Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

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

Intelligence campaign

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

---

This current section People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Intelligence_campaign_against_the_MEK seems redundant and a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can we summarize and shorten it? VR _talk 23:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been expanding these sections with the aim of attending the WP:DUE and MEK-sympathetic sources request. Properly representing the body of sources from all sides is necessary, and since there seems to be a large amount of derogatory depiction of the MEK in the article already, then it seems that we need a similar amount of coverage about the efforts that have been made to delegitimise the MEK in the West so that appropriate weight is given to the different viewpoints.

I would be in favour of summarising redundancy in the article. To give proper weight to the different view points, if we shorten the propaganda/intelligence campaign against the MEK, then I propose we also shorten redundant derogatory depictions of the MEK (something that's currently excessive in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We have to mind WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "average" Western reliable source depicts MEK generally negatively. It doesn't help that they were once designated a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, I would agree with removing redundancy everywhere, both pro-MEK content and anti-MEK content.VR _talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of MEK-trashing in Western sources, but there are also a fair amount of reliable sources that commend the MEK. Also what Stefka pointed out, there are reports of the Iranian government running a media demonization campaign to promote the MEK as a terrorist cult in the West. I think all this needs to be in the article, but I don't think we need long paragraphs continually banging you over the head with the same information, which is what is in the article now. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: I agree with VR saying the section should not be FALSE BALANCED. Addition of POVish narrations MEK-sympathetic sources to the already oversized page, not only is a good tool to reach what you could not make via those awkward RFCs, but also is making the article full of unnecessary things. Establishing WP:DUE, more than other things, requires paying attention to high quality sources. Hence, Varesteh's claims is rarely an improvement to this page. What is it adding to the page? As for this unnecessary insertion, MEK sympathetic sources like Vidal-Quadras, Giuliani and Ereli should not be used to give weight to such a position. Neither Hamid Bahrami's nor Majid Rafizadeh's claims (who are they??? I know Bahrami is a former political prisoner!) are adding something new to the page. Though their reliabilities are highly questioned here. Also, do you think Al Bawaba is a reliable source here? As for the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report, it is known that MEK's "supporters have also hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm, to persuade members of Congress to support its cause". There are similar issues with [2]. Also are 'verfassungsschutz' and 'english.aivd.nl' reliable? You should not just insert everything you find on the net. You can see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Blanket removal of sources

@Mhhossein: why did you blanked-remove all of the sources that Stefka added to the article pointing out to a demonization campaign by the Iran regime against the MEK?

1* "The United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, and Committee on Foreign Affairs published an enquiry on derogatory descriptions of the MEK, including "cult"-like allegations. The enquiry found that since 1979, the Iranian government had gone through "extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI", adding that for years, MOIS had conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI.""

2* "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK. On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

3* "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."

4* "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

5* "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

6* "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."

7* "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”

8* "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."

You also refer to the 1st source as "the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", but it seems to be a report by the U.S. Congress. The other sources also seem to meet WP:RS.

You seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK, but when someone offers a counter-view that says there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK, you blanket-remove all of it? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: See my comprehensive explanations. Also, please avoid from making personal attacks ("you seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK" is a clear comment on me which is prohibited). Take a look at the "Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", you'll see it's what I said. Was it necessary to copy all of them here? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: These sources by Dr Majid Rafizadeh, Ivan Sascha Sheehan, Joseph Adam Ereli, also the sources by Arab News, Intelligence and Security services, etc., why did you remove them? (I don't see an explanation for this in your past post) - MA Javadi (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, your "comprehensive" explanation doesn't take into account many sources you removed from the article, and this is not the first time your edit summary doesn't reflect all of the edits you made in the article ([3]). Idealigic (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Both of you: Read my comment once again please. I have tried to cover all of your questions. As for [4], this is simply an opinionated piece. Futhermore, Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: here you appear to be in agreement that "Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia.", so your response to removing these sources does not justify their removal.

For instance, DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara), and he writes:

"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Ivan Sascha Sheehan is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. He writes:

"well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

Joseph Adam Ereli is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs] and he writes

""To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."

For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article (despite this already being overtly covered), but you won't allow opposing POVs describing a well-financed propaganda campaign against the MEK. By doing this, all POVs (except your preferred one) are not properly weighted, but then in these RfCs you propose that "major POVs should be included based on their due weight". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop making accusations and personal attacks once for ever. I am not, however, going to comment on you. This would make the discussion useless and frustrating. But, if you're here to know the fact: See this and this to know about how MEK sympathetic the source is. For instance "...In contrast to Katzman, J. Adam Ereli, another MEK panelist..." and "The Thursday appearance on the panel won’t be the first time that Ereli has participated in one of MEK’s events. In July, 2014, Ereli appeared at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a coalition whose sole purpose is supporting the MEK, and praised the NCRI." Also, I already said why Rafeizadeh and Sheehan are not proper additions to this page now. Are they adding something new? Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: there is nothing in this Wikipedia page about the $80,000 that was offered to the head of the Mackenzie Institute to label the MEK "a terrorist cult". More importantly, these sources that you removed help provide weight to opposing POVs so that when cleaning up the article for redundancy is proposed (as I have with the recent RfCs), then we are able to weight accurately sources representing both sides of arguments. Here you are removing several reliable sources from one side of the argument ([5][6][7][8][9][10][11]), but then yourself and VR protest that there is a WP:FALSEBALANCE in establishing what is WP:DUE in the article. How can we establish accurately what is WP:DUE if you keep removing all the sources from one side of the argument? (as with the previous post, I've been specific about the issue and about which sources I'm referring to, so please don't give another Straw man response). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will reply very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Had you read my previous comments carefully, you wouldn't be asking these questions. I told you that a work by Sheehan "is used already for saying pretty much the same thing". Moreover, as I told you last year and this year, the source used, being an opinion piece, falls below the minimum standards as regards a reliable source. As for your comment on maintaining DUE, it seems like sophism; you can not use those questionable sources, to make a false balance. Considering the RFCs you've started recently, you are probably missing regarding DUE. Using your logic, a dozens of more reliable sources can be added saying MEK is a "cult" or like (I think you're well aware of these sources). --Mhhossein ^talk 16:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Have read your previous comments attentively and indeed you have not answered various points I raised here. You are removing content backed by reliable sources that isn't in the article and your responses thus far have mainly been straw man arguments and bludgeoning. First you say opinion from scholars are ok, but here you say they are not, then you say WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims should be removed, but then insert other exceptional claims. You say we should not include MEK claims, and then want to include numerous claims from former MEK members. You are not consistent with your own wikilawyering. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". Also, can you find another reliable source talking about this so-called Komite report? So much detail was added on a claim by MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I cannot see your reply to Stefka's last post here. I am curious to your answer about these issues.Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: where in your response do you address the sources about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult?

Then Stefka provides a diff where you agree to use opinions from scholars, but now you are saying "being an opinion piece, falls below the minimum standards", and remove opinion pieces from scholars. You need to explain this too.

You then say these are "questionable sources" that make a false balance: The General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD) , Bundesamt Für Verfassungsschutz, The General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD) , Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, The Baghdad Post. You need to explain how they are "questionable" sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that I agreed to use opinionated pieces? The "$80,000" source is already addressed. The Baghdad Post is an opinionated piece. AIVD sources were used to say MEK's members are targeted by MOIS. It's already mentioned multiple times. The other source is used to add an unnecessary thing over the alleged Iranian diplomat in Vienna and the EU terrorist list. The latter is also mentioned already in the page. Are they adding something new that I am missing? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: are you not agreeing with Kazemita1 that "Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia"? so why are you now saying they are not or that you didn't agree with Kazemita1's statement?

Then where in your response do you address the sources about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult? (please provide a diff).

The other sources you removed are adding new information. For example, point 3 (there is nothing about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands and attempting to gather information through espionage), point 4 (there is nothing in the article about EU sanctions on Iran for the Iranian diplomat incident with the MEK), point 5 (nothing in the article about MOIS coordinating a campaign to pay politicians and public servants to portray MEK in highly negative manner). Can you please explain step by step why you removed this? Idealigic (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am getting frustrated by your harassing questions. I did not agree on using the opinionated pieces. Finally, those points are already covered, probably in other forms, e.g. "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group," and "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations" (there are still more). You can find similar things for 4 and 5.--Mhhossein ^talk 04:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: these are not "harassing questions", you removed all this information and now you need to give a reasonable explanation about why you have removed them.

About using opinionated pieces, you say you did not agree to this, but didn't you recently support to use this opinionated source by the theglobepost?

About the information you removed with reference to the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult, you are saying this is the same as "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group," and "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations"? But none of this talks about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult.

Also none of those quotes talk about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands, or about EU sanctions on Iran for the Iranian diplomat incident with the MEK, or about MOIS coordinating a campaign to pay politicians and public servants to portray MEK in highly negative manner.

