Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members

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.

---

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) 05:36, 6 June 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"

Into this?:

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. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes:

  1) Per WP:UNDUE: random claims by random people who have defected the MEK 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.

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

  3) Per the recently closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

1) As I already showed, probably you can't just remove the major points reported by multiple reliable sources since they are truly DUE.

2) You can add DUE material per NPOV.

3) Just like the mysterious IP!!! you are probably "misreading" the SpinningSpark's closure. The outcome of the previous "has little bearing on other quotes in the article or any future quotes". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, for the same reasons as in the last RfC about this. These allegations are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK, and we don't include random accusations from the public in encyclopedia articles. A short mention of what each side said is more than plenty, although I would also be ok with removing that too. Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Don't remove. MEK is a closed group. By not including the information from former members we would have no way to know this group. It is no incident that so many articles about MEK in main-stream media include quotes from former members. I think we can trust Guardian, Intercept, BBC and Washington Post on this matter.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per factual integrity, which is completely missing in these contentious allegations. Nika2020 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As Iranians said, ""Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles.". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a straw man response. No matter how you frame it, these allegations were made by MEK defectors; hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong No: 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." The mentioned quotes are now having due weight since they are major points being covered by the high quality reliable sources.

A.

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."

It's a fact that former members have alleged the group has cult-like characteristics and should not be removed. There are plenty of reliable sources for this (P.106, The Intercept and Business insider). Needless to say that the cult-like behavior of the group is extensively reported by the third parties, too. So, the quote is now receiving DUE weight. Same argument can be used for the quote by Banisadr - author and researcher -, i.e. "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct." This is another way of describing the group's cult like behavior.

B.

"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."

The ban on romantic relationships inside the group is another statement covered by the reliable sources multiple reliable and credible sources (The NYTimes, The Guardian). It is also supported by third party sources P.89, so the fact that former members talk about ban on romantic relationships is a DUE major view point. Same goes to the sexual fantasies confessions. According to the BBC, "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies".

C.

"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".

If it was solely Batoul Soltani, Zahra Moini and Fereshteh Hedayati speaking of the sexual abuse inside the group, I would support removal of the content. But "former MEK members who have escaped the group also report sexual abuse and forced marriages during their captivity" and "over 400 female members of the group had sexual relations with him".

D.

"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."

Hmm...nothing new. But again the confession of sexual thoughts/fantasies is stated here.

E.

"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,[290][290] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign."

So far, BBC, The Intercept, The Guardain and the New Yourk Times have stated the testimonies of the former members regrading the sessions of sexual thoughts confession. So, this is truly DUE to mention in the article the former members had been forced to confess sexual to commanders. "Brainwashing" of the members is also reported in The Guardian, Vice and The Intercept so this is not a minor view! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Mhhossein's argument is essentially inaccurate. Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [1], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then these other quotes should follow the same rule. Also this RfC does not propose to remove the quotes, but to summarise them, and that is a fair compromise considering the controversies surrounding them. Barca (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with flat earth theories, this is about a political party and a whole lot of propaganda being used to discredit it, which has included using MEK defectors. The argument here is not to remove all those statements, but to summarise them so that this article doesn't become an attack platform that includes every allegation made by every defector. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The argument by BarcrMac is that we should not use these statements because they are not "verified". Who should verify these items? We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members. How about taking the MEK's propaganda campaign into account? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Mainly for the sake of not bludgeoning this RfC further, I'm not going to go into the details of how fact-checking works in academia. Also, you can open a RfC about the MEK's propaganda campaign; this RfC concerns summarising a whole lot of unconfirmed allegations so that they are mentioned but do not take up most of that section (which is a fair way to solve the section's current WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT problems). That's the last I'll say here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not summarizing but censoring. Anyway, "We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members." (sources like [2] and [3]). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Side conversation regarding Legobot

@Stefka Bulgaria: what is your brief and neutral statement? At around 3,750 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/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC) @Redrose64: This RfC is meant to be a follow-up to this recent RfC, where it is proposed that several allegations in the article need to be removed or summarised. Would it be easier that I create several shorter RfCs instead? (the RfCs here tend to be difficult to close, so trying to make things as practical as possible for everyone). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Whether it is a follow-on or not is immaterial; nor is the number of topics to be covered. The problem is the total quantity of characters following the {{rfc|hist|pol|reli|soc|rfcid=BE7ED5B}} until and including the next timestamp (05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)). Legobot simply isn't finding that timestamp before giving up and assuming that there is no RfC statement at all. You need to reduce that length, either by cutting it down considerably or by inserting a similar timestamp part-way through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I've tried to insert two more timestamps part-way through. Hopefully it'll work this time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC) It's had this effect, which is a great improvement. But you only needed to add one timestamp (Legobot doesn't care about anything after that point), and it should have been approriate to the time that the RfC was started. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - the short version solves the problem on both sides. The allegations are kept, but UNDUE details are removed. Idealigic (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Agree with Barca and Idealigic here. POV from MEK members can be shortened so that they are represented in the article without having to occupy a large parts of that section (which would give WP:UNDUE weight). - MA Javadi (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, I think there is a problem with this RFC. Contrary to the title of "RFC", some of the sentences are not from the speech of the former members of the group, at all. Items No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 consist of the sentences which are not considered as a quotation. It can help the enrichment of the article to express about what the former members are generally thinking concerning the group. Items such as: sectarianism, the prohibition of romantic relationships, and marriage and rape have been mentioned in valid references by many individuals. These items ought to be included according to the criterion of Weight (of these viewpoints which have also been repeated in the references). Not only the suggested sentence doesn't include any of the mentioned items, but also tries to replace the view of MEK. My recommendation is that: each item (e.g. prohibition of romantic relationships) should be discussed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ali Ahwazi: without exception, these are all allegations from former MEK members. If you're interested in including allegations from MEK members, here is a good book filled with MEK interviews, which we previously opted not to include (not even through summary) per WP:NPOV (which at the time everyone agreed was a good idea). There seems to be a bias here where some editors want allegations included from one side, but not from the other. This RfC proposes a more neutral approach, where we present a summary from both sides. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm looking in the sources in this discussion. "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members", "ban on romantic relationships and marriages", "sexual harassments" and reported by former members of MEK. Meanwhile, There are diverse reliable sources which are echoing the mentioned items. My speech is that: we should not condense all of them into "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses." The POV of all the sides ought to be applied with their due weight. For example, BBC is telling: "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies" and you are able to find confession of sexual fantasies in other sources, as well. We ought not only remove them without discussing them point by point. Your recommendation is even making the situation worse than what it was in before. You're changing the former members' POV with the POV of the group itself. So, instead of that, you ought to make a balance between them. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This proposal does provide a balance of POVs from both sides: "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." (what we currently have in the article is a disproportionate amount of text representing only one side, which is what's creating WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and NPOV problems). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What kind of balance is it? You have condensed multiple notable subjects down to a small sentence. i.e. "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses" and instead highlighted the MEK's POV by offering a long sentence saying there's nothing but the Iranian allegation. This is some sort of POV pushing and should be stopped immediately. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(I agree with) the same two points, as I mentioned; I mean: Firstly, the items of DUE, it means: "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members", "ban on romantic relationships and marriages", "sexual harassments" ought not to be deleted; It is better if the mentioned items to be surveyed one-by-one. Secondly, the suggested sentence is not proportionate to the valid sources -- at all. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just found a report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which I've just added to the article:

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. As in previous years, the Iranian intelligence service is trying to recruit active or former members of opposition groups. This in many cases is done by threats to use force against them or their families living in Iran."

