Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

RfC about statements from former members of the MEK

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.

The consensus of the discussion is to not include these quotes. Several contributors seem to argue that it is enough to guarantee inclusion that the quote appears in reliable sources. It is not. In the end, inclusion of material in the article is an editorial decision and other policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT, must also be considered. There was slightly more support for Rajavi's quote, but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached. SpinningSpark 16:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No: I presume, according to the recent discussion, the related sentence to the murder of Kurds with tanks is notable enough. In regards to the sentences of "Masoud Banisadr", considering that he is an author working with credible publishers, I recommend to use his sentences with "attribution" (in the article). Regarding Hassan Heyrani's sentence, I think it is better to pay heed to the context which is in the article. Aljazeera's report concerning the activity of campaign (supporter of MEK) seems to be incomplete without this sentence. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: these should not be in the article. In contentious articles, we should only include comments by people with some kind of credibility for fact checking. Allegations made by MEK members, like any other random people saying they have heard something, falls more into tabloid territory. There is a book full of allegations by MEK members which we can use to turn this Wikipedia page into their personal diary, but I don't think that is a good idea, just like including these random claims from MEK members is not a good idea. If we include these claims, we are violating the guideline that says "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." [5]. Nika2020 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No: If they are covered by reliable third party sources, they should not be removed.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• No: "Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles. Some of those quotes were recorded by human rights organizations. Can no victims of any crime ever be published as long as perpetrators dispute it? The readers know the sources and if any reputable articles specifically disprove the testimonies, those should be included too.Iranians (talk) 19:35, 15 May 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.

Removal of sources showing DUE weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

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

Human Rights record and allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've summmarised them as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Vanamonde93: First of all, Stefka Bulgaria's main claim is that the article has "overlapping information concerning "cult" claims" in the two sections and he has failed to show which of the portions are overlapping. He needs to address them case by case. Secondly, the cultish/cult-like/cult of personality behavior/characteristics of the group is deeply covered by plenty of high quality reliable sources so that it warrants dedicating a separate section the topic, as per DUE. I think presenting the list of the sources on cultish/cult-like/cult of personality behavior/characteristics of the group may add to the complexity of this TP but one may refer to [6] and [7] to see some of them. Thirdly, the suggested merger constitutes removal of several well-sourced material which is needed in the page in terms of adding encyclopedic content. Those valuable info are then condensed down to some instances of citations overkill. Why should some vague words such as "some sources", "certain sources" and "other sources" adding to the confusion of the readers? Fourthly, plenty of DUE and well-sourced content from "Human rights record" are removed in this mass removal suggestion. Where's the "Amnesty" report? I think this is Stefka Bulgaria who needs to explain why he intended to remove the 2004 Amnesty report, the 2013 UN report, the details of the HRW report, Hyeran and Ronen A. Cohen's works and etc on the basis of "repeated and overlapping information". Where are those materials repeated? Last, but not the least, probably Stefka Bulgaria should be hold to explain why he attempted to perform such a mass removal of well-sourced and DUE content on a false ground? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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. I also support the subsequent trim that establishes the main points, making for a more coherent narrative, so I agree with Stefka's proposal here. Nika2020 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced materials

Removal of The Intercept and RAND report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Vanamonde93: Despite being pinged 18 days ago, Stefka Bulgaris is not commenting why has removed the POV of The Intercept which I had inserted recently. Summarizing should not be used as a pretext for removing the well sourced content. I think this is an indication of wp:silence. Can I go by that? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein. I answered you already a couple of times. MEK defectors saying the MEK is a cult is already covered in the article. Adding different variations of "MEK defectors said the MEK is a cult" isn't making the article better. That was my objection to your edit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your comment can be deemed as being misleading. What you have removed was in fact The Intercept evaluation of the defector's testimonies (which is found no where in the article). That's why I have asked Vanamonde93 to judge your replies and your long silence. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Stefka Bulgaria claims he has removed simply a "MEK defectors said the MEK is a cult" sentence, while what he removed was the evaluation of the Intercept of the defector's testimonies. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, see my previous response to you here. We don't need to clutter the article with every source that ever called the MEK a "cult" or "cult-like". We already have a lot of sources describing the MEK as a cult in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of RAND report and 2012 US government document by BarcrMac