Am I wrong? If this information is in the article somewhere, please say where (the passages you listed do not talk about these things). Idealigic (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have taken this to ANI for review. Idealigic (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI? Probably more eyes should be attracted on my report of the pro-MEK editors always wandering around the page. Anyway, to show how baseless your comments are; For my so-called support see "The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement." As for the $80,000 source, did you even 'ctrl+f'ed "Sheehan"? Then check out "There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." As for the arrestings in EU in 2018 yuo can ctrl+f "2018 Belgian police" and check out the whole paragraph. Did I miss something (please come back only after having checked the previous comments carefully)? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:You first tried to use The Globepost to support that the MEK had been in operation Shining sun. You also asked at WP:RSN, and you were told that this was not a good source. You trying to use this opinion piece to support that the MEK had been in operation Shining sun but at the same time saying we should not use opinion pieces is an example of the general problems with your answers. The same thing with the information about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult, which describes a specified event that is not in the article. Also like I said before, the content about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands, or about EU sanctions on Iran for the Iranian diplomat incident with the MEK, or about MOIS coordinating a campaign to pay politicians and public servants to portray MEK in highly negative manner is not in the article. I have been trying to get you to answer about this for weeks. Now please answer at ANI so others can decide about your answers. Idealigic (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Adoring nanny's comment? He's certainly an involved user. Anyway, I don't say 'The Globepost' SHOULD be used since the disputed content is verified by at least another source. Also, check People's Mujahedin of Iran#Disinformation through recruited MEK members out before bludgeoning the talk page more than this. You can see enough materials regarding "Iran Intelligence services targeting MEK" and its using of "a network of agents who have defected from these organizations." For the EU sanction I could find this Reuters source, However it also includes "The move, although in part symbolic since one of the men is in prison in Belgium" which is necessary for maintaining NPOV. I am seeing the info on this alleged plot is found elsewhere like "Settlement in Albania (2016–present)". Anything to be added regarding the EU sanctions is better be in this section.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I understand why you are not providing these answers at ANI, nothing in your response provides a policy based explanation for your removals. Idealigic (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References
References

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

RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article (2nd RfC)

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

---

This RfC takes into account the points made in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article".

Shall we summarize the following:

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?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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.

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". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"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."

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin 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. 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".

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish".

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".

Into this?:

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"." Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like", or having a “cult of personality”, while other sources have dismissed these claims. while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".
(I've ammended the text based on the feedback by VR and MA Javadi. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC))

Note: An alternative proposal is suggested by VR.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this so-called amendement is in-line with VR's comment. @Vice Regent: Is it? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. This RfC proposes a reduction of redundant text in the article. The given text is redundant because it all refers to the same thing: different entities calling the MEK "cult" or "cult-like" (a contentious label).

In the previous RfC, it was questioned whether such a reduction would leave "enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:UNDUE).

To help with this, I provided sources with a counter-viewpoint saying that there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK to, among other things, depict it as a "terrorist cult" in the West, but Mhhossein removed these from the article; here are some of the sources that were removed:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

• "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

Some of these sources don't refer specifically to the "cult" allegations, while others do. Comparing specifically the "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" allegations presented in this RfC, there is a majority viewpoint in favour of "pro-cult". As such, "pro-cult" allegations have been given prominence in the proposed summary of the text.

Although the final wording of the summary can be further tweaked, this RfC mainly proposes reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations; something that's been needlessly over-emphasized in the article (making it come across as an attack against a legitimate political group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

you had not consulted the most relevant reliable sources in this regard. Me and Pahlevun exlplained in details what crtical points you have missed. Your so-called summary does not give "enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". That's why it lacks some key-points regarding the subject in question. Moreover, despites being asked, you fail to specifically say which portions are redundant (which portions really?). That's another factor making your justification flawed and useless. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Just looking at the material that is to be shortened, what one US colonel said is clearly WP:UNDUE, as is the bit about $80,000. These are clear signs that the material needs to be summarized. Furthermore, the summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria appears to summarize viewpoints in about the right proportions. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

This RFC is as ridiculous as the previous one. Tag teaming or like won't work here. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria I am once again concerned that you may not be quoting sources properly. For example, you write "while other sources have dismissed these claims" and you cite this source. But the source seems to say (emphasis added),

And yet another officer, who was there at precisely the same time and is now a retired general, has become an active lobbyist on the MEK's behalf. With his open smile and earnest friendly manner, he is a good advocate. "Cult? How about admirably focused group?" he says. "And I never heard of anyone being held against their will."

It is a misrepresentation to call an MEK lobbyist as "other sources". More accurate would be to say something like "MEK denies the allegations". Nor does this source you cited dismisses the claim. It merely argues that Iran has tried countries to label MEK as a cult, not whether the allegation is false or not.VR _talk 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@VR: here are three sources:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

  by DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH who is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara).Arab News

• "well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

  by Ivan Sascha Sheehan who is is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. IntPolicyDigest

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."

  by Joseph Adam Ereli who is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs. National Interest

Feel free to propose a suitable summary, which we could then use as an option for the final wording. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment VR. That's why I say this RFC is as ridiculous as the previous and won't make an improvement to this page. Some sources are cherry picked to reach a desired inclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per WP:NOTADVOCACY - we can report objectively without overstating or amplifying and the article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - this summary is sufficient. About the final line, if we include Stefka's sources, then "The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media" could be a better representation of the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the RfC as a whole, but the use of the word "dismissed" is not justified based on the sources provided here. Please either modify that or provide better sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think "The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media" represents sources more accurately, then I'll change it to that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the text. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Deleting sources indicating a "highly organized misinformation campaign" against the MEK, and then adding all other sources that call the MEK a cult, is not neutral editing.

These sources calling the MEK a cult can be shortened, and Stefka has given a good proportion to the weight of the different viewpoints. I support shortening and if the final wording needs to be changed, then it can be changed, but this content needs shortening so it can be a more neutral article. Idealigic (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic I neither agree with Stefka adding lots of redundant material on the misinformation campaign, nor with Mhhossein's blanket removal of it. I think some mention of that needs to be made in a neutral fashion.VR _talk 00:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed. Unfortunately we keep getting stuck at what the final wording should be. That probably happens because of the "all or nothing" attitude - discussion hinges between getting rid of (almost) everything vs getting rid of nothing. So I made this incremental edit, it reduces the first paragraph from 115 words to 85 words and gets rids of all redundancies and long quotes that were previously in the first paragraph. Hopefully this is something everyone can agree with. If so, I can then trim the second paragraph and so on.VR _talk 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

VR: My comment shows I support "case by case" investigation. But they are aiming to perform a mass removal of wells-sourced and DUE contents from the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein mass removes the "anti-cult" arguments from the article, and then proposes that the "pro-cult" arguments be kept based on WP:DUE. Then Vice Regent agrees that both "anti-cult" and "pro-cult" arguments should be shortened, but then proposes that the majority of "pro-cult" arguments be kept. This comes across as saying one thing and doing another in order to keep the article filled with "MEK is a cult" quotes. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My edit is comprehensively explained. In fact, I saved the article against tons of dubious and repeated materials. There, I asked you to "see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section." So, these two cases are never comparable. Just look at the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria this revert makes no sense. I tried reducing redundancy (again reduced 115 words to 85 words) but you restored the redundancy. Yet here you are complaining about redundancy in the section. Your revert doesn't even make sense in terms of paragraph structure: the section should not be starting with the sentence on children that you moved to the very top.VR _talk 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

VR: for the sake of not WP:BLUDGEONING these RfCs further, I'll keep it brief: Place a vote here explaining why the article should include the amount of "cult" quotes you're wanting to include in it. A closing admin will then review consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• The RFC is fundamentally against the previous closure: The previous closure asks for addressing "whether a significant reduction in the size of the section would leave enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source." However this new RFC is not doing that at all. Also, this new one is quite the same is the previous one which aimed to replace the 6 well-sourced paragraphs (almost 680 words) with one paragraph (37 words!!!). There's no sensible difference in the current suggestion containing 80 words. So, this RFC is actually suggesting to condensate the content by 88 percent without a case by case study of the alleged redundancies. Moreover, the current RFC does not take into account "proportion of content that should be devoted to "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" viewpoints", as demanded here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It was explained to you by the previous closing admin that: "the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision [...] in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support". As I said to VR, you can place a vote here explaining why the article should include the amount of "cult" quotes you're wanting to include in it and a closing admin will then review consensus. That's the last I'll say here too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Almost nothing has changed from the your previous failed RFC and that's exactly why this new RFC is against that closure. The page is covered by General Sanctions and consensus required rules here. Despite this, you are repeatedly asking to condense a key longstanding text to be condensed by 88 percent without explaining what are those so called redundancies. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No: As I explained here and here, the current RFC is not improved in light of previous closure. However, the response to this proposed change is NO. The main reason provided by the OP is that the title "cult" is a Contentious label. This is while, according to the guideline these titles can be used when they are "...widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," which is exactly the case here. I mean there are a vast number of secondary reliable sources widely and deeply covering the cultish nature of the group. "Designation as a cult" already contains multiple reliable sources, but I will try to provide a categorized list of some other sources (probably some are already used):

1-Scholarly works

• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum", By RAND Corporation. This source provides a specialized review on the cultish nature of the group. More specifically, the report explains how the group could be handled by the U.S. military personnel given the MEK's cultish behavior. 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.

"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."

A work by The Intercept sheds lights on the RAND report as such: "You think only people inside of dictatorships are brainwashed? A 2009 report by the RAND Corporation noted how MEK rank-and-file had to swear “an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran” and highlighted the MEK’s “authoritarian, cultic practices” including ‘mandatory divorce and celibacy” for the group’s members (the Rajavis excepted, of course). “Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family,” explained the RAND report."

• Ervand Abrahamian, a professor emeritus of Iranian and Middle Eastern history and politics at Baruch College in New York:

"I call them basically a cult". --[12]

• 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.