Also worth noting this edit that was recently added to the article about two courts in Germany ruling that newspapers there had published "false allegations of 'torture'" against the MEK. Also the article section Disinformation through recruited MEK members, all adds up to a verified disinformation campaign against the MEK through MEK defectors. This is why trimming all these redundant and unconfirmed allegations currently taking large portions of the article is a good idea. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trimming all these redundant and unconfirmed allegations currently taking large portions of the article" is not a good idea since we are not going to act based on your original research. You say MEK is the target of a misinformation campaign so all BAD things regarding MEK should be removed. This is not a an acceptable argument. Why not considering the role of MEK's propaganda campaign in promoting falsified materials? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes For not making Wikipedia a platform for malicious or scandalous allegations about an opponent with the aim of damaging their reputation. 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, the rest is a mess of malicious POV quotes. Ypatch (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• No. I'm open to a re-word, but Stefka Bulgaria's version completely strips all details from here.VR _talk 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC about Merging "Human rights record" and "Designation as a cult" sections into a single section

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.

---

Shall “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” sections be merged into a single section titled "Human rights record and allegations"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per:

1) Both sections are about the same topic. The "cult-like" allegations mainly derive from human rights allegations (such as barring children or demanding celibacy).

2) Currently both these sections are a mess as they have repeated and overlapping information. Merging them would help to copy-edit it properly.

3) Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read (who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes" and "on what basis").

4) Per NPOV: there isn't a single source that supports the current "Designation as a cult" POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

1) The sections are of different topics. I have completely explained here.

2) Despite being asked, you have repeatedly failed to determine which portions have overlapping information.

3) This should be resolved via copy editing, not whole removal.

4) What does NPOV has to do with this section name? Also, you were suggested different titles. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Those two sections currently are an untidy mix of random quotes. The said cult characterizations are coming from the supposed (mis)treatment of its members. That falls right into "Human rights record" territory, so a merge of these two sections would be fitting. Nika2020 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Merge makes sense since the content is connected. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No I come to this cold, and may be wrong, but the two sections seem to be about somewhat different topics: being a cult has to do with the way one's own members are treated and human rights violations should deal with how others outside the organization are treated. The suggestion about cleaning up both sections, and perhaps finding that nothing substantial is in the cult section, are other issues. But joining the two sections would seem to me to confuse matters. Jzsj (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jzsj: just to clarify, except for the part that says "Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.", the Human rights record section is about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses. Similarly, the Designation as a cult section talks about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses (the section also includes several other sources basically calling the MEK a "cult" without further explanation as to why). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The section is far way different than what you are describing. It starts by a paragraph saying WHY the group is titled as a cult and WHO has given the group this title. It's continued by WHICH reports and sources have made the same argument. Moreover, the section sheds light on WHAT Cultish activities the group is committing. Also, a thorough "explanation as to why" the group is called a cult is provided by RNAD, The Intercept and [The Guardian. We can add more info you're interested. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - the content is related. JohnThorne (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - because the content is related. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - to me the topics look to be similar enough topics that they could be merged into one. Comatmebro (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• The RFC is too general and vague: This RFC was started before and the OP was told at the time by the an admin that such an RFC with a "very wide scope" will go no where. Furthermore, I substantiated my objection towards such a merger in details and I don't think the comment should be repeated here. This RFC is too general! Regardless of whether or not the sections should be merged -which my next comment proves should not- the RFC does not say in what terms these two the sections should be merged. The goal of the OP seems to be opening random RFCs (you don't have to pay for it).--Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to merger: The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic. The following sources take the topic of MEK's cultish nature as a distinct subject. I have listed some of the sources:

• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum" by RAND corporation deeply discusses the cult aspect of the group under "The MeK as a Cult" (P.38). "Cultic Characteristics of the MeK" comes in the APPENDIX B, P.67. Besides, the report mentions the cultish nature of the group from time to time in other sections (just ctrl+f "cult"!).
• "The Cult of Rajavi". This is an infamous report by the New York Times showing how the cultish nature is an important issue which needs to be studied separately.
• "DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT". A very fresh work by The Intercept also shedding light on the cultish nature of the group.
• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long read by the Guardian detailing the cultish characteristics of the MEK.

This is not all. There are plenty of sources using the term "cult" when describing the group. I have provided a list of the sources using such a descriptive term. So, it is clear that the cultish aspect of the MEK had been of the interest to the authors and sources and it shows a section should be dedicated to the subject aimed at shedding light on in what the terms the group is portrayed as a cult. Finally, the argument that some of the materials in the two sections are duplicated is irrelevant to this discussion, since the OP first needs to determine case by case which portions are redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, the above argument shows that the cultish characteristics of should be given WP:DUE weight by dedicating "a separate section" to it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a single reliable source here supporting the claim that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult" and Mhhossein knows this; yet he keeps using this argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria there are reliable sources that say the MEK is "described by the US government as a cult". Is it that you have issue with the word "designation"?VR _talk 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying "The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic" is a false argument since there aren't any sources saying the MEK was ever designated a cult. We do have sources that say certain people have described the MEK as a cult/cultish/cult-like, and we do have other sources dismissing those claims (such as the same source you linked), but that has nothing to do with any sort of "designation". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: This proposal received consensus back in April, and that consensus was confirmed by an admin. All one has to do is read both sections to see they are related. Both sections describe members making claims of human right abuses, and both describe "cult" claims. The "cult" claims derive from the human right abuses claims, so yes, both sections are related. A merge also makes sense since the current title "Designation as a Cult" is propagandistic POV that isn't supported by sources. Barca (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Would make better sense. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - topics look very similar, they are ok to be merged. Idealigic (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. Cult-like behavior has nothing to do with human rights violations. You could have a cult that may or may not violate human rights violations. If MEK happens to commit both, then let it be reflected in the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Objection by another user: Since this vague RFC had been tried before, I think we should consider the objection by the now inactive user. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: You already voted on this RfC. You can't introduce votes by Topic-banned users. I have not responded to your comments here so these RfCs wouldn't be drowned with bludgeoning, but please stop all the bludgeoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is certainly NOT bludgeoning. My comments shows the history of the discussion and it reveals how repeatedly you have started this rfc. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, SharabSalaam has been topic-banned. This does not change the outcome of any previous discussions in which he participated, but it does mean his opinion carries no weight here. Bringing it up is not very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• To the closing admin/editor: please note that many RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (often due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight votes carefully and read through these two sections to verify if indeed they are related, but that is the only way to close this RfC adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No; the discussion of "Designation as a cult" (the group of MEK) has been distinguished a lot by reliable sources. This is better to put the subject in a separated section. Among the sources which have been presented at this discussion, (I think) "the source of New York Times (Written by Rubin)" and "the source of Rand" are significant and determinative. These two subjects ought not to be merged together. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• No ; the cult stuff really is different from "Human rights record". For example, indoctrination and demanding celibacy are not your typical human right violations but they point to cult-likeness. Those are two different categories, with little overlap.VR _talk 04:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• YES ; both sections are pretty much about the same thing. Indoctrination and demanding celibacy are forms of human right abuses, all in both sections is about human right abuses or different people saying that the MEK committed human right abuses against its members. Also the title "designation as cult" is not supported by any of the sources. It is suggested in this talk page that this article is too long, and here is a good opportunity to start reducing redundancy . Ypatch (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• NO Concur with users saying the two sections are different in nature - they're really intended to have different functions. Keep them both. I see there are enough content covering the designation as a cult section. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus for the proposed change. Supporters argue that the verbosity of the section places undue weight on the description as a cult (WP:UNDUE). Opposers argue that (a) the RfC is ambiguous and/or covers too much ground, (b) too much reliably-sourced material is proposed to be removed, leaving the remaining content potentially overly abbreviated. The supporters respond that the material proposed to be removed/condensed is, by and large, redundant. This RfC does not establish that the two sentences are themselves the endgame result, or that due weight requires one sentence per side – I find only that there is consensus to reduce the verbosity and repetition in the description of the cult claims, and that the proposed replacement is an option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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".