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

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

@Mhhossein: your determination to repeat the word "cult" in this article is quite something. You persisted for having "Various scholarly works, media outlets has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult."" in the lead [8], you persisted to have added "Rajavi Cult"[[9] to the MEK's "Other names", and now you are trying to add that the US government portrayed the group as displaying "cultlike behavior" [10], but the U.S. describing the MEK as a cult is already in the article ("United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323]") Right now the word "cult" is repeated about 20 times in the article, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You are not making the article better by repeating the word "cult" over and over using again different sources. Barca (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@Mhhossein: Your edit ([11]) included "and in 2012 a U.S. government research document portrayed the group as displaying "cultlike behavior", but like I said, the U.S. describing the MEK as a cult is already in the article ("United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323]") In that edit you also inserted "The group's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces operations at the camp Ashraf and its strategies twoard the group. According to RAND corporation, MEK's history of cult behavior would likely had made the attempts by the coalition force aimed at dismantling the group, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, become "difficult and frustrating" and it could led to violence, especially "self inflicted violence". I thought that was superfluous content, specially considering that "cult" is repeated so many times in the article already. You seem to be trying to insert any cult quotes as possible and hope some of them stick. Barca (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Vanamonde93: I have done my best to build consensus and this discussion had been opened since 10 days ago. Users were free to participate the discussion. The only objection raised by the only participant is "superfluous content". I deem there had been enough discussions here considering that I opened the topic 10 days ago. BarcrMac has reverted me and he fails to substantiate his action. Are you telling me I should ask other editors as to why BarcrMac has reverted me? Take Kazemita1's comment into account, too. As and admin, you are expected to evaluate the discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: if you are not happy with my answer, why don't you ping me instead of Vanamonde? I case you were not told this already [12], verifiability does not mean the content should be included. The content you are trying to include is filled with superfluous "ifs". If we were to fill the article full of "ifs", then we would have a lot of descriptions about things that could have happened (but have not). The articles needs facts established by DUE weight, and about things that are actually of some importance (not just included because the mention the word "cult", something that is already about 20 times in the article). Barca (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Template:ReBarcrMac You were pinged multiple times and you only said it's "superfluous" without elaborating why. Your recent answer is even worse than the previous ones. "If"? What kind of "if" do you see in the content? Are you sure you're talking about this revert by you? You are persistently failing to say why the following content, being supported by a high quality and reliable source, is not DUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely disagree with this merge. Two different subjects cant be merged into one section. Also, allegations? Thats unsourced. All reliable scholar sources call them cult, its not an allegations, its a fact.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93 Removing well-established sourced content will initiate new attempts from all sides to remove unfavorable content. RAND and Intercept have been accepted as reliable sources throughout the discussions in this article (and probably the rest of Wikipedia). --Kazemita1 (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Kazemita1 I cannot understand what you're saying here. Can you not see a distinction between material that's been in the article for a while, and material added two weeks ago? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

When Kazemita was indef blocked in January, he said "I hereby assure you that I will not be editing the People's Mojahedeen of Iran's article for one year, neither thru my Wiki account nor an IP. As you mentioned, I might contribute to the talk page. You know what, I just changed my mind. Please, block me for a period of one year. I do need that break from Wiki to cool-off my head." [13], which user:El_C took in good faith and changed the block to 3 months. User:RoySmith said "I'm just seeing a user who's disruptive. The whole thing above about the Double Jeopardy Clause was absurd. We're here to write an encyclopedia. I honestly don't see that Kazemita1 is contributing to that. And, given their long block history, I don't have any confidence that this will change. However, if your judgement is that they will become a productive contributor, I would have no objection if you unblock them." Kazemita's first edit after his block in to come straight back to this article, and although he hasn't made any violations, I'm just pointing out the obvious direction we are heading towards here again, which Vanamonde and others involved here have to endure for the time it lasts. Barca (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

BarcrMac, I don't remember the context here. Do you have a diff where I wrote that? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93. I am aware of the long-standing text policy. I am trying to remind everyone that objection against inclusion should be substantiated. After all this used to be how things were done in this article.Kazemita1 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith it is this one [14] Barca (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• The objection that the content being proposed deals only with hypotheticals is substantive enough that you need more participants to reach a consensus (or clearly determine the absence thereof). Mhhossein, you have the option of starting an RfC, or of letting this go. You do not have clear consensus for this addition at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The first sentence, i.e. "The group's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces operations at the camp Ashraf and its strategies toward the group" is not hypothetical. The source actually says: "MeK’s cult behavior and questionable recruiting practices are significant insofar as they affect both the daily operations at the camp and the strategic disposition options available to the group". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't seem to be discussing a hypothetical, but the way you phrased it was. Moreover, the source isn't being specific. There isn't anything here to entirely ignore Barca's objection, and as such, you don't have consensus here. Please do not belabor the point. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References
References