So, the very fact that the ideological revolution was an important milestone for becoming a cult should be mentioned somewhere in the page. The source also quotes Abrahamian as such:

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

2-Journalistic works

• "The Cult of Rajavi", an infamous article by Elizabeth Rubin of The New York Times. In 2003, Rubin visited the MEK camp in Iraq and reported her observations in the New York Times. This worked coined the term "The cult of Rajavi" which was later echoed by many other reliable sources.

"The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife, Maryam."

As I just said, many other works on MEK was later influenced by Rubin's piece. According to 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." Another instance is The Inercept which mentions the Rubin's 2003 work and adds the Rubin's 2011 work as a complementary note.

• "Defectors Tell Of Torture And Forced Sterilization In Militant Iranian Cult", by The Intercept.

"But over the last four decades, it has devolved into a secretive, cult-like group that resembles a militant, Islamist version of the Church of Scientology. The MEK has carried out bombings, sabotage missions, and murders."

• "Here’s Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group", by The Inercept.

"Rather, the biggest problem with U.S. politicians backing the MEK is that the group has all the trappings of a totalitarian cult."

• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long-read by 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."

• Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group.

"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."

• "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult", by Trita Parsi.

"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)."

• The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex, by BBC.
• The MEK in Albania

"MEK is a terrorist cult that resides in Albania, and which struggles to overthrow the government of a country that has done nothing wrong against Albania."

3-Official Reports

• U.S. state department report published in 1994. According to the Intercept, the report writes that Massoud Rajavi "fostered a cult of personality around himself" which had "alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another."
• U.S. state department report published in 2008.

That said, given the fact that the the section contains even more sources, the proposed text in this RFC is paying far too little weight to the number and depth of coverage by the reliable sources. Moreover, the above list proved that MEK's cultish/cult-like descriptions don't solely stem from the MEK's separating of children from parents. Actually, the sources go through the details and portray a set of behaviors that indicate MEK is/resembles a cult. For instance, the RAND report lists the following items in APPENDIX B of the report to show that MEK is a cult, or has cult-like attributes:

1. "Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership"
2. "Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation"
3. "Sexual Control"
4. "Emotional Isolation"
5. "Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure"
6. "Deceptive Recruitment"
7. "Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation"
8. "Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options"
9. "Patterns of Suicide"

Though RAND report provides a complete list of the items indicating MEK's cultish behavior, other sources have occasionally mentioned these items (see the above list. For instance, Rubin's piece in New York Times talks about a metamorphosis "into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult".) That's why the current proposed text, which is a 80-words paragraph, is never a proper response to the above points and can't resemble the current section, which is a well-sourced-6-paragraphs-680-words text.

--Mhhossein ^talk 03:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, your long vote doesn't take into account the RFC's core proposal of "reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations; something that's been needlessly over-emphasized in the article (making it come across as an attack against a legitimate political group)". Idealigic (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a comment, not a vote! The so-called "RFC's core proposal" is never the determining point for the users. My comment shows how baseless the OP's proposed text is. Moreover, the OP has failed to say exactly which portions are redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Failing to address why/what the RFC proposes means your vote/comment here is the equivalent of a strawman argument. In the RFC header I've indicated the proposed text to be summarized and in my vote I've indicated why it should be summarized. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have indeed addressed the RFC. What's wrong with using concrete evidences to show that your proposal is against multiple guidelines, among them DUE? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• To the closing admin/editor: these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of the overwhelming bludgeoning with confusing claims, to which an easy solution often ends up being closing with "no-consensus" (something that has been happening with most of these RfCs for the past year or so). It will take some time to weight votes/consensus carefully and weed out the bludgeoning, but that's the only way to close this RfC effectively. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Had you been careful about what you propose, they would lead into success. Now, you insist on mass removing of well sourced contents and I showed your proposal goes against WP:DUE among other things. Also, I would like tell the closing admin that previous admin's closure is well emphasizing the importance of addressing the "proportion of content" by presenting reliable sources. My comment is aimed at showing how deep and wide the reliable sources have covered the cultish nature/behavior/attributes of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Stefka Bulgaria you are partly to be blamed for the "overwhelming bludgeoning". I twice proposed to remove redundancy, yet you either ignored my proposal (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Proposal) or outright reverted it, even when I tried to fix some basic issues. Of course, redundancy needs to be lessened but your goal seems to be completely remove many views that are widely reported in WP:RS. This is contrary to WP:NPOV. I agree with the need of redundancy and that will need user cooperation and compromise to get an acceptable version. Yet you even refuse to discuss by repeated saying "That's the last I'll say" in the middle of a discussion (not a helpful comment to make).VR _talk 13:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, the current version has a lot of WP:UNDUE text. Condensing that content and leaving just the main points would make the article easier and better to read. Like Adoring nanny says, the summary proposed by Stefka summarizes viewpoints in the right proportions. Nika2020 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The "proportion" argument came up in the last RfC. Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views, whereas one view is way more prevalent in reliable sources. The conclusion of an RfC can never go against wikipedia policies, no matter how many "votes" one side has. So instead of simply "voting", I suggest finding ways to amend Stefka's proposal to meet WP:NPOV. I'll propose something myself soon.VR _talk 23:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

*No per VR. Stefka Bulgari's version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to proportions. I agree with VR that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed, but the final wording should be different. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes changing my vote because of Idealigic's explanation about WP:FALSEBALANCE. Still I agree with VR that the material needs to be shortened. Bahar1397 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bahar1397: WP:FALSEBALANCE is not a relevant policy here primarily because Mhhossein has been wholesale removing reliable sources with information that the Tehran government is trying to designate the MEK as a cult in the press [13] [14]. In other words, some users here are removing sources and then claiming their cherry picked sources should be the ones to establish the balance. Also it was determined by an admin that "the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision" and that "in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support". Idealigic (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bahar1397 Hi and thanks for your comment. Please don't get misled by the Idealigic's comments. Those removals by me are already explained by details. Please check out my comment. This shows that the proposed text is by Stefka Bulgaria is not covering the whole issue. Your "yes" goes against the Vice Regent's comment saying the the OP's suggestion is not proportional to the reliable sources. @Idealigic: Stop misleading the users by making irrelevant comments to this RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, thank you for your message, i have read through the details and your comments, but i don't believe i have been misled by idealigic. Bahar1397 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• No; I agree with the explanation of Mhhossein. The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE. The proposed text which has been presented by Stefka Bulgaria, is removing very of the content with appropriate sources. Meanwhile, it is not removal of redundancy. It is a wholesale removal. I presume, there are many appropriate things in the mentioned section which ought not be removed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes; This RFC has improved in light of the previous closure because it leaves enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint and removes repeated redundant quotes.

We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult in the article.

The RFC reduces redundancy on both sides, and since Mhhossein has already reduced a lot of the text about MOIS paying to get Western media to say the MEK is a cult, now we also need to reduce all the repeated cult quotes in the article (which are redundant because all they do is repeat that the MEK is cult-like or repeat what’s already in the article).

For example, the Human rights record section already contains a lot of detail about the same human right abuses that some editors here keep repeating should be in the article:

• “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.[444] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[303]

• “The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[445] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[445] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[446] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.[299]

• “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.[444] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed"

• According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp.[450] Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".

• "Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured".[452][453] 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.[254] MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[299][299] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"[454]

• "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses,[455][160] while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.[375][390] In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.[456][457]

• "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 OP’s version explains that sources have called the MEK a “cult” or “cult-like”, and why. That’s all we need in the article with regards to this. Also the OP's proposed reduction gives more emphasis to pro-cult per the proportion of content devoted to that viewpoint, so this RFC has addressed the issues with the last RFC. Alex-h (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of accuracy issues with the version written by OP. First it says "The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf ... a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being cultish." The no children rule is not the only or even the main reason for MEK being widely regarded as a cult. There are many reasons and OP's version removes all of them. Second the version only names the Iranian government as the source of the "cult" allegation even though many sources have reached this conclusion independent of Iran. This gives the impression that the main source of these allegations is Iran, which is false.VR _talk 13:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• The cultish nature of this organization is one its core characteristics, this is a matter that has been researched and long held by scholars, giving it a mainstream view status. The proposed version is reducing this widely-held academic view to a diverging opinion of political nature, so I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS (using low-quality sources) and WP:WEASEL (by using the term "other sources"). These are a few examples of researches published by scholarly sources:

1. Alexandra Stein, a social psychologist with expertise on cults, in several pages of her book Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems (2016, Taylor & Francis) discusses how MEK qualifies as a cult. This book was used in previous versions of this article to back up material, but is absent from the current article. Was there a consensus to remove this reliable source?
2. RAND Corporation's 2009 policy report dedicates a whole section to this subject, titled "Application of Cult Theory to the MEK".
3. A whole chapter named "The Metamorphosis of MEK" is dedicated to this on the book Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements (2016, Routledge). This reliable book was previously used in this article to back up much more content than now, but they are removed. Why?
4. Manochehr Dorraj has conducted a case study on this subject (see JSTOR 45194310), and concluded that the MEK was a cult even before 1979.