An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". 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?:

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

• Yes - per:

1) WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK: The article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK of redundant "cult" claims that don't add anything.

2) I had previously received consensus to for this, but it was reverted by a now-TBanned editor who failed to address any of the points raised.

3) This proposal is about not repeating "cult" claims constantly, turning the article into "According to XYZ, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to ABC, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to EFG, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; etc..." There is really no need for that, hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Both WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK apply to the articles not sections. You have persistently failed to say specifically which portions are redundant. There had never been consensus built for your mass removal (you could not provide a response to my objection). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: 1) the presented text is considered redundant because it all talks about the same thing (the MEK being a "cult", "cult-like", etc.); hence this RfC proposing to summarise it. 2) Here is the consensus I received for this a few weeks ago, which was reverted by a now T-banned user. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: So that's why you're puzzled; you think it's redundant since "it all talks about the same thing" (we know it's a clearly false description for redundancy or lack thereof since then the whole page is redundant as it all talks about MEK!). As for the imaginary consensus, see my next comments [4]&[5] which you failed to response. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the current version is very much WP:UNDUE. The material should be condensed to a single sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I also think that the current version is very much WP:UNDUE and should be trimmed which will make for a much better narrative. Nika2020 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes the current version is filled with unnecessary redundancy. I agree it needs editing, and the condensed sentence is a good synopsis. Idealigic (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. 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. A sentence is enough for this. Alex-h (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to mass removal, yes to case by case investigation: Just like the previous RFCs by the OP (RFC-1, RFC-2), and despite being told, this RFC is too wide in scope and vague. It is claimed that ALL the portions of the text in question are redundant and UNDUE and should be removed. This is while the text is featured with third party and governmental reports, official statements and the statements by the authors and the scholars which are all making a major point- a point which is possessed by plenty of plenty sources (here's a list containing some of the sources). Sources like RAND have provided a specialized review of the cult characteristics of the group and sources like The New York Times, The Guardian and The Intercept have provided the meaning of MEK being a cult from a members' prospective. When being described, the sources start by saying MEK is "cult/cult-like" group, or MEK has cult-like characteristics (here's a list of them), which means the cult characteristics of the group is an untranslatable part if the MEK's history. The RFC is very silly; For instance, just imagine the OP is suggesting to remove the infamous Elizabeth Rubin's work (see how the source has been referred to across the world). I don't think this ambiguous RFC should go anywhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Alex-h pretty much said what I had in mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. The content has been discussed vastly in the talk page and the conclusion was to keep it as is.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Also agree with Alex-h here. The article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - one sentence is enough for this. - MA Javadi (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes: the current version is WP:UNDUE. Condensing it into a single sentence would be a good fix. Barca (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question: @Vanamonde93: I think the current RFC, like the previous one, is too wide in scope and covers a significant portion of the article without specifying why each part should be removed. Should the users be specific when participating this RFC? I mean should they say why portions should(n't) be removed in a specific manner or it would suffice to make general comments? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: Actually, the proposal here is very specific. It just seeks to trim a lot of content. Justifying that removal is up to those who are arguing for it. If the case for removal isn't clearly made, then there's likely to be no consensus for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Conditional No, as it removes content that is reliably sourced and useful to the reader. But if we decide to fork out things like "history" and "ideology" from this article for the purpose of reducing its size as I proposed at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Fork_out, then obviously most sections will need to be summarized, including the "Designation as a cult" section. I also agree that the current section would benefit from some copy-editing. Its confusing to see the US gov call it a cult in one paragraph and then call it not a cult in another paragraph. The reader will want to know why this is.VR _talk 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is not about "History" or "Ideology" sections, but about the "Designation as a cult" section , which is filled with a redundant list of quotes saying the MEK is a cult (which can be condensed into one sentence). Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• 'No, many of the items which have been suggested to be deleted in here, are important sentences and DUE. The whole text cannot be considered the same, together. For instance, the following matter that: "What is the report of the government of the U.S. and the politicians of other countries concerning it", it will add useful information to the text. I don't see any specific reason to delete the view of "academics" (It is better to keep "expert and formal opinions"). The views of the former members should be maintained, too, but it ought to be noted that attribution should be done appropriately. Generally, I am against this RFC in this manner. It would be better to be determined (item-by-item) why a sentence should be deleted. Meanwhile, the sentence which has been suggested as substituting, has the problem of "Unsupported attribution" itself. i.e. this question is find in the mind that: the purpose of "certain sources" is exactly related to which sources? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, reading "Cult" repeated times in the article is not useful to the reader at all. A concise summary is all that is needed about this (unless, like Alex said, we want to turn the article into a list of people calling the MEK a cult, which we don't). 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. Ypatch (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• NO This proposed change does not really seem to be per WP:DUE. It is actually acting against it. I see a handful of reliable sources are to be omitted. Perhaps there should be a rewording, but not at this level certainly.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Problematic sentence in the lede

This sentence is currently in 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."

This is a big claim (specially for the lede), and I find the following issues with this sentence:

1) Besides this source, I cannot find much else on the MEK "siding with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support" in 1983 (the author only makes a passing mention about this).

2) I did find the following 1983 NYT article that says:

"The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the exiled leader of an Iranian leftist group met for four hours today and said afterward the the war between their countries should be brought to an end... The conversations between Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz of Iraq and Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedeen, an organization that includes a guerrilla wing active in Iran, were described by Mr. Rajavi as the first of their kind. He said the exchange of views had been an important political turning point on the regional level and for the world in relation to the Iran-Iraq war. ... A joint statement stressed that Iraq was giving no material or military aid to the People's Mujahedeen and that Iraqi support was limited to common political understanding."

3) The MEK did in fact receive support from Iraq in 1986, which some analysts have said to have "destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland"; but the only thing we know for a fact about the MEK in Iran is that its members are tortured or executed there, so it's easy to see why there is little evidence of MEK support in Iran. There's also Ronen Cohen's view on the matter:

"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."

I propose keeping the source, re-writing this sentence, and moving it to the body. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just wait...move it to where? In face of numerous sources stressing MEK sided with Saddam (for any reasons) why are you suggesting such a suggestion? MEK's helping Saddam is a significant landmark in Iran-MEK conflicts making it lead-worthy item, thanks to dozens of the sources covering it. Is the 'financial' issue your solely problem? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Some sources if you're still doubtful:

• "The group later broke with the regime and sided with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when more than a million Iranians died"P.532
• "...the move towards saddam hussein was allegedly an attempt by the MEK an attempt by the MEK to maneuver against the government, with the goal of acquiring arms, training facilities, and financial resources."P.67
• "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.
• "According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran. In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received "protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land".[6][7]

Should be enough for now. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The MEK collaborating with Iraq during the 1980s is already in the lede and is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the sentence about 1983 and the MEK's appeal in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Did a quick search and could not find much else either. What is your proposed rewrite? - MA Javadi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1983 peace communique between Rajavi and Tariq Aziz is already in the article, and "Certain sources have cited the MEK's collaboration with Saddam Hussain as diminishing the MEK's standing inside Iran. According Ronen Cohen, although the MEK’s relocation to Iraq may have diminished its support in Iran, this is hard to assess "because of the nature of the government in Iran" is also in the article, so I just propose moving the following to the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" section (following the time sequence of events):

"According to Afshon Ostovar, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in 1983."

Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the involvement between MEK and Hussein is already in the lead, and the other stuff about support in Iran is controversial. You can put the Ostovar quote in the body. MA Javadi (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I already provided some reliable sources talking about MEK receiving financial support from Saddam after 1980. So, receiving financial support after 1980 seems undisputable. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything about MEK's involvement with Saddam in the lead except "In response [to the 1986 expulsion from France), it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

I'm open to a re-word, but it should mention the effect that MEK's collaboration with Iraq against Iran had on MEK's relationship to Iran. MEK's unpopularity in Iran is regularly mentioned by news sources: Reuters, Al_Jazeera, MiddleEast Eye, Newsweek - some of these sources do tie the unpopularity to MEK-Saddam ties. So this does belong in the lead. Also, the body doesn't talk about the funding so Mhhossein you should add that to the body.VR _talk 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mhhossein's sources don't say anything about Hussein and MEK in 1983, and since the MEK receiving support from Iraq in the 80s is already in the lead section, I also think you can put Ostovar's quote in the body and remove that sentence from the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For me also is ok to reword and move in the body since "In response [to the 1986 expulsion from France), it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." is in the lead already. As it has been said in past posts, there isn't a poll in Iran to determine the popularity of the MEK there, so the effects of MEK association with Iraq needs to be mentioned but it is better explained in detail in the body since this is a complicated statement. Barca (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I pointed out above, that MEK's unpopularity in Iran (at least in the past due to its ties with Saddam) is well documented.VR _talk 23:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References
References

I agree that this can be moved to the body. Also the MEK popularity in Iran, which is just POV that is not backed by any survey or poll of any type. Ypatch (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Move it to the body. The Iraq information is already in the lead, and lead is too long anyway (and was tagged as such yesterday). The popularity is also impossible to say with any certainty, so needs explanation (in the body). Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde: in this TP discussion, I proposed rewording and moving a sentence that's currently in the lede and putting it in the body. 5 users have approved, 1 editor has partly approved, and another editor has not approved. Do I have a majority consensus here to go ahead with this edit? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MEK's receiving financial support from Saddam after 1980 seems an indisputable fact that is supported by reliable sources (see my sources in my previous comments under this topic). We don't count the comments since consensus should be make with arguments raised by the users and I invite you to take a look at the poor arguments in support of your proposal. I don't see User:Vice regent accepting such a move to the body (am I right VR?). As for the unpopularity of the group, besides the currently used sources, VR introduced some fresh sources further supporting this (Reuters, Al_Jazeera, MiddleEast Eye, Newsweek). So, as far as I see your major objection is that the year '1983' should be edited. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Information about MEK-Iraq collaboration is already in the lede; this has been stressed by all the arguments saying this sentence should be moved to the body (including my own). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein seem to be talking about two different things. The only sentence in the lead about this would be (after the proposed removal) In response [to 1986 events], it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. That's it. There's nothing else. However, at least one source documents Saddam-MEK ties dating back to 1982. So the remaining sentence would be misleading.VR _talk 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria I'd prefer if you actually addressed arguments than to count votes as wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. I presented several reliable sources attesting to MEK's unpopularity in Iran, but several users dismissed them out of hand because they were not polls. That sounds like a strawman argument. If reliable sources do indeed talk about MEK's unpopularity, at least in past due to their Saddam collaboration, that would belong in the lead and the body.VR _talk 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think most/all editors addressed why the sentence should be kept or removed from the lede. I'm not "counting votes"; there is undeniably a majority of editors supporting what I have proposed in this TP discussion. As far as I understand it, that's a majority consensus, so I feel it's a fair question to ask. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The arguments given aren't convincing at all: The popularity is also impossible to say with any certainty and the MEK popularity in Iran, which is just POV that is not backed by any survey or poll of any type. As you can see below, there are a tonne of reliable sources that say MEK became unpopular in Iran because of its association with Saddam.VR _talk 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(←) Here are 10 sources on MEK being unpopular due to its alliance with Saddam:

• "But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors." Guardian
• "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." Reuters
• "Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians." Newsweek
• "The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy [Saddam Hussein]." Jason Rezaian in the Washington Post
• "And to make up for a drop in popularity tied to its alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the group started recruiting Iranian economic migrants in the Middle East under false pretences..." MiddleEast Eye
• "During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process." BBC News
• "That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said." Al-Jazeera
• "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." Business Insider
• "...most Iranians regard the MEK as traitors aided by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war or, at best, a sadistic cult." Globe and Mail
• "And one of the reasons they have virtually zero public support in Iran these days is that they're seen as traitors having fought on the Iraqi side in the Iran-Iraq war." Paul R. Pillar in NPR

VR _talk 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It has been pointed out several times in this talk page that showing any form of support for the MEK in Iran can lead to a death sentence by the IRI, so this is a complex topic to say the least. This is why I proposed teasing it out in the body where it can be better explained, and the majority of editors in this talk page discussion agreed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Everything in this article is a complex topic. If we were to remove all complex topics from the lead, we would have no lead left.VR _talk 10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have got accustomed with Stefka Bulgaria's Original Research throughout this TP. In this case, he has taken ONE source for dismissing a tone of sources saying something else. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Different proposal

I propose removing this:

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.[52] In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris.[48][53] In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to remain steadfast in their support for the MEK

and replacing it with this

During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, received funding from him and moved its base to Iraq in 1986. MEK and Iraq jointly invaded Iran twice in 1988, first in Operation Forty Stars and then in Operation Mersad, in which the MEK razed an Iranian town to the ground. Subsequently, the Iranian government executed thousands of MEK supporters held as political prisoners. MEK's collaboration with Iraq caused it to become unpopular in Iran.

My proposed version captures most of the same information more concisely.VR _talk 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Thanks but, I think two points are being missed here. Merely saying MEK became "unpopular" afterwards is in fact downgrading MEK's military attacks being viewed as "treason by the vast majority of Iranians".

"Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians."Newsweek

"Today they are seen as traitors by much of the Iranian public." University of Chicago Pres- P. 78

"...turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public."NYBooks

"But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors."The Guardian

Also, MEK did in fact three major invasions to their own soil - Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars and Operation sunshine ([8]). Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, how about this

During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, received funding from him and moved its base to Iraq in 1986. MEK and Iraq jointly invaded Iran multiple times in 1988, first in Operation Forty Stars and then in Operation Mersad, in which the MEK razed an Iranian town to the ground. Subsequently, the Iranian government executed thousands of MEK supporters held as political prisoners. MEK's collaboration with Iraq caused the group to be viewed as "traitors" by most Iranians.

