ago attempted to discuss these two edits:

• "Also the sentence "and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years"" in the lead section is POV since the MEK attacks on the IRI are already in the next sentences - "it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][50]" and "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government.[47] The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them.[48]""

• "Also the sentence "Those who criticize the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran" in the lead section can be mixed with the previous sentence which is already about criticisms, and the thing about "support inside Iran" is already in the lead - "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[56]" (which already has POV problems)."

Did I miss something? Ypatch (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That still did not address the latest series of edits, because these were after. Anyway, the point is that that was ten days ago, in another section. More recently, they could have said (nay, should have said): to summarize my argument from a week ago, your latest edits failed to fulfill my expectations in the following ways [etc.]. But instead of saying anything (at all) about the content, they just went on about the longstanding text over and over. Which is just not good enough. The adversarial fixation about the restrictions in unhealthy to the article. And when it is coupled with an absence of discussion about content, one which also leads to unsubstantiated reverts, actually disruptive. El_C 21:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I agree that adversarial fixation is not a good approach, but I do see Barca discussing the two sentences in question. On the other hand, after we all recently got blocked, Kazemita1 put back those two sentences without discussing in this talk page, which isn't a good approach either. Why wasn't he blocked? Ypatch (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it didn't strike me as constituting edit warring. Perhaps that was a mistake. El_C 15:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Kazemita1 is reverting edits that formed part of the recent edit warring without consensus again: [16] [17] [18]. Can you please respond about this? Ypatch (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell what those are reverts of, if they are reverts at all — because your report is too terse. No links to any substantive objections on your part, either. That is not how this is supposed to work. You need to do better, Ypatch. If you can't bother to expand and address (including the editor in question themselves!) the points under contention, I would rather you not ping me at all. El_C 15:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In this edit, Kazemita1 removed the following:

• "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members.

This was previously removed by Kazemita in this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. That sentence is also currently being debated in the Talk page discussion "Excessive information about a book", for which no consensus has been determined yet.

Also in this edit, Kazemita1 removed the following:

• "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there..

This was previously removed by Kazemita in this edit, this edit, and this edit. That sentence is also currently being debated in the Talk page discussion "Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences", for which no consensus has been determined yet. Ypatch (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 blocked for 2 weeks for inserting and reinserting text that was objected to. Even as a compromise, consensus for these edits ought to have been secured (again, use dispute resolution and accompanying requests toward that end). Participants should, again, note that the time for being bold is long passed. Making one's proposals here on the article talk page first is the recommended course of action. Apply these to the article only when you are relatively confident the edits enjoy consensus and that they do not constitute edit warring (restoring edits that were previously reverted). While a discussion commences, the longstanding text ought to stay in place. We already agreed to define what it is, generally (about one month of agreement, or at least WP:SILENCE). Please make sure you prove what it is, for specific edits, because that is often not easy to assess (for me, at least). El_C 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Per your advice that "While a discussion commences, the longstanding text ought to stay in place", I am requesting your permission to restore the sentence that Kazemita1 removed from the article:

• "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there..

That sentence was added to the article over a month ago (I cannot find the exact date, but in this diff on October 19th shows that info was already in the article, which makes it part of the long-standing text), and is being discussed in the Talk page discussion here. Thanks for letting me know if that's ok. Ypatch (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can you please answer my previous post? I don't want to get blocked for what to me looks like following the article's restrictions. Ypatch (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that, at this point in time, you need to substantiate your objection to that (any!) change rather than simply seek to blindly revert on account of an edit being deemed longstanding text. No? Please don't make me write such a qualification every time. Substantiate in advance, please! El_C 17:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I had substantiated it in the section "Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences". My objection is that that statement is supported by this RS, forms part of the long-standing text, and there wasn't a substantiated reason when it was removed by Kazemita who in their edit summary said "There is enough agreement towards removing the Guardian source", but that is not the case. Ypatch (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm not going to re-read the entire article talk page every time I'm pinged about something here. If you address me, please indicate where the pertinent discussion has taken place at. As for your request, you don't really need to consult me. If there isn't an ongoing edit war and if the proposed revert to the longstanding text was substantiated, then you are free to revert back. The notion that any revert may result in a block unless it gets the green light from me first, is one I wish to dispel. El_C 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Why it would be wrong to remove those two sentences

@EmilCioran1195, Saff V., BarcrMac, Ypatch, and Mhhossein:. In what follows I will be addressing the reason why these two sentences have a natural place in the article:

• " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
• " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes."

Now see what the source says for the first sentence:

The organization gained a new life in exile, founding the National Council of Resistance of Iran and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years"

Essentially, by a new life in exile, it is not endorsing the group's activity; it is actually saying they continued their terrorst activity. I understand some people might have sympathy with the group, but we have to be faithful to the source. If we remove the part that Barca removed, i.e. and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years" we will be changing the source.

As for the second sentence, this is from the Guardian source that is also used a few lines later to describe what proponents of the group say:

critics of the group in recent years (such as experts,[70] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW[71], and the governments of the United States and France[72] have described it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and cult-like attributes.[73] Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there

Guardian tried to explain each side believes about this group. Naturally, you would want both voices heard. By removing the voice of critics you are putting the article out of balance.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"shadowy outfit" seems a bit much. Also inaccurate, they crave publicity and stage mass events. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I mean it is from the same source that says "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran". It is attributing both sides. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Kazemita1: Thanks for attempting to resolve the issues via TP discussion, though I believe you could express the comments in a more accurate manner. I am really puzzled why you are referring to "critics of the group in recent years (such as experts,[70]..." as being supported by reliable sources. Also, please link to the sources when ever you write "source" (or at least do it on the first usage please.) Anyway, you are suggesting to add two sentences to the lead and here's my opinion; the first one is really missing since it fits the time line of the MEK's activity in terms of saying their civil attacks were not stopped after their departure from Iran.

As for the second one, I partially agree since the second portion, i.e. "and cult-like attributes" is already included in a more accurate manner (also see this comment). The first portion of the sentence, i.e. "shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran", merits inclusion however, specially because the Guardian source is already used to reflect the voice of the group's supporters, so why not using it to show what the critics think? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

We need to take stuff out of this article, not fill it with more POV. This was suggested by Vanamonde here. I'm against adding more POV. We should keep to clear and major points only, and these two sentences don't add anything that isn't already in the article. Ypatch (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I am against adding POV to the lead, too. So, let's remove the POVish phrase "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there." It is the POV of "Those who back the MEK", so should be removed because of being a POV. Also, the rest of your comment, i.e. "these two sentences don't add anything that isn't already in the article", is a self made argument which certainly is not applicable here. Lead should contain the key points of the article. MEK's reception is one of them, I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What do these sentences add to isn't in the article already? Until this is clearly explained, I'm against adding this to the article. Alex-h (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex, please note that these sentences are in the middle of a paragraph taken from a single source. As mentioned by Mhhossein, we can of course remove the previous sentence from the same source as well. For example, we could remove both proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" as well as "shadowy outfit". In other words you cannot remove a negative comment made by an author and leave the positive one only. You either leave both or remove both. I think Emilcioran's approach was rather towards neutrality. He suggested we balance it by leaving one negative point and one positive point.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That same Guardian source says "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, which is something we have in the lead of the article already. We either include what "critics" and "supporters" say, or neither (I would lean towards neither to clean up the article of POV). Ypatch (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

MEK being described as cult is not what only "critics" do. Many experts and scholarly works have said the group is a cult. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch when you wrote "which is something we have in the lead of the article already" you have to provide duplicated material, just mentioning "we have in the lead of the article already" is not enough. I agree with picking up "shadowy outfit" which doesn't bring specific info into the article however I aginst to remove "little support inside Iran" as brilliant keywords have to be included into the lead.Saff V. (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that cherry picking which POVs are removed and which remain is the best way to go here. We either work towards removing most of the POV claims, or none at all. We can't pick and choose which ones we like and which ones we don't like since that's a form of POV pushing in of itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. So, in light of that fact (that there should be no cherry picking), are you for or against leaving the statements made by the Guardian article?Kazemita1 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We either work towards removing most of the POV claims, or none at all. If we remove the Guardian POV statements in favor and against the MEK, then the allegations in the lede that the MEK is a cult needs to be removed as well. In a similar example, there are countless sources that describe the Trump administration as a "cult", yet you won't find the word "cult" on its Wiki article; that's because that article is better monitored than this one is. Similarly, we should aim to include mostly factual points (the MEK being a "cult" is not factual, despite what some people would want others to believe). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Please don't repeat that old comparison between this article and that of Donald Trump, the latter being a BLP (your comment was responded multiple months ago). I can't figure out on what basis are you asking for removal of something which is backed by "Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73]"? Please make a clear response to this question without mixing this with irrelevant topics: Do you have any fair and substantiated objections against removing the POVs (both from the supporters and the critics) from the Guardian? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

On the basis of POV pushing, which the cult allegations are, as the Guardian article so eloquently put it:

"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules."

"But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government."

That is POV in favor, and against it. If we remove one side's POV, then we also need to remove the other side's POV. Removing one side and leaving the other is POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, "Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73]" and "critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years" are describing MEK as being cult. This is no longer a simple POV, I think, and the Guardian is not what gonna be the criteria for judgement here. Being a cult is already supported by many reliable sources other than the Guardian. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the sentence in the lede that's disputed:

• "Many experts,[71] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[72] and the governments of the United States and France[73] have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.[74]"

And this is what those sources say:

• " The M.E.K., which professes an eccentric variant of Islam, has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult." The quote speaks for itself: has been charaterized as resembling a cult (this does not support the statement currently in the lede).
• [19] HRW doesn't even describe it as a cult (This does not support the statement currently in the lede, and HRW should be removed unless there is a substantiated reason not to).
• "French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, for “its violent and non-democratic inspirations,” ″cult nature” and “intense campaign of influence and disinformation.” This is the statement of of Nadal who "criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran" for its "cult nature" (also this does not support the statement currently in the lede).
• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules." This statement also refers that this is refers to "critics" of the group (which also does not support the statement currently in the lede).

A BBC source used later in the article presents both sides of the argument:

"One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away... And yet another officer, who was there at precisely the same time and is now a retired general ... "Cult? How about admirably focused group?" he says. "And I never heard of anyone being held against their will."

There is a debate forth and against this (forth by critics, and against by supporters). Adding either side is POV pushing, and the proposal here is to clean the article from POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 removed ""Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there", but the part about those critical of the MEK describing it as a cult was kept. We should restore the long-standing version until we figure out if we'll keep or remove both support and criticisms in the lead. Ypatch (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there are plenty of many other sources calling the group a Cult. Some even call them "totalitarian cult". When assessing the POVs, one has to take the weight of each POV into consideration. "One colonel", whom we don't know, is never going to be as weighty as "many experts" and "scholarly works". By the way, there's no much different between MEK being described as "resembling" cult and 'being' a cult, in light of many other reliable and neutral sources saying they are cult. There is an illusion here; MEK being a cult is not merely an accusation by the group's critics, rather many scholars, politicians and experts are saying that. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You are citing the Guardian, then why are you ignoring this infamous long-read by the Guardian saying MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult"! Also, a quick search in books brings you good results. For instance, see this book by Routledge saying MEK finally turned into a "destructive cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 09:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein: i have analyzed the sources supporting the statement in the lede, and described why they don't support the statement as is. I have also showed how major press, such as the BBC and Guardian, describe critics referring to the MEK as having "Cult-like attributes", and how supporters dismiss those claims. In other words, if you want to make a case that the MEK is referred to objectively as a "cult", then you need to provide several reliable sources that say the MEK is objectively a "cult". So far, you've provided a chapter in a book written by a MEK defector and an article by www.middleeasteye.net, which is not enough to objectively render any political group as a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

And I showed how flawed your analysis was. You are cherry picking the sources to show there's no source saying MEK is a cult! this infamous long-read by the Guardian saying MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult"! The RAND report dedicates a whole section on "MEK as a Cult" and it cites HRW as having the same description (see p. 69). The report further proves that MEK is a cult:

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult. They allege that former MeK members and critics of the MeK are either Iranian agents or their dupes. However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC.

There are plenty of other sources saying the same thing, some of them are already used in "designation as a cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 15:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I indeed did not "cherry pick the sources to show there's no source saying MEK is a cult!", I just provided an analysis of the current sources in the lede which, as I showed, do not support the statement that the MEK is a "cult", but rather that "critics" (as the Guardian source puts it) have described the MEK as having "cult-like characteristics" (which is considerably different). Also, where is the Human Rights Watch source that says that the MEK is a "cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You provided an analysis but we won't act based on the user's own analysis (per WP:No Original Research). Btw, the act of preferring this source over this long read, which says MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult", is pretty much like cherry picking. Note that according to the Guardian, "takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve." For HRW, see the Rand report I already provided. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, that's a single source; hardly enough for justifying such a big claim the the lede of the article, wouldn't you say? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Specially when another article by the Guardian clearly specifies that these are statements by critics (making it not an objective truth, which is how it's currently being presented in the lede). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, not a single source. There are dozens of reliable sources making similar conclusions regarding MEK. The problem is that you are sticking to your source and ignore a higher quality source! why? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

While Mhhossein and Stefka discuss the cult sources in the lead section, I will restore the following long standing text removed by Kazemita1 without a substantiated reason:

• "Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there..

As I have explained to El_C, my objection is that this statement is supported by this RS, forms part of the long-standing text, and there wasn't a substantiated reason when it was removed by Kazemita who in their edit summary said "There is enough agreement towards removing the Guardian source", but that is not the case. Ypatch (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: That's another violation the page's restrictions. Your claims are wrong; You removed it just amid our discussion (and what follows) on what sentences should be included in the lead and you never substantiated why the sentence has to be restored! I have already explained (see my comments above) why you this edit would add to POV issue. @El C: I think an admin action is needed here. Despite what Ypatch claims, our discussion on "cult sources in the lead section" is not something separated from our discussion on including the opinion of "those who back the MEK". Ypatch's revert is not substantiated and he has relied on his explanation to you as a justification for the edit. This is a clear breach of the page's restrictions. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein I'm not immediately able to identify that revert as a violation. Ypatch appears to have substantiated their revert (albeit more tersely than I would like) back to the longstanding text. El_C 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for the response. Before I provide more details, can you show where/how he substantiated his revert? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's directly above: [the] statement is supported by this RS, forms part of the long-standing text, and there wasn't a substantiated reason when it was removed by Kazemita. El_C 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Well, I would not say there was no substantiation behind its removal. Let me say the whole story in brief; It was disputed why MEK's being described as cult should stay when the sentence on "those who back the group" is removed. This was because Ypatch and others were trying to show that the description of MEK as cult was solely done by the critics and hence a counter POV was needed. From the other hand, I showed that there are numerous reliable and neutral sources describing the group as a cult (my comments [20], [21], [22] and [23]). If there's anything needing to be balanced, that is actually the sentence on "those who back the group" which should be counter-balanced by a sentence from those who criticize the group. This source by the Guardian, which is already used in the lead, contains both POVs, i.e. the pov of "those who back the group" and "those who criticize the group". --Mhhossein ^talk 09:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As I showed above, the majority of these sources describe the MEK as having a "cult-like nature" or "resembling a cult", and yet the lede says that these sources have described the MEK as a "Cult". That's a misrepresentation of the sources. Also this Guardian source specifically says this refers to critics of the group, while backers have a different view on the matter. The diffs you provided do not address these points, which are crucial in this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, by all means, make a proposal to add that counterview. Stefka Bulgaria, if that is the case, then, indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted. El_C 09:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Ok, I will go by making the proposal. Also, I have showed multiple times, among them here, that Stefka Bulgaria is cherry picking that Guardian source again other higher quality sources to say his point. Though I am ready to see his points (not further cherry picking or gaming please). --Mhhossein ^talk 09:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The paragraph on MEK's cult nature/charcteristics

The Guardian already addresses "Critics" and "Supporters" in a clear manner:

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government.