Here are top experts who describe the MEK as cult:

• Nikki Keddie (JSTOR 24357968: "Mujahedeen-e Khalq, the violent cult that fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War")
• Olivier Roy and Valentine Moghadam (doi:10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.0001: "The Mujāhidīn has increasingly become an inward-looking sect. It has surrounded its leader with an intense personality cult, proclaiming that “Rajavī is Iran, and Iran is Rajavī.”")
• Ervand Abrahamian (Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, p. 260: "By mid-1987, the Mojahedin Organization had all the main attributes of a cult.")
• Michael Axworthy (Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran, p. 272: "the MKO kept up its opposition and its violent attacks, but dwindled over time to take on the character of a paramilitary cult, largely subordinated to the interests of the Baathist regime in Iraq")
• Ronen Cohen (The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, p. 174: "The fact that organizational discipline was taken to the extreme, and its members were isolated from the world outside the organization, turned it into a cult that worshipped its leader".)
• Masoud Kazemzadeh (Islamic Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran Under Khomeini, p. 63: "By 1985–86, Masoud Rajavi, the already absolute leader of the PMOI, turned the organization into a cult, where he was praised and regarded to be the equivalent of Prophets Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, Shia Imam Ali, and Shia Imam Hussein combined.)
• Wilfried Buchta (Who Rules Iran?, p. 114: "Rajavi alone controls the MEK, which he has organized into a Stalinist-type personality cult centered on himself.")

There are dozens of other academics omitted here, let alone tons of reliable WP:NEWSORG sources like The New York Times, Reuters, etc. or think-tanks. Those who are in favor of such a proposal, should provide academic sources of quality akin to those above, instead of using vague words backed up by poor sources like Arab News, IntPolicyDigest or a blog post on National Interest. Pahlevun (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Also per WP:NOTADVOCACY. I agree with MA Javadi that overstating that the MEK is a cult is just good old fashioned POV pushing. The summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria sums up the reliable sources well without turning the article into an account of quotes calling the MEK a cult. Unlike what Pahlevun claims, this RFC does not contradict WP:RS since it summarizes the main sources, and like what Alex said, the section "Human Rights Record" also already has material that this. Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV pushing. Ypatch (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Throwing something irrelevant does not make the closing admin go wrong. WP:NOTADVOCACY has nothing to do with this RFC and please stop making original research. The so-called summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria 'wapes out' the reliable sources regarding MEK. Me[15] and Vice Regent[16] already proved this RFC does not address all aspects of MEK's cultish nature. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, please read WP:NOTADVOCACY, which indicates that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for advocacy or propaganda, and a topic should be described from a neutral point of view." Summarising information from reliable sources (what this RFC is proposing) is a good way to sort out some of the POv pushing in the article. Making whole POV sections like "designation as a cult" and filling it with cult claims is POV pushing and advocacy (the far-from-neutral kind). Ypatch (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

YPatch (talk · contribs) How can it be that reporting the cult claims neutrally - which are supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources - can be considered "POV pushing"? WP:NPOV requires as to cover all major viewpoints.VR _talk 16:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. I agree with Alex-h and Stefka. The material to be reduced is "redundant" becase it repeats over and over that the MEK is a cult, doesn't add nothing more than that. It needs to be reduced, and since human right abuses are also already in other parts of the article, then explaining what the majority sources say about this topic helps make the article more neutral and is compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE. The majority of voters here agree this needs to be reduced, so lets do that. Barca (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• No I think VR and Mhhossein has found enough sources to show this RFC is not acceptable per DUE. The coverage should be proportionate to the reliable sources and this proposal is saying far less than the DUE level. For instance, that they are labeled cult is not only because of their abandoning of the children. As I understand any RFC should not violate the basic policies of wikipedia.-Seyyed(t-c) 05:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Note to the closing admin: Not only the former failed RFC should be taken account, the comments by one of the admins with the most experience with the page regarding another also failed RFC, i.e. [17] & [18], has some key points to note. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

The current version of the cult section contains redundancies and is poorly written. My last attempt to fix these were reverted by Stefka. Here is a proposed version that reduces the redundancies and states the allegations concisely. I have only kept allegations against the MEK that are cited in multiple high-quality WP:Reliable sources - it is a violation of WP:NPOV to remove all mention of such allegations. I'm also open to feedback and modifications. Proposal:

The MEK has been described as a "cult" by governments and officials in Iran, the United States, France, United Kingdom, and Iraq. It has also been described as a cult by numerous academics, by former MEK members who defected, and by journalists who visited MEK camps in Iraq. Some sources argue that the Iranian government regularly exploits such allegations to demonize the MEK.

According to a US government report, 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". Critics often describe the MEK as the "cult of Rajavi", arguing that it revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, to whom members must give "near-religious devotion". Members reportedly had to participate in regular "ideological cleansings". Members are forbidden from marrying and those already married were ordered to divorce (the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule) and are not allowed to see their children. They must suppress all sexual thoughts. According to RAND Corporation members were lured in through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries" and then prevented from leaving.

The MEK is believed to have become a cult to survive. After a major defeat in 1990, MEK leadership ordered all couples to divorce and send away their children.

VR _talk 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: I agree with VR's proposal. It's truly saying the main points. As a suggestion, Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin are infamous journalists who visited MEK's camp and then reported their observations. I think it would be beneficial to add the journalists' experience.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• No - This proposal goes back to the same problem that there is in the article at the moment - overstating that governments, journalists, academics, reports, think tanks, and what have you, are calling the MEK a cult. These are just reliable sources calling the MEK a cult, that's all, and a mention that reliable sources have called the MEK a cult is all that we need in the article, along with the other reliable sources saying the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign against the MEK a "cult" (which Mhhossein inconveniently removed from the article). - MA Javadi (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

MA Javadi (talk · contribs) how is it "overstating" when reliable sources indicate that various governments and academic sources indeed consider MEK to be a cult? And if we mention the Iranian government by name as one of the accusers, then we should also mention other countries making the same accusation. Otherwise we give the false impression that only Iran is accusing MEK of being a cult.VR _talk 19:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

MA Javadi (talk · contribs) please also indicate if you think the above version is at least better than the current version.VR _talk 18:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• No; this is still POV pushing. We should summarise reliable sources in a neutral point of view, not add "journalists' experiences", or POV from MEK members, or content already covered in the section "Human Rights Record". Ypatch (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you indicate what in the above text is "POV"? Every single sentence is based on facts that reliably sourced and written in a neutral fashion.VR _talk 18:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• No per NPOV. In the (politically-opposing) articles Ali Khamenei or Ruhollah Khomeini we don't have a (misleading and unsupported) POV section called "Designation as a cult"; even though there enough are RSs saying the subjects have a cult of personality. Similarly on controversial political article's such as Donald Trump, we have numerous scholars, journalists, "experts", etc... writing that he has a cult of personality (The Cult of Trump, by "One of America’s leading experts in cults", A CULT EXPERT FINDS FAMILIAR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR IN TRUMP'S GOP, Expert: Trump’s GOP Behaves Like A Religious Cult, Inside the CULT of Trump: President supporters 'like brainwashed sect members'... "an expert has sensationally claimed.", [19], [20], [21], [22], etc...) but we also don't have this in Trump's article. Here, in the MEK article, the same NPOV measures have not been applied, where there are whole fork sections about how "unpopular", "cult", "abusive", etc... the biggest and most popular democratic alternative to the Iranian regime supposedly is. "The length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision", and per NPOV, a short paragraph is all we need to summarize this content. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No original research please. How did you conclude "per NPOV, a short paragraph is all we need to summarize this content"? It's clearly showing you're just ignoring WP:DUE. Per DUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That's the most important criteria here (which you all tend to ignore). Now, take another look at mine and Pahelvun's [23] comments. Having proposed such a detailed and well discussed comment, which is based on research into the reliable sources, the comments by YOU all will not be weighed that much. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

IF academic sources agree that Trump supporters are a cult, then that merits inclusion in the related article as well. Your comparison tries to diminish the mainstream academic view –held by scholars such as Nikki Keddie, Olivier Roy, Valentine Moghadam, Ervand Abrahamian and Michael Axworthy among others– to a politically-charged accusation by tabloids. Pahlevun (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes in general, but I believe that citations in the proposed text should be checked before and possibly modified. I have shown above, that cultish nature of the MEK is not just a POV, it is the mainstream academic view. I want to put my idea forward with an example: You don't give an undue weight to the fringe views of flat Earth societies in the article Earth, that's the academic view that matters. The same applies to this article. Users in favor of removing the content on this topic have not provided counter-arguments from academic sources. Pahlevun (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: The sentence Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult" in the lead is also problematic. Scholars are not critics, and scare quotes ("resembling a cult") are used. Pahlevun (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• No VR's text looks like it's wikivoicing things not found in the sources (like "the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule"), does not present opposing views accurately or in due weight, and uses sources like ex MEK member Masoud Banisadr (a source that user:Pahlevun put in the article as "According to Eileen Barker"). Things about MEK "marriages" and "divorces" are already mentioned about 12 times in the article! Stefka's proposal is more neutral. Alex-h (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alex-h for the correction, I have fixed my error regarding "the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule". Is there anything else in the version that is not found in the sources?

