Talk:Camp Ashraf

Deleted content

The content currently being deleted is cited in the sourced reference MEK perations against the Kurds "In 1991, when Iraq's Shiite Muslim and Kurdish populations answered the call of then-President George H.W. Bush to rise up and overthrow Hussein, mujaheddin tanks rode to the dictator's rescue. The Iranian exiles opened fire on Kurds and blocked roads leading south, where Hussein's remaining regular forces had their hands full with the Shiites." Hardnfast (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

The opening paragraph of this article says "Camp Ashraf is currently an Iranian refugee camp in Iraq guarded by the United States military[citation needed]." Apparently Iran's Jame Jam television channel reported on July 6 that “American military forces have announced their readiness to hand over” Camp Ashraf to Baghdad, which gives the MEK six months to leave its territory. Is this true? If so, who is guarding Ashraf now? Khoikhoi 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I question the use of the word "refugee" because neither the UNHCR or International Committee of the red Cross recognize the residents of Ashraf as refugees. Only the MEK and its related organizations call themselves this. I worked this issue while in Iraq. Individuals who have fled Ashraf and renounced their membership in the MEK have been certified by the UNHCR and regarded by the ICRC as refugees. None of the residents of Ashraf - all adults btw - have UNHRC or Iraqi government refugee IDs or residency permits. They are "guarded" internally by MEK members in uniforms. Outside Ashraf, the Iraqi Army works with local law enforcement authorities to provide security. The US Army brigade that previously "guarded" Ashraf never had presence inside the site nor searched the site for weapons. Zzzdoglie (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not clear why one would call it a REFUGEE camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.116.228 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Alledged human rights violations.

I came across this blog post, which by itself isn't verifiable or notable, however the videos are by their nature so.(Editing seems unlikely, only the location where it is still be verified.) part 1, part 2. My edit was (apparently automatically) reverted, please try incorporate something about this, and this as references in the article. See the link to user_talk for more rationale. 88.159.74.89 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of people

About how many people reside at Ashraf? It should be in the first sentence or two of the lead section. 500 people? 50,000 people? Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A: It is claimed to be about 3534 people as of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.201.53 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of date

This article is two years out of date.71.108.139.2 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100224080058/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2V14grg3qwQZJW7Smsqtdxtrc8QD9CGK98O2 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2V14grg3qwQZJW7Smsqtdxtrc8QD9CGK98O2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120921025323/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1383417.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1383417.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140510203359/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSSma5fiGoQrJGqqYdiBsiEaKvIw?docId=0f5167c52e004fd9b6b7bec6f31078e9 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSSma5fiGoQrJGqqYdiBsiEaKvIw?docId=0f5167c52e004fd9b6b7bec6f31078e9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5io7JDsaA?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2Flibrary%2Fpubs%2Frn%2F2002-03%2F03rn43.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn43.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Camp Ashraf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502170644/http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/DeBoerZieck--Depaginated2.pdf to http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/DeBoerZieck--Depaginated2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228191052/http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861 to http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=15210597&ch=4226714&src=news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929094108/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=29780 to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=29780

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverts without explanation

I tried to make a series of improvements to this articles, but they were reverted by LissanX without explanation. I provided my explanations for each edit in my edit summaries. If they need more discussion, we can discuss here, but please do not revert without any explanation. 122.155.9.26 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

In TheDreamBoat editions (especially 1 and 2), major parts of the article have been omitted without a convincing explanation. Contrary to this user's claim, some of the deleted content is not mentioned in any article. For example, there is nothing about Soltani and others. It seems that all edits of this user should be analyzed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I just minimised the claims from MEK members. I still left in "Some people that defected from the MEK have made allegations of sexual assault" (with sources), which is what all those claims were about. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You removed content sourced to the Washington Post, National Interest, a book published by the Brookings Institution and The Guardian, under the edit summary of "Copy edit". This is way beyond copy editing, and since you did not justify your removals, I will revert them.

