|topic= not specified. Available options:

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Terrorism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Iran B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Socialism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Following up on the recommendation from Vanamonde93 that "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception"[1], would anybody have a valid reason not to move the content from "Designation as a cult" to the "Perception" section? I think that move makes sense. Bahar1397 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't say that MEK is perceived as a cult, they say that MEK is a cult. This is widely reported in scholarly sources. And they back this allegation with well-documented practices of the MEK like sexual control, religious devotion of the Rajavis and limited exit options.

I understand where you're coming from, given the section title. But I don't think "designation as cult" is the best title for that section. Maybe we should change it to "Cult-like behavior".VR _talk 02:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good suggestions here for the title of that section. I agreed with one of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usual stonewalling, even with a suggestion from an admin (with Mhhossein even linking to a post by a T-Banned user). Trying to put in Wikipedia's voice that the MEK is a cult violates NPOV. The cult criticisms are a disputed perception matter, so that's where the text is best suited, in the "Perception" section. Alex-h (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly stop this sort of attacks. Why should not a post by a T banned user be linked here? No one is putting "in Wikipedia's voice that the MEK is a cult." Also, I would not describe that as "disputed" since the reliable sources should determine this, and the huge amount of sources on this matter are indicating what should(not) be said. Look at the VR's comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, nobody here is attacking you, or hounding you, or nothing else like that. Please stop throwing around baseless accusations. You tried use a comment by the same Topic banned user in a RFC, and Vanamonde told you that "SharabSalaam has been topic-banned. This does not change the outcome of any previous discussions in which he participated, but it does mean his opinion carries no weight here. Bringing it up is not very helpful." Barca (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? The last time one of the users hounded me to my WMCommons RFA...Anyway, the link to SharabSalaam comment was not meant to say there are others supporting this name, rather I tried to give Vice regent my suggestions. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Again, if you have a substantiated accusation to make, make it at the relevant noticeboard (WP:ANI, WP:SPI, etc.), otherwise they continue to be battleground behavior. @Vanamonde93: despite you telling them this, Mhhossein continues to use a Topic-Banned editor's comments in these Talk page discussions. User:SharabSalam's comments from a year ago are not relevant to these new discussions. Barca (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: it looks like my proposal is opposed by VR and Mhhossein, but supported by other editors. Would starting a RfC be the next step here? Bahar1397 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it would, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a useful outcome. I have lost any confidence that anyone here is interested in turning this into a readable page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93: I'm interested in turning this into a readable page. Do you think starting a RfC about this would help towards that? If you don't think it will, then I won't open it. Bahar1397 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An RfC is the correct thing to do. As I said above, I'm not hopeful that it will have a useful outcome, because for an RfC to be useful, it's respondents need to be interested in compromise. But don't let my cynicism stop you; go ahead and open one. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bahar1397 instead of starting an RfC immediately, why not discuss the merits and demerits of your proposal? I gave reasons against the proposal but no one really responded to them. Mhhossein proposed "Characterization as a cult" and again no one has so far given reasons against it. Maybe we can reach a compromise (as Vanamonde encourages) and actually reach consensus.VR _talk 01:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bahar1397 Your proposal has merit, and I support your and Vanamonde's suggestion about this. We've had many talk pages discussions on this matter, and it has been established that the MEK is not a cult, but rather that some critics have said this about the group. Having a misleading section in the article "Designation as a cult" (or "Characterization as a cult, or "Cult-like behavior") comes across as a means to "undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner."A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service Please go ahead and start the RfC. And also this "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." was written by an MEK defector, so it has a conflict of interest (as it's obvious by the quoted text). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, this is not how we were suggested to work. RFCs should not be mis-used to rail road the opposing voices. If there are objections, they should be discussed here. Having been instructed not to open such hasty RFCs, Stefka Bulgaria should not ask other do the job. Collaboration for reaching a compromise is the only thing required here. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: are you saying here that I can't open a RfC about this if I wanted to? or that I can't make suggestions to others considering opening RfCs? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: nobody is misusing RFCs or rail roading anybody. Why are you saying this? I do think this content should be moved to the "Perception" section of the article because it is about how the MEK is perceived by some people. I asked Vanamonde if it was ok to open a RFC, and he said yes. @Vanamonde93: I hate to ask again but Mhhossein's comment leads me to think that it's not ok to open a RFC. Is it ok then? Bahar1397 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open an RfC: just be aware that reaching a consensus is unlikely. I don't think further discussion here is going to be fruitful, largely because you are all talking at cross-purposes. You need to think about why you want the section retitled and/or merged into a different one; is it because the title needs to reflect the content, and it doesn't? Is it because the content is getting undue weight? Is it because there's redundant content? Is it because criticism has been pigeon-holed in a way it shouldn't? In the absence of any sort of consensus on this, it's unlikely that an RfC will reach a consensus; but if any prior discussion devolves into mud-slinging, then a prior discussion has no point either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are diverse comments; but I also think that there is no need to move this section to the Perception section. Firstly, I believe that perception is not a an accurate equivalent for description or characterization which is what the sources do. Actually, what scholars do, is not perception, and there is a sort of argumentation/signaling in their work. As a result, putting the mentioned matters in the "perception section" is not a true act. Secondly, if we look at the section "perception", we will understand that the structure of this section is arranged geographically, which conforms a lot to the contents which are related to perception. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde93 and others, do you think that Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Moderated_discussion would help here? We need to talk to each other, not at each other. RfCs generally foster a "voting" mentality, but instead we need consensus building. We need to understand what each other's positions are, why they have that position and how can we find a solution that satisfies all sides (to some degree).VR _talk 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For this page in general, moderated discussion may help. For this specific dispute, it will not; it's too specific, and in the larger scheme of things, pointless; as I've said before, the reason this page is unreadable is because it is twice as long as it should be, and is mired in allegations, counter-allegations, and denials by all parties involved. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93: They are mostly citing your suggestion to justify their move. This is while compelling arguments are provided against that. At least I believe Ali Ahwazi's argumentation is fair enough and serves to show this move is not justified. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, why not assessing the consensus of this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no discernible consensus in this discussion thus far, and no arguments provided to render the issue immune from further discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone have any arguments against those raised by Vice Regent and Ali Ahwazi? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several arguments against this raised by other editors in the conversations below. Bahar1397 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any specific response to the VR and AA's logical objections. In fact, they are explaining how the scientific analysis by the scholarly works should not be mistaken with "perception". Moreover, AA argues that the destination section you proposed is not suitable for this change. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am against deleting this section and transferring its contents to another section. Like others, the main reason for the opposition is that it is based more on a large number of scholarly and scientific sources. Like other users, I believe that these academic issues cannot be introduced as mere receptions. Why aren't scholarly and academic resources the basis for decision making? The word perception, hence, is not applicable here. As far as I know, the word perception refers to our understanding of the appearance of things, while what we are discussing here is about scientific and accurate analysis.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vanamonde93: Would you please address this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no discernible consensus in this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In closure of the last RfC on cult claims, Chetsford encouraged us to "open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK [VR]."