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

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

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

Human Rights record and allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Vanamonde93:, @El C:, SharʿabSalam threatening admins with reporting them for misusing their administrative tools (see also attacks on @BD2412:, [15] [16]) when things are not going his way seems like a method for manipulation, and something that should be reported at ANI. Would any of you mind if I report this? Barca (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:BarcrMac: You should first explain yourself about what you are trying to accomplish with this type of bad faith comments and then criticize others.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

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

Heshmat Alavi

Hi everybody, I edited the Heshmat Alavi content a little. I think it could be made more to the point by removing the media outlets Alavi wrote for (don't think this is necessary. Barca (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Your edit summary reads "Making the point, and counterpoint, more clear" but I wonder how removing "Since the article's publication, Twitter has suspended the "Heshmat Alavi" account, and the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website" can be counted as making things " more clear"? Also, you have changed the neutral wording in "The blog post admitted for the first time that Heshmat Alavin was not a real account and that a pseudonym was used instead" into the POVish combination "The post said that Alavi would never reveal his real identity or photograph as "long as the mullahs’ regime is in power since that would place himself and his family in danger". The latter is pushing the MEK's agenda (and I am removing this new inclusion because of this) while the former is just reflecting the voice of the source (why was it removed?). Moreover, you have removed a reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Heshmat Alavi's Twitter account [17] looks to be active, this is why I removed that it was suspended. You have put back in the article that it was suspended [18], can you correct that please, or at least say why we should leave it as "suspended"? In your edit you also removed Heshmat Alavi's response to the Intercept article ("The post said that Alavi would never reveal his real identity or photograph as "long as the mullahs’ regime is in power since that would place himself and his family in danger.") So, you left in the accusations made against Alavi, but removed Alavi's response to the accusations saying that "is pushing the MEK's agenda"? Is Alavi not entitled to have his own defense in the article?Barca (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That the 'account' is active NOW, is not in contradiction with the fact that it was suspended once. As for including the so-called Alavi's response why not adding the neutral wording by the source itself, as opposed to your suggestion adding to the POV issue of the article? Do you see any issues with "The blog post admitted for the first time that Heshmat Alavi was not a real account and that a pseudonym was used instead" You know, the Intercept was very careful with attributing the response to the "blog" not "Heshmat Alavi". Also you did not respond how your edit summary complies with removal of "the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website" can be counted as making things". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Let's do one point at a time. Why do you consider Alavi's own response to the Intercept article not valid? Barca (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it counts as self-published. Of course, if it was Alavi's own Wiki article, that would be a different story, but that is not the case here.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is Alavi's own response to the Intercept article, it does not need peer review. If we are including the Intercept accusations against Alavi, then we should also include Alavi's own response to those accusations. Selecting your preferred parts of incidents and omitting others is not neutral editing. Barca (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. Everyone denies accusations made against them. Those denials can be given weight if they are covered by reliable sources, but otherwise it's usually a bad idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, the source even does not say the account is that of Alavi. Am I right? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If Alavi's response was published in the Intercept then it would be valid for the article? [19] @Mhhossein: and @Kazemita1:? Barca (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just published; they need to be endorsed. The Intercept article is doing the exact opposite.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: previously you said we cannot add this because "it counts as self-published", so I find Alavi's response published in the Intercept (the same source that published the accusations), but now you are saying it still cannot be included because the Intercept needs to endorse it? endorse what? Barca (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandermonde explained the matter to you, but for some reason you seem to require further instructions. When we say a content is covered by reliable sources, it means the sources endorse the content, or at least stay neutral about its correctness. In this case however, the Intercept article is calling Heshmat Alavi a fake character and is debunking his claims/responses.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: the response on to the accusations on Alavi's website is published on the Intercept [20]. Is that ok for inclusion? Barca (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @BarcrMac: It's better, but not necessarily good enough. That's something you will have to establish consensus for; you've moved from "obviously inadequate" to "matter of judgement". I can't decide that for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep "cult" content in the same section

This text that was added to the 1980s section, derives from a RAND report section "The MeK as a Cult". In so many words, keep "cult" content in a single section (and not spread throughout the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is a great addition. But now, it seems like a hodgepodge of "he said", "she said". The picture is not very clear or concise. I believe what should be done is to sub-divide it by the kind of sources: "former members", "European officials", etc. Iranians (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Assassinations" section is untidy

The article's section "Assassinations" is untidy. On the top of that section there are five links to other articles, and there are some repeated things (like Shirazi for example, it's repeated). I would tidy-up this section only including the most notable episodes. Nika2020 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nika2020: You need to say exactly which one is UNDUE or repeated elsewhere in this page. "Untidy" is not something you can remove the well sourced contents with. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• "In the following years the MEK conducted several high-profile assassinations of political and military figures inside Iran, including deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, who was assassinated on the doorsteps of his house on 10 April 1999."
• "The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998). MEK also assassinated Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."
• "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
• "Bomb debris after assassination of President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar in 1981."
• "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."