We have something similar currently in the lede, it just lacks the clarification "Critics and many of those who have left the group describe it as having cult-like attributes". I would be fine with using the Guardian's "critics" and "supporters" synthesis (most of which is already in the article's lede). May I go ahead and use the Guardian's synthesis? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I asked you to not cherry pick one source. The answer to your question is NO because this infamous long-read by the Guardian says MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult"! As you know Guardian long-read "takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"Widely regarded" does not discard that these statements can be coming from critics (which the MEK has many), as these sources specify:

• "Described by critics as 'a cult'

  (Middle Eastern Eye)

• "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"

  (CBC)

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government.

  The Guardian

• " (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult"

  (The Daily Beast)

• "Such words as “cult/terrorist” are similar to how the Iranian regime describes the MeK, suggesting that Tehran’s disinformation program has been effective. Here is a quotation from the Fars News Agency, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Fars quotes the Commander of Iran’s notorious Basij Forces of the IRGC, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who said, “Iraqis hate the MKO [MeK] much and the only reason for the presence of the grouplet in Iraq is the US support for this terrorist cult.”

  (National Interest)

I can look for more, but these are enough sources supporting this already. I propose we add "Critics" to the lede based on these sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am restoring to the longstanding version because more discussion is needed to conclude what we should include in the led to describe the MEK being designated as cult. Anyway, you have found some sources saying they are not saying MEK is a cult rather they say it "resembles a cult" or things like this. However you are ignoring the reliable academic sources which say, as fact and without making attributions, that MEK is considered as cult:

• From RAND:

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.

• A long-read from the Guardian:

"Widely regarded as a cult, the MEK was once designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and UK, but its opposition to the Iranian government has now earned it the support of powerful hawks in the Trump administration, including national security adviser John Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo."

Does it need explanations?

• "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult" by Commentary:

"The MKO is not only a creepy cult, and willing to say anything to buy support regardless of the group’s record, but an empty shell as well."

• Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge:

"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.

• In the previous source, Ervand Abrahamian is quoted as saying:

By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.

• The Cult of Rajavi by Nyt!!!

This innovative description was later adopted and quoted by other sources.

• The Cult of MEK authored by Prospect:

"Accidentally or not, though, the speakers were helping to raise the profile and legitimize the aims of a cult group that will not bring democracy to Iran and has no popular support in the country."

• Will the Presence of Iran’s MEK Threaten Albania’s Already Shaky Stability? by World Politics Review:

"A shadowy outfit committed to the overthrow of Iran’s theocratic regime, the MEK is often described as a cult and used to be classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization."

• "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult"

"Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)."

• Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) by Council on Foreign Relations:

"Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."

There are probably some other sources making similar description of MEK and they don't use terms such as "cult-like" or "cult-attributes" or etc. So please let the discussion go before making further reverts. By the way, the current version of lead is wrongly showing all the sources as using "cult-like". I suggest proposing a draft here, before any direct change to the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The NYT source by Michael Rubin seems to be the closest RS supporting this claim. Most of the other source either do not support what is currently in the lede or are not by reliable sources or authors:

• The New York Review of books by Trita Parsi (an unreliable source by someone who has been described as a "Lobbyist for Iran")

• Commentary Magazine (an unreliable source by the same NYT source author)

• Chapter by Masoud Banisadr. You have used this source several times quoting it as "Eileen Barker", when the actual author is Masoud Banisadr, a "former MEK member" who dedicates the whole of his professional work to speak against the MEK.

• The American Prospect (far from being a reliable source)

• World Politics Review (far from being a reliable source)

@El C: I'm really trying not to ping you, but reverting back something in the article that isn't supported by its current sources is something that I see as a problem. You previously assessed that indeed, the "cult-like" qualification would be warranted", but Mhhossein nevertheless reverted back to this (something the current sources there do not support):

• "Many experts,[70] various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW,[71] and the governments of the United States and France[72] have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."

What the current sources supporting this say:

• "has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult. " The New Yorker
• "French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran for [...] its ″cult nature”" AP News
• " has been described as having cult-like attributes" The Guardian
• "Human Rights Watch report on MEK abuses in their camp. Quote on leadership devotion: "The MKO’s leadership consists of the husband and wife team of Masoud and Maryam Rajavi."HRW (Which doesn't even mention the word "cult"!)

I could continue debating new sources with Mhhossein, but the point is that the version Mhhossein reverted to is not supported by the current sources there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The key point is that I already provided sources supporting the current wording (except for "many experts" saying the resemble a cult) and you can't simply dismiss the sources by writing "far from being reliable". Also your edit had inserted inaccuracies into the led, as I already explained in my previous comment (why do you ignore them?). Also I don't know why you tend to repeat old things over and over (exactly like what you did here). I am not going to repeat my comments here. Anyway, I have done some changes here to make it more accurate. Finaly, . --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe launch an RfC about this, so that you can get some outside input into this dispute... My own view, incidentally, is that to say that the MEK is a cult outright does not seem to mirror the available sources. It comes across as an hyperbole. By contrast, referring to cult-like attributes seems like a good compromise that resolves that. El_C 17:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: If you wish to include in the lede of the article that certain entities "have described the MEK as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi", you need RSs confirming just that. So far, I pointed out the unreliable sources you provided are no good for backing up this statement, and the only reliable source available (the New York Times) is already being used to in the "Other names" section to state "The Cult of Rajavi or Rajavi Cult", which I also find to by another hyperbole (using El_C's terminology). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Rubin piece comes across as a "damming article against the MEK", certainly a one-sided criticism of the group. Perhaps worth unraveling with other views elsewhere in the article, but in the lead section of the article it becomes WP:UNDUE POV. Ypatch (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the previous section where we were following the discussions on how to use was hard to navigate, I suggest we continue the talks here. There had been some changes to this paragraph. We concluded that "many experts" say the group "resemble" a cult. However, "Various scholarly works, media outlets" was removed for being unsourced despite the fact that "the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" per MOS:CITELEAD. However, the body of the article is already featured with the citations supporting the phrase. Anyway, I'm restoring the material accompanied by the requested citations. Btw, simply saying a source is not reliable, it does not make us believe the source is not reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't currently have much time to look at the new sources, but I see that the BBC article used for the claim that the US described the MEK as a "Cult" includes an interview with one officer saying the MEK is a cult, and another interview with another officer saying the MEK is instead an "admirably focused group". The mainspace also has sources saying the US has criticized the MEK at some points, and supported it at other. This needs to be better presented in the same way the source is presenting it (more neutrally), so moving this to the section "Designation as a cult". Ypatch (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the continuing accusations by Mhhossein that I'm trying to "Game" the system by revisiting topics that had been discussed in the past, I won't go further in this discussion even though, upon analysis, it's fairly obvious that some of the sources that Mhhossein has included in the lede don't actually represent what it's being said.

What Mhhossein inserted in the lede:

" Various scholarly works, media outlets has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."

What sources actually say:

• "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War." RAND (Think tank)

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi" (refers to critics, more consistent with the RSs I provided below)

• "By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult. (having the "main attributes of a cult" does not mean they are a "cult")

• "The coup de grace that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife" Even though this article comprises only of a criticism of the MEK, it still does not support that "media outlets describe it as a cult" Elizabeth Rubin

• "Widely regarded as a cult" Does not support that "media outlets describe it as a cult". The Guardian

On the other hand, RSs saying that critics describe the MEK as having cult-personality or cult-like characteristics are more consistent:

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "Described by critics as 'a cult' Middle Eastern Eye

• "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'" CBC

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government. The Guardian

• " (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult" The Daily Beast

Per the analysis above, there are many more RSs saying that "critics" refer to the MEK as having "cult-like characteristics", than the current statement that "various scholarly works and media outlets" outright describe the MEK as a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on Stefka's analysis of the sources, I'll add "critics" to that then, putting in all the sources that say "critics". I'll also remove any sources that don't support neither "critics" nor "Various scholarly works, media outlets have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi." That should leave us with a more accurate representation of sources. Ypatch (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two Guardian sources for the "cult" attribution. The first writes "Widely regarded as a cult", and the second writes "has been described as having cult-like attributes". The first "Widely regarded as a cult" does not support that "media outlets have described it as a cult", but the second guardian source does support "cult-like attributes". Removing the first Guardian source that says "Widely regarded as a cult" since it does not support "media outlets have described it as a cult", and keeping the second Guardian source that supports what's in the article ("has been described as having cult-like attributes.") Ypatch (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Various scholarly works, media outlets have described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" is now supported by 1 source, while "critics, HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult" is supported by 10 sources. The first part is WP:UNDUE in comparison to the second, so removing it on that basis. Ypatch (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch is engaging edit war despite being warned and blocked for violating the page's restriction. Amid the ongoing discussions he is inserting his desired version against the longstanding version. Instead of starting a RFC for making the changes, as suggested by EI_C, Ypatch is destabilizing the article by dragging it into a real edit warring.

• This is longstanding version of the article (with some modifications after it was concluded that some sources are describing the group as "resembling" a cult).
• Stefka Bulgaria removed the terms "Various scholarly works, media outlets" from the longstanding version.
• I restored to the longstanding version and tried to substantiate my objection here. Please note that I opened a new TP topic for the disputed issue.
• Any further removal of "Various scholarly works, media outlets", without building consensus, would be counted as violation of the restrictions, and to my surprise, Ypatch has removed them again without trying to build consensus.

His other edits like [24], which are reverting already restored materials, can also be deemed as a edit warring. @El C: It was not really how we decided to work. We don't revert solely because there's an explanation. I am not going to restore the longstanding version before your comment. I think Ypatch recent edits are clearly violating the restriction. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

But it wasn't removed again per se., the word "critics" was supplanted instead. If that is also a revert (if that happened before), you need to demonstrate that. As an aside, mere removal of longstanding text —a unique instance thereof— is not considered itself to be a revert, but rather a bold edit. Those bold edits may be reverted back to the longstanding text, providing the objection to the bold edit is substantiated. El_C 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C:It was indeed a revert back to this or this version of the article. If that is a revert, it calls for admin action (repeating a revert for changing the lead, where the are substantiated objections against the change). I think this is opening the hands for edit warrens to revert amid discussions, without building consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Although the word "critics" has been repeated in one of these instances, I'm not inclined to view this as a violation or edit warring. The sentences which follow are quite different. A revert is not just word duplication, but rather also about underlining meaning. El_C 06:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am restoring the paragraph to the longstanding version since I believe the objections are still valid and some users are trying to put their version amid discussion. In response to comments [25], [26], [27] and [28]:

• Abrahamian, on some occasions, describe the MEK as a Cult. For instance, search "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences".
• Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". So, saying it does not support "media outlets describe it as a cult", is just weird!
• RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources.
• The American Prospect[29], Council on Foreign Relations[30] and Commentary (magazine)[31] are among the reliable sources such a descriptions are made.
• In this source, "the cult of personality" is used un-attributed and is used in the author's voice. Otherwise we would expect something like "But critics question that commitment, "given [what they consider to be] the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi."
• This is a weird argument for showing something is due/undue. YOU can't make the final conclusion based on YOUR OWN assumptions.
• "Widely regarded as a Cult" in this source is not reflecting the newspaper's voice, yes, and I have now replaced it with another media outlet.

Further removal of the phrase "Various scholarly works, media outlets" from the longstanding version of the article out of discussion process should be avoided without building consensus, given the objections and the given sources. I'm restoring to the longstanding version given the bullets provided and am ready to discuss the points on the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

These sources have already been analyzed in this section, and El_C approved the update of the article which was purely based on the available source. Mhhossein reverted without consensus. Moreover, Mhhossein removed the numerous sources backing up "Critics". Lastly, here's an analysis of the sources above, which show you've edited here without consensus:

• "Abrahamian, on some occasions, describe the MEK as a Cult. For instance, search "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences"."

That is not equal to "scholarly works" describing the MEK "as a cult built around"

• "Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult". So, saying it does not support "media outlets describe it as a cult", is just weird!"

As Ypatch pointed out: "The Elizabeth Rubin piece comes across as a "damming article against the MEK", certainly a one-sided criticism of the group. Perhaps worth unraveling with other views elsewhere in the article, but in the lead section of the article it becomes WP:UNDUE POV."

• "RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources."

Doesn't say the MEK is a cult, it says The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

• "The American Prospect[6], Council on Foreign Relations[7] and Commentary (magazine)[8] are among the reliable sources such a descriptions are made."

"The American Prospect" is not RS, "Council of Foreign Relations" cites Rubin's article, a "Commentary Magazine" is another "damming article against the MEK" by another Rubin.

• "In this source, "the cult of personality" is used un-attributed and is used in the author's voice"

That does not equate to it describing the MEK as a "cult".

• "This is a weird argument for showing something is due/undue."

When you have the Rubins saying the MEK is a "dishonest Cult", but you don't have other RS saying the same, then that's an UNDUE statement.

• ""Widely regarded as a Cult" in this source is not reflecting the newspaper's voice, yes, and I have now replaced it with another media outlet.

Ypatch already addressed the Guardian sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The admin's comment starts with suggestion for starting an RFC and his "own view" was to avoid saying "MEK is a cult outright", which we are already respecting by having phrases like some people "has described it as" being MEK with others saying they "resemble" a cult (the latter literally means the group is said by some to have cult-like attributes). So, I would not interpret that comment as "approving" an update. Anyway, as for the bullets:

• Yes, Abrahamian did not use the exact words of the 'cult being built around someone', but there are other reliable sources saying this. Actually cults are always built around something/someone. Anyway, this item, i.e. "built around its leaders", can be prone to further discussions. Probably you may explain why "cult of personality", the description used by Abrahamian, does not equate to saying the cult is being built around its leaders. Also, see CFR saying "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."
• You two describe the Elizabeth Rubin's work as being "damming article against the MEK" and "certainly a one-sided criticism of the group" and the description seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Likewise you said "Commentary Magazine" is another "damming article against the MEK" by another Rubin."
• The RAND report, clearly describes the group as "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."
• CFR is not used as a direct source here but it make a general statement: "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis." So, it says "many analysts", "including Rubin", say MEK is a cult. Also, can you say why you think "The American Prospect" is not a reliable source?
• When Abrahamian describes the group as a "the cult of personality", it is describing the group as "cult". What's wrong here?
• "Dishonest Cult" is used no where in the article, nor is used "creepy cult".This argument is baseless. "... is now supported by 1 source"! Simply because there are more supporting sources. -Mhhossein ^talk 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You can continue to repeat "baseless", but there has already been numerous thorough analyses of the sources that indicate otherwise. You reverted without consensus, which we had received through El_C. Bottom line. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein went against a consensus that was approved by El_C without discussing it further with anyone here. Mhhossein should have engaged in a debate with other editors here, as has been happening for a long time now, instead of reverting without discussion. I am reverting Mhhossein's revert until consensus is achieved. Ypatch (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein edit warring this again! You cannot revert without discussion. Reverting back until another consensus is achieved. Ypatch (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Hafte Tir bombing

As explained in the article, MEK never admitted to conducting this bombing. As a result, sources are divided on whether MEK was behind this bombing or not. Currently, the content of this section leans toward the sources that deny MEK involvement. @EmilCioran1195, Saff V., BarcrMac, Ypatch, and Mhhossein: Do you find it a good compromise to add one sentence from sources such as the following, that connects the bombing with MEK? And to address the size issue that was brought up by Vanamonde we can perhaps remove "the shadowy outfit" of MEK from the lead as suggested by Emilcioran.