Regarding "sources like ex MEK member", I used two sources and both appear to be published in peer-reviewed journals: Asian Politics & Policy and Cultic Studies Review. But the second source has been subject to criticism so I've struck it out. Are there any other issues you see with the version?VR _talk 04:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the former MEK member sources for now and posted about it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_articles_authored_by_former_MEK_members.VR _talk 14:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• No per Stefka and Ypatch. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes I think this one is much more better narrating the story. This proposal is acceptable per DUE.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes I had not seen this alternative suggestion. For the same reasons I said no to the original proposal, I support the suggestion by User:Vice Regent. It is presenting a version which is per WP:DUE. The length of the section seems suitable given the presented reliable sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. Alex shows here that there is intent to make a non neutral narrative, trying to turn the article into a mess of MEK members divorces and marriages and other non-verified POV redundancies from former members. I agree that Stefka Bulgaria's narrative is much more WP:NPOV. Idealigic (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What exactly in my proposed version is "non-verified"? Name me one thing and I will remove it from my proposed version.VR _talk 14:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to VR's version. MEK are well known as a cult, and that part is pretty well substantiated in the sources. This version cleans things up a bit too and makes the article more readable. The OP who started the RFC removed too much information. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• No. Vice regent asked me in my talk page if I would look at this alternative proposal. I have read through the RFC, the Alternative proposal, and all the votes, and I am more persuaded by the votes asking for a shorter version. There are several points for this conclusion including the disinformation campaign against the MEK, the unsupported section title "designation as a cult", and Mhhossein clogging the RFC with personal opinions makes me think that this is more a personal matter for some than an impartial attempt to make the article better. I'm in support of keeping it neutral and short. Bahar1397 (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bahar1397: Thanks for taking a look a this proposal. My first question is that do you think my proposal is better than what's currently on the article? Second, I understand some other people are making this a personal matter - but what does that have to do with my proposal? Do you have specific criticism against my proposal? VR _talk 16:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

your proposal consists of a directory of the different sources calling the MEK a cult. That is unnecessary, especially when we are talking about a questionable label. Another editor wrote here that this has not been done in other articles even though there are enough sources available for that. I seriously doubt that creating a section such as "Khomeini's designation as a cult" and putting a directory of all the sources referring to him as a 'cult' figure would be tolerated, especially by some editors here. A short description is enough to relay what is in the sources. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bahar1397 but the cult label is not questionable and no reliable sources have rebutted allegations that MEK has characteristics of a cult. And even if it is disputed, does it not make sense to tell the reader who is making the label and who is disputing it? VR _talk 00:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

there are sources posted here by other editors that say the press have been paid to print that the MEK is a cult. That makes the cult label questionable (at least to some degree). I agree that we should say that some sources have called the MEK a cult, and that some sources have disputed these allegations, which is why I agree more with Stefka Bulgaria's proposal, because your proposal inflates something that could be said in just a few words (see this comment by Vanamonde). Bahar1397 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bahar1397 just because some people might be paid to call MEK a cult, doesn't mean everyone is being paid to do so. Do you have evidence the US government is being paid by Iran to call MEK a cult? Do you think have evidence that all the academics and journalists are being paid by Iran to call MEK a cult? Also, MOS:WEASEL tells us to be specific and not vague. So saying "X, Y, Z say MEK is a cult" is better than saying "some say MEK is a cult".

Additionally, don't you agree that we should briefly explain why they have been called a cult? (2nd paragraph of my proposal)

And, since Bahar1397 brought up @Vanamonde93:, I would like to ask Vanamonde93 if you feel the above proposal is either unreadable or overburdening? VR _talk 02:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, I didn't say everyone was being paid to do so, I just said that the disinformation campaign to make the MEK come across as a cult makes this label questionable. I did not read through all the sources but from the ones I read there are US officials that have called the MEK a cult and other US officials that disagree with this. The same with French government officials. Your proposal just adds a directory of the sources calling the MEK a cult. Stefka bulgaria's proposal briefly explains "why" they have been called a cult and trims the POV, which makes a more neutral proposal. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to take a position on a specific proposal unless there's evidence of source misrepresentation, sorry. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bahar1397: Your comment is clearly missing a cruicial point, i.e. WP:DUE. Per DUE, "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Bahar's is saying we should include a summary of the sources without bloating the article with POV details, so his comments are not missing WP:DUE. Idealigic (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support to VR. Allegations of multiple, reliable, and high-quality sources should remain on the page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References
References

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

Operation Shining Sun

@Idealigic: At first you removed the "Operation Shining sun" from the body and the infobox, alleging the source was not reliable. Now, after I have found a reliable source for that, you claim it's not enough. Please explain why there should be more than one source for that? I see your edits are becoming tendentious. You have recently reverted a user without explaining why! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You tried to use this theglobepost link to put in the lead that the MEK was involved in a battle. If you insist that this is a reliable source for this, my suggestion is that you ask at RSN and see what they will say there about that. Then you used another source that looks more reliable (I cannot access it though), and I reverted you with edit summary "One source for to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight." You also have removed single reliable sources claiming "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources", as such if you want to put in the article that the MEK took part in a battle, you need "multiple high-quality sources". And if you think this means my editing is "tendentious", then this would mean your editing is also tendentious, and werent you blocked for tendentious editing in April? Upon request, I can provide more ways in which I think your editing has been tendentious, if tendentious editing is what you really want to discuss. Idealigic (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Idealigic. I've submitted the RfC below taking note of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This straw man fallacy mixed with a battleground language won't be an improvement to this discussion. It's hopeless to see the portion of your comment saying MEK's participation in the operation is an exceptional claim. Cohen's scholarly work, which you removed, is just reliable enough for this. @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Should I really find more than one source saying MEK started "Operation Shining Sun" against Iran? The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you show me where your scholarly source supports your assertion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Sure, you can see it in P. 5 "In the document, which was exposed after Operation Shining Sun which took place in April 1988 and probably referred to that operation as well, the Komite’s advice to their leadership...". The context is on the MEK's activities against Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I did see that quote, but I don't buy it, sorry. The source is not explicitly saying the MEK initiated that, and if it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly, then you should be able to find a source making it explicit without trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in that source says that the MEK were involved in Operation Shining Sun. Ypatch (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The users supporting pro-MEK POVs here are well aware of the operation. They know it well. Yes, "it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly." I could find more sources [24] and [25]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have provided those sources upfront, instead of the one you did...I can verify the first, I don't have access to the second. @Idealigic and Stefka Bulgaria: I think the onus is now on you to say why you oppose the inclusion of this content. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The second source mentions “Operation Bright Sun” (a different name) on page 22.VR _talk 02:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Can I insert it into the article? It's well verified by, at least, three reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Yes, both “Operation Bright Sun” and "Operation shining sun" are the translations for the original title of the operation, i.e. "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Well, the content was objected to by Idealigic before, so you've to give them a chance to respond. If they continue to remain active but do not engage here, then yes, you may reinstate that content. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein removed a reliable source from the article with the edit summary "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources")". Now Mhhossein wants to add in the lead "Operation Sunshine", but this looks to be supported by one reliable source. Can somebody explain why WP:EXCEPTIONAL can be applied in some instances, but not for others? If "Operation Sunshine" is to be added in the lead and infobox, shouldn't it "require multiple high-quality sources"?Idealigic (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Simply because it's not an exceptional claim. I could show, at least, three sources for that. Vanamonde: Just see he has never followed our comments and still says there's only ONE source. Moreover, Idealigic objection is not substantiated. Time to insert the material? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Cohen source does not say the MEK were in "Operation Sunshine", the Piazza source says "Operation Bright Sun", and the Buchan source is the only source that mentions (only once) "Operation Shining Sun". If there is consensus that one mention in one source is enough to put something in the lead and infobox, then why not the other information that Mhhossein removed? Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). Your objections are becoming some sort of stone-walling. Vanamonde: Insights please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic is asking a reasonable question, not "stone-walling". I think a good compromise would be to add “Operation Bright Sun” in the body for now, and if more sources are found, then we can also add this in the lead. I will use the Piazza article Mhhossein provided since it's the source with the most detail and put this information in the corresponding section. But since we are adding this, I also think the information Mhhossein removed should be put back. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic and MA Javadi: "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). So, this source should be counted. I will insert it back into the info box and the body if you fail to raise a reasonable objection for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Words "bright" and "shining" have the same meaning. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I worked on the (body) section about this information which had big problems such as certain things not being in the source and copy-right violations. I have added "operation Bright Sun" in the title of the section (Operation Bright Sun, Operation 40 Stars, and Operation Mersad) and in the section itself. I used mainly the Piazza scholarly article that Mhhossein provided here since it's the source with the most detail. I also removed "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses" based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL since, like Mhhossein in their edit here, I have not been able to find other sources to prove this information is supported in other sources except this one. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are those copyright violations and/or non-verified contents? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• @idealigic: You were asking for more sources on MEK's operation shining Sun. Now, you have removed those reliable sources from the article. Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think I may have made as mistake there. I wanted to remove your original research that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same (this is not in the sources, it's your own claim). I think we should be faithful to the sources. Maybe something like "Piazza called this operation bright sun", and others called it "shining sun"? we need to be careful that the dates match though. Additionally, you added the Ronen Cohen source and the Piazza source in the lead section supporting Shining Sun. Vanmonde told you that Cohen did not explicitly say the MEK initiated Shining Sun, and Piazza says Bright Sun, so please remove these two sources from the lead section since they don't match with what you are trying to say. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is more than clear that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same. Don't say that excuse again. Actually, "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" !!! Vanamonde correctly asked to find another source explicitly saying MEK launched the operation, and I did. Are there further reasons behind your removal of the reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't question that in your mind you see things in a particular way, but we don't follow that. No matter how many "!!!" exclamations you use, we follow the reliable sources. I suggested one solution that follows the information in the sources, so I am waiting for your answer why you don't think this is a good proposition. Idealigic (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So I am going to restore those reliable sources if you have no guideline based explanations for your removal of sources which lies against your own claim.--Mhhossein ^talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we be faithful to the sources and quote what is in each one instead of coming to our own conclusions about what they mean? Idealigic (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary since we're not making a conclusion ("the sky is blue"). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making your own conclusion that "Operation bright sun" and "Operation shining sun" are the same. I don't think there is anything wrong with being faithful to the information in the sources. Idealigic (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have partly restored my own removal per your notice of my mistake of removing this from the article, and attributed "Bright sun" to Piazza since he is the only source using this name "The operation was named "Shining Sun" and according to James Piazza, "Operation Bright Sun". "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added." If you think we should restore your version without attributions to Piazza, then maybe best to start a rfc. Idealigic (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Do you want me to report your edit which was inserted unilaterally in a partial manner without building consensus? You have inserted your own version without reaching a compromise. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In this edit I removed some text from the article by mistake (I wanted to remove that Operation Bright sun and Shining sun are the same thing, something not supported by the sources). When I realised my mistake, I self reverted most of the edit, and attributed "Operation Bright sun" to Piazza since that's the source using this name. Did I breach the article's restrictions? I can self revert my last edit if so. Idealigic (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not concerned by those edits with respect to the article's restrictions, but if other editors believe that change was unnecessary, you should self-revert before discussing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about removing contentious content from the lede