I didn't mention Operation Sunshine as I'm not sure if its notable. Maybe create an article on it? Let's see what others say. Happy to change the wording further.VR _talk 22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: I'm not seeing a clear consensus here for a large change. The only point that hasn't been substantively contested is your concern with the fragment about financial support from Saddam to the MEK in 1983. Aside from that, there seem to be a fair number of sources being provided that support the current text. Arguing that the degree of support for the MEK inside Iran isn't knowable is in fact original research. If reliable sources comment on their support within Iran, Wikipedia's article needs to reflect that. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Vanamonde. I'll gather the sources in the article about this and start a RfC; may be the best way to show what I'm trying to say here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: just one last thing about this; since the 1983 claims are undue for the lede (only one source mentions this), can I move that down to the body? (it would make the RfC I've prepared more to the point). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Stefka Bulgaria there are at least two: Vanguard of the Imam and Terronomics.VR _talk 10:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This source says,

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

VR _talk 22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What we currently have in 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"

is backed by a single source, and therefore WP:UNDUE for the lede. Even if there is another source saying 1982, it is still undue for the lede. This could be place in the body of the article, but not in the lede per WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus yet for that either. An RfC may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder Stefka Bulgaria alleges tries to imply there are no other sources for that while at least one source is provided by me:

• "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.

More sources cab be found for this infamous Saddam-MEK collaborations in 1980s. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing there about 1983; which is what this discussion is about. 1980s stuff is already in the lede and in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you say which portion is specific to 1983 and does not belong to other dates? The portion saying MEK received financial support? The portion saying MEK is viewed as a traitor? Other portions? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Iran clerical government and MEK supporters

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [9] I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained the problem with the strong statement which is not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [10] I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained the problem with the strong statement which is not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: but the sources do support that the "Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters." Here are some more =

• "Iran executed a man on Sunday for links with the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI)" REUTERS

• "The three defendants in the case, all of them in their twenties, have been accused of affiliation with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) which Iran has designated as a terrorist organization but have always denied the charges." RADIO FARDA

• "The authorities launched a bloody purge of supporters of the MEK, also known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), and Mr Rajavi fled to Paris." BBC

• "Thousands were executed simply for their support of the PMOI" INDEPENDENT

• "According to Amnesty International, following the post-June 2009 election protests, the authorities arrested several people who had relatives with a past or current association with opposition groups, including the MKO. As recently as 2014, the authorities executed Gholamreza Khosravi, convicted of helping the group, on the charge of “enmity against God” in a case that was marked with serious due process violations. On May 7, the National Council of Resistance, the political wing of the MKO, published the names of 18 other “supporters” who they say have been arrested over the past few months." HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

• "These ongoing enforced disappearances and the continuing uncertainty concerning the fate of their lovedones and the location of their remains have caused anguish to the families.Their pain is compounded by several additional factors: the ongoing bans that they face on conducting mourning rituals and commemorations; the deliberate desecration and destruction of sites where their loved ones are believed to be buried in mass graves; the knowledge that those who ordered and carried out the executions continue to get away with their crimes; and the persistent threats, harassment, intimidation and attacks that they face for daring to demand truth and justice. These cruel practices, which have caused great suffering and harm to victims’ families for decades, including serious injury to their mental and physical health, violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The article is also full of sources saying the clerical government in Iran targets MEK supporters. What is the problem with adding this? Barca (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That the Iranian government targets and has targeted MEK members is a fact, but I see some issues with the sourcing and the wording. The sourcing issues are that many of your sources refer to events more than 10, even 30 years ago, whereas your wording is in the present tense. The lead already contains Iran's infamous execution of MEK members in 1988. With regards to wording, the MEK is a terrorist group in Iran and so the targeting of MEK members should be mentioned in that context (in fact, one of the sources you presented does just that). Assuming we can find sources for "present" targeting, might I suggest the following wording:

Iran has banned MEK as a terrorist organization and targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters.

VR _talk 03:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Iranian government considering the MEK a terrorist organization is in the lead already. @Mhhossein: the Reuters artice is from 2014 and the Radio Farda artice is from 2019, so the sources confirm that the Iranian government still executes and imprisons MEK supporters. why can't we add this then? Barca (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see your sources saying MEK members are being continually targeted or lack thereof. I suggest you add something the two sides are taking actions. MEK, for instance, is accused of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and having role in the recent upheavals in Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Mhhossein reverted [11] my edit where I added in the lead sources showing that the "Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters." but Mhhossein seems to be refusing to acknowledge what the sources are saying. Is Mhhossein stonewalling here again? Barca (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you didn't just add sources, did you, you added content that you didn't have consensus for. Discuss it here first, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: we have discussed it and the content I added is taken from the sources I added. Mhhossein is saying that he does't see the sources saying MEK members are continually targeted, but the sources show otherwise. If you don't want me to ping you about this anymore let me know and I will not, but refusing what is in reliable sources doesn't seem to be a good way of developing the article. Barca (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Can you please explain how the two sources you use are good enough for the text you added? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: in my edit [12] I added 4 sources:

• [13] Washington Examiner article from 2017 about the Iranian government torturing some MEK supporters

• [14] The Guardian article from 2019 about "Albanian police say they have discovered an Iranian paramilitary network that allegedly planned attacks in Albania against exiled members of an Iranian group [MEK]"

• Book that says inside Iran, the strength of the MEK is uncertain since many of its supporters have been executed, tortured, or jailed. ["Cohen, Ronen (August 2018). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6): 1000–1014']

• Book that says the MEK is "a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad". ["Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.]

When Mhhossein rejected these sources, I added more =

• "Iran executed a man on Sunday for links with the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI)" REUTERS

• "The three defendants in the case, all of them in their twenties, have been accused of affiliation with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) which Iran has designated as a terrorist organization but have always denied the charges." RADIO FARDA

• "The authorities launched a bloody purge of supporters of the MEK, also known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), and Mr Rajavi fled to Paris." BBC

• "Thousands were executed simply for their support of the PMOI" INDEPENDENT

• "According to Amnesty International, following the post-June 2009 election protests, the authorities arrested several people who had relatives with a past or current association with opposition groups, including the MKO. As recently as 2014, the authorities executed Gholamreza Khosravi, convicted of helping the group, on the charge of “enmity against God” in a case that was marked with serious due process violations. On May 7, the National Council of Resistance, the political wing of the MKO, published the names of 18 other “supporters” who they say have been arrested over the past few months." HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

• "These ongoing enforced disappearances and the continuing uncertainty concerning the fate of their lovedones and the location of their remains have caused anguish to the families.Their pain is compounded by several additional factors: the ongoing bans that they face on conducting mourning rituals and commemorations; the deliberate desecration and destruction of sites where their loved ones are believed to be buried in mass graves; the knowledge that those who ordered and carried out the executions continue to get away with their crimes; and the persistent threats, harassment, intimidation and attacks that they face for daring to demand truth and justice. These cruel practices, which have caused great suffering and harm to victims’ families for decades, including serious injury to their mental and physical health, violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

That is 10 reliable sources saying that the Iranian clerical government has been continuingly targeting MEK supporters, which Mhhossein is rejecting. Barca (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Barca, not all of your sources say the same thing. Some of your sources say that Iran executed MEK prisoners in 1988, a well-known fact that is already in the lead, but don't talk about today. Secondly, I proposed a wording that I thought would present the facts you wish to present in their appropriate context. Do you agree with that wording? If not, why not?VR _talk 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

MEK capturing Mehran in 1988

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [15] Are you saying the MEK did not capture Mehran in 1988? Also the version you added does not have a source. Barca (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

See my edit summary please: "read the source once again 'Iranian rebels based in Iraq said they withdrew from the town of Mehran after a three-day offensive, in which they reported capturing military hardware they estimated to be worth $2 billion.' " There's not statement of fact as you tried to pretend. As for the citation, as far as I see, there's no difference between the version before your edit and the version after my edit. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: This is what is in the AP source =

• "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."

• "Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters."