Axworthy, Michael (2016). Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic. Oxford University Press. p. 214. ISBN 9780190468965.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that, As discussed here before, it was concluded that "The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point. The overarching description should follow that".Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There is already a Wikipedia article on the Hafte Tir Bombing that describes this incident in detail. If we're trying to clean up this article, then a mention that the IRI blamed the MEK for this event should be enough. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly you recommend that we remove all the sources in this section; including the ones that deny MEK involvement.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this can be reduced to one or two sentences since there's already a Wikipedia article about this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but please note the same is true about 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. We have one full section even (lengthier that Hafte Tir bombing) dedicated to it in the article, yet the topic has a separate Wikipedia page. I think, in here we are discussing ways to fine-tune the article with little change due to the contentious nature of this topic. That said, you are more than welcome to open a new discussion for trimming all sections that have a separate Wiki article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 put back into the article that "According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance". Adding such observations of an author gives the false impression that there is some kind of evidence that the MEK carried out this attack, but there isn't any evidence. The sources only say that the MEK is accused of this bombing, and that the MEK denied the charges. That is all that we should have in this section, and should be restored to the long standing version for that reason. Ypatch (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Restoring to long-standing version of the article based on my substantiated objection (just before this message) that has been there for about 10 days. Ypatch (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Excessive information about a book

This one is rather minor, but I figured in the interest of trimming the article, I open the discussion for it. In this section of the article the details of a tragedy is explained. However, when describing Maryam Rajavi's book there is repetitive content. My sugestion is to change this sentence:

In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity". The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members.[164]

to the following

In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity" on this topice.[164]

This is in light of the fact that the exact number of people killed is already mentioned a few lines above.

As Human rights organizations estimates, The number of those executed remains a point of contention, with the numbers ranging between 1,400 and 30,000 including women and children.[161]

--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, we don't need to repeat the toll more than necessary. Your suggestion describes the book in a good manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It is really essential to prevent inserting duplicated material. Why should we get the reader bored in this way?Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is about Rajavi's book. What Rajavi's book is about doesn't seem to be duplicated anywhere else in the article, right? If you want to start cleaning up POV, how about the Fund Raising section, which is made up of 4 subsections which, considering the length of the article, really should not be. Or Human rights record and Allegations of sexual abuse, which are the same thing, right? Or Ideological revolution and women's rights which has a lot of excruciating details about a marriage? How about starting with those? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Since Stefka Bulgaria has drawn attention to that section; it is critically important that the "ideology" section only contain material the relevance of which has been established by reliable sources. In other words, sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned. Whether this is the case, I leave for all of you to determine. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian discusses the marriage in the ideological revolution section of his book. And editors from both sides of the isle have relied on this academic book.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Everybody can see that each word of the ideological revolution section is the result of discussion under the control of Admin. It is better not to mix topics with each other! The disputed sentence "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members" is same as "As Human rights organizations estimates, The number of those executed remains a point of contention, with the numbers ranging between 1,400 and 30,000 ..." obviously!Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's saying we shouldn't use the Abrahamian book, the argument is whether so much excruciating detail is needed (as in the other sections I mentioned). For Rajavi's book, mentioning what the book says doesn't seem excessive to me, but if editors are suggesting it needs to be removed, then the same criteria should apply to other sections, like the Women's Rights and Ideological Revolution where there is indeed excessive detailing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think no one is asking for removal of the sentence on the rajavi's book. Rather, the sentence is just repeating the toll which should be modified so that the WP:UNDUE issue is resolved. We don't need two sentences almost the same thing. We can write that the book is on the executions without adding unnecessary details. @Vanamonde93: You can find in archive the discussions regarding the relationships between that marriage and the ideological revolution. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 asked for the removal of the sentence on Rajavi's book (one sentence is about what Rajavi's book is about, the other is about what other sources speculate the death tolls are). In fact, Kazemita1 seems to have removed that information, along with making several other reverts that are currently discussed here without any given consensus. Is anyone going to do anything about that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

No one dares edit this article at the moment, we just get banned at the whim of a random passing admin. Not worth it. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The irony is that I just blocked this user for 2 weeks for an ARBPIA violation, so they are unable to respond to the following: on the mainspace, if one does not revert, there is literally zero chances of facing sanctions. El_C 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this information is "excessive", particularly when we have allowed so much about who Massoud Rajavi married and didn't marry in an article about the MEK! This description explains what the book is about, something that doesn't seem to be repeated anywhere else in the article (the quotes Kazemita provided are about what statistics assume death tolls are, not what Rajavi says death tolls are. So it does not qualify as "excessive information". Ypatch (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That's quite simple, we should not report the toll twice, though we can cite multiple reliable sources for a death toll. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

One source is from Amnesty International saying that "The number of those executed remains a point of contention, with the numbers ranging between 1,400 and 30,000 including women and children." This describes that the death tolls estimates remain a "point of contention" that includes "women and children".

The other source says "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members". This describes Rajavi's account of the death tolls, the "the majority being MEK members".

This is why this information is not repeated. One is an estimate from Amnesty, the other is an explanation of what Maryam Rajavi's book is about (someone who was directly involved in this ordeal). If you still think this information is repeated, I will compromise by merging these two sources together. Ypatch (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully agree that the death toll estimates by Amnesty are the same as what Maryam Rajavi's book is about, but whatever, moving on. On this premise of removing repeated information from the article, I've ordered the allegations made against the MEK about nuclear scientists, and removed any information repeating what the NBC source was saying. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Your removal of MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist was a clear violation of the article restrictions and had nothing to do with the self-made "premise of removing repeated information from the article". --Mhhossein ^talk 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeated information about nuclear scientists

I found this (the later part of this sentence about nuclear scientists) to be repeated information about the allegations made against the MEK regarding Iranian nuclear scientists, which is something that's already covered in the article:

• "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."[393]

I propose removing (the part about nuclear scientists at least) based on that it's repeated information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been well over a week and nobody has replied to this, so removing (per WP:SILENCE) the part that says "although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel" since that is already in the article in the "Iran's nuclear programme" section:

• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[208][209][210] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[211][208] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."[212]

• "On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."[382]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: You removed the following from the article saying it's "duplicate material:

• "Haaretz published that the allegations by Mohammad Java Larijani (senior aide to Iran's supreme leader) concerning the MEK and the Iran nuclear scientists were unsubstantiated, and that "though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting." Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.""

Can you please point out where this duplicated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that 9 months it's too long. I think it should be 6 months for discussions that haven't reached consensus, and 12 for any that have. Also just noticed Mhhossein reverting this disputed edit without actually providing an objection. @El C: I thought we were not allowed to revert without providing a substantiated objection? (some editors here, including myself, have been blocked for that in the past). Ypatch (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You're in the wrong section. Anyway, that revert is based on an explanation provided in October — though I, for one, don't remember what it was. El_C 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Excessive information a marriage/divorce

In light that Kazemita1 (with Mhhossein's support) has removed from the mainspace "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members." on the basis that this is "excessive information", then we should treat other problematic sections under the same criteria, starting with the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights".

I propose that the following paragraph:

"On 27 January 1985, Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. The MEK is "known for its female-led military units".[6] Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.[263]"

Be resumed into the following:

""On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. The MEK is "known for its female-led military units".[6]

My reasoning for reducing this is because there is nothing in the removed sentences that tells us more about the MEK's "Ideological revolution and women's rights" (which is what this section is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There is an attempt to summarise some parts of this article while other parts have been inflated. This is one of the parts that is inflated, and it can be summarised while retaining the main occurrences. Ypatch (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How many times do we have to discuss this topic and all its aspects? Isn't 4 months enough? For instance, summarizing this paragraph is inappropriate because, according to the Admin's comment, some issues become vague and incomprehensible.Saff V. (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like being GAMEd by Stefka Bulgaria. He is making a false comparison between the removal of excessive mention of death tolls and what he finds to be "excessive information a marriage/divorce". The current wording of the article, i.e. "In 2019, Maryam Rajavi, released a book named "Crime Against Humanity" on this topic," is sufficiently describing the Rjavi's book with no excessive details on the toll. Can you stop mixing irrelevant things please? If you have objections with what we discussed some months ago, you need to have fair reasoning on why, for instance, Rajavi and Abrishamchi's divorce should not be here (this divorce needs to be mentioned since it is describing what steps were taken for the ideological revolution.) Also, the impact of the divorce-marriage and its reception by others have to be mentioned, too. We discussed all of these things earlier and you can find them in archive. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you may have missed Vanamonde's suggestion that "sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned". I have presented my case why this needs trimming, and I have also presented a proposed text. I ask that, in the spirit of collaboration, you or Saff V. do the same. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and you are going to show how sources stated that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology by SUMMARIZING the paragraph! Aren't you? During that disscussion we brought sources which they explain the relationship between that material and that divorce and marriage cleary, even you suggested text we discussed it. Maybe user:Vanamonde93 is not aware of that discussion but User:El C can give comment.Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to be optimistic and AGF. However, the more I look the more I think something is going wrong with Stefka Bulgaria's suggestions. Looking at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 17#Ideological revolution and women's rights, which contains the details of our discussion where Stefka Bulgaria was involved, it appears he is again making the previous mistakes. For instance, I already asked him why he was suggesting to remove the portion on divorce, but he failed to respond to my query. This concern was also mentioned by User:El C when he said "No mention of "divorce" (really? "already married"?) and Abrahamian's exposition on how this was viewed in Iranian society is absent". In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria was warned against by El C against Gaming the system and being tendentious. He was also told that "stripping the content bare to the point that it is no longer recognizable as such" is different from being "concise". Other users were also making objection against his suggestion, and Stefka Bulgrai is here again asking almost the same thing! What's it if it is not an attempt at gaming the system? Comments by @El C: is welcomed. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would say that my preference is for an RfC that is properly closed so that consensus is codified in the closure. But here, I am, indeed, experiencing déjà vu — which is not good. Anyway, objections to the proposed changes (or ones similar enough — feel free to correct me) were already substantiated at length before, were they not? If that is indeed so, then participants are not, in fact, obliged to entertain these again after only a scant few months (thereby sparing everyone the repetition). Consensus here will not be arrived at by filibuster, just like it will not be arrived at by edit warring. Please try to be mindful of past discussions. For example, phrase your proposal with a preamble like so: past discussion regarding this issue has reached a stalemate. Unlike the rejected proposal that contended that X, I am proposing that we implement changes that would result in Y. But coming across as saying: I propose that we do X changes (again) — that is a problem that, if repeated, can be viewed as tendentious editing, which may result in sanctions. I'm not sure to what extent this is the case this time, but that is something to be mindful of. Again, exhausting opposing participants through filibuster and repetition isn't the way to compromise. Please ensure that one clearly explains what is new with whatever given proposal, so that we aren't going around in circles. El_C 17:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C I pointed out how Saff V., Mhhossein, and Kazemita1 have advocated for the removal of certain information saying that the information is "excessive". I then proposed that we use the same criteria for other sections where the information also seems "excessive", which (unless I misunderstood) was supported by Vanamonde93 who wrote "sources need to have stated clearly that the details of that marriage are relevant to the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" theme in the MEK's ideology. Otherwise, the content more likely belongs in the biographies of the individuals mentioned." If we have recently determined that we are cleaning the article of "excessive" information, then I would assume that revisiting a previous discussion based on the recent editing aims should be ok, but I am to assume that it's not? (and we are never to discuss this section again?). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We can't have the same months-long discussion every four months — it's unpractical. Your proposals better have some new components, or you are, at best, just wasting the time of participants, and at worst, waging warfare through attrition. El_C 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria I would say your proposal warranted admin action since it was almost the same. That you are equaling removal of almost identical mention of death toll to the removal of well-sourced contents is itself meaningful. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand the impracticability of reviving a discussion that took place 4 months ago, but I do find that there are genuine inaccuracies here. For instance, this is what Abrahamian wrote:

• "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"

And this is what's currently in the article:

• " This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping."

This is taking the observations of some "traditionalists" and what Abrahamian thought the incident smacked of, and making it read as something objective that happened amongst the whole of the Iranian middle class (which is not supported by the source, and isn't supported by other sources either). @El C: if you don't find that to be an issue, then I'll just let this go. Thanks for weighing in. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there's room for some further refinement (i.e. traditionalists). That's usually the case in any collaborative writing, anyway. But Abrahamian speaks with authority nonetheless (which is to say, authoritatively), so the crux of it seems faithful enough to the source material. Certainly, nothing requiring wholesale removal. Anyway, one could always add the pertinent excerpt from Abrahamian in an explanatory note, too, in case it is felt that the original prose's meaning had become either too diluted or too potent, or just plain inaccurate. Something worth exploring, in any case, sure. El_C 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This comment by Stefka Bulgaria is attempting to justify a clear wrongdoing; Depsite what Stefka Bulgarai says, he should have "revive"d the old discussion and probably added some more new comments. Also, I am seeing again that Stefka Bulgaria aims to persistently ping El_C for every single thing happening here. Just see "if you don't find that to be an issue, then I'll just let this go"!!! I don't think that this would lead to betterment of the article, rather it makes the admin become too involved (Stefka Bulgaria has already benefited from this situation when he narrowly escaped from sanctions some months ago). As for the recent issue, on the "traditionalists'" idea", it does not explain the mass removal of contents. It can be resolved via discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, I would ask that you focus on the article's content rather than the mudslinging you presented in your last comment here. Moving on, if you agree that specifying "traditionalists" is appropriate, then, unless anyone else has a problem with that word, I'll clarify that in the article. It's a good start to compromising some of that section which to me reads like POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you please use a more polite language? What you described as "mudslinging" was in fact an attempt at protecting the article's content. Anyway, how are you going to include the "traditionalists"? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Mudslinging" is not an impolite language. Moving on, I think the best solution here is to just quote Abrahamian directly. This will help represent properly his view points on the matter. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been a week since anyone replied to my proposition to quote Abrahamian directly, so I'll quote Abrahamian directly based on WP:SILENCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Excessive information about "Fundraising"

In the quest for cleaning up unnecessary long sections in the article, the section Fund raising is currently made up of 4 subsections that describe MEK fundraising in 4 different countries. That seems needlessly excessive. I propose we merge the 4 subsections into a single section describing the main, verified by reliable sources, and relevant points. Much of it is based on claims by Nejat Society, which seems more propaganda-oriented that factual evidence. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Which point is solely claimed by Nejat? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"According to the Netjang Society, in 1988, the Nuremberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police." Anyone have a problem with removing this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is well attributed claim and there's no issue with regard to reliability. Do you find Nejat incapable to have such a claim? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Netjang Society is not a reliable source; and we need reliable sources to verify claims. This is the reason it needs to be removed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