Shall we remove the following from the lede?:

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

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

References
References

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

• About the first part of the sentence in question:

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

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

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

• About the second part of the sentence in question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And why is MEK collaborating with Saddam in 1983 an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 was reported in newspapers[26]. Even the MEK's official website admits that Rajavi met the Iraqi PM in December 1982 and negotiated an agreement with Iraq[27]. Because this meeting was publicized in the first days of January 1983, many sources date it to 1982 instead.VR _talk 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Only one source? LOL! Please follow the previous comments before commenting. Vice Regent clearly showed there are numerous sources for that ([28] and here). --Mhhossein ^talk 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members (2nd RfC)

Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

• "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."
• "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."
• "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." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As well as this:

• "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. 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"."
• "MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. 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."
• "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"
• "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime."

Into this?:

Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization. Such accusations include a ban on romantic relationships and control over contact with family. According to a BBC report, "a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid. This RFC seems to have a similar form of the problem reported here by the closing admin. The RFC is proposing the following:

US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

This is while the source reads as such:

There are many other stories.
Children who never forgave their parents for abandoning them. Children who did forgive and are now joyously reunited. Divorcees who have got out of the organisation saying they still love their former spouses who are still in.
In over 25 years of reporting, I have been lied to often enough but, as successive former MEK members told what they had been through, their tears seemed real enough to me.
And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents.
Again, who to believe?

In contrast to what the OP is trying to imply, the source is not saying it as a fact that the UK and US politicians deny these statements. The author, in fact, is trying to portray various probabilities and is not saying which side is right nor he says he did ask the politicians. Actually, to show the doubt, he's asking "Who to believe"? Moreover, regarding the former members he says:

And the former members?
Some are embittered, others just seem broken.

That's why this RFC seems misleading. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've sorted that out for you amending the proposal. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

NO, it's not amended. The source does not say the politicians said such a thing. The biggest problem with the porposal, among other things which I will comprehensively explain in my comment, is that ONE source is cherry picked to push a certain POV. This is source can not be used in face multiple other scholarly works saying actually the opposite. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have amended this for you once again, though I doubt you'll be happy even with quoting the source directly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria You want to have a lengthy quote from one source that opposes the allegations yet you want to summarize all the multiple sources that make that allegations into two sentences. That seems obviously against WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes:

  1) Per WP:NOT and NPOV: we are not including claims by current members, so we should not include detailed allegations by former members either.

  2) In the last RfC, Mhhossein argued that these are "major points reported by multiple reliable sources"; but they are not major points. These mostly constitute allegations by random people who have defected the MEK (or claim to have defected from the MEK) and lack any sort of fact-checking, and fact-checking is needed in a controversial article such as this one where there is a misinformation issue.

  3) Per the previously-closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article.

  4) This RfC takes into account the points made and closing remarks in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article" that suggested the final text be longer than the previous proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Yes. I don't know what Mhhossein is talking about here but the BBC is talking about the MEK's internal social policies that some have interpreted as "cultish" characteristics (like requiring members in Iraq to divorce because it was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs and sending their children away because it would be safer for them). It then describes former members saying they participated in public confessions about sexual fantasies, then that

"And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

So the politicians are saying this, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that report which also hints at why we don't need so many redundant allegations all replicating the same cult material. The issue is not this BBC source, the issue is the abundant cult redundancy that needs to be abreviated.

In the previous RFC, Mhhossein wrote that "WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.", but then Mhossein appears to remove the "weight to opposing POVs".

It is worrying to see an editor doing all this to pack the article with allegations that the MEK is a cult while at the same time removing the reports indicating that the Tehran government is trying to designate the MEK as a cult. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it an ANI comment or an RFC one? Also, "So the politicians are saying this"? Where in the source you found that? There's absolutely no factual statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I've now amended the text so it quotes the BBC source directly, so that's been fixed for you. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Read it once again, it seems even more nonsense than before. This is the third time you are proposing misleading proposals for RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Mhhossein just seems unwilling to reach any form of compromise. If we are not including claims from current MeK members, 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. Including both would open a can of worms, while excluding both POV sides solves this problem. The article needs fact-based information from authors such as scholars, not all this POV from COI interviewees. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Who said excluding all the POVs resolves the problem? is a new rule? No, you're certainly wrong. POVs should be used according to their weights.--Mhhossein ^talk 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed, and that NPOV is a problem with these allegations from MEK members. These allegations are coming from people who have vested interests on this topic and could just be making things up. Like Javadi is saying only facts should be in the article, and these are just POV allegations, so all of this can be shorter. Nika2020 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• No; Again! The problematic RFC is repeated-- again. Which parts of the contents are considered to be redundant and why? Likewise, I agree with User:Vice Regent. The RFC is fundamentally against WP:DUE. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes; I think WP:ADVOCACY also applies here. We know that the Iranian regime recruits people that have left the MEK to spread fake information about the MEK (it's in the article!). A mention that former members have protested human right abuses is what we need in the article (per WP:DUE), the rest is a mess of malicious POV quotes. Ypatch (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet what you call "malicious POV" is widely covered in WP:RS and would be therefore WP:DUE for inclusion. Many arguments against the content seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you give some policy reasons for removing content critical of MEK? VR _talk 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

1) the content proposed here to be shortened consist of a handful of unproven claims from people with a conflict of interest (not critical or DUE unless you're trying to fill a controversial article with such content). 2) policy reasons for shortening this content have been given in this RfC: Nika2020 proposed shortening it per NPOV; Ypatch proposed shortening it per WP:ADVOCACY; I proposed shortening it per WP:NOT and NPOV, making a similar case as Ypatch that fact-checking is a basic requirement in a controversial article where there is a misinformation problem (a point also raised by Idealigic). MA Javadi proposed that if "we are not including claims from current MeK members, then by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members". These are all perfectly valid policy reasons to shorten POV from former MEK members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the Stefka Bulgaria et al. are repeatedly failing to address the reality of the reliable sources. I could substantiate that your proposed text is essentially another misleading proposal (I think it's the third time you're doing it and you need to be careful since you need to be responsive at ANI for the fourth). Actually, as opposed to your misleading proposal, "the source does not say the politicians said such a thing". Hahahah, aren't NOT and ADVOCACY referring to the same thing? None of them apply here. As for DUE, "You want to have a lengthy quote from one source that opposes the allegations yet you want to summarize all the multiple sources that make that allegations into two sentences. That seems obviously against WP:UNDUE". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, because the proposed version is trying to use the tone of Wikipedia for an improper conclusion made by an editor from reliable secondary sources. The book used for the first sentence (about ant-like human beings) is edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge, which certainly meets WP:RS criteria. The second is also backed up by another peer-reviewed source (Asian Politics & Policy) even though it is a scholarly source, it is said that the author is an ex-member. For the third sentence that the proposal intends to remove (about sexual controls) there are reliable sources available that assert this part of the "ideological revolution" as facts, not as allegations made by ex-members. If you are unhappy with ex-members, I can bring some content from Ronen Cohen's book on the MEK that I have, The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, which discusses sexual control practices as a fact. Pahlevun (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. As I pointed out above (more than a month ago and to which Stefka never responded), the proposed wording violates WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Stefka Bulgaria: this RfC looks malformed. It seems you are trying to replace some lengthy content in the article by a shorter version. But most of that lengthy content is simply not in the article. I think you need to make a clearer RfC in terms of what exactly you want to remove/replace in the article.VR _talk 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

More removals by Mhhossein

@Mhhossein: - Please explain these recent removals you did [29][30]

1* "On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

2* "while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

3* "In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

4* "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

5* "on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

6* "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

7* "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8* "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Also you should explain why you added back the exceptional claim - "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses.".

Also please show where this is supported - "Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded." - MA Javadi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained my edits. As for this one, you can see my edit summary; the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere, also "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department" (this quote is from the Cohen source). Why should this pro-MEK propagandistic claim be inserted into the page? As for this one, it's being discussed elsewhere. Moreover, you can see a link to my explanations in the edit summary. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - I have presented each removal with a number. Please answer clearly to each one of your removals. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't find Mhhossein's explanations for this. @Mhhossein: can you please explain step by step why you removed this? Idealigic (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry. As far as I see, I have addressed all my edits. For instance, just ctr+f "Psychological", "Komite". Can you show where I did 1-5? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: here is where you did 1-5. Please explain them step by step.