This edit also has the misleading edit summary of "Some copy editing" but goes much beyond copy editing and removes significant amounts of material. Please justify this too.VR _talk 03:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think the names of the (alleged) victims should probably not be mentioned in this article and instead simply what is accused to have happened should be mentioned. Does everyone agree? VR _talk 03:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a problem if the names are removed, but the issue of harassment itself must be raised. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

VR, you say that "the names of the (alleged) victims should probably not be mentioned", but then you mention Batoul Soltai, Zahar Moini, Fereshteh Hedyati. You need to have some consistency please. The issue of the allegations is raised in the article, despite these being allegations by MEK. For this reason it does not need its own section. Mentioning that this happened is enough, and the article is mentioning it. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

VR, I see that you also added some opinion pieces, sources that quote other sources already in the article, and a think tank source (for defamatory allegations, which already in itself is a delicate topic). TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with the sources I used? New York Times, Washington Post are reliable per WP:RSP. The claims from both these sources were added with attribution. I'm open to further rewording, but I oppose removing these entirely like you've done. Do you dispute the reliability of Brookings Institution? The National Interest source isn't the greatest so we can remove that. Your recent revert is edit warring, and I urge you to follow the WP:BRD cycle.VR _talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• TheDreamBoat, there are a lot of sources that give details of long-term human rights abuses that took place in Camp Ashraf (see for example this source). These took place at various times (by MEK, by Iraqi forces etc). Just as we detail the abuses at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, wikipedia shouldn't shy away from detailing the abuses at Camp Ashraf. VR _talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

VR, In your edit you used a blog to support "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John 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."

In that same edit you used a think tank source to add that "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." (the think tank does not even seem to mention Camp Ashraf).

Then in that same edit you used this opinion piece to write that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured.

Then some of the sources that are reliable, don't support the content they are used for. For example, NYT source doesn't say anything about Batoul Sotani (and that's not an isolated case)

These are very serious accusations, and you are using think tank and opinion pieces, or sources that don't support the content. I am concerned that you don't see this. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

These are indeed very serious accusations, all the more troubling since all 4 of them are baseless.

• TheDreamBoat wrote: VR, In your edit you used a blog to support "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John 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."
  • Response: My revert used this source (published in the Washington Post and authored by Jason Rezaian himself) which says The few who were able to escape told of being cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured. WP:RSOPINION allows for using opinion pieces as long as they are attributed, which they are in the case.
• Thedreamboat wrote: In that same edit you used a think tank source to add that "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." (the think tank does not even seem to mention Camp Ashraf).
  • I just did a search on the pdf of the source and "Camp Ashraf" is mentioned 21 times in the source, including on the page that is cited: Women are numerous in the People’s Mujahideen e Khalq and made up at least one-third of the Camp Ashraf residents. All of this helps explain the unusual phrasing in a 2009 U.S. State Department annual on terrorism, which describes this group’s ideology as “a blend of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism." Defectors from MEK and some experts portray the organization as a cult —with disturbing recruiting methods, Mao-style self-criticism sessions, and total organizational control over sex and marriage.
  • As for whether the source is reliable, I asked you before if you thought the source was unreliable but you didn't give an answer. Can you tell me if you think it is unreliable? Here are the authors of that source, you may examine their qualifications yourself. Both authors appear to be connected to various academic institutions.
• Thedreamboat wrote Then in that same edit you used this opinion piece to write that"the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured.
  • See first point. WP:RSOPINION allows using opinion pieces with attribution and that statement was qualified with "Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked...".
• Then some of the sources that are reliable, don't support the content they are used for. For example, NYT source doesn't say anything about Batoul Sotani (and that's not an isolated case)
  • One of the inline citations at the end of the Batoul Sotani allegations is The Guardian article, which says says Batoul Soltani joined the MEK in 1986 ...Soltani alleges that she was forced to have sex with Massoud Rajavi on multiple occasions, beginning in 1999. She says that the last assault was in 2006, the year that she escaped from Camp Ashraf and a time when Rajavi had not been seen in public for three years. When we spoke recently, Soltani accused Maryam Rajavi of helping Massoud to abuse female MEK members over the years.

Finally, the reason I reverted you, is because you removed a significant amount of sourced content under an edit summary that did not adequately explain issues with the content. When you were asked on talk to explain, your response was again inadequate. I'm open to rewording the content as I've said previously.VR _talk 17:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

First, "TheDreamBoat" must create a consensus on the talk page. Also, Brookings is valid enough. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ali Ahwazi thanks for restoring the longstanding version. As per above, I would like to summarize these two paragraphs as:

A 2009 US-government commissioned report, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, stated that the MEK had characteristics of a "cult" and had controlled its members (including sexual control), confiscated their assets, subjected them to forced labour, sleep deprivation and physical abuse, and limited their ability to leave. Similar allegations were made by Human Rights Watch (based on interviews with former members), Elizabeth Rubin (who visited Camp Ashraf in 2003), and Jason Rezaian. The MEK rejects these claims as Iranian propaganda.