On December 28 I proposed to clean up the "Fundraising" section. This involves merging unnecessary subsections and removing anything not backed by RSs. As of yet, the only response came from Mhhossein who questioned Netjang Society as a valid source; a website that apparently is fully dedicated to spreading propaganda against the MEK. I'll wait for Mhhossein's response to how Netjang Society is a valid source for these claims while I merge the sections and remove anything that isn't backed by RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Netjang, as a significant NGO opposing MEK, is certainly reliable for its claims. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Nejat as a "reliable" and "significant NGO" is concerning. Why don't we start using other advocacy website such as Iran probe as RSs too? Because that's what they are, advocacy websites and far from being peer-reviewed RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making further personal attacks by attributing "promotion" of something to me. The society has been a source of info for multiple books ([32], [33] and [34] for instance). --Mhhossein ^talk 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving on... so has the NCRI been a source of info for multiple books; does that mean we should include their advocacy here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? They are already included. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a better question here would be whether Nejat Society's accusations against the MEK are WP:DUE. Are there any other reliable sources supporting these accusations? (a single Iran Government affiliated website seems WP:UNDUE for this). Ypatch (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be UNDUE? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Because we don't have more sources that mention the same accusations. It's just one organization making these accusations and their primary purpose appears to be to publish posts against the MEK. Ypatch (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't have? Are you sure? So what's this? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Why did you do this edit? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This quotes Nejat Society. Ypatch (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I am going to remove the attribution unless one can say how "author's conversations at the Nejat society" can be re-written as "according to the Nejat Society"? The author have reached that conclusion after discussing the issues with the former members of MEK at the Nejat society. Talking to the members of the MEK had been a part of the author's scholarly work. So, we are not allowed to interpret the author's intention in other ways. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is not the author, it's Nejat society ("author's conversations at the Nejat society"). So you cannot attribute the author, but needs to be attributed to Nejat society because that is the source of the information. But that's like collecting information directly from the Islamic regime about MEK. It may be valid for the Islamic regime's POV, but that's it. Ypatch (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has replied to this in a month. Reading through www.nejatngo.org/en/, this an organization affiliated with the Iranian government against the MEK. I think it should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:NEUTRAL problems, or if Mhhossein insists on keeping it, then moved to "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK". If nobody replies, I'll proceed with removing this. Ypatch (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I already gave you the response: "The author have reached that conclusion after discussing the issues with the former members of MEK at the Nejat society. Talking to the members of the MEK had been a part of the author's scholarly work. So, we are not allowed to interpret the author's intention in other ways". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: what conclusion has the author reached? that Nejat Society made these statements about the MEK? That is pretty obvious, but not the point. The point is that Nejat Society is the one making these statements against the MEK, not the author! So it is quite deceiving to leave it in the article as it is since, like I already said, "Reading through www.nejatngo.org/en/, this an organization affiliated with the Iranian government against the MEK. I think it should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:NEUTRAL problems" Please address the problem that is being discussed here. Ypatch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the author made the interviews with MEK members then he made a conclusion. So, we should not misinterpret "author's conversations at the Nejat society" as "according to the Nejat Society". The latter means the author is merely conveying something while the former means the author has published the analysis of his interviews with the members. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What "conclusions" are you talking about? That former members of MEK said that the MEK ran false charities? The author is only reporting on what he was told by Nejat Society, he is not making any conclusions. Ypatch (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this is not simply reporting the MEK members' narration. Anyway, the materials are published in a secondary reliable source and we are not going to dig it deeper. Stop mis-using WP:UNDUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What else then is the author reporting on here besides MEK members' narration? Don't forget that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Ypatch (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

His own understanding of the points he got by talking to the MEK members. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, please quote what "his own understanding of the points" are. Ypatch (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Mhhossein has not answered here for over 10 days. Can I go ahead with moving the claims from Nejat Society (an organization affiliated with the Iranian government against the MEK) either out of the article or in the Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK section per WP:SILENCE? Ypatch (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: No, you may not. There's a lot of discussion going on on this talk page, and Mhhossein was not pinged to your last reply to this one; he can't be assumed to have seen it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: please quote what "his own understanding of the points" are. Ypatch (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

After talking to the Nejat society, he understood there were some fake charity organizations which in fact were fundraising for MEK. As I said before, "author's conversations at the Nejat society" does not necessarily mean "according to the Nejat Society". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: can you quote exactly what the author's "own understanding of the points" are? (repeating over and over again that the author has made his own "understanding of the points", without providing what those "understanding of the points" are, is not helpful). Ypatch (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I already told you. If you want words from the source, for instance, "In 1988, the Nurnberg MEK front organization was uncovered by the police, and the tactic was exposed." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The full quote is "In 1988, the Nurnberg MEK front organization was uncovered by the police, and the tactic was exposed." (author's conversations at the Nejat Society) What do you think the "author's conversations at the Nejat Society" part is telling us? Ypatch (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it a game? It probably means author had conversation at the Nejat society and go to know about the charities. Then he proceeded to publish the info in his book. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: It's not a game and yes, you are correct that this is where the author got the information from. As you maybe know, the Iranian government is not a reliable source for this article. This is why this information is not good for this article. Unless you are trying to include Iranian government POV in this article, this should be removed. If we are adding (more) Iranian government POV in this article, then it should be included in the section about Iranian government POV. Ypatch (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

First, "the Iranian government is not a reliable source for this article" is a totally false argument. Second, we are not actually talking about something raised by the Iranian government, rather the info is published in a secondary reliable source. For the last time, "author's conversations at the Nejat Society" is not necessarily equalant to "according to Nejat Society". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, as you know, we had a vote on whether claims from Iranian sources were reliable for this article, and there was a consensus that they were only reliable for the Iranian regime's position; with CaroleHenson saying to you:

"It is common practice to take issues that aren't getting resolved to a project talk page. And, people from the article have been pinged here... as well as people from a previous RSN discussion and posting the link to this discussion on the article talk page. I brought it here to open it up to more people that would have a vested interest in the topic. It's very interesting to me that you have tried to discount people's opinions, the way that the vote was captured, etc. if the vote doesn't appear to be going your way. The lack of sourcing to support your arguments that Iranian sources should be used... and instead devolving to complaints, deflection, and personal attacks has been disappointing. I don't think that you'd be happy unless the voting turned out differently. By the way, the article can still be a good article if it has to be reworked a bit for sources.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of that discussion. If there was consensus to have Iranian regime POV used for Iranian regime POV only in this page, then that's the section we should put it in. @Mhhossein: you accept? Ypatch (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Never, no consensus was formed at the time and I objected that act since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran was clearly a wrong venue for making such a general decision. "Second, we are not actually talking about something raised by the Iranian government, rather the info is published in a secondary reliable source. For the last time, "author's conversations at the Nejat Society" is not necessarily equalant to "according to Nejat Society." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge that there was consensus on that talk page, and there is in fact consensus on that talk page, is evidence of your willingness to collaborate objectively with other editors here. Ypatch (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that I am actively contributing the TP discussions prove my collaboration. Probably you define collaboration as accepting all what you two say. Once again, no there was no consensus there. Moreover, that talk page was not general enough for concluding global decisions. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Human Rights Record" and "Allegations of sexual abuse" sections

I propose merging Allegations of sexual abuse within the Human rights record section as it forms part of the same subject ("allegations of sexual abuse" is basically "human rights record", so two different titles are not needed here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Among other humanitarian issues of MEK camps, sexual abuse is highlighted by multiple reliable sources. In general, "sexual abuse" is thought to be a sever human rights violation. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying that "In general, "sexual abuse" is thought to be a sever human rights violation." is WP:OR. "Allegations of sexual abuse" is indeed a "Human rights violation". We don't need a section for each type of alleged "Human rights violation" in the article, we can just include the bulk of it in a single section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I afraid, that way we will ignore the RSs' stress on the "sexual abuse" by MEK. A whole documentary was dedicated to that, among other things. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

These are allegations by defectors, so it's misleading to say that there is a "a stress on sexual abuse by RSs". These allegations form part of Human Rights abuses; and a reason hasn't been provided as to why they merit their own separate section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As RSes on the treatment of MEK with its members support, In general, "sexual abuse" is thought to be a sever human rights violation, for instance, Rand devoted a separate section to it, see page 71, or BBC published an article just about sexual abuse of MEK. In addition, during an interview with ex-member of MEK, they mostly emphasized on the sexual harassment in MEK's camp, see Soltani, Moeini and Hedayati and Heyrani's description.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I repeat since you're not addressing the point I'm making: these are allegations by defectors, not confirmed events, and they are indeed part of what constitutes "Human Rights abuses". Creating a separate section for this emphasises a POV in trying to magnify a particular event that already forms part of a section in the article. See POV Fork. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No, this is how the sources are treating the issue and we don't care why the topic had been of the interest to the sources. It could be because sources were themselves interested in them or other things. Take a look at Rand, for instance.--Mhhossein ^talk 21:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: what is it exactly that you'd like me to look for in the Rand report, for instance? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Dedication of a separate section to the MEK's sexual misconduct against its members. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: can you put the exact quotes you're referring to here? I've read through the source but did not find what you're referring to. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We are not searching for a single phrase. We are talking about a whole section dedicated to the MEK's sexual abuse. Ctrl+f "Sexual Control". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Sexual Control" section in that source comprises of a single paragraph about divorce/celibacy. How does that justify having a section in the mainspace titled "Allegations of sexual abuse"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the source mentioned above has dedicated a whole section to the MEK's sexual abuse. Needless to mention that there are plenty of sources dedicating a significant amount of their content to this topic. MEK's sexual misconduct has been of the key characteristics indicating the cultish nature of the group. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhossein, saying that "the source mentioned above has dedicated a whole section to the MEK's sexual abuse" is not actually true. The article talks about "compulsory divorce" and "required to be celibate". Not once does that section mention the term "Sexual abuse", so using that can't be used as basis for having a section with the name "Allegations of sexual abuse". Please provide reliable sources that use the term "sexual abuse" in relation to the MEK. Ypatch (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They have indeed used the title and the content following is not unrelated to the sexual abuse by MEK. Also, see my comments once again. That source is just an example. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, where in that example does it say "sexual abuse"? You need to provide exact sources and quotes, which you haven't yet. Ypatch (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Another talk page discussion where people have stopped participating. Does WP:SILENCE apply? or what is the procedure that should be followed when users stop answering? Ypatch (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any credible evidence being presented of sources giving a lot of weight to content about sexual abuse my the MEK. Certainly the RAND source above does not do this. To be clear, I have not looked for such sources myself, but have evualated the sources presented here, as part of determining whether participants in this argument are engaging in substantive argumentation or stonewalling. Furthermore, there has indeed been no substantive response here for a while, so there is a clear argument to apply WP:SILENCE. If any changes are reverted, the revert will need to be backed up by substantive argument, not claims about "long-standing content". Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged these two sections based on the points raised ("Sexual abuse" is a "Human rights violation") as well as per WP:SILENCE (a substantive argument or source detailing that this article merits a heading of "sexual abuse" has not been given). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Human rights record" and "Designation as cult" sections

The section "Designation as a cult" is based on the section "human rights record". The "cult-like" references about the MEK come from the allegations described in the "Human rights record" section, so I propose merging "Human rights record" and "designation as cult" into a single section: "Human rights reports and cult allegations".

Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read: "who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes" and "on what basis". *Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MEK's designation as a cult is of the most significant aspects of the group's history, just like how it was once considered a terrorist organization. It's Cultish nature has been studied by researchers and reported by media. Likewise, the "Human rights record" should be addressed separately. As an encyclopedic entry, the history of the group should be reflected just how the sources do. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you show RSs confirming that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If your challenge is why the word "designation" is in the section title, we may discuss over it. Anyway, the cultish nature of the group deserves a separate section. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

How is "Human rights record" different from the "cult" allegations? Don't the "cult" allegations derive from "Human rights" allegations? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The difference between "Human rights record" and "cult" allegations are subject to discussion by reliable sources. I mean we can't assume they are the same based on our own original research. The very fact that the cult allegations have been deeply discussed by reliable sources are not something to be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Then please provide the RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section from "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you find the sources making the section not enough for that purpose? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If I thought the current section was fine as it is, I wouldn't have started this TP discussion. I asked you for RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section. Can you please provide them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Cult and "Human rights records" are two different things. We can't, for example, add stuff about ancient history in the economy section of articles about countries. Same thing here, we can't add content about being cult to human rights records, these are two different things, we shouldn't even have to discuss this. The cult part is discussed in many many reliable sources so it should has its own standalone section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SharʿabSalam▼, repeating that "Cult" allegations and "Human rights records" are two different things doesn't explain how they are two different things. You need RSs outlining how the "Cult" allegations are not linked to "Human rights records" (as it stands, the "Designation as cult" section reads as if it's based on the MEK's "Human rights records", this is why I suggested merging). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is basic English language stuff but okay.

• Cult: A religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people.[35]
• Human rights: The basic rights that it is generally considered all people should have, such as justice and the freedom to say what you think.[36]

I think it is now clear that these are two different things. You will have to explain how these things are the same or just drop the stick.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Some sort of GAME is being played here; What kind of reliable source should determine the cult allegations warrant a separate section? Actually this is a wrong question/request. The amount and depth of the reliable sources discussing the cultish nature of the group should be finally the determining criteria for whether or not WP:DUE weight is given to the subject in the article. For that purpose, there are vast amount of sources saying they are either cult or resemble a cult. I can list those sources at your request anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For the third time, please list RSs that support the section "Designation as a cult"; and explain how the information from those RSs are not linked to the MEKs "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For the fourth time we have already provided sources for that. Being a cult means being an unopened minded group that has extreme beliefs (after all they are bunch of terrorists) while human rights records is a completely different thing. If you have troubles understanding this basic stuff then your problem might be just WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: What happens when you ask objecting editors for RSs to back up what they're objecting, but they won't provide them (and instead they just bludgeon)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not something should be two separate sections or not is largely a matter of judgement, so long as all the content therein is verifiable and neutral. As such unless you're questioning the material itself, the matter of one-section vs two is best dealt with via an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: As a start, we need a title that matches the sources. "Designation as a cult" does not match the sources. Please provide a title that matches the sources, or I'll find a suitable title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably we can find something better than "Designation". SharabSalam: Do you have any suggestions? I will provide my suggestions after consulting the related sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein here are three suggestions with examples.

• "Classification as a cult"
• "Characterization as a cult"
• "Description as a cult"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You were asked for "a title that matches the sources", but provide only titles with no sources. I have not looked at the sources in that section, but the title should match what those sources are saying. Ypatch (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

All of those match sources. All sources describe/designate/characterize/classify this terrorist group as a cult. Also, we should avoid verbatim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SharabSalam. I would not find options better this. @all: How about "Characterization as a cult"? This is what I meant to purpose. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Which sources support MEK's "Characterization as a cult"? Please provide them (instead of repeatedly saying that they have been provided). The sources need to say the MEK has been characterized as a cult. Ypatch (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources are above!. Here is an example, MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Widely regarded as a cult [37]. Don't tell me you want the exact word charaterization in the source, the word is a summary of what sources are saying.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that says the exact word charaterization, although it is not needed and asking for it seems disruptive and time-sinking game. He described the terror inflicted upon American and Iranian citizens at the hands of the MEK and described the well documented characterization of the MEK as a cult. (emphasis is mine) [38]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that single source by an Iranian lobbying group. Here are 10 actual WP:RSs that refer to this as being "Personality cult" (or "cult of personality") instead of a "Cult":

• "...fostered his own cult of personality"

• "it developed into a cult of personality"

• " including a personality cult centered around MEK leader Maryam Rajavi"

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "given the cult personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult..."

• "Creating a personality cult"

• "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences

• "former members describe the MEK as a personality cult"

• "wrote Peter Waldman, the MKO had 'become an authoritarian personality cult'

And here are 5 more sources saying that these are coming from critics:

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "Described by critics as 'a cult' Middle Eastern Eye

• "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'" CBC

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government. The Guardian

• " (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult" The Daily Beast

Now, which one do you think is more WP:DUE? The single source by a lobbying group that you've provided, or the 15 RSs I provided? (I have a feeling you'll say your single source is more WP:DUE, but worth asking anyway). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good analysis of references. Drawing from these, something like "Cult of Personality Criticims" would be the more WP:DUE option. Ypatch (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My proposal would be "Cult of Personality allegations" (which is what these are); but I'm of ok with Ypatch's proposal too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Two users are trying to pretend that MEK's characterization as a cult is only done by the critiques and are just some allegations which is in contrast to the reliable sources. Repeating this argument over and over does not change the reality brought to us by the reliable sources. SharabSalam's suggestion is best describing the the section. It's both neutral and brief! Just to show how cherry picked the list of the sources by Stefka Bulgaria is:

- From RAND:

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.

- A long-read from the Guardian:

"Widely regarded as a cult, the MEK was once designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and UK, but its opposition to the Iranian government has now earned it the support of powerful hawks in the Trump administration, including national security adviser John Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo."

Does it need explanations?

- "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult" by Commentary:

"The MKO is not only a creepy cult, and willing to say anything to buy support regardless of the group’s record, but an empty shell as well."

- Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge:

"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.

- In the previous source, Ervand Abrahamian is quoted as saying:

By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.

- The Cult of Rajavi by Nyt!!!

- The Cult of MEK authored by Prospect:

"Accidentally or not, though, the speakers were helping to raise the profile and legitimize the aims of a cult group that will not bring democracy to Iran and has no popular support in the country."