Mhhossein: those are some of the repetition problems in the Assassinations section. Also since we already have a Wikipedia page about List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, my suggestion is to only name the most important historical episodes. This can also include the context and what each side said. What do you think? I can give it a try. If you don't respond I will assume I have your consent.Nika2020 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nika2020: Many of the stuff you removed in your last two edits were not repetitive. I understand you recently joined the team. Please, be advised that big changes in a volatile article like require long discussions and generally do not lead to consensus. Please, focus on small steps instead.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Also, please, note that this policy applies to many other sections of the article as well. For example, the section on 1988 executions has plethora of repetitive content. Kazemita1 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: In your last edit (this one [21]) you inserted back in the article "From 26 August 1981 to December 1982, it orchestrated 336 attacks" - this is already repeated in the article. Please remove this since I cannot do it myself because of the article's restrictions. Thank you. Nika2020 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued disputes

All of you editing this page need to realize that El C and myself will not be monitoring this dispute forever. If The bunch of you cannot work on this page collaboratively in the absence of continual administrator intervention, then you will likely be removed from the topic. I am specifically referring to the umpteen pings I receive for each new disagreement, when in almost every case, the issue is a legitimate content dispute that needs to be settled by consensus building. Ideally, this would be the editors here making compromises, but since I've yet to see evidence that that is possible, then you need to start RfCs; and if that seems like a pain in the neck, well, it's entirely self-inflicted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Not every objection raised in this TP is substantiated. So, there should be someone evaluating the comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hey Vanamonde, yes, I think RfCs may be the best way to resolve most of the disputes here, though RfCs here tend to take several months (and most end in no-consensus). I've also tried third opinion, but editors here have refused to engage there. As an alternative, if there is an evident majority consensus in a given talk page discussion, could that be considered as a form of consensus building (that seems to be the case in other Wiki articles)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: That is true, but that's still not cause to run to an administrator every other comment; there still needs to be a substantive discussion among multiple users, at the end of which someone unvinvolved can assess consensus. "I made an edit, Editor X disagreed, but didn't substantiate their objections, can I reinstate this?" is patently silly, but there's been a lot of stuff along those lines of late. @Stefka Bulgaria: I'm afraid not. Numbers don't generally matter; they only do when both arguments have equal basis in policy, and that usually not the case. The alternative to RfCs is not vote-counting. The alternative is compromise. I have yet to see evidence that anyone on this page is capable of that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  The problem often arises when editors argue whether a revert was substantiated or not. This often becomes a spiral of reporting and re-reporting to the dedicated admin overseeing this page. But those days of having a dedicated admin devoted entirely to this page are pretty much over, it seems. From now on, reporting any purported violations should go to ANI (not this article talk page), where they will be evaluated by admins and editors who have not been read-in to this overarching dispute. Maybe that's a good thing. El_C 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So then Mhhossein goes ahead and removes from the lede information so prominent it has its own section and its own Wiki page. Ok, I tried, but can't. I'm too stepping away from this page for a while. Good luck to other involved editors. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: I agree entirely, but I guess I'm giving notice here that a) I'm not willing to monitor this talk page indefinitely, and b) if I find that there's one or more users consistently making admin intervention here necessary, I am entirely willing to remove them from the topic, because editing in a way that requires constant admin supervision is a form of problematic editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, understood. The General Sanctions give you a lot of leeway in exercising your discretion. Which I support you doing in any way you see fit. Thanks again for picking up the slack! El_C 18:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

1988 executions removed

@Mhhossein: You reverted my edit from the article about the 1988 executions of political prisoners. In your edit summary, you wrote "the details and context of the executions are controversial". What is controversial about the details and context of the executions? Nika2020 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you pleas respond? You can't revert whatever you want and then disappear when you are asked about it. Nika2020 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your ping and will respond very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Your edit included "children" which is not supported as a fact by the sources. It should be attributed either to Montazeri or "Human right organizations" (which organization?). Moreover, according to the sources used in this page the prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK" were executed, not all the prisoners. Btw, wouldn't the already included execution part in the lead be a determining factor? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I wouldn't normally ping you, but Mhhossein's response here doesn't add up. I asked Mhhossein why he removed this from the lead:

"Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to be affiliated with the MEK, including children."