That is AP saying the NLA captured Mehran, with even one of their correspondents going to the site.

You reverted this to a version with no sources. We can attribute the part about the equipment, but I don't see why this can't be in the article, specially since your version doesn't have any sources. Thank you for your reply. Barca (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

In terms of citation my edit did not make any changes - see the version before your edit and the version after my edit. If your main concern is citation please let me know which portion needs references. Also, pay attention to my '04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)' comment. You can't push MEK's estimation as such strong facts. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: AP is saying the NLA captured Mehran, why can't we add that to the article? Barca (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Where does AP say the city was captured by MEK? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I already posted this. This is what is in the AP source =

• "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."

• "Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters." Barca (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi BarcrMac. Yes I noticed them but they say MEK attacked Mehran for sure and that they crossed the border with the aim of capturing the city. However, I don't see any supporting clues showing it was indeed captured. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The AP article writes that "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran". The city was captured by the NLA. Then there is this other article by Time magazine [16] "The fanatical legions of the Ayatullah Khomeini suffered another embarrassing defeat last week, this one apparently inflicted by their countrymen. In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills. Western reporters brought to the battle scene confirmed that the rebels had captured 1,500 Iranian prisoners, as well as tanks and artillery." Will you let this information be added to the article now? Barca (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

BarcrMac: I would suggest avoid saying it was captured. Your new source say it was seized. Do they have pretty much the same meaning from military viewpoint? There would no problem if they are the same. Also the source is not the best one we can rely on. Just see how it describes the outcome as being "embarrassing". Can you find a better source? Find your sources so that we can finalize the wording. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein What is the problem with adding a Time magazine and also Associated Press source that says "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran"? Both sources are reliable. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see my response in my previous comment? It seems to be a fact that they indeed crossed the border and attacked the city. Do your sources say the 'captured' the city? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: According to the sources,

• "In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills." by Time Magazine

• "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran" Associated Press

I would put in the article something like "In 1988 the National Liberation Army took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Do you have an issue with this? MA Javadi (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - please answer. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Mehran was indeed captured, though its not clear by who. Kaveh Farrokh writes the Iraqis used chemical weapons to capture Mehran and subsequently "handed over Mehran to the National Liberation Army of Iran".

And calling the soldiers of Iran as "pro-Khomeini soldiers" is weird. The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.VR _talk 21:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

MEK was backed by Saddam forces, a point which should be added. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein adding what you think is missing instead of removing the whole information would have been the solution here. If adding that the MEK were backed by Iraq is all that we're missing, then I can add this to the article. Vice regent, I agree with your point about this being an "Iran-Iraq war" and not a "Khomeini-Saddam war", so will correct this in the lead of the article where it says "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Iraq". - MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are all in the same page with this then? @Vice regent: @Mhhossein: I will add "In 1988 the National Liberation Army and Iraqi forces took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Please answer if you have any issues with me adding this. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not. There is still the question of who captured Mehran. If you read the source you presented, it adds, Dispatches from Tehran said the three-pronged assault was carried out by Iraqi regulars supported by fighter-bombers dropping chemical bombs, but rebel commander Massoud Rajavi denied the ″hollow claims." This is in line with Kaveh Farrokh who argues the Iraqis captured Mehran using chemical weapons and only subsequently handed it over to NLA.VR _talk 18:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: You used VR's comment to reach a wrong conclusion that the lead should change, a change for which you need to gain consensus. Moreover, having done the edit, you were calling for using "pro-Khomeini soldiers" which contradicts your previous edit. I am restoring your changes to the lead back to the longstanding version. Let's go by the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: so taking into consideration the Time Magazine and Associated Press articles, what would be your chosen phrase for this information? MA Javadi (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) I notice that there is no mention of these events in this book on the MEK. Based on this NYT article and Farrokh's book, I'd write: "In June 1988, the National Liberation Army briefly held the Iranian town of Mehran under unclear circumstances. According to Kaveh Farrokh and Iran, Iraq captured Mehran by using chemical weapons and then handed the town over to the NLA; three days later Iran recaptured the town from the NLA. However, MEK claimed it captured the town without any Iraqi help and it withdrew from Mehran voluntarily." VR _talk 03:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead is too long

Mhhossein I think the lead of this article is too long and I disagree with this edit of yours. I do have specific ideas to trim it and I'll present them below over time. I presented an idea above (thanks everyone who has offered me feedback). Another immediate suggestion is this:

Replace

It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government.... It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.

with

It seeks to replace the current the current Iranian government with itself, and is regarded as the biggest and most active Iranian dissident group today.

VR _talk 13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see what the problem was with the original wording and the original described it better. Barca (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The original wording was redundant and the new wording is shorter. My edit was purely stylistic, with no POV added or removed, so I don't understand the revert.VR _talk 02:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

MEK popularity in Iran already covered in the article

Vice regent, this that you added about MEK popularity is in the article already (i.e. 'perception inside Iran') and some sources such as this one by Trita Parsi is not a good source for this article. I am reverting your edit, but if you feel I missed any important points that are not in the article already let me know and we can have a talk about it. Barca (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

BarcrMac I didn't see that. Anyway, there isn't much overlap between what I added and what's there. Most of what I added is not in the article, and certainly not in the right place. For example, it makes sense to make a mention of unpopularity due to Iran-Iraq war in the section that's on the Iran-Iraq war. Similarly, reliable sources connect drop in popularity to certain human rights violations - that's not in the section you mentioned but should be mentioned somewhere. Also, why is Trita Parsi's article in The New York Review of Books not reliable? The publication seems to have been called "scholarly" and "intellectual" at The New York Review of Books#Critical_reaction.VR _talk 02:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeating the same information in different sections is a problem that has been talked about in this talk page a lot. We are trying to present the article's information more concisely, not trying to overflow it with repetitions. Barca (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I sympathize with your concern with repetitions, but there's also the idea of presenting information in its proper context. I'm sure we can work out a solution that strikes a balance between both.VR _talk 22:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm posting what you removed here. I think much of what you removed is not already in the article.

As MEK attacked Iran in coordination with Iraqi forces, the organization grew unpopular in Iran. Supporting Saddam Hussein at a time when Iraq was indiscriminately bombing Iranian cities damaged the organization's reputation. The MEK came to be viewed as "traitors" by most Iranians for aiding the enemy. Many Iranian's dislike of the MEK has been described as "intense". As of 2018, news reports continued to describe MEK as unpopular due to its past ties with Saddam.

MEK's alliance with Iraq also hurt its foreign relations. In 1994, a United States Department of State report described MEK as having "little support in Iran and little credibility outside" and an "anti-American stooge of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein."

The MEK instituted several measures to make up for this decline in popularity. In the 1990s, the MEK leadership prevented defections by ordering its members to divorce their spouses, lest family obligations divert their attention. It separated children from their parents, so that if a parent ever left the MEK they would lose contact with their children. It also started recruiting Iranian economic migrants under false pretenses, promising them jobs to Western countries, but instead taking them to MEK training camps.

VR _talk 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

What context do you feel is missing that isn't already in the article? Barca (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The section you're referring to is nowhere near the People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Conflict_with_the_Islamic_Republic_government_(1981–1988). That's the period in which support for MEK plummeted dramatically, both inside Iran and even outside Iran (in the US, for example). Also much of what I posted above is not already in the article.VR _talk 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (Yellow).svg (discussion)
• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Recently closed 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.