- Will the Presence of Iran’s MEK Threaten Albania’s Already Shaky Stability? by World Politics Review:

"A shadowy outfit committed to the overthrow of Iran’s theocratic regime, the MEK is often described as a cult and used to be classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization."

- "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult"

"Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)."

- Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) by Council on Foreign Relations:

"Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."

- 'Women in Iran: Gender politics in the Islamic republic' by Greenwood Publishing Group:

"After summer of 1981 Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then they have turned into a cult."

- 'Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities' by Rand Corporation:

"the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."

And again please don't simply say that source is not reliable without elaboration. Also, it's a silly request to ask for all the words of title be found in reliable sources. Moreover, SharʿabSalam's suggestion, besides being neutral and brief, is consistent with other articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm not trying to "pretend" anything. Looking at your sources, Commentary magazine link is not found, Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements is written by a MEK former member, "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult" is a book review by Trita Parsi (linked to Iran lobby), and you've included two sources by RAND (one of which doesn't say anything about a cult). Also Prospect and World politics review are questionable sources, but even if we included them, you'd only amount to 7 sources. Stefka provided 15 reliable sources (twice as many), so Stefka's proposal is a more WP:DUE option. Ypatch (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added the archive url for the commentary article. Both of the RAND sources talk about cult. It's easy to tag something with questionable, but you need to substantiate your claims for the sources. It's interesting that you strike the sources yourself and reach a conclusion yourself. We are not going to count the sources or I would include 16 sources! Stefka Bulgaria's proposal is suffering from multiple issues including POV. Scholarly works should be considered for the conclusion I suggest. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My substantiation is this: there are 15 reliable sources that support "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and there are 7 sources that support "Characterization as a cult", this is why the first choice is more WP:DUE. What is your substantiation for objecting this? Ypatch (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

They are certainly more than 7 and I am not going to list every single source supporting SharabSalam's suggestion. We don't rely on the number of the sources without considering their value. Your suggestion is clearly faulty because materials with regard to the Cultish characteristics of the MEK are not only "Criticims" or "allegations". "Characterization as a cult", from the other hand, is neutral and is not pushing any specific POV. As stated before, you can lunch an RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is my policy-based argument based on what WP:WEIGHT says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." What is your argument for keeping what a minority amount of reliable sources say over a majority amount of reliable sources? Ypatch (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

But we are not dealing with "minority views" (this is probably your own understanding of the events). A neutral title is suggested and I believe this would best describe the section. FYI, when it comes to "description" or "characterization", this would mean others have described or characterized them as being a Cult which don't create "an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said." You have not still elaborated on why "description" or "characterization" would not fit the the case here. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There are 15 reliable sources supporting "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and 7 reliable sources supporting "Characterization as a cult" (the analysis of sources is presented in this discussion). Which one do you think is the majority view, and which one do you think is the minority view? Ypatch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Crticism" and "allegation" are not the major viewpoints. I provided at least 11 sources saying this! Btw, I suggest you to read this one, too. Also, it's much better to use 'cult' for the title since its a general term and supported by the reliable sources. Being so specific by using "cult of personality" would not be a good choice for the title and this detail is something to be dealt with in the body of the section. Moreover, as I have emphasized before, the suggestions by SharabSalam are "sufficiently precise, concise", as opposed to your suggestion which, besides being too long, is impressing a certain POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeoning aside, there is clearly more RSs that support "Cult of Personality" rather than "Characterization as a cult". For that reason, I agree with Ypatch that the first option is more WP:DUE than the second option. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

and I explained how that argument goes wrong in terms of ignoring that a suggested title should be neutral, sufficiently precise and concise, among other things. Please review my previous comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, there are clearly more reliable sources that don't support your preferred version. In spite of this, you are still refusing to get the point, and refuse to accept what the majority sources are saying. Ypatch (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating your argument as if you have not heard what I told you regarding the what the guideline urges when selecting a title. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title represent what view of the majority of the sources? Ypatch (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another."MOS:AT --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The problem is that many of the sources you have presented are questionable (this one, or this one, or the one by ex MEK member Masoud Banisadr). You need more sources that are credible (as there are supporting "Cult of Personality") to be able to determine that "these criteria are in conflict". Ypatch (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not the real status of the sources. They are questionable in your viewpoint. Also I can provide plenty of sources such as The Wall Street Journal saying "Called a Terror Cult by Many, MEK Wins Friends in U.S. Because It Opposes Tehran.", or the long-read by the Guardian MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: if you can actually "provide plenty of sources", then please provide them. We will analyze them, and compare them to the sources supporting "Cult of Personality", coming to a consensus about what is more WP:DUE. Ypatch (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid. Some of them are already provided. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: We already looked at those, and counting (and even adding the questionable sources you provided), they add up to about 7 sources, whereas the other version amount to twice as many. I ask you again, based on WP:DUE, which one is the WP:DUE version? (not your personal opinion, but based on the WP:DUE policy). Ypatch (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As you are already concerned, we don't analyse the sources based on your standard!. I was not expressing my own viewpoint so far. My arguments are based on guidelines and policies. According to the reliable sources I provided,the title is justified. Moreover, you are persistently ignoring MOS:AT saying "A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Copy-editing these two sections

As I've noted in the TP discussion above, there are overlaps between the sections "Human rights record" and "Designation as cult". I still think they're interlinked enough to merge both into a single section, but before starting a RfC about this I will clean up repeated information there. I've copy-edited a bit these sections today, removing the source from the MEK defector Masoud Banisadr, as well as removing repeated information about the MEK divorcing and sending their children to foster care during their conflicts with the IRI while in Iraq. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As usual your edits need to be scrutinized. No fair objection is provided for removing reliable sources, merely reflecting the voice of former members does not make the source problematic. Here you removed some ntable information such as the Rajavi's being exempted from the "eternal divorce" order. Also, there's a large difference between having the "members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime" and "distracting them [the children] from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran". I kept the "Ant-like" life statement and attributed to Banisadr (why did you remove it?). I have left some of the changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein In your revert, you have changed text that concisely describes (through the provided RSs) why the MEK barred children in Camp Ashraf and why it required members to divorce. This is the text that you changed:

• "During their time in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, the MEK required its members to divorce and send their children to foster families in Europe and the United States in order to avoid "distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran."

This information helps to avoid repeating the "divorce" claims sprinkled all throughout the article; claims that you restored. We also had the BBC source describing this neutrally, and you've restored MEK defector claims instead:

• "According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face." "During this process, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization, an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."

• "In 1994, "self-divorce" was declared as the further phase of the 'ideological revolution'. During this process, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization and change into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."

We now have the divorce claims repeated throughout the article once again (with the repeats you added failing WP:NPOV). Why have you done this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Before you change the article to your version, the article contained "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" which "concisely describes (through the provided RSs) why the MEK barred children in Camp Ashraf". Is Country Reports on Terrorism a former member of MEK? As for the "ant-like human beings", I removed the duplicated material now.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein In your revert, you removed "divorce" from the edit I made (even though it's NPOV and supported by the BBC source). Why did you do that? Also, the text you inserted ("According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face.") does not have a source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not insert anything. I kept the article against the changes which was not correct. As for the "divorce", can you elaborate on that? do you intend to mention "divorce" more than this? For the ref issue, it was added here and the diff can be used to trace how the main ref was removed. I have made more changes. The ideological revolution part is moved to the section dedicated to it and the cult part is elaborated in its section. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein if you insert text back into the article, it should be because that text is properly supported by the sources and not because it's "the long-standing version". Can you please explain how the source you added supports that these claims came from the "Country Reports on Terrorism? You still have not explained why you removed the BBC quote and re-inserted Massoud Banisadr's quote instead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have already proved how problematic your so-called copy edits had been. I am not going to repeat why the BBC quote was removed (you can find my reply here). As for the Guardian source, it was already in the body before I edit the article. However, I found that the initial citation was added here. I explained why the BBC quote was removed. This is you who should say why the Banisadr's quote, which was supported by a reliable source, was removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Where in Masoud Banisadr's source does it say "According to Country Reports on Terrorism"? Also please stop adding this reference from ex MEK member Masoud Banisadr in the article (which you keep on describing as "Eileen Baker" being the author. Eileen Baker did not write this!). Ypatch (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's supported by the other source (P. 326) coming at the end of the paragraph. As for this source, the chapter is contributed by Banisadr, the editor is 'Eileen Barker' and the publisher is 'Routledge'. What's wrong with it? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What's wrong with it is that you wrote that Eileen Barker is the author of what you added to the article, but she is not the author! the author is actually an ex-MEK member! @Vanamonde93: You previously warned me for "bordering on source misuse." Is this a similar case here? Ypatch (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 was right when he warned you against "bordering on source misuse". Should I repeat again? "the chapter is contributed by Banisadr, the editor is 'Eileen Barker' and the publisher is 'Routledge'". This Routledge source is not going to be removed only because you don't like Masoud Banisadr or since he is an ex-member. That said you could simply edit the citation template to imply who is who. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not a sanctionable offence, but you do need to be more careful about that, Mhhossein. There's several ways to cite edited volumes that make the distinction between authors and editors. Template:Cite encycloepedia is the one I prefer. Please make sure to use that, or equivalent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Questionable reverts

@Mhhossein: can you please explain your last reverts? 1 and 2. The edit summaries you added don't seem resolve why all this info was removed. Ypatch (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Find "RfC about including the MEK's current principles" to know why this revert was done. As for this one, in "other names" see "the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI" ans also "many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous". Also, "It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group" and "According to Abrahamian, by 1989 many foreign diplomats considered MEK to be "the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations" in lead and body of the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein - El_C already warned you (twice) not to be vague with your responses. Please say why you reverted this edit ( "in detail rather than just with see this diff.")

As for the the other revert you did, this is the information you removed:

"The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran). For this reason the Iranian government considers the MEK "as its main threat", making constant demands to Western countries to make restrictions of MEK activities as "a pre-condition for improving relations."

That information is not repeated in any of the quotes that you provided, so please substantiate your reverts. Ypatch (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not seeing any warnings. By the way, please read WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Firstly, again please review the quotes. "(a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran)" seems like a silly joke. This is in contradiction to the content of this page. Finally, You can't push some POVs as facts ( For this reason, MEK being a "main threat", Iran asking others to "make restrictions" and etc). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry again to ping you (I know do this often recently). I put this into the article:

1. The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran). For this reason the Iranian government considers the MEK "as its main threat", making constant demands to Western countries to make restrictions of MEK activities as "a pre-condition for improving relations.

1. With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam",

The sources are reliable, and the information is not repeated in the article. I asked Mhhossein in this talk page why he removed this from the article, but he keeps eluding the question. I know you've been suggesting RfCs lately, but in this case Mhhossein has not even presented some kind of applicable substantiation for his reverts. Ypatch (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What you call "eluding" the question was actually referring you to an old RFC regarding your suggestion. Moreover, I commented on the problems with the other sentence, i.e. the senescent on MEK and NCRI. This is a really destructive pattern that you keep pinging the admin without trying to build consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ypatch, Mhhossein has provided arguments for those reverts; the argument that he has not is rather tendentious, and I'm beginning to lose patience with the extent to which all of you constantly scream for help whenever someone you are arguing makes the slightest misjudgement. Please try to build consensus for that addition here. Mhhossein, As an aside, speaking purely from an organizational perspective, including information about the NCRI under "Other names" is patently silly; if you're concerned with repetition, you should move it elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I really don't see the arguments clearly. Maybe I'm missing something here? @Mhhossein:

• "The MEK is the largest member organization of the NCRI (a coalition organization with popular support inside and outside of Iran)" is not the same as ""the MEK is the founding member of a coalition of organizations called the NCRI" or "many analysts consider NCRI and MEK to be synonymous". The two quotes in the article don't talk about the popularity aspect or how big the MEK is within the NCRI.
• "With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" - the RfC you linked to was a no-consensus about adding MEK ideals in the lead of the article. What is the problem with adding this in the body of the article? Ypatch (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• The first two are not entirely redundant, but they are partially redundant, and are also partially contradictory. Resolving those issues is your responsibility, as the person wishing to add the content. Similarly, you need to establish consensus for adding the second piece of content, because Mhhossein believes it does not accurately represent the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, about the first edit, isn't it ok that they are "partially contradictory"? (I thought that adding different POVs was good as long as they came from reliable sources). About the second, the content I added does accurately represent the sources, this is why I pinged you, because a substantiated objection hadn't been presented. Mhhossein, please respond. Ypatch (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There's an improvement (Ypatch has referred to RFC I am talking about). The next step is ask him read the comments saying reliable sources are not consistent with this description. In other words, you should not push your desired description of MEK into the lead. I am not going to list all of those sources but for instance take a look at this book saying MEK is "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology" and this one calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin". Which opinion should go to the lead? Also please work on the redundancy and contradictory claim of the source, for the first two portions. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm not asking to "push my desired description into the lead", I'm asking to put this in the body. What is your objection with that? Ypatch (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Which portion are you talking about? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This one - what's wrong with adding this in the body of the article?

With its "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam",

Ypatch (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest preparing a draft including other POVs such as "Islamic extremist Mojahedin"[39], "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology"[40]. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I asked you a specific question about a specific edit, and you respond about other edits that we haven't even discussed. Can you please answer my question? (you are welcome to start a new talk page discussion about other information you want to include). Ypatch (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

They are closely interrelated so the reader should get to know various POVs on the principles of the group. I mean whether or not it follows "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are points to be addressed by care. I think we need to weigh them according to WP:DUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: "anti-fundamentalist" tells us the group's ideology concerning fundamentalism. On the other hand, "extremist" or "radical" are slanderous POVs. See the difference? It is well established that the MEK is the Islamic Republic's main political opposition. I understand why certain people would like to brand the MEK with slander, but "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The mater of ideology or like is just WP:OR and I don't tend to argue based on that. No, they're not slanderous POVs, rather POVs supported by reliable sources and I am not going to differentiate between "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam". My objection is exactly based on the WP:NPOV. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, are you saying that adding "anti-fundamentalist" as part of the MEK's ideology is WP:OR? The source supports this claim; how would it be WP:OR? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Actually, "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack thereof. You are distinguishing between them via OR! You say one is ideology and the others are not. That's the OR issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

So then, you agree that "anti-fundamentalist" counts as part of the MEK's ideology? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It largely depends on the reliable sources. So what? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The source was already given, and it's a reliable source. So the same question remains: why are you objecting this edit if it's coming from a reliable source and provides WP:NPOV insight into the MEK's ideology? (please be concise and to the point with your response). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein appears to be refusing adding that the MEK is ""anti-fundamentalist" because we should then also say the MEK is "extremist and "radical". What a joke. Ypatch (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems I had not been clear enough. That MEK is following "anti-fundamentalist" is just a POV, not a fact. Likewise is saying they have "Islamic extremist" or "radical Marxist-Islamist" ideology. Which POV should be included? Should we even include such contradicting POVs into the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you are contradicting your own arguments. You just said that '"anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology', and when asked if you agree that this forms part of the MEK's ideology, you responded "depends on the reliable sources". I point out that this is backed by a RS, and now you are again dismissing the source/statement saying that "anti-fundamentalist" is just a POV. This is textbook Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and you win; I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't misquote me please. There's no contradiction. You provided a source and the POV is still a POV. My argument is that there are various POVs regarding the MEK's principles (some of them are "Islamic extremist", "radical Marxist-Islamist" or "anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam"). You can not SELECTIVELY include one of them having a certain POV or even state those POVs as if they're facts. You failed to say why one should be included and the others should not. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: can you please explain how Stefka "misquoted" you exactly? Didn't you first say that "anti-fundamentalist" is a "description of the group's ideology? Also, you were told that if you want to start new discussions about other parts of the MEK's ideology, you could, but this discussion is about this quote, and you have not said what is wrong with adding this quote. Ypatch (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"...or lack thereof". So what? I also said other things such as we can not "SELECTIVELY include one of them having a certain POV or even state those POVs as if they're facts". You are trying to include a POV into the lead which is contrast to the other POVs. Clear enough? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: So you said ""anti-fundamentalist interpretation of Islam" are descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack thereof." What does that even mean? Is it or is it not the group's ideology? POV and ideology are different things! Ypatch (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Look (you all), my points are clear; we won't push some certain POVs into the lead specially when the POVs are contradicting. Can you realize the contradiction among the sources? For the Nth time we can not "SELECTIVELY include one of them [those descriptions], [each] having a certain POV, or even state those POVs as if they're facts." Which part is not clear enough? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you explain how "Anti-fundamentalist" is a POV? (earlier you said it was a "descriptions of the groups's ideology or lack thereof."). Ypatch (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a POV (Point Of View) by an author or lack thereof. A POV can be a description of an ideology, painting, incident or etc. In this case we have some conflicting POVs which go against each other. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: That's very interesting WP:OR, but it's not accurate. Here are the deffintions according to Cambridge dictionary:

• Point of view: "a way of considering something", "an opinion".
• Ideology: "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based.