The Guardian interviewed women who escaped from Camp Ashraf. They alleged being coerced into sexual relationships by Masoud Rajavi, sometimes with Maryam Rajavi complicit in these sexual assaults. They also alleged being forced to undergo hysterectomies at Camp Ashraf hospital.

If there is agreement, I can go ahead and implement that. I also want to point out that the article currently goes into excruciating detail about Iraqi government abuses against Camp Ashraf residents. So why can't the article cover MEK's abuses at the same location? VR _talk 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We can also add this:

US military officers at the camp have given differing accounts: Brig. Gen. David Phillips said members were free to leave since 2003, while Captain Woodside said it was difficult for members, especially women, to leave."[6]

I'm also open to other edits and additions.VR _talk 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that the version you are trying to restore was added by a banned sockpuppet, who I cannot ping because they cannot edit this page. I don't see anything wrong with TheDreamBoat's edit. How much we decide to expand a topic depends on editorial consensus, and to me this does not need so much expansion. If you want to expand this subject matter further, please explore WP:DR processes where you can explain why such expansion is necessary. When you do that, I will participate, but for the time being I'm restoring the shorter version. I am also changing "MEK" for "PMOI" and "MKO" to maintain some consistency in the page. Ypatch (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit by Kazemita was made on May 15, 2019. They don't seem to have been under any ban at the time so I don't think this edit is covered by WP:BANREVERT. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo."

Secondly, your statement "we decide to expand a topic depends on editorial consensus" is not entirely true. We have to respect WP:WEIGHT and if certain views are given significant coverage in RS then those must be given appropriate weight on wikipedia as well. WP:WEIGHT specifically says "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered."VR _talk 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ypatch, and good catch. VR, nobody said the edit is covered by WP:BANREVERT. That the edit is controversial and done by a controversial editor. You seem to be arguing that detailed allegations from some people claiming to members or past members of the MEK deserve WP:WEIGHT. The article already mentions the allegations, but if you want to describe them in more detail, which seems to be what you want to do, then what is being said is that you need some kind of consensus for that. If you start a WP:DR process like Ypatch recommends then I will also participate. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that the May 15, 2019 edit was not challenged for 2.5 years, it can be presumed to have WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. WP:NOCONSENSUS says In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As such, the content should be reverted back prior to TDB's bold edits. VR _talk 16:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This article has been in the article for over 2 years. It seems that in this case, consensus is needed to delete the content, not to add it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

TheDreamBoat removed this content under the edit summary "Updates". I'm afraid "Updates" tells us nothing about why the following content was removed:

During the period that it protected the PMOI/MEK in Iraq—from April 2003 until January 2009—the US Army was confronted with almost 600 disillusioned members who wanted to leave the organisation. In order to house the defectors, the US Army built a separate camp adjacent to Camp Ashraf, where the PMOI/MEK was concentrated, known as the Temporary Internment and Protection Facility (TIPF). Most of the defectors were Iranian troops captured by Saddam's army during the Iraq-Iran war, who had jointed the PMOI in 1990 under supervision of the ICRC, but after the US invasion had not been able to endure the hardship of being in the resistance.

VR _talk 05:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And why was this removed?

TheDreamBoat removed the following content under the edit summary "Arrangement cleanup":

According to the U.S. State Department, the MEK was then welcomed into Iraq, where it supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran (1980–88).

"Arrangement cleanup" does not seem like an adequate explanation. The source cited for that content indeed supports it. It says "According to the U.S. State Department, the MEK was then welcomed into Iraq, where it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88) and reportedly helped quash Kurdish uprisings in the north and Shia unrest in the south (1991)." VR _talk 05:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: section created

Should the following be in the article: Yes or No.