Mhhossein is saying he removed this edit because "not all the prisoners" were executed - but as you can see the information I added doesn't say "all prisoners" were executed. Mhhossein is also saying that the part "including children" needed attribution "either to Montazeri or "Human right organizations", and even though I don't agree he could have just attributed this himself instead of removing all the information. Nika2020 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see why I need to intervene; this is still a content dispute. Why don't you ask Mhhossein if he'd object to a version that didn't mention children, that used the necessary attribution, or that included a source that could be used without attribution? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: The sentence does not say "all prisoners", so that part of your objection is not valid. For the second part, it can be attributed to Montrazeri =

"Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to be affiliated with the MEK. According to Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri, the executions also included women and children."

Here are more sources just in case =

• "Human rights organizations estimate that between 4,500 and 5,000 men, women and children were killed in the summer of 1988 in prisons across Iran." Amnesty International

• "That this House notes that the audio file of Ayatollah Montrazeri, former heir to Khomeini, in 1988, reveals new evidence about the massacre of more than 30,000 political prisoners in Iran's prisons in the summer of 1988 including women and children and all political prisoners who supported the opposition movement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)"

Parliament UK

• "Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy"

The Telegraph

• ""At least order to spare women who have children... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not refelct positively and will not be mistake-free," Montazeri wrote in a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. "A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by their interrogators... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic diseases."

Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran

• "Montazeri was more sympathetic to the plight of political prisoners in revolutionary Iran, and had a bitter disagreement with Khoemini over their mass executions in 1988, which he vehemently opposed, despite the fact that his son, a veteran of the revolutionary struggle, was killed at the hands of the MEK, to which most of the executed prisoners belonged."

Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings

• "The failed MEK invasion triggered a rage wihtin Khomeini's regime. Political prisoners who continued to adhere to antiregime beliefs were pulled from their cells and executed. Several thousand prisoners, including many MEK members, were killed by the Islamic regime during a two-month period."

Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps

• "Although execution of dissidents was rife in Iran in the 1980s, the 1988 summer executions were on a different scale. Amnesty International estimates the number of people put to death in that summer alone to be about 4,500, although others talk of bigger numbers. A fatwa issued by Khomeini in 1988 ordered the execution of apostates who refused to recant. Thousands of prisoners were brought before committees and asked whether they renounced their political affiliation, if they were Muslims, whether they prayed and if they believed in the Islamic Republic. Some were also asked if they were prepared to walk through Iraqi minefields, according to the audio file. Those who gave a negative answer in questioning that lasted a few minutes were put to death. Many were buried in a piece of unmarked land in the Khavaran cemetery near Tehran. Every year, as families gather to commemorate the deaths, riot police block their way. The emergence of the audio file has revived calls for an inquiry into the executions. Over the past 28 years, survivors and families of the victims have tried to support each other. In January, an Iranian woman who lost five children and one son-in-law in executions in the 1980s – Nayereh Jalali Mohajer, known as “Mother Behkish” – died."

Guardian

• "Grand Ayatollah Hosein 'Alkli Montazeri was to be Khomeini's succesor,but Montazeri criticized certain governmnetal practices that he considered a disgrace to the revolution. Among these practices were the mass executions of at least 3,000 political prisoners, which were carried out on Khomeini's behalf in the autumn of 1988"

Who Rules Iran?

• "The so-called 'Pardoning Committee' that Khomeini had dispatched to prisons, was in fact a 'Death Committee' personally appointed by Khomeini. Before this committee a prisoner was essentially asked one question: “Are you still loyal to the MEK?” Anyone who responded short of total repentance and submission faced execution. Victims were charged with “moharebeh” or “waging war on God.” This meant resisting the mullahs’ rule. The prison assembly hall became a slaughterhouse. Prisoners were rounded up in lines of six in various groups. A noose was placed around each neck. Prison guards kicked the chairs under their feet, collectively hanging them. The bodies were transferred to mass graves in meat trucks at night. On some nights, up to 400 were executed."

Intependent

• ""In my view, the biggest crime in the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us, has been committed at your hands," stated Khomeini's one-time heir apparent to judicial authorities responsible for the decision. "They'll write your names as criminals in the history [books]." The events of 1988 represent a grim nadir in Iran's recent human rights record. Without even the formalities of a show trial, the Iranian government summarily executed thousands of political prisoners who had languished in its jails for years. The majority were supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization, better known by their Farsi-language abbreviation MEK."