"Anti-fundamentalist" is not "an opinion", it is "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based." Ypatch (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? Please stop going this way. That "Anti-fundamentalist" is the MEK's ideology is the author's (or lack thereof)! I know the differences between ideology and POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I assume you are trying to say "That "Anti-fundamentalist" is the MEK's ideology is the author's POV (or lack thereof)!? That's WP:OR. Ypatch (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Then you are seriously advised to review WP:OR. Don't harass me please furthermore. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you can't be throwing around accusations of "harassment" without there being any harassment. "Fundamentalism" is "defined as strict adherence to some belief or ideology" [41]. So "Anti-fundamentalist" is, by definition, part of the MEK's ideology. You are trying to debate that this is just the author's POV (or lack thereof)!, but, by evidence of the definition I provided, this is not the case. You refuse to accept past talk page consensus, refuse accept admins' RfC consensus, and instead throw around accusations of harassment when I asked about your inconsistency in rejecting "Anti-fundamentalist" as an ideology, something that is defined in dictionaries as an ideology. Ypatch (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's crystal clear and I can't help you more than this. Which of the following is true?

-MEK follows "Anti-fundamentalist" ideology/principle/... .

-MEK follows "Islamic extremist" ideology/principle/... .

-MEK follows "radical Marxist-Islamist" ideology/principle/... .

The mentioned RFC closure is already exerted and please don't throw 'refuse-to-accept' accusations further more without having an evidence. I am not going to talk about them here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sources to be used

I have found some sources which can improve the article:

• "Our Men in Iran?", how the MEK members were trained by U.S.
• 'Tank girl' army accused of torture, the human rights situation in MEK camps.
• UNAMI Half Yearly Report on Human Rights - January to June 2013, a report by UN on the human rights situation of the group.

SharabSalam: Please consider improving the page using these sources if you have enough time. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another interesting one: "DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT"! --Mhhossein ^talk 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SharʿabSalam▼: Hey, did you find the chance to enter some more info into the page? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC about statements from former members of the MEK

There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:

1. "According to former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, "[l]ooking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs"
2. "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."
3. " According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."
4. "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."
5. "According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, "several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members".

Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - as nominator. None of them add any new information to the article (except superficial criticisms), and they are all WP:UNDUE (none of the things said are verified by reliable sources. The only thing available are repetitions of these quotes in other sources). Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  In a RfC there is no "nominator".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• No they should not be removed. They are all well-sourced and noteworthy content..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes These statements are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK. This maybe could be placed in a section that includes POV from former MEK members (still has major WP:NPV problems, but better than what is in the article now), but not as stand-alone statements. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what these are, random statements from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• No We can't remove them merely because they're from the former members of MEK rather the coverage of the quotes by the reliable sources should be the determining criteria. "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards", for instance, is described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. This quotation is independently used by other reliable sources such as NYT and Foreign Policy. Also, Masoud Banisadr is not simply a former MEK member, he is a scholar authoring books and articles so his views should be weighed here. As for the propaganda campaign, the full report is provided by Aljazeera and this is not again merely a claim by a former member. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The following shows the materials should not be removed solely because they're from the former members of MEK:

  "The only people who can truly understand what they’ve endured are other former MEK members."

  Source: DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: they should be removed, per the following:

1. These are not scholarly / journalistic analyses, they are allegations from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)

2. There is an ongoing "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" where "Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK.""

3. These claims don't add any new information about key events that isn't already backed by reliable sources (posed neutrally and well-researched).

4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of "reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article.

5. To the closing admin/editor: please note that the RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (mainly due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight carefully votes and what the sources are saying, but that is the only way to close these RfC's adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign. This would be very ridiculous to remove the statements by the members of the MEK who give the most natural narration of the events in the group only because MEK thinks there's allegedly a "misinformation campaign" against them. Using this argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We're not including claims by Heshmat Alavi in this article. For obvious NPOV reasons, we're also not including claims from any other current MEK member in this article. That should also apply to claims from MEK defectors (what this RfC is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Heshmat Alavi was just an example. I mean MEK's propaganda campaign should be taken care of, too. Anyway, we don't remove quotes like "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." which are independently covered by the the reliable sources. This example was described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Per Stefka Bulgaria. Factual integrity above everything else . Barca (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - If it is true that the article does not include claims from current MeK members (I have not checked), then, by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members. We either include both (current and former member claims), or neither. If we include both, I think it would open a can of worms. Excluding both POV sides solves this problem, leaving in the article the claims from more credible and neutral sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Reading some of the votes and discussions, I don't agree that reliable sources should be the determining criteria. The content itself is poor and does not clear up or give further evidence of their subject areas. Quote 1: The MEK seems to have gone through ideological phases, but describing them as "some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs" does not clear up what the MEK's beliefs were. Quote 2: Like the first quote, "MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"" does not clear up the MEK's relationship with Saddam Hussain. Quote 3: Like the previous quotes, "the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America" does not give information about the MEK's relationship with America (were they "Anti-imperialist"? or did they receive support from the US? these are better areas that can be explored). Quote 4: The quote "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" leaves more questions than answers (what was happening between Rajavi and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards? What was Rajavi's relationship with with the Kurds? we don't know, and this quote does not clear it up). Quote 5: This is the only quote I'm leaning towards keeping. "According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members" does give some kind of "data", but considering the source of this data is polemical, I would be ok with excluding this too. Idealigic (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"I don't agree that reliable sources should be the determining criteria" is against our policies and guidelines. At least, you are asking others to act based on the Original Research, as opposed to adhering to the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, your own comment citing this policy, and Vanamonde's comment reminding you of this policy. On top of that, saying that Idealigic is "asking others to act based on the Original Research" is completely false. Ypatch (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My own comment is completely right. Idealigic's comment is a mixture of OR and his own viewpoints. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - you have an odd idea of what it means to work together. It means respecting other's opinions, not discrediting them when their vote doesn't agree with yours. Little appears to have changed since that discussion: "It's very interesting to me that you have tried to discount people's opinions, the way that the vote was captured, etc. if the vote doesn't appear to be going your way... and instead devolving to complaints, deflection, and personal attacks has been disappointing. I don't think that you'd be happy unless the voting turned out differently" Ypatch (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• No: I presume, according to the recent discussion, the related sentence to the murder of Kurds with tanks is notable enough. In regards to the sentences of "Masoud Banisadr", considering that he is an author working with credible publishers, I recommend to use his sentences with "attribution" (in the article). Regarding Hassan Heyrani's sentence, I think it is better to pay heed to the context which is in the article. Aljazeera's report concerning the activity of campaign (supporter of MEK) seems to be incomplete without this sentence. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: these should not be in the article. In contentious articles, we should only include comments by people with some kind of credibility for fact checking. Allegations made by MEK members, like any other random people saying they have heard something, falls more into tabloid territory. There is a book full of allegations by MEK members which we can use to turn this Wikipedia page into their personal diary, but I don't think that is a good idea, just like including these random claims from MEK members is not a good idea. If we include these claims, we are violating the guideline that says "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." [42]. Nika2020 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that you're missing WP:DUE. Btw, they are not random people. Masoud Banisadr, for instance, has contributed to multiple high quality scholarly works. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Masoud Banisdar is a MEK defector whose' only few published works consists solely of POV against the MEK; in the words of Icewhiz:

"Looking at the three sources above - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - [34]. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship."

Banisdar's quotes were initially wrongly attributed to Eileen Barker (and I suspect why that was). Which leaves the remaining quotes from other MEK members, all of which are indeed quotes from "random people". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The chapter is finally edited by Barker. Btw, Banisdr's claims are reflected by multiple sources. Instead of trying to discredit the former members as being "random" I would focus on what they said and whether they are DUE. Solely calling them former member is not a ground for removal of their statements published by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

An ex-MEK member wrote that chapter, which was included in the article as "According to Eileen Barker, "...", and you are defending that saying it was finally edited by Barker? Have the last word if you like; I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources showing DUE weight

@Ypatch: Why did you removed the sources which I had to show the quotation "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" had received independent coverage by multiple reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - this was already explained in my edit summary. We already have a source by Elizabeth Rubin that says "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." Repeating the same quote in questionable sources does not give the quote DUE weight. Ypatch (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when American Progress and Foreign Policy are counted as questionable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ypatch that repeating the exact same quote in different sources doesn't make the quote more "notable"; no matter how you paint this, it is still only a an allegation from an MEK defector. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually the reverse! According to the WP:DUE the materials should be represented "in proportion to the prominence' of it in the reliable sources. If it is repeated independently by different reliable sources, then it's indicating the material is notable enough. I am going to restore those citations if you can not substantiate why those reliable sources independently covering the quote should be removed. The very fact that you object the inclusion of those citations is itself meaningful. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - as much as you're trying to make this come across as "prominent", it isn't. The current RfC about including this sentence in the article is the place to raise your points so you can try to get consensus there, like the rest of us are doing. Ypatch (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The prominence comes from the very fact that at least three high quality sources have covered that independently. @Vanamonde93: your insight please: they argued "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" should be removed on DUE grounds. I added American Progress and Foreign Policy sources besides the existing citation to show there are at lease three high quality sources independently covering the quotation which, in accordance with WP:DUE saying the materials should be represented "in proportion to the prominence' of it in the reliable sources. Ypatch removed the citations. Can you judge the discussion to see if the removal of those citations are justified? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch's objection actually was that "We already have a source by Elizabeth Rubin that says "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." What was argued was that the sources you added, Mhhossein, don't make this more WP:DUE because they are merely repeating the same quote (a quote which is currently in the article). Also, that quote is being discussed in the RfC about statements from former members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch also said the American Progress and Foreign Policy sources are questionable! I had added them to show the quote had been of the interest to at least three high quality sources. This, in accordance with WP:DUE, is an indication of the material receiving due weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is once again interrupting my communication with Vanamonde93 when I am talking about Ypatch's edits (it has become like a pattern here). --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is an utterly pointless argument; why do any of you have strong opinions on how many sources are used to substantiate this point? In general, on contentious articles, more sources are not a bad thing when due weight is being debated. I suggest you let the sources remain in. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Don't understand

Hi Mhhossein, why you reverted this edit? Barca (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Barcmac. The former RFC regarding this was closed with no consensus (you can find it in the archive). AFAIR, there was a matter of WP:DUE preventing inclusion of this. Moreover, why do you tend something into the lead which is not even supported by the source? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Can you please explain how that edit is supported by the source used? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a few sources open when I added this, and it seems I added the wrong source. I will update by adding new sources that properly support the edit. Thank you for bringing to my attention. Barca (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Okay, thanks; but please be aware that in an area this contentious, repeatedly making such mistakes may be grounds for sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Before updating you need to gain consensus, specially since there had been previous discussions with no consensus on including this into the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, thank you for letting me know, I will be more careful. Mhhossein, if I add something that is supported by sources and that hasnt been discussed in RfCs, then I should not need your permission to include this. Barca (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That whole section, Perception, is a big mess. I will work on copy-editing it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Did some copy-editing... needs more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am going to restore the sections since I think it had turned into a worse mess. You have separated the POVs in a meaningful manner. Please try to build consensus and explain how Struan Stevenson and Karim Sadjadpour's comments should be separated, for instance. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, please substantiate whatever it is that you revert. You cannot revert based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made some changes for reaching a middle ground. I have sorted the materials so that all the insider views fall under one section, as opposed to your version. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cult" or "Cult of Personality / Personality cult"?

Based on Vanamonde's closing remarks in the RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead:

"a lot of the sources specifically use the terms "personality cult" or "cult of personality". Analyzing whether or not a personality cult is a true cult or not falls within the realm of original research... An option specifically discussing the "cult of personality" claims may have gained consensus, but such was not discussed, and a new discussion or RfC will be necessary to explore that."

As well as what the majority sources say in that RfC, I propose changing the lede from "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult". to:

Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality.

If there are objections, please substantiate concisely and through RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can you quote one reliable source saying "Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality."? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here you go Mhhossein:

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

Like it has already been established, "Critics" and "Personality cult" are the predominant terms used in RSs. If you want to debate against it, you need to provide RSs that argue against this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where's it established? As for this one, you're wrong. Since "given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader" is not necessarily what the critics say, as opposed to what you try to extract from the author's words. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: according to the author, why do "Critics" question the "MEK's commitment"?

I have a feeling you'll object regardless, so here's another one:

"One of the main criticisms of former members of the Mojahedin concerns the internal structure of the organisation... Even though most former members know that they have been in what has been described in the west as a personality cult, they lack the tools to describe what this means."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the author, "critics question that commitment"? What is that commitment? Also, I wonder what you are seeking by misquoting a questionable source. Let's read the whole paragraph:

"One of the main criticisms of former members of the Mojahedin concerns the internal structure of the organisation. It is described as operating an "iron discipline" over its members to the extent of practicing serious violations of human rights in attempts to force members to conform, or as they describe it "submit to Rajavi's leadership". But the description of "iron discipline" fails to adequately convey the behaviour of the Mojahedin towards its members. After all, armies depend upon an iron discipline in order to fight wars. But former members know that the control exerted over them is not the same as that of a classic army. Even though most former members know that they have been in what has been described in the west as a personality cult, they lack the tools to describe what this means."