Journalist Jason Rezaeian remarked in his detailing the connections between John 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." 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. Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Ashraf Camp, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. However, the MEK and Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf) have denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime. 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", though her subsequent allegations involve her suffering physical and psychological torture which included a forced hysterectomy. Ypatch (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, the article already has the sexual allegations summarised. Per WP:SOAPBOX ("Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping.") and per WP:ADVOCACY ("Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work"). We use Wikipedia to summarise facts, not expand allegations. The text can be summarised as "Some people that defected from the MEK have made allegations of sexual assault. However, the MEK and Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf) have denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.", and that is already in the article. I’m open to further tweaking the text but there is no reason to expand this in to a section. Ypatch (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Your proposed summary is WP:FALSEBALANCE. You give equal (actually more) weight to MEK's denial of abuse than the allegations of abuse, even though the allegations of abuse are covered far more frequently in RS than MEK's denial. Your summary is also misleading when you say "Some people that defected from the MEK". These allegations are not just made by MEK defectors, but also scholarly sources, government commissioned reports and journalists.VR _talk 20:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To further highlight the policy violation, lets consider the sources for your 2nd sentence "However, the MEK and Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf) have denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime". The first is this report. Who is the author? And where does it say that human rights abuses didn't take place at Camp Ashraf? Since it was published in 2012, it can't possibly be denying allegations made by The Guardian in 2018[7]. This is a WP:V violation. The second source[8] is publication by "International Committee in Search of Justice". The group is lead by Alejo Vidal-Quadras, who was a lobbyist for the MEK and whose party was partially funded the MEK.[9] How on earth is that a WP:RS? VR _talk 21:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Ypatch:; Above, you were told by two users that this text has been in the article for 2.5 years and that the user who added the content was not banned at that time. The fact is that the removal of this longstanding text requires building consensus. But you deleted this twice without reaching a consensus. This RFC is the same type of RFC that tries to railroad the other side. My suggestion is to go back to what was 2.5 years ago in the article and create an RFC to delete it. Otherwise, your behavior can be reported to arbcom. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. This sort of thrashing content, coming from the group's participants, deserve a mention at most, not a whole section. Bahar1397 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If you see below, these allegations come from reputable newspapers and scholarly sources which are WP:RS.VR _talk 20:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Ypatch: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,600 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: the dispute has been about whether this content (highlighted in blue) should be in the article. What other way can the RFC be laid out correctly while showing the content in dispute? Ypatch (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  We have guidance at WP:RFCBRIEF for various reasons. One of them is that this is all the publicity that Legobot will provide until a much shorter statement is provided. Look at the others on that page: none of them have an excessive amount of text and none have references - some of them are no more than one sentence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Human rights abuses (including sexual assaults) at Camp Ashraf by MEK must be covered per WP:DUE. A 2009 RAND report (prepared for the US government) alleged that MEK operated a cult and abused human rights at Camp Ashraf. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch, who interviewed former residents at Camp Ashraf, also made allegations of human rights violations by MEK there. These allegations have also been made independently by journalists like Elizabeth Rubin and Patrick Kingsley (journalist) who either visited the camp themselves or interviewed officials from it. These allegations have been quoted in many RS: Associated Press[10], ABC News[11], BBC News[12], The Guardian[13], SBS World News[14], Financial Times[15], France24[16], Christian Science Monitor[17], NBC News[18], Foreign Policy[19], Washington Post[20]. Below I have proposed summarizing the content in just 5 sentences (3.7% of the entire article's current size). WP:WEIGHT requires "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Given the large number of sources citing these allegations, 3.7% is justified. The article covers in excruciating detail abuses by Iraqi govt, so not giving space for abuses by MEK is violation of WP:UNDUE? VR _talk 20:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

VR's proposal

To cover these MEK's alleged human rights abuses and sexual abuses, I propose the following summary:

A 2009 US-government commissioned report, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, stated that the MEK had characteristics of a "cult" and had controlled its members (including sexual control), confiscated their assets, subjected them to forced labour, sleep deprivation and physical abuse, and limited their ability to leave. Similar allegations were made by Human Rights Watch (based on interviews with former members), Elizabeth Rubin (who visited Camp Ashraf in 2003), and Jason Rezaian. The MEK rejects these claims as Iranian propaganda.

The Guardian interviewed women who escaped from Camp Ashraf who alleged being coerced into sexual relationships by Masoud Rajavi, sometimes with Maryam Rajavi complicit in these sexual assaults. They also alleged being forced to undergo hysterectomies at Camp Ashraf hospital.

VR _talk 20:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References