HRW If you have anything else to add, please comment. Nika2020 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you did not read my comment carefully. Anything to be included should be neutrally depicting the story. But, as you see the pretext and the condition of the executions are controversial. As I mentioned, not all the members were executed (your edit conveys a wrong impression). Moreover, why do you think Montazeri's POV is lead-worthy? Also you failed to recognize the fact that there's some mention of MEK members being executed which adds to the issues. Suggestion? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I only suggested attributing to Montazeri because this is what you suggested [22]. What would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources? Nika2020 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually I meant to tell you this POV is not suitable for lead. I already asked you why you thought Montazeri's POV was lead-worthy? Also, how many times should it be repeated the MEK members were executed? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: this is not POV, this is something that happened and that is covered by a wide variety of reliable sources. Just saying that you don't want it in the lead is not a reason not to include it. Vanamonde: Mhhossein is saying that the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is "POV", and that for this reason should not be included in the lead. This is not content dispute, this is refusing to acknowledge MOS:LEAD and what a wide variety of reliable sources are saying. Nika2020 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you need to substantiate your objections more than you have done. If coverage of the 1988 executions is "POV", you need to demonstrate that with reference to what sources say about them. If it is not POV, then it needs to be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I think you need to read the comments (specially this one) once again. That the executed people included children the POV of Montazeri. Moreover, the lead already includes sentences on the members being executed. This is exactly a content dispute. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have read all the necessary comments. You are once again dodging the issue. This section is about whether the 1988 executions need to be added to the lead. You have objected to a very specific portion of the proposed text; ie, including "children" among the victims. If you have objections to the rest of it, you need to state those now, otherwise Nika2020 would be justified in adding the reinstating the rest of their edit (ie everything except the two words "including children". You also acknowledged above that unspecified human rights organizations make the same claim, but now are insisting that it's just Montazeri. You also state that the "the lead already includes sentences on the members being executed"; but the lead, as far as I can see, only refers to executions in 1981, not 1988; how is that relevant here? What decision is made about the content in the lead is indeed a content issue, but your conduct in that discussion is a behavioral issue. Specifically, you need to stop using a specific issue to avoid engaging with the entirety of what is being proposed. That is a form of stone-walling, and isn't acceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To me, your comment shows you have not been following the discussions very carefully. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, only the prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK" were executed. Adding this will not convey a wrong impression that all the prisoners were executed. Also, I did not insist this is just Montazeri saying that. I see covering the claim of an unspecified human rights organizations or Montazeri in the lead would be against DUE. As for the 1981 execution, I was infact trying to say anything to be added should consider this. For instance, why not mentioning in a general sentence the MEK members were executed by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your continued insistance, I have in fact read those comments. You are still misunderstanding my point, and it is concerning, to say the least. Some content was added to the lead. You removed it. Nika2020 asked you what your objections were. All the objections you have listed are to specific portions of the text, and could be addressed with a slightly modified version of what was originally posted. Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no". That being said; Nika2020, you need to engage here; I'm not doing your work for you. This is more or less the last thing I'm going to say in this discussion, unless anyone engages in sanctionable behavior. To be very clear, stone-walling on the talk page is sanctionable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Please understand that what happened in the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is not "POV", is something that many reliable sources confirm happened (I can list them if you want, but there is really no point since we already have a whole article about this). You also say the lead already includes "sentences on the members being executed", but this is not accurate since the current (passing) mention of executions in the lead talks about what happened in 1981, not 1988 (two very different events). There is no denying that the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners happened (not "POV"), and that this is an important event in the history of the MEK, so it belongs in the lead. If you have a problem with the information as I have presented it, please say what would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources. Thank you. Nika2020 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Despite your claim, I did not just say "no". I believe you have already got involved in the topic more than enough. A third party may view this comment, for instance, as coming from an involved party. Contrary to WP:ONUS, you are asking me to build consensus (which is actually the duty of Nika2020 - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.") As for "All the objections you have listed are to specific portions of the text, and could be addressed with a slightly modified version of what was originally posted". Not really, This was a matter of talk page discussion, what I am doing here. @Nika2020: WHO said the 1988 executions was just a POV which should not be included in the lead? Please note the main objections I have already raised (let me know if you need more clarifications). As for the 1981 executions, yes, they are different events and I was just suggesting to merge any further inclusion of "execution" with this one. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: merging different events into a single passing comment would be excluding information that is as DUE as anything else that is currently in the lead. Because the 1988 executions is DUE information, then please stop making this so difficult and provide your compromise about adding this in a way that "neutrally depicts" the sources. Nika2020 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there are many other DUE info which is not in the lead (such as Hafter Tir bombing). Anyway, this is not being talked about. On my part, I raised my objections in my previous comments, among them the necessity of the insertion of "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK". I welcome the draft of your modified suggestion based on our discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trying not to get involved here, but, Mhhossein: your comments to drive Vanamonde away from this talk page [23] resembles SharabSalam's previous efforts. Vanamonde is currently the only admin willing to help in this mess, so please don't start accusing them of being "involved". They have done everything right not to be involved here while continuing to break the deadlock that is this talk page, so please stop all the wiki-lawyering. Barca (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Every one knows I was of the pioneers of asking admins to stay here, and, I suggested him what I thought. You should not interpret my comments in other ways which is not meant by me. I already know how time&energy consuming watching this page is. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: then stop accusing Vanamonde of being "involved". It is quite evident they are not involved, and their input here is necessary. Barca (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein If you think the Hafte tir bombing is DUE for the lead, then I welcome you to start a talk page discussion about that. This talk page discussion is about the 1988 executions, so please don't mix things. Based on your objections, then this is what I suggest:

• "Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to remain steadfast in their support for the MEK. According to Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri and Amnesty International, the executions also included women and children."

If you have further objections, I welcome your draft. If you don't present any more substantiated objections, then I don't see a reason why this cannot be included in the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Execution of women and children is a BIG claim that requires big sources. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1, "Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri and Amnesty International, the executions also included women and children." does have big sources (Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran, Saqi Books The Economist Parliament.UK The Telegraph Amnesty International). Mhhossein: you made this revert, so your input is required. Please say if the version I proposed in my last post is ok, or, what would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources? Nika2020 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained mass reverts by Kazemita1

@Kazemita1: Please explain, in detail, all of the reverts you did in your last edit. [24] Barca (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy. And yes, Kazemita is also obliged to explain himself here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is like a pattern in this article; they make mass changes with an edit summary which is not covering the whole story. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Which edits in particular would you like me to explain? Nika2020 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nika2020: If you made any edits that were reverted, that you still want to reinstate, you need to explain them here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for them. You were reverted at least once that I can see, so unless you agree with Kazemita's mass revert, you have a fair bit of explaining to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I mostly want to understand why Kazemita1 reverted content that is repeated in the article. I had created a talk page discussion about this [25], saying that there were some repetitions in that section:

• "In the following years the MEK conducted several high-profile assassinations of political and military figures inside Iran, including deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, who was assassinated on the doorsteps of his house on 10 April 1999."
• "The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998). MEK also assassinated Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."
• "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
• "Bomb debris after assassination of President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar in 1981."
• "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."

Kazemita added back those repetitions, even though I had not received any objections in that talk page discussion. Nika2020 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things you are missing here; first "Shirazi" and "Bahonar" are two different people. Second "Bomb debris ..." is caption of a photo. Also, some of the removals are unnecessary. Third, some of these belong to different sections of the article and mentioned for different reasons. Fourth, admission of guilt should not be removed. In other words when MEK admits to an assassination, it is counted as a valuable historical fact. That is different from reports by third party sources.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1 Bahonar's death is repeated 6 times in the article. Rajai's death is repeated 5 times. What is your reason for putting these repetitions back in the article? Nika2020 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not listening, are you? Image captions do not count as text. Also, when a content is repeated in a different section it is for a different reason and thus can be kept. Please, focus on the ones that are in the same section.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1 Contrary to your suggestion, I am indeed listening. Taking Bahonar as one of the examples, his assassination is currently mentioned 4 times in the "Assassinations" section alone:

• "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."

• "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."

• "The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

• "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

I had removed those repetitions while adding other information about the assassination. But you reverted this:

• "On August 30 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar.""

You still have not explained why you did this revert. Please explain. Nika2020 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The only part that I think needs to be rewritten is the last two lines of that subsection as follows:

• The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar and Mohammad-Ali Rajaei. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).

The rest are necessary information. For example, you may bomb the residence of the president but they may not be among the victims themselves. Also, the first few lines do not explicitly mention MEK's admission to the guilt. That part comes in the end. Kazemita1 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: in this discussion, I have tried to get Kazemita to answer why in his revert [26], they added repetitions back in the article:

• "On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar."

• "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."