---

MrX I noticed you recently this RfC Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RfC_about_more_allegations_from_former_MEK_members as "Rough consensus for summarizing the six allegations as proposed". I see about 6 in favor and 4 against (including me). To clarify my view, I'm in favor of summarizing the content but not as proposed by Stefka. It seems this edit removes most if not all references to MEK controlling sexual thoughts even though this widely covered in WP:RS (BBC news, The Guardian, New York Times, NYRB, Vice, Salon, Haarez, Foreign Policy). I don't see consensus to this.VR _talk 12:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

@Vice regent: I have to stand by my closing. I looked at the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy to arrive at my assessment. I did fully understood your comment in the RfC. The total quantity of sources for combined individual allegations were did not make the case. Of course, you are free to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you wish to further challenge my closing. Concerning the edit by Stefka Bulgaria that occurred after my closing: it seems like a faithful implementation of consensus, but it's not relevant to my role as closer. Any anomalies can be sorted out by further dispute resolution, or if there is a behavior issue, it can be taken to a noticeboard or WP:AE for review. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: why do you feel total quantity of sources for combined individual allegations were did not make the case?VR _talk 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to mention that it surprised me to see "rough consensus" I myself explained clearly concerning how the proposed summary isn't consistent with Neutral Point Of View; No one gave a suitable reply to my objection. Meanwhile, I mentioned that some main topics had to be kept. This closure is not suitable. @MrX: Did you just count the votes? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

These RfC's seek an uninvolved and experienced editor to close a controversial discussion, which is what MrX has gracefully has done for us here. Even though the outcome was not what you wanted, a consensus has been reached in this RfC, so it's time to move on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• @MrX: I wonder if you could elaborate on your concluding remarks where you said BarcrMac, now blocked, "adroitly rebutted" my comment. This is while he was confusing "major points" with the "proved points". He did not replied to my comment so "adroitly" seems to be far from reality. Do you think the articles should solely include proved points (as BarcrMac states)? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Copyediting cult claims RfC

The closing statement of this RfC states very clearly that a) there is consensus for reducing the length of those claims, and b) the two-sentence alternative formulation doesn't necessarily have consensus. As such, I'm going to note that I will be taking a dim view of any edit-warring those two sentences into the article in place of all the other content; and I will also be taking a dim view of opposition to any suggestions of shortening that are not accompanied by suggestions of how the verbosity may be reduced, because there's consensus that it needs to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggested one solution to this by arguing that parts of this article should be forked out as this article is too big - a problem that goes hand in hand with the verbosity referenced above. There was some support for it here: Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_32. Concretely I propose copying all the content about the ideology of MEK (including cult claims) to Ideology of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (currently a redirect). In its place we leave a summary of MEK's ideology that we can all agree on.

When it comes to shortening some compromise will be needed. For example, I tried what I think should have been a very uncontroversial shortening of the lead and I was summarily reverted (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Lead_is_too_long).VR _talk 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Going back to this RfC, the two replacing sentences I suggested were:

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

What wording (that is NPOV) would be accepted by the opposing side? (Please note that this is a straight-forward question that requires a straight-forward answer). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you're addressing that question to me, but I'm not taking a position on that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde: the question was addressed at those who voted against this wording on the RfC; but I guess anyone can comment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I can propose something. Before I do, I want to point out that in the RfC (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RfC_about_copy-editing_"cult"_claims_in_the_article) Stefka proposed removing certain parts of the People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_cult section and replacing it with the above. So the presumption is that anything in that section not mentioned by Stefka in the RfC is not being discussed for removal. FWIW, it would have been less confusing if Stefka had proposed summarizing the entire section. Anyway, I'll make a proposal soon-ish.VR _talk 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the page number for this claim "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"?VR _talk 09:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Previous version

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". 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". An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". 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".

New version:

Many officials have described the MEK as a "cult", including the United States government, Foreign Ministry of France. a 2008 report by the United Kingdom's Home Office, and Samir Sumaidaie (Iraqi ambassador to the U.S.). Academics who have described the MEK as a cult include Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta,, Eli Clifton and others. Some journalists who visited MEK camps in Iraq, including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin described it as a cult. Claims that MEK is a cult have also been denied by Raymond Tanter, and the European Parliament, who has accused Iran of falsifying information.

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". Rubin argued the cult revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi.

VR _talk 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are still including a detailed list of those who have called the MEK a cult, something which ignores the majority of votes in that RFC. The RFC asked for reducing this to a couple of sentences, and you've reduced it to a couple of paragraphs. I think the two original suggested sentences were OK (since, as Kevin said, those are also an option), and if VR wants to change the verbosity within those two sentences then we start to have something, but what VR is suggesting here does not reflect the majority consensus in that RFC by a long shot. MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the issues in the RfC was the redundancy and my proposal gets rid of that entirely.VR _talk 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal reflecting the RfC consensus

I think this would be a middle ground proposal that considers Vice regent's proposal and the RfC consensus:

Sources such as the U.S. government and certain academics and journalists have described it as having cult-like characteristics. This includes devotion to Maryam and Masoud Rajavi. Other sources have referred to some of these allegations as “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence".

Idealigic (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's hardly "middle ground" and I would disagree because this proposal is inaccurate - its not only the US government, but also officials from UK, France and Iraq that have made the allegation. It also gives WP:FALSEBALANCE as way more reliable sources call the MEK a cult than those who deny it. Finally, it doesn't tell us why those who call the MEK a cult do so. Which is what the second paragraph does in my proposal.VR _talk 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I find Idealigic's proposition to be a good middle ground. There were several votes in that RFC in support of summarising all the list of people ever calling the MEK a cult into one sentence. VR's attempt to still include a detailed account of people calling the MEK a cult is not respecting the RFCs consensus. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Idealigic's proposal. @L235: thank you for closing this RfC; could you please help us conclude it? Do we have consensus for Idealigic's suggestion? Alex-h (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alex-h, you are hardly going to have consensus after just three users have weighed in. Let's allow for more time for the others to comment, please. Vice regent, you're coming dangerously close to stone-walling. Any proposal needs to still reflect the RfC closure, meaning that it needs to accomplish approximately the same amount of shortening. Objecting to the two-sentence proposal and offering a two-paragraph proposal isn't going to fly. If you don't like this one, offer an alternative of comparable length, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: What do you mean by "the same amount of shortening"? Given the fact that that the original text is 5 paragraphs I find Vice regent's comment fairly criticizing the proposed text. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: There was consensus for drastically condensing that content. Vice Regent's proposal does not conform to that consensus, and his criticism above is in effect relitigating the RfC, intentionally or otherwise. If you object to that text, please offer an alternative that is of comparable length. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• About VR's suggestion, different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims; hence the proposal in this RfC to synthesise all these claims into one or two sentences. I stand by my original proposal, or if that doesn't have consensus, then Idealigic's proposal. If any of the opposing editors propose something of similar length, then that could also be an option. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If your problem is solely with "government officials", it can be resolved via rewording. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus says: "the proposed replacement is an option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.)" If you have a suggestion about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences, then please propose something. Proposing instead two paragraphs, as VR has done, completely ignores many of the votes in that RfC (five of which agreed that one sentence was enough for this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If what I proposed does not get consensus, I'm also ok to go with Stefka's two sentences. Idealigic (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going to propose another version this time closer in length to Stefka's original proposal, as Vanamonde has indicated. Before I do that, can someone please provide the page number for "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? I've asked that twice now. I want to know the context this was said in.VR _talk 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: You need to elaborate on "different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims". What do you mean by that? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Steven O'hern source removed/statement from the article

@Mhhossein: You removed this edit from the article saying "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources". The source supporting this statement is "Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps" by Steven O'hern and published by Potomac Books (which seems like a valid RS). If you feel this is an "exceptional" claim, why not simply attribute it to the author (as we've done with many such claims in this article) rather than remove it completely? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the "prevailing view" that Khomeini was against armed struggle [17][18][19] your insertion seems so fringe that even attribution may give undue weight to it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See this one too. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You're using your preferred sources (including http://ensani.ir/?) to ascertain that there is a "prevailing view" that "Khomeini was against armed struggle" (something other sources such as this one, this one, this one, or this one disagree with), thus coming to your own conclusion that O'hern's claim (that "Khomeini funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s") is "fringe".