About points 6, 7, 8, is this your explanation? "Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". Also, can you find another reliable source talking about this so-called Komite report? So much detail was added on a claim by MEK"?

The information about "the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades"." is not repeated anywhere else in the article.

We also have MEK propaganda section in this article.

Please provide a policy based rationale explaining why you removed all this material from the article. Idealigic (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are really getting very annoying. You guys don't follow the comments carefully. Forty stars operation is already included. Karand and Islamabad-e Gharb is already included. The source for Latif Nusayyif Jasim's claims are Rajavi's speech. Can you find an independent source for that? You can find my explanations for the rest, including "Psychological", "Komite", in this TP. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you still are not explaining a lot of the text you removed.

1"On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

Neither the date, the additional name (“Chetel Setareh"), or the part about recapturing Mehran is already included in the article.

2"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

Why can't this be attributed to Rajavi?

3"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

Nothing about Kerand and Eslamabad being liberated from regime's troops, or about NLA destroying Iranian regime weapons and equipment is in the article.

4"According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

You have not provided an explanation for removing this.

5"on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

This is not in the article.

6"According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

Why can't this be attributed to the MEK?

7"In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8"A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Are you saying we need more than this one source (a source which you provided) to be able to add the information in 7 and 8 to the article? If so, you need to explain why you restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses." (which is only mentioned by one source).

You also still have not responded to what source is supporting "Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded.", something you restored in the article. Idealigic (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process. You are repeating the old questions over and over in frustrating manner. I have already explained my edits. I told you two three days ago (see '06:47, 4 November 2020') about "Islamabad-e Gharb" and you're again repeating it. I told you multiple times that the "Psychological Welfare" claim is already mentioned in the page. Also it's not my fault you fail to understand "Operation Forty Stars", which is already included, is in fact "Operation Chehel setareh". It's not my fault you can't find "On 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal back to Iraq" in the page. As for the Komite see my '13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)' comment. As for the ""Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK..." it's MA Javadi who should explain his removal, not me (I just restored an unexplained removal of a longstanding content- though I think "the longest war" should be the source). Rajavi's claim regarding the eternal light operation is not a big deal and the New York Times source is well supporting it. For Montazeri's comment, I have no objection against the inclusion --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source used in this article

The book titled Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, has two big problems:

1. It is published by Troubador Publishing Ltd. On its website, the company introduces itself as a self-publishing company. It is also described by BBC as "one of the UK's leading self-publishing houses". As a result, this work is subject to WP:SPS and not acceptable for this controversial article.
2. The author of this book, Manshour Varasteh, is linked to the subject of this article and thus has an apparent conflict of interest. Here, in this MEK-affiliated website it is said that this person has paid tribute to the "martyrs of the resistance and PMOI (MEK)". Moreover, he has published a work with an organization affiliated with the MEK. Per WP:QS, such sources are not acceptable.

Back in 2018, I raised this same issue at reliable sources noticeboard and uninvolved users giving a third opinion agreed that the argument was fair enough (here). Whoever has used this source in this article, should consider either replacing it with a reliable source or expecting it removed soon from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun: Thanks. I will tag the contents related to this source. But looking at the page some of the contents are supported by other reliable sources, too.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No response here. I removed the citations and content backed up only by this source from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of deprecated words in the article

At the moment, this article uses the word "claim" more than 50 times and a glance shows that the majority of uses are illegitimate (i.e. they are not quotes). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, I encourage editors to replace the word with unloaded terms. Pahlevun (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Content about MEK-related disinformation

I am restarting the discussion above, that hinges on the content added here by Stefka Bulgaria and removed by Mhhossein. The discussion above has become unconstructive. Here's a few things everyone needs to keep in mind to keep round 2 productive: 1) Editors seeking to include content need to establish consensus for it. 2) Source reliability, not POV, is what matters for establishing due weight; reliable sources should not be discounted for their POV, but nor should unreliable sources be included just to provide a "balancing" POV. 3) Opinion pieces and other primary sources generally ought to be avoided; they may be acceptable only when the authors are authorities in their fields, and even then not always. So, with that in mind, if there is content about MEK-related disinformation that anyone seeks to include, please post those pieces here, but only if the sourcing for that content meets the criteria I've listed above. And if the reliability of the source isn't clear, please explain why you think it is reliable and worthy of inclusion when posting the source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, for the sake of collaboration, and without assuming any wrongdoing on your part, I would like you to describe your objections to the content below, without reference to any previous comments made by anybody. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Had I not been here to collaborate, I would not reply to the queries. Though I am ready to keep on the job, why should I repeat my self over and over? I have already explained these things multiple times. Do you think it would be helpful to do it once again? Competence is required specially for such a challenging subject.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, I think it would be helpful for you to do it once again, which is why I am asking you to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

OK Vanamonde, I will do it. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamone93: I have not ignored Mhhossein's answers. He says the information he removed was "dubious and repeated materials"[31] from ""MEK-sympathetic sources"[32]. I am providing here the information Mhhossein removed once again, and @Mhhossein: with honestly the best collaborative spirit I can give, I ask you again to please indicate which source here are "MEK-sympathetic", or "dubious", or "repeated", and explain why. I will provide an explanation next to each about why I can't understand your removal.

1 “On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”" (These are two opinion articles by Ivan Sascha Sheehan and J. Adam Ereli, both seem authorities in their fields.)

2 "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage." (There is no information in the article about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands or pressuring other Iranians to conduct espionage there)

3 "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants." (There is no information in the article about Iran government financing a campaign to undermine MEK through politicians or public servants)

4 "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda." (No information in the article about Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) continuing its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda).

5 "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.” (No information in the article about about Iran regime spending millions of dollars to portray the MEK as a group without popular support)

6 "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades". (Mhhossein, You say "the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere", but the only quote in the article I have found about this is that "The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) cracked down on MEK activity, carrying out what a US Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Report referred to as "psychological warfare"". The information about the committee emerging as a think tank and its historical pursuit of taking "the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades" is not in the article.)

7 "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran". (No information in the article about Komite's reporting on MEK achievements).

8 "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran" (No information in the article about the Komite's report recommending focus on MEK activities and supporters in Iranian jailhouses or about the regime executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran) Idealigic (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Please notice that Competence is required. Responding to your repetitive questions has already wasted my time and I hope this would be the final time. I repeat my explanations (I will gradually respond all of the items and please wait so that I am done):

1- A work by Sheehan is already used in the page saying "There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." This is saying pretty much the same thing as the disputed content. Moreover, it's more general and is supported by a reliable source so we don't need opinionated pieces. As for Ereli is a MEK sympathetic author. That's why his work is not a suitable inclusion for balancing the page. See this and this to know about how MEK sympathetic the source is. For instance "...In contrast to Katzman, J. Adam Ereli, another MEK panelist..." and "The Thursday appearance on the panel won’t be the first time that Ereli has participated in one of MEK’s events. In July, 2014, Ereli appeared at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a coalition whose sole purpose is supporting the MEK, and praised the NCRI."

2, 3 & 4- These items are already covered by the article. Briefly, these quote say MOIS targets MEK members and try to demonize them. Now check out the page:

• "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group,"
• "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations"
• "The Iranian regime is concerned about MEK activities in Iran, and MEK supporters are a major target of Iran's internal security apparatus and its campaign of assassinating opponents abroad."
• "Yonah Alexander has stated that Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents have conducted "intelligence gathering, disinformation, and subversive operations against individual regime opponents and opposition governments. [...] According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution"
• "A December 2012 report by the US library of 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". MOIS has also been known to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK"
• "The report also said that officials of the Iranian regime place pressure on Western countries to ban the MEK in order to "destabilise the organisation and demonise the MEK in the host country and thus end their political and social activities"
• "A report named "People's Mojahedin of Iran" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said that "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign, which is also carried out through former opponents of the regime."

Please check out People's Mujahedin of Iran § Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK and People's Mujahedin of Iran § Disinformation through recruited MEK members. You see, the paper is already overwhelmed with these MOIS-is-targeting-MEK allegations. I will start a clean up! Also, please don't say mentioning Netherland is making a difference. I will respond to the rest very soon.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Next items:

5- Firstly, why do you think the opinion of Rafizadeh should be included? Secondly, the page already includes closely similar items such as "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign.." and "The report also said that officials of the Iranian regime place pressure on Western countries to ban the MEK in order to "destabilise the organisation and demonise the MEK in the host country and thus end their political and social activities."

6, 7 & 8- Yes "psychological warfare" is already included in the page. But for more details on the so-called committee (or Komite) I say, accorindg to Cohen, the only source regarding these allegations is MEK itself. So, adding a huge amount of details on a matter solely claimed by MEK is not logical. Specill sine Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". So, what do you think? Did you find any other reliable sources saying something the so-called Komite and its report? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93:: Some of the responses by Mhhossein here do not address that he is removing specified counter viewpoints and other information from reliable sources not mentioned in the article.

1.- source by Sacha Sheehan

disputed content: “In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

Mhhossein says that he removed the information by Sacha Sheehan because there is already another source by this author in the article that says “There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK". However, John Thompson’s testimony that Iran is trying to get other countries to label the MEK “as a terrorist cult” provides a specific counter viewpoint to the whole “MEK cult” debate, which is something that is not in the article or in the excerpt examples Mhhossein provided (and also something that Mhhossein has consistently challenged in this talk page).