• "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

This is not a content dispute. Kazemita's revert [27] distinctly repeats Bahonar and Rajaei's assassination, and Kazemita will not provide a direct explanation of why he added these repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1, you are stonewalling here. Redundancy in any article is a problem regardless of POV. At the very least you need to explain why the duplicated material needs to exist in each section, and why it should not be combined. That goes both ways, of course; there's redundancy with respect to material that reflects negatively on the government also. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

After further consideration, I found the following two sentences in the "Assassaination" section redundant:

• "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
• "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

Please, be sure to keep the sources intact after removing the above mentioned sentences.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Kazemita1: Your suggestion is confusing to me. In an attempt to make things easier, I propose that we put all of the assassination mentions of Rajei and Bahonar into one paragraph:

• "On August 30 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."" The MEK later claimed responsibility for the attack.

Do you agree? If not, please make your suggestion of how the text should read Nika2020 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I was talking about:

On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. An active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, was identified as the perpetrator, and according to reports came close to killing the entire government including Khomeini. Kashmiri was a member of the MEK who infiltrated the Islamic Republican Party (IRP) and come up through the ranks, reaching the position of secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. He planted an incendiary bomb in his briefcase that blew up the Prime Minister's office in 1981.

At first, it was thought that Keshmiri himself died in the explosion, however it was later revealed that he slipped through the dragnet. The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups, but "assassinations of leading officials and active supporters of the regime by the Mujahedin were to continue for the next year or two."

The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).

Kazemita1 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC about inclusion of the content from The Intercept source

Should the following content from The Intercept 2020 report be included in the "Designation as cult" section of the article?

"According to the Intercept 2020 report, the testimonies of the MEK's former member imply that MEK is "a brutal organization" holding "thousands in a state of physical and psychological slavery" for decades."

Please say if you have suggestions for modifying the content to be included. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: This is a fresh and unique report we need to you use. Actually, nowhere in the article the testimonies of the MEK members are being evaluated by a third party! So why should we miss this fresh report by a credible source like The Intercept? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No: For many reasons, but mainly per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. These obviously controversial labels. Human rights record content are already occupying a large part of the article, and doesn't need more contentious POV (than what it already has). Barca (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No- We already have so many allegations from "former members" in the article, and "imply" is equal to a hypothesis, not fact. This article needs facts, not hypothesis. Nika2020 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Intercept is a reliable and neutral source and the sentence is well quoted such that the "hypothesis/fact" issue no longer applies.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein's removal of content

@Mhhossein: please explain your edit where you removed:

• "After the Iran regime had executed 2,500 MEK members, the group counter-attacked against Friday-prayer leaders, revolutionary court judges and members of the IRGC. Ebrahimzadeh (MEK fighter who on July 1982 killed 13 IRGC and Ayatollah Saddugi) wrote “I am willing to die to help hasten the coming of the classless society; to keep alive our revolutionary tradition; and to avenge our colleagues murdered by this bloodthirsty, reactionary regime”.

• "According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK saw Iran's security agencies as servants of a religious government and a cause for Iran population's state of unhappiness. The MEK first fought against the Revolutionary Guards and later against military units, and its targets were "the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only." The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them."

Barca (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, please check the edit once again. After my edit, for instance, "After the Iran regime had executed 2,500 MEK members, the group counter-attacked against Friday-prayer leaders, revolutionary court judges and members of the IRGC" is still in the page. As for the quotation, I don't think it is even worthy of mentioning in the page. It's not DUE, probably you can include the content in his own page. َ"According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK saw Iran's security agencies as servants of a religious government and a cause for Iran population's state of unhappiness. The MEK first fought against the Revolutionary Guards and later against military units" is in the page after my edit. "Its targets were "the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only" was removed because the page already has "Struan Stevenson and other analysts have stated that MEK targets included only the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: In the quote you removed (" Ebrahimzadeh (MEK fighter who on July 1982 killed 13 IRGC and Ayatollah Saddugi) wrote “I am willing to die to help hasten the coming of the classless society; to keep alive our revolutionary tradition; and to avenge our colleagues murdered by this bloodthirsty, reactionary regime”.) the MEK fighter is saying the purpose of why the attacks happened. Why are you saying this "it's not DUE"? Barca (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of why the attacks happens is already mentioned in the article. The full quote from Ebrahimzadeh's promotional comments is not really having due weight per your suggestion. The prominence of the Ebrahimzadeh's comment is currently not really as much justifying it's inclusion in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Why do you think it's ok to have the claims of former MEK members (who have done nothing historically significant [28]), while it's not ok to have the claims of MEK members who have actually participated in historically significant events? Barca (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Because, -and I quote- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarcMac: Your comparison is essentially wrong since I tried to prove the former member's quote was DUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: None of those quotes from former MEK members were DUE. For that reason I also won't insist in having this other quote by an MEK member in the article (although it actually provides insight into why a protagonist in a historical event did what they did, which is not the case with the other quotes). Barca (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)