It's well established in the article that the MEK collaborated with Khomeini right until Khomeini prevented the MEK from taking part in local elections, with Khomeini even offering to "reward their organization handsomely if they attacked the Marxist groups" ("The Iranian Mojahedin", Ervand Abrahamian).

Taking all of this into account, how could Khomeini funding MEK operations against the Shah be considered "fringe"? I stand by my proposition here that this should be included with attribution, so please provide a reason why this should be omitted from the article given the points I've made here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No you're wrong. They are not my "preferred" sources and you're just failing to perceive the point. You are in fact misquoting me out of our discussion context. My sources prove Khomeini was against using armed operations against Shah, a fact your sources has nothing to do with (at least you're failing to make a connection between the sources and our discussion). So stop raising your original research on them. As for the claim saying Khomeini had offered a reward for attacking Marxist groups, why don't you say the whole story that this claim is by Khiabani. That even has nothing to do with Shah! So, for such a big deal, saying Khomeini favored and supported armed struggle against Shah, you need to prove yourself using reliable sources, not Original Research. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• 1) O'hern's quote says that "Khomeini funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s, so accusing me of original research is uncalled for.
• 2) Your claim that there was a '"prevailing view" that Khomeini was against armed struggle' is false since there are plenty of sources that say Khomeini "devised an ideology of revolutionary violence" (in other words, Khomeini was no Gandhi). This is further confirmed by the following:

• • "In December 1977 Khomeini decided to intervene. Morteza Motahhari, one of the few Khomeini activists in Iran who had managed to escape SAVAK's clutches, was instructed to set up an organizational framework that could better coordinate the various clergy-related anti-Shah opposition groups within Iran. The Society of Militant Clergy, which Motahhari founded, became the forerunner of the revolutionary committees that would eventually implement the 1979 Revolution. The Society was just the latest manifestation of the Colaition of Islamic Societies Khomeini had set up in the 1960s before his exile, and had much the same support base. ... Khomeini wrote to Motahhari, a white-turbaned scholar whom SAVAK believed was solely engaged with his academic pursuits, urging him to prepare for jihad and committing the movement to 'dethronement' of the Shah and a total boycott of 'the government of Satan'." "Khomeini's Ghost: Iran since 1979" Pan MacMillan

• • "Khomeini did so by inflaming hatred of the West and of Israel and directing it against the Shah and his regime.... Khomeini made extensive use of rhetoric and violence. His ideas were summarized and broken down into simple, basic, and easy-to-remember slogans, and were integrated countless times into his speeches... The violence in his teachings was the fuel driving the wheels of the revolution. Khomeini hose the Ashura rituals as favored occasionsfor the organization of waves of violence. Correspondingly, he ordered the organization of special units dedicate to damage the symbols of the government and Western culture, such as cinemas, banks, and houses of entertainment across the country, with the aim of causing unrest and the expansion of violence to the national level." "Hezbollah: The Story of the Party of God: From Revolution to Institutionalization (Middle East in Focus)", Palgrave Macmillan; 2009th Edition

• • "On 28 April, Rajavi and Khiabani had a secret one-hour meeting with Khomeini... Khiabani later reported that Khomeini had offered to reward their organization handsomely if they attacked the Marxist groups, but at the same time threated to punish them dearly if they 'stepped out of the bounds of Islam." "The Iranian Mojahedin", Ervand Abrahamian

• • "By January 1963, Khomeini's violent attacks on the Shah's land reform program and women's rights brought him nation-wide attention and he emerged as the symbol of Shia opposition to the Shah." CIA.gov

• • "Khomeini called for the shah’s immediate overthrow, and on December 11 a group of soldiers mutinied and attacked the shah’s security officers. History.com

These perhaps do not verify O'hern's claim that Khomeini "funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s", but to call O'hern's claim WP:FRINGE seems like a long stretch considering what has been confirmed by these RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your original researches should be stopped somewhere. To show this is not a fringe POV by O'hern, you need reliable sources saying something similar as Khomeini "funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s". That Motahhari was asked to get ready for Jihad, that "soldiers attacked shah’s security officer" and etc is not going to help with this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: your continuing WP:ASPERSIONS are not helpful to this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

Stefka Bulgaria you removed an addition made by Bahar1397 regarding MEK's ideology. Can you explain why you removed it? VR _talk 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: you may have missed Vif12vf's revert last month about this, or the numerous discussions we've had about this here, but basically, the MEK's ideology is complicated and since there are RS saying different things (and at different times), we never reached a consensus for an appropriate summary for the infobox. See also here, here, here, etc.. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you VR, I was going to ask the same thing. Maybe we can start a new RfC for this? I see "Marxist" as part of MEK ideology in other articles too. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Section title

MA Javadi, this edit is not helpful and your edit summary takes my comment out of context. 1988-2003 was indeed the era of the Saddam Hussein regime. This is significant, because after he was toppled the MEK would be expelled from Iraq. While I agree with replacing "Saddam" with "Iraq" in the context of the Iran-Iraq war, I don't agree with your change here.VR _talk 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

1988-2003 is indeed post Iran-Iraq war, and like you said, "The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war." - MA Javadi (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct, but 1988-2003 is part of Iraq's "Saddam era", whereas post-2003 Iraq has a totally different government.VR _talk 21:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: that seems like a double standard. You yourself said that the war was "internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.", and now you're adding "Post-Saddam era" rather than "Post Iran-Iraq War" to a section tittle? We are all aware that Saddam was the leader of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, but the war was between the countries, not their leaders (as you yourself made us aware). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not add "Post-Saddam era", I added "Post-war Saddam era". The word "Saddam" is an adjective that applies not to the "war" but to the "era". In the context of Iran-Iraq war, I agree with saying "Iraqi forces" as opposed to "Saddam's forces". But in the context of Iraqi history, I think saying "Saddam era" or "Saddam regime" is appropriate (consider titles of History_of_Iraq#Under_Saddam_Hussein and Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq).VR _talk 12:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Isn't "Post Iran-Iraq war era (1988–2003)" clear? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That title would emphasize the Iran-Iraq war on a section that is ultimately not about the Iran-Iraq war, but rather about a period in which Saddam sheltered the MEK after the war.VR _talk 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

VR's section title is also factually incorrect. Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq until 2003 (not 1998). MA Javadi (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? When did I say 1998? VR _talk 18:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: The section being discussed here mostly describes the conflict between the MEK and IRI, and only mentions Saddam Hussein once! The MEK moved to Iraq in 1986, yet we don't call the previous section "Conflict with the IRI (1981-1988) Saddam era" simply because that's not what that section is about, correct? It makes no sense from a NPOV standpoint to name a section after Saddam Hussein when it's mainly about the conflicts between the IRI and the MEK . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, that section also includes the sub-section "2003 French arrests", which has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Btw, the edit summary here is meant to say "Removing unlinkable article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)