So, does it support "Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality"? The author is saying the group is criticized for its "internal structure" since the group is said to be governed under a "iron discipline". The report (no the critics) then proceeds to say "iron discipline" is not a suitable description rather "what has been described in the west as a personality cult", as the former members know. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I quoted the author directly. In any case, in the recent RfC about the MEK's cult-like allegations, there was consensus that "critics" was what the majority sources supported. Shall we sort this out by seeing if the majority sources support "cult of personality" over "resembling a cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop using "{{od}}" template when it's not really needed? Does it embolden your comment? Anyway, according to the full quote, I told you that ""given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader" is not necessarily what the critics say, as opposed to what you try to extract from the author's words". Finally, you need sources saying "critics have described the group as having a cult of personality." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We could easily just compile RSs from both sides of the argument, and weigh which term is more frequently used by the sources (as I suggested in my previous message here); but (hardly to my surprise) you're objecting this. The lede should resume the majority consensus of what RSs say, and you're suggesting that we should only include what your preferred sources say (as was the case in the recent RfC). No matter how many RSs are provided supporting "personality cult", you'll continue to object, so there's no point continuing this discussion. I'm done here too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• You're both rather off the mark here with respect to what the RfC showed. Very few of the sources describe the MEK as a cult outright or stated that experts/scholars/some other category of authorities described the MEK as a cult; the most frequent position was that critics describe it as a cult. The "cult of personality" claim, however, is more widespread within those same sources. This is unsurprising; the latter claim is (somewhat) less critical, and is (therefore) more widespread, and would likely require less qualification. What the article should do with this tradeoff is up to you. Also, for the record, since there's a lot of editors who don't seem to get this; I'm only looking at whether the claims here are supported by the sources presented in that RfC, which is part of the responsibility of an uninvolved closer; I have not evaluated the wider source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, taking on board Vanamonde's advice, what would be your proposed tradeoff here (taking into consideration what sources say)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not looking at my "preferred" sources since I have no preferred source. Also its'a a great surprise for me to see the scholars' views are being persistently down weighted here. Stefka Bulgaria suggested something which I believe is not supported by reliable sources at the moment. The only thing I asked was for the sources supporting his suggestion. Other side of the coin needs to be looked at more accurately; "Called a Terror Cult by Many, MEK Wins Friends in U.S. Because It Opposes Tehran."The Wall Street Journal, MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult" long-read by the Guardian. I think "cult of personality" is a more specific term and when in doubt we would better go by the more general term, i.e. "cult". Why should we get so deep in the lead when there's not a strong ground for that? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, what would be your proposed tradeoff here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein pinging you in case you have missed my last comments. Please explain what would be your proposed tradeoff here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had already given you a reply. Can you see my comment on specific/general term? The lead should avoid going into the details of whether the group is a cult of personality, though we can discuss it deeper in the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: So you're basically saying you don't propose a tradeoff and we should leave the lede as is? (I'm trying to work with you here, but saying that we should leave the lede as is, when we a substantial number of sources saying "Personality cult, is hardly a tradeoff). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What kind of tradeoff are you seeking for? I am also working with you but why do you tend to ignore the plenty of other sources which don't use that term? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: "tradeoff" means some kind of compromise. As of yet, you haven't compromised at all; you've just said you want the text to remain as it is. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know what "tradeoff" means. I was in fact asking for clarification on your purpose of repeating that despite my explanations. I think the lead should not get into the depth of choosing "cult of personality". Given the sources I provided previously, using "cult of personality" would not be representative of the reliable sources:

• "A cult-like group of Marxist Islamic radicals behind scores of terror attacks ."[43]
• "After the summer of 1981, the Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then, they have turned into a cult."[44]
• "During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), coalition forces faced an unusual detainee issue centering on the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."[45]
• "Elaine Chao, confirmed this week as Trump’s transportation secretary, received $50,000 in 2015 for a five-minute speech to the political wing of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, previously called a “cult-like” terrorist group by the State Department."[46]
• "There has occurred a major transformation of the Mojahedin from a mass-based left party into what Abrahamian calls a "cult"..."[47].
• "It is at this point, say the critics, that the MEK assumed the trappings of a cult."[48]
• "As of 1985, the NRC has been for all practical purposes the Mojahedin organization, and to its many critics the its practices appear cult-like."
• "Even among voices opposing the Iranian regime, however, the group is controversial for its extremism, cult-like leadership and history of violence."[49]
• "One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away."[50]
• "As Human Rights Watch also concluded, I saw that the MEK is a cult."[51]
• "The MEK is a cult-like dissident group, based outside of Iran, primarily in Iraq and France for much of the past three decades."[52]
• "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."[53]
• "Called a Terror Cult by Many, MEK Wins Friends in U.S. Because It Opposes Tehran."[54]
• "The Mujeheddin e-Khalq (MEK) is a cult-like dissident group from Iran."[55]

etc

Still more sources can be added to the above list. I just meant to say we need to stay on the safe side by using "cult, as opposed to "personality cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, some of the sources you've provided refer to the cult allegations as something that's coming from ex-members ("It has been described by several ex-members as a cult."), and others are repeated allegations from RAND corporation, and others refer to this as "Cult-like" (which is not the same as "cult"). You take those sources away, and you're left with an WP:UNDUE portion of sources saying the MEK is a "cult"; as opposed to "cult of personality" (which is supported by many more RS's, as we've seen in the recently-closed RfC). I could move those RSs here, but that would be an exercise in futility since you continue to refuse reaching some kind of compromise, even with the majority scholarship quoting "Cult of Personality". Like I said earlier, I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Besides the point that just few sources in my list are bringing up the voice of the former members, there's no ground to ignore them. Why are you trying to dismiss them? All of the former members who shares their experience of being a MEK member, is recruited by the Iranian government? Don't repeat that please. Some of the sources say "cult-like", I know and this is in line with the current wording of the lead which says the group resembles a cult! So, my list of sources are further supporting my position, the group is described as resembling a cult! (or alternatively you can say they're cult-like). As for the scholarly works; If you believed in the quality of these sources, you would not remove them from the lead! Is it a double standard? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

MEK's terrorist designation "was meant to be a goodwill gesture to improve relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran"

You reverted this edit, which is backed by 7 reliable sources (I found more, but thought 7 was plenty!). Your edit summary said "There are also other sources believing they were really terrorists! why not adding them?". I provided 7 reliable sources for saying that the MEK's terrorist designation "was meant to be a goodwill gesture to improve relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran". How many sources have you found that contradict this? Ypatch (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a simple question. What was the ground for designing the group as a terrorist organization. That's why I say there are sources "believing they were really terrorists". Why should not the lead contain the facts leading into their designation? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, if you're making an argument that the sources provided here are not representative of sources discussing why the MEK was designated a terrorist group, then it is your responsibility to provide sources arguing the opposite view. @Ypatch: please explain to me how the sources used in this edit support the content that you added. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: these are how the sources used in that edit support "According to the Clinton administration and other sources, this listing was meant to be a goodwill gesture to improve relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.":

1) "One senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the People’s Moujahedeen was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami.

2) "The group was placed on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in 1997 at a time when the Clinton administration hoped the move would facilitate opening a dialogue with Iran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami, who was seen as a moderate. The European Union put the MEK on its terrorist blacklist five years later. Critics of the decision saw it as kowtowing to Iranian demands to avoid harming important trade relations."

3) "they may be a bargaining chip in negotiations between Washington and Tehran."

4) "The Clinton administration designated the PMOI as a foreign terrorist organisation in 1997 in an attempt to achieve a diplamtic breahthrough with the Iranian government."

5) "the terrorist designation was “a gift to the mullahs’ regime"

6) "The group was classified as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (FTO) during the Clinton administration at the request of the Iranian government in a futile effort to placate the mullahs in Tehran whom Clinton believed were open to negotiations."

7) "The Clinton Administration declared the MEK a terrorist organization in 1997, partly as a carrot to the "reformist" administration of Iran's then-President Mohammad Khatami."

Ypatch (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I was hoping you would realize this in the course of describing your sources, but that explanation isn't good enough; the content you posted included a fair amount of original research bordering on source misuse. I'm not sanctioning you at the moment only because the substance of the content; the motivation of the Clinton administration; is actually attested to by some acceptable sources. But you need to realize that it's not enough to throw the sentence you want into a google search and then just cite the results. 1) This is a source within the Clinton administration; not the administration itself. This is the closest any of your sources get to saying "according to the Clinton administration", and it doesn't say that. 2) What this source says doesn't actually translate to "gesture of goodwill". In fact none of them do; "bargaining chip" would come much closer to what the sources are saying. Furthermore, this source is an opinion piece. 3) This does not in any way support the content you added, and I'm concerned you don't see that. The MEK may have been a bargaining chip in any number of ways; the article doesn't mention the terrorist designation or the Clinton administration. 4) As with 2, this does not support "gesture of goodwill". 5) This article is quoting an MEK spokesperson. It is only reliable for the quote; the quotation itself is not a reliable source of information. 6) This is also an opinion piece. 7) As with 2 and 4, this does not support "gesture of gooodwill". In sum; the "gesture of goodwill" phrasing is questionable, and the "according to the Clinton administration" is completely unsupported; you've also used 4 sources that are inappropriate in this context. Please be more careful in the future; further source misuse may be grounds for an immediate sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I think this source is saying the whole history:"The MEK's supporters say it was banned as a move by the Clinton administration to appease the Iranian government. The US state department, which decides which groups to include on the list of designated terrorist organisations, points to a long and bloody history." Do I need to present more sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's one source. To truly claim that this is representative of the source material, you should present a few more. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I will quote directly from now on. Seems that's the safest way to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks for your help. Ypatch (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: No, please don't do that. Excessive quotation is one of the many problems this page faces. A critical skill for anyone seeking to write anything substantive on Wikipedia is the ability to paraphrase something while remaining faithful to the source. If you (or anyone on this page) cannot do that, you should not be editing such a contentious topic. Quotation is used only when the words used in the source will convey meaning that would be lost with paraphrasing. That is probably true only for a tiny fraction of the quotes used here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: As per your request, I found two more sources saying why MEK was listed as a FTO. "It has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, primarily due to the assassination of six Americans in Tehran in 1970..."p.238 and "The FTO designation was prompted by PMOI attacks in Iran that sometimes kill or injure the civilians..."p.581 --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The MEK’s terrorist designation is a long and complicated discussion. The assassinations of Americans in Iran is attributed to Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar (aka the “Marxist MEK”), which is an opposition group to the (Muslim) MEK. The Country Reports issued a statement saying “A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's U.S. security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution”,; which happened during the MEK’s schism period. If you want to start a new discussion about what sources say about the MEK's terrorist listing/delisting, then we can observe all the available RSs there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Again and again! MEK is good, Peykar is bad! U.S. designated MEK and its other names (like ncr). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Merging “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” into a single section

Currently, both sections “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” are a mess as they have repeated and overlapping information. I propose merging both of these sections into a single section named “Human Rights record and allegations” (on account of why the MEK has predominantly been described as having “cult-like” characteristics). I’ve copy-edited both sections into one, organizing all sources into each point (as opposed to repeating points throughout both sections):

Human Rights record and allegations

Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice accused the MEK of committing human rights abuses in the early 1990s against the Shia uprising, an accusation the MEK denies. Other sources have accused the MEK of human right abuses and displaying cult-like characteristics such as ideology indoctrination and ideological cleansings.

Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics within the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization. Such allegations include authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, sexual assault, and limited exit options.

During their time in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, the MEK required its members to divorce and send their children to foster families in Europe and the United States in order to avoid "distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran"; a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cult-like".

In 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report describing human rights violations committed by the group against its members. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed, with Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca saying that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.

Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like"; or having a “cult of personality”. Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.

I also propose removing some sources to avoid cluttering the text with citation overkill. Mhhossein: did I miss any important events here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposal has several significant issues. You have removed many notable info from the section and condensed them into 'citation overkill'. Now are you are suggesting the removal of those sources. That's funny! Are you saying we should avoid being specific and instead propose using vague words such as 'Certain sources', 'other sources' and etc? Where are the names of the politicians? For instance, why did you remove "ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat"? No, if there's anything duplicated please let us know. But, the cultish characteristics of the group truly deserves a subsection. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

1) "Where are the names of the politicians? ":

We don't need the name of each person that ever called the MEK a "cult", "cult-like", or "cult of personality"; this is why I've summarised as follows:

"Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] “cult-like";[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] or having a “cult of personality”.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]"

2)"why did you remove "ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat"?

I've summmarised them as follows:

"During their time in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, the MEK required its members to divorce and send their children to foster families in Europe and the United States in order to avoid "distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran"; a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cult-like".[21][22][23][24][25][26] Other sources have accused the MEK of human right abuses and displaying cult-like characteristics such as ideology indoctrination and ideological cleansings.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics within the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization.[9][10][11][11][12][13] [14][15] Such allegations include authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, sexual assault, and limited exit options.[16][17][18][19][20]"

3) "But, the cultish characteristics of the group truly deserves a subsection.

I've summarised them here, including all sides of the arguments:

Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] “cult-like";[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] or having a “cult of personality”.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.[64][65][66][32][67][68][69]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else? any thoughts (with any concrete suggestions/objections)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why we should not go in this way. The question is why you have condensed the materials in such an awkward manner? You have removed the names of the politicians, why? Your suggestion seems like a blatantly clear strategy to pretend the MEK's hands are clean by removing some well-sourced materials from the article. This version by you is ridiculously fed up with citations whose details are removed by you with no logical ground (and you're then suggesting to remove the citations, a step which removes the last traces of BAD things about MEK from the article! Hahaha). Nope, you have failed to elaborated on why exactly these well-sourced materials should be removed? Many many sources has discussed the MEK's characterization as a cult and any attempt at removing those materials is a move against WP:NPOV. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a good proposal. We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult. A line or two encapsulating the general consensus about this is plenty. Alex-h (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Stefka's proposal is a good starting point towards fixing that section. I will later start new discussions on some things I would also include there. Ypatch (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I recently asked the question of adding "Cult of personality" to the Qasem Soleimani and Donald Trump articles (since there are enough RSs saying both have a personality cult built around them). For the Qasem Soleimani article, I was told by another user that adding a single sentence about this somewhere in the article's body was plenty. For the Trump article, I was told by another user that this was a "pejorative term", and shouldn't be included in the article. The question is then, why do we need to repeat the "cult"/"personality cult"/"cult-like" allegations multiple times in this article? Hence my proposal. I think mentioning it once it's plenty. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So that's why your're confused! You are comparing two far way different topics. One is Bio and the other is a group where there are dozens of dozens sources saying either they are/represent cult or they have cult-like characteristics. You need to stop removing the well sourced materials from the article. You have already reverted two of my edits. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. I also asked if "cult of personality" should be added to the Presidency of Donald Trump, and was told this: "No. For the same reason: This is a pejorative term." Mind you, this proposal is not about excluding these term(s) from this article, is about not repeating them constantly, turning the article into "According to XYZ, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to ABC, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to EFG, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; etc..." There is really no need for that, hence my proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually Presidency of Donald Trump is far way different from People's Mujahedin of Iran since the former is on Presidency of Donald Trump and the latter is on People's Mujahedin of Iran! So, the discussion of whether or not Donald Trump has created a term or his presidency constitutes a cult is not something to be comparable to the case of People's Mujahedin of Iran! In contrast to what you're trying to indicate, there's no issue of "According to..."! Attribution should be made whenever needed and DUE weight should be given to them. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are 20 sources saying the MEK is a cult, we don't need to include those 20 sources separately saying each source says the MEK is a cult. I agree that mentioning it a couple of times gets the point across. That proposal looks fine to me.Barca (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is being turned into a collection of cult accusations. Those sections do need copyediting. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: In this section I proposed copy-editing and merging two sections of the article (on account that both sections include repeated and overlapping information concerning "cult" claims). I presented a proposed summary of the main points, and asked other editors to comment on whether I had missed any important points. I seem to have received support from the majority of editors for my proposed copy-edit, and an objection from one editor. Does this count as majority consensus? no consensus? what's the appropriate way forward here? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The clearest objection raised to your proposal is that it removes the piece about marriage and romantic relationships (please don't try to finesse that point; it has been removed). If you include that point, your proposal would have fairly clear consensus. At the moment it's a little harder to judge, because many of those commenting are not saying anything very substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Thank you for your comment. To be certain I've understood: I have consensus to go ahead with the edit as long as I also include ""In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children."? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, yes (no comment on the specific wording used; Mhhossein's objection was about that incident, not the words used to describe it). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go ahead with the edit then, and if Mhhossein proposes a different wording then that info can be reworded. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I'm afraid, how did you realize that after adding "ban on romantic relationships and marriages" there's clear consensus for this wholesale removal of well-sourced contents? Some of my objections:"The question is why you have condensed the materials in such an awkward manner? You have removed the names of the politicians, why?" --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: You have not substantiated those objections enough for them to carry weight. If you want them to count for anything, please discuss in detail, with reference to the sources, why the material should not be trimmed. Remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: First of all, Stefka Bulgaria's main claim is that the article has "overlapping information concerning "cult" claims" in the two sections and he has failed to show which of the portions are overlapping. He needs to address them case by case. Secondly, the cultish/cult-like/cult of personality behavior/characteristics of the group is deeply covered by plenty of high quality reliable sources so that it warrants dedicating a separate section the topic, as per DUE. I think presenting the list of the sources on cultish/cult-like/cult of personality behavior/characteristics of the group may add to the complexity of this TP but one may refer to [56] and [57] to see some of them. Thirdly, the suggested merger constitutes removal of several well-sourced material which is needed in the page in terms of adding encyclopedic content. Those valuable info are then condensed down to some instances of citations overkill. Why should some vague words such as "some sources", "certain sources" and "other sources" adding to the confusion of the readers? Fourthly, plenty of DUE and well-sourced content from "Human rights record" are removed in this mass removal suggestion. Where's the "Amnesty" report? I think this is Stefka Bulgaria who needs to explain why he intended to remove the 2004 Amnesty report, the 2013 UN report, the details of the HRW report, Hyeran and Ronen A. Cohen's works and etc on the basis of "repeated and overlapping information". Where are those materials repeated? Last, but not the least, probably Stefka Bulgaria should be hold to explain why he attempted to perform such a mass removal of well-sourced and DUE content on a false ground? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam: You've reverted this edit without substantiating or addressing the points raised in this TP discussion. Since you can't revert simply based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, please address the points raised in this TP discussion, defending your revert through RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam: Pinging you again in case you missed my earlier post. You need to substantiate why you reverted this edit through the points raised in this TP discussion/RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost 4 days go, SharabSalam he responded why. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced materials