2.- This point does not need to be discussed further.

3.- source by General Intelligence and Security Service, Ministry of Interior and kingdom Relations

disputed content: “Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light.”

The excerpt examples Mhhossein provided talk about MOIS and VAVAK recruiting former MEK members to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK, but there is nothing about the Iranian intelligence services running a campaign against the MEK that involves politicians and public servants.

4.- This point does not need to be discussed further.

5.- source by Arab News

disputed content:“Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and president of the International American Council, described the “paranoia with which the Iranian regime officials constantly speak about the group at home, including the most recent appeal to the French president by Hassan Rouhani, in which he blamed the MEK for its role in the unrest that has engulfed Iran over the past eight years. “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added.”

By removing Rafizadeh’s testimony that the Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to portray the MEK as a group without popular support, Mhhossein is omitting an important counter view to the (painstaking) “MEK is unpopular” debate (a counter view that is not in the excerpt examples Mhhossein provided)

6.7.8.- source by Ronen Cohen

If Mhhossein’s problem with this information was that “adding a huge amount of details on a matter solely claimed by MEK is not logical”, then shouldn’t he have shortened or edited the text instead of removing it all?

I am making a legitimate effort to read carefully and acknowledge Mhhossein’s responses, but some of these lack a valid explanation for removing essential information that is not in the article, that has been central to talk page RFCs, and that comes from reliable sources (or authorities in their fields). Idealigic (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You will need an RfC or equivalent to establish consensus for this material, because I'm not seeing anything above besides a disagreement about how much detail is needed, which is entirely a content matter and not a conduct matter. As an aside, and as I've repeated any number of times, this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Can you stop over repeating those long quote? This has turned the whole talkpage into a real mess. #1- Are you struggling over "Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult"? This is already included (in different wordings, e.g "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies...")! #2 Isn't it already said here: "MOIS has also been known to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK"? #5 I still believe this does not need to be included for the reasons I said. Also, you did not say why you think Rafizadeh’s comment merits inclusion (also conisder the sourcing!). Moreover, the key points by major authorities regarding MEK's popularity inside and outside Iran is included in "Perception" section. #6,7 & 8: You were trying to Wikivoice a huge amount of MEK's POVs while Cohen is casting doubt over the so-called report by saying "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department." I asked you to find another reliable source given the this fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: can we agree shortening POV in the article instead of bloating it with details? Idealigic (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As per DUE sometimes we need to expand and sometimes we need to shorten the some certain portions of text. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we can edit according to DUE by covering the major points without bloating the article with details; which I think is what's being proposed here. I support the summary style approach . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Says the guy who "bloated" the page with unnecessary details. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm willing to make modifications to my editing based on feedback. It would be good for the article and the collaborative process if you were too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka, I've been offering to collaborate with you (and others) for a while now. But even the smallest edits I make (for example formatting sentences) keep getting reverted. Are you actually serious about your offer to collaborate this time?VR _talk 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Mhhossein please also answer this

@Mhhossein: also please explain why you have removed:

1 "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division" (You say "it promoting the POV of MEK. Who says it was heavy?". The author is saying "heavy", so why do you think it's promoting the POV of MEK?)

2"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment. (No information in the article about Kerand and Eslamabad being 'liberated' from regime's troops)

3"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.” (MEK and Jassim's testimonies about this are not in the article)

4"In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018." (I read [33] your answer about this but still can't understand why you think this should not be in the article)

5 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government." (are you now saying you removed this by mistake and this can be put back in the article?)

6 You restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses."[34], which is supported by one source, with edit summary "is not an exceptional claim- it's not a big deal". Can you please explain when WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applied and when is not? Idealigic (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: can you please say when you plan to respond? Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to be snarky, Idealigic, but when do you plan to respond to my questions to you? I pinged you in a question on Nov 1,[35] then I reminded you again on Nov 10,[36]. No problem if you got busy, but give others the same consideration. Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:DEADLINE.VR _talk 21:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@VR: Voting in a RFC (where I have already explained my vote and also where I'm not interested in engaging in bludgeoning behavior) is one thing, and removing information from the article is another very different thing. @Mhhossein:, can you please respond to the 6 points in this section? Thank you kindly. Idealigic (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, your comment in question advocated removing certain content from the lead and Mhhossein is also advocating removing content from the article. Both Idealigic and Mhhossein need to answer questions clearly about content they don't want in the article.VR _talk 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: do you consider these also to be unnecessary details, or should Mhhossein answer for these edits he did? Idealigic (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not taking a position on any specific content; rather, I'm making a general observation that the article covers allegations and counter-allegations in far too much detail. Which ones are removed or kept is for talk page discussion to determine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: but what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did to the article, like here for example? Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, ping him again, maybe he missed the first one. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: I wonder you are saying "what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did". It's nonesense. Just look at the level of my contributions:

1:- The level of causalities is already covered. Given those details, I don't know why an extra descriptive phrase should be included. It hurts the NPOV of the page, I believe.

2:- "Liberation" is a ridiculous word scare quote in this context. Were those cities captured by Iran and then liberated by MEK? Of course not. LOL! By the, this comment shows you need to take 'Wikipedia:Competence is required' very seriously. Islamabad-e Gharb is already mentioned (is it not similar to Eslamabad?). So, you can add the name Karand to "It seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb."

3:- The Iraqi official's claims are cited to Rjavi! ("Rajavi makes statement. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 0835 GMT. 19 June, 1988. and Chemical Warfare Denied. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 1344 GMT. 19 June, 1988.") Moreover, AFAIS, this claim goes against thoes of '"The Combination of Iraqi offensives and Western intervention force Iran to accept a cease-fire: September 1987 to March 1989" (PDF). The Lessons of Modern War – Volume II: Iran–Iraq War. Center for Strategic and International Studies.' and 'Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.'

I will respond the rest very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, thanks for responding, but please stop making allusions to CIR here. If there are competence issues severe enough that something needs to be done about them, please ask for assistance from uninvolved administrators. And I'll save you some time by telling you there's no substantive competence issues here, just battleground mentalities and a lack of commitment to NPOV. Idealigic, please respond to Mhhossein's comments about the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: 1:- In the article the level of casualties are given as a quote from Rajavi, "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added. The report in dispute is saying the MEK inflicted "heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division". The difference is that this is a report by something other than Rajavi's account, but you first said you removed it because it was "promoting the POV of MEK", and now you say "The level of casualties is already covered." I don't wish to engage in battleground behavior, but the report in dispute seems like a reliable account by a reliable source that provides information from something other than Rajavi's words (which can be interpreted as just a primary source).

2:- "Liberated" is the word used by the neutral and reliable source, not by me. What we have in the article now is that the MEK "seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb", and you seem to be ok with that POV, but when we add a different POV from another reliable source you remove it saying it's a "scare quote". We could have both POVs in the article, wouldn't that would make things more NPOV?

3:- Why is it wrong to add an account by the MEK leadership in an article about the MEK? The MEK are making the claim that “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”, why are they not entitled to present their version of the event? Idealigic (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

1:- I realized, on the second thought, that the phrase "heavy" is the author's POV but I still am not seeing in your comments why an extra descriptive should be added. So you think Rajavi's account should be replaced by Omar Al-Hassan's?

2:- No, as I said "liberated" is a scare quote and should not be used. Moreover, I explained how it's meaning is matching the context. Moreover, I have no idea about that longstanding text (did I say it's a scare quote? I does not seem to be such, I think).

3:- Who said you can't use the Rajavi's account? The only issue is that you can't use them as a fact (it should be used in an attributed manner). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

1:- "Inflicting casualties" could mean 1 or 2 people. "Inflicting heavy casualties" means many people. This one word provides better description, why would you want to leave it out? I would use both Rajavi's and Omar Al-Hassan's account - "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division, which according to Masoud Rajavi resulted in the killing of 2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment captured"

2:- Where does it say that "liberated" is a "scare quote"? One source is saying "seized and razed to the ground", and the other source is saying "liberated". We have two reliable sources saying two different things. Why not include both POVs (in an attributed manner)?

3:- So you are now ok to add Rajavi's account if we attribute it to him? Idealigic (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Undue weight given to anti-HRW views

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

The article currently reads:

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

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

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

There are several issues here:

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

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

RAND report

I find that there is exceeding detail in the article attributed to the RAND report that could be summarized/merged with other information already in the article:

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war."

• "The RAND Corporation policy report on the group suggests that between 1979 and 1981 it was the most popular dissident group in Iran, however, the former reputation is diminished to the extent that it is now "the only entity less popular" than the Iranian government."

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

• "As RAND Corporation policy reported, MEK supporters seek donations at public places, often showing "gruesome pictures" of human rights victims in Iran and claiming to raise money for them but funnelling it to MEK.

• "The High Court ruled to close several MEK compounds after investigations revealed that the organization fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits for children of its members sent to Europe."

• "after finding no "verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran""

I propose summarizing this information and removing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims; this is my proposal:

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution".Massoud 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'. It also required members increased devotion to the organization and its leaders."

  (I propose moving this to the section Ideological revolution and women's rights, where the "Ideological revolution" is discussed).

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

• "According to a report by RAND Corporation policy reported, the MEK has engaged in fund raising, some of which have been found to be fraudulent."

Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)