Removal of The Intercept and RAND report

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can you elaborate why you have removed the most fresh report by The Intercept from the article? Please don't refer me to your edit summary, since that "summarizing" does not mean removal of the needed materials. Moreover, you have actually removed the materials from the The Intercept, not the former members. Please explain your act clearly. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In the same manner, this article is not an indiscriminate collection of criticisms. I've proposed cleaning up those sections, and asked you to provide any particular information that I may have missed (MEK defectors saying the MEK is a cult is already covered in the proposed summary). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is talking about "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" and "Exhaustive logs of software updates".It has nothing to do with our discussion. Do you have anything more saying why you removed the report by the The Intercept? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, MEK defectors saying the MEK is a cult is already covered in the article and in the proposed copy-edit in the section above. If there is something I may have missed, please let me know, but we're not going to add more "MEK defectors said the MEK is a cult" allegations because that's already in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That's where you're are puzzled. What your you have removed was actually what The Intercept believes, NOT what the former members of MEK say:

The Intercept published the testimonies of the former members in 2020. According to the Intercept, these testimonies implies that MEK is "a brutal organization" holding "thousands in a state of physical and psychological slavery" for decades. The Intercept describes the group as a "popular political movement" which later turned into "a freakish cult of personality under the absolute control of one all-powerful leader."

The Intercept is a notable source and the article needs to be featured with such fresh portions analyzing the testimonies of the former members. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

What in that source, as well as the RAND source you recently added, doesn't summarise what's already included in my proposal? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

and why do you think your proposal is the determining criteria? --Mhhossein ^talk 02:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually you have removed the viewpoint of The Intercept (which was neutrally presented in the article), not the former members. That you tend to remove the well-sourced materials should not be a ground for reverting further inclusions. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: For your attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also include "According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK". Other than that, I'm ok with this proposal. It condenses the information to each point without making a huge song and dance deal about everything every person ever said about the MEK. Ypatch (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also added that in the proposed summary: "Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”. If you approve/disapprove of the proposed text please indicate this in the section above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is nothing but the whole removal of well-sourced materials regarding MEK which makes the page even more POVish. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: Please elaborate on why you removed my recent addition to the article, since your edit summary is not justifying your revert. The RAND corporation report is not making an excessive cult claim, rather its explaining the different cultish aspects of the group, namely "confiscat[ing] the member's identity documents, threatened them with persecution in Iran and prosecution for illegal immigration in Iraq, and prevented those who wished to do so from returning to their home country." Please provide substantiated objections. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: For your attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the answer to why I removed this was provided in my edit summary: we are trying to clean up by summarising the main points, not trying to clutter every “cult” claim ever made about the MEK into the article.

This is the same reason I didn’t propose to include every single author/source that ever said there is a cult of personality built around Khomeini; because that would be damaging to the article. Nevertheless, you insist that "Cult personality" shouldn't even be mentioned in the Khomeini, Khamenei, and Soleimani articles, while here you continue to add "cult" claims.

We already have in the article multiple claims from multiple sources describing the MEK as a cult and describing MEK practices concerning these allegations:

"According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".[322] United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323] Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult".[324] Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian,[325] Stephanie Cronin,[326] Wilfried Buchta,[327], Eli Clifton[54] and others have also made similar claims. [328] Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a "cult nature"; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was "ashamed" by this statement.[329]"

"During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization, an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct.[141] A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options".[152] In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi".[186][330]"

"Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh[331] and Masoud Banisadr[332] among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich,[333] Robert Scheer,[333] and Elizabeth Rubin[334] among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq."

"In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades.[335] Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you"."

"An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence".[336] According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a cult as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".[337]

"In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[429] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[293]"

"In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". The United Nations spokesperson defended Kobler and his allegations, stating: "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq".[433]"

"According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp.[435] Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".[436]"

"Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured."[437][438] Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution.[244]"

"Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years.[439][152] Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused".[152] According to Guardian, MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders.[152] Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting.[440]"

"In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[289][289] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"[441]"

You seem to agree that “cult” is a “pejorative” term, yet here you are constantly trying to include new sources that repeat that the “MEK is a cult” (while you won’t even allow that to be summarised or even mentioned in other articles about this group’s political oppositions). As shown above, "Cult" claims are already (overtly) covered in this article. Continuing to add every “cult” claim we can find is damaging to the article, violates WP:NPOV, and is turning the article into a WP:COATRACK to paint the MEK as a "Terrorist cult" (a term used by the IRI against this group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow! maybe we can just change the title of the article to "Cult of The People Mojahedin of Iran", LOL! - MA Javadi (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Once again I explain, that YOU "are trying to clean up by summarising the main points" can not be a ground for depleting the article of DUE and notable materials supported by high quality sources. As I stated in my previous comment, "the RAND corporation report is not making an excessive cult claim". It is explaining in what terms the group is characterized a cult. So, please explain why you removed it from the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained that in my previous posts: who/how/why the MEK is described a cult is already (overtly) covered in the article (see the text in green I provided just above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can you exactly say where in the article is "confiscat[ing] the member's identity documents, threatened them with persecution in Iran and prosecution for illegal immigration in Iraq, and prevented those who wished to do so from returning to their home country" is repeated? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of RAND report and 2012 US government document by BarcrMac

@BarcrMac: you've recently removed two well-sourced portions from the article. The RAND report is adding something new and DUE to the article explaining how the MEK's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces' operations at the camp Ashraf. It is not saying MEK is a cult or like so your argument mentioned in your edit summary is completely false. As for the '2012 US government document', it is a governmental document which has official consequences and hence would be weighty enough to be included. You can not simply compare it to the comments by other identities. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: for your attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: your determination to repeat the word "cult" in this article is quite something. You persisted for having "Various scholarly works, media outlets has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult."" in the lead [58], you persisted to have added "Rajavi Cult"[[59] to the MEK's "Other names", and now you are trying to add that the US government portrayed the group as displaying "cultlike behavior" [60], but the U.S. describing the MEK as a cult is already in the article ("United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323]") Right now the word "cult" is repeated about 20 times in the article, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You are not making the article better by repeating the word "cult" over and over using again different sources. Barca (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not mentioning a more fresh document was making a similar point? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: You are clearly avoiding to say why you have removed the portion from the RAND report explaining how the MEK's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces' operations at the camp Ashraf. As it's clear, the wording is not adding further "cult" claim, rather it is adding a valuable encyclopedic info into this article. Please explain why? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Your edit ([61]) included "and in 2012 a U.S. government research document portrayed the group as displaying "cultlike behavior", but like I said, the U.S. describing the MEK as a cult is already in the article ("United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323]") In that edit you also inserted "The group's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces operations at the camp Ashraf and its strategies twoard the group. According to RAND corporation, MEK's history of cult behavior would likely had made the attempts by the coalition force aimed at dismantling the group, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, become "difficult and frustrating" and it could led to violence, especially "self inflicted violence". I thought that was superfluous content, specially considering that "cult" is repeated so many times in the article already. You seem to be trying to insert any cult quotes as possible and hope some of them stick. Barca (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 BarcrMac is not substantiating well why he has removed the following portion:

The group's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces operations at the camp Ashraf and its strategies toward the group. According to RAND corporation, MEK's history of cult behavior would likely had made the attempts by the coalition force aimed at dismantling the group, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, become "difficult and frustrating" and it could led to violence, especially "self inflicted violence".

He says it's a "superfluous content" while I believe this is adding an DUE and well sourced material to the article and the content is not repeated anywhere in the page. For repeating "cult", I can edit it so that only it's used once in this content. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein and BarcrMac: when was the content under dispute added to the article for the first time? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93: It was add here and removed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  In that case, Mhhossein, you need to establish consensus for the addition; it's too recent an addition for anything else. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 But the objection needs to be some sort of substantiation. I tried to build consensus and "I thought that was superfluous content" is not a substantiated objection since the content is DUE, new to the page (there's no duplication) and well-sourced. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: The responsibility for trying to obtain consensus after proposing a change is on you. The responsibility for providing policy-based rebuttals to that proposal is on anyone who disagrees with the proposal. The validity of arguments against any proposal, though, can only be made by someone assessing a proper discussion, not just an argument between two editors; and if a substantive disagreement persists after a discussion, then an RfC would be necessary. An argument that a specific addition is superfluous would not carry much weight in an RfC, but that doesn't negate the need for more discussion at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Absolutely disagree with this merge. Two different subjects cant be merged into one section. Also, allegations? Thats unsourced. All reliable scholar sources call them cult, its not an allegations, its a fact.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC Merging “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” into a single section

[This RfC has been withdrawn]. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Should “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” sections be merged into a single section (I've numbered each paragraph to help the discussion): Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights record and allegations

1) Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice accused the MEK of committing human rights abuses in the early 1990s against the Shia uprising, an accusation the MEK denies. Other sources have accused the MEK of human right abuses and displaying cult-like characteristics such as ideology indoctrination and ideological cleansings.

2) Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics within the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization. Such allegations include authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, sexual assault, and limited exit options.

3) During their time in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, the MEK required its members to divorce and send their children to foster families in Europe and the United States in order to avoid "distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran"; a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cult-like".

4) In 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report describing human rights violations committed by the group against its members. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed, with Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca saying that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.

5) Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like"; or having a “cult of personality”. Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Mainly because there is way too much redundancy in these two sections that needs summarising and copy-editing. See TP discussion "Merging “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” into a single section": the article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK of redundant "cult" claims. Currently there is repeated and overlapping information about who/why referred to the MEK as a "cult". In my proposal here, I summarise the main points in these sections, cleaning up repeated and similar information. As some editors have suggested, this proposal can be used as a starting point to clean up those sections. This would then make it easier to add any new or missing information as we continue to build the article. I also propose removing some sources to avoid WP:OVERKILL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Stefka Bulgaria: I want to repeat the advice I gave on my talk page. A very specific proposal with a very wide scope is less likely to gain consensus than a series of proposal addressing the various parts of the issues you bring up. There is nothing stopping you from continuing this RfC, but please bear this in mind. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde; I seem to have misinterpreted the advice you gave me on your talk page. I though you were saying that I should number each proposed paragraph (which represents a summary of major points). My idea behind this RfC was to have others comment on whether these major points were properly summarised, while fomenting feedback on possible expansions/modifications. I'm tempted to remove this RfC and start several other ones instead (divided into small parts). The thing about that is that there is so much redundant text in the article about "cult" allegations that this would need to be divided into numerous RfCs, probably taking months to resolve (if they actually get any consensus). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you misinterpreted me. The worst thing that could happen with this formulation is a big waste of time, so I can't stop you, but I would still recommend withdrawing this and reframing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, based on the comments you have made in this talk page, youe clearly WP:INVOLVED in this discussion. You can't use your admin tools in this topic or that would be reported and considered as admin abuse and you would basically end up losing your adminship.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I am not involved here. I have given procedural advice, not expressed preference for an outcome. I have pointed out that complex and specific proposals are less likely to get consensus; this has nothing to do with what version of the article I prefer (and indeed I have no such preference in this case, beyond a broad preference for a well-written, policy-compliant article, which this is not, and which absolutely none of you really seem to be interested in). If you think that makes me involved, please take this to AN or ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This tactic by SharabSalam looks familiar... That last one led to El_C walking away from continuing to help is this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If you review the dispute there between me and El_C you would know that I have apologized for that and it wasn't even related to this article but to him closing a admin noticeboard against an editor who convassed during a RfC. I am saying that Vanamonde93 is acting like the authority here and he is always against Mhhossein. He shouldn't act like that. He shouldn't patronize other editors. If this admin used admin tools in this article, I will report it to the WP:AE and I will list all the posts where this admin has interpreted policies and guidelines differently from Mhhossein.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I am acting here in an admin capacity; I've made that clear several times. I've used my tools here before (such as with the block of Saff V., and the formal warnings to several parties). I intend to use my tools again if it becomes necessary. If you think that is inappropriate, AN or ARBCOM are the places to go. Making vague threats isn't appropriate, and certainly does not enable you to ignore any advice I give. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Negative, no apology was extended for the latest attack, and at any rate, there are limits to how many times I'm willing to accpet apologies for continued attacks. Vanamonde93 is uninvolved, that is my assessment. Claims to the contrary should be reported at the appropriate forum — this is not the place for that. Saying that their action will be considered as admin abuse and you would basically end up losing your adminship, in my experience, seems highly unlikely. I, certainly, will argue strongly against such a report which advances that position, not to mention proposes an outcome as severe as that. El_C 18:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, @El C:, SharʿabSalam threatening admins with reporting them for misusing their administrative tools (see also attacks on @BD2412:, [62] [63]) when things are not going his way seems like a method for manipulation, and something that should be reported at ANI. Would any of you mind if I report this? Barca (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to initiate a discussion at any time, but this belongs in the category of behavioral problems that ANI is very bad at solving. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think documentation exists for sanctions — whether these are presented cogently in a report is another matter. Anyway, I'm lenient, so I haven't enforced any yet. At the very least, the lines are being skirted, which requires self-correction. El_C 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt I will be able to present this cogently, but I can try. Maybe I'm seeing this from a different viewpoint, but I think it's very wrong to try to scare admins away through threats (admins who have put time and effort to understand the situation) just because the decisions are not tilting their way.

@El C:, this user already succeeded in taking you away from continuing your valued help in this article, and is now trying to do the same thing to @Vanamonde93:. From my viewpoint, this is hurtful to our Wikipedia. Barca (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It was when only Saff. V and me were asking El_C to return to the article. It is interesting to know the absence was not important for other users. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the above being true, they both have made appeals for me to return. Now Vanamonde has taken over my prior role. Which everyone should feel lucky for. Because there could be no read-in admin and no serious enforcement of IRAN POL. Enforcement born of disputes that ANI generally would have a hard time digesting, thereby (eventually) erring on the side of harsh remedies. I wouldn't venture to speak for Vanamonde, but at some point they themselves might want to take a break from this article. I am not committing to return if they do. But I do hope someone, some admin, takes on that task. Because this article is in desperate need of it. These allowances —basically having a dedicated admin for the article— are not usual, though, as I'm sure everyone here is aware. Vanamonde should be thanked for his volunteer efforts. I know when I was being thanked, by both sides, it really meant a lot. El_C 13:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein: Are you suggesting that El_C's absence in this article was important for you but not for me? What are you trying to accomplish with these never-ending bad faith comments? First, You don't know me or what it's important or unimportant for me, so don't make these comments, and second, if you agree that SharabSalam should not have made those comments to El_C, then you should support someone trying to stop this from continuing to happen. Barca (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Oppose this salad proposal. We don't merge two completely different things with eachother.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)