My proposal is given below and would replace "Designation as a cult" section. Currently that section has 342 words (2200 characters). My proposal would reduce it to 227 words (1600 characters). Please give specific feedback on what is good about it, what is not good about it, and how the not good part can be changed. Please do not simply "support" or "oppose" it, this is not a vote. Proposal:

The MEK has been described as a "cult" by governments and officials in Iran, the United States,^[1] France,^[2] United Kingdom,^[3] and Iraq.^[4] It has also been described as a cult by numerous academics,^{[5][6][7][8][9]} by former MEK members who defected,^[10][11] and by journalists who visited MEK camps in Iraq.^[12][13] Some sources argue that the Iranian government regularly exploits such allegations to demonize the MEK.^[14][15][16]

According to a US government report, the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options".^[17] Critics often describe the MEK as the "cult of Rajavi",^[18][19] arguing that it revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi,^[18][20] to whom members must give "near-religious devotion".^[21] Members reportedly had to participate in regular "ideological cleansings".^[22] Members are forbidden from marrying and those already married were ordered to divorce and are not allowed to see their children.^[23][24] They must suppress all sexual thoughts.^[25] According to RAND Corporation members were lured in through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries" and then prevented from leaving.^[21]

The MEK is believed to have become a cult to survive.^[26][27] After a major defeat in 1990, MEK leadership ordered all couples to divorce and send away their children.^[25][17]

I am very willing to compromise the text of this proposal to reach consensus. I would be grateful if an outside party (polite mentions of Chetsford, Vanamonde93 and Fences and windows) can help guide our discussion. If this discussion stalls, my next step would be WP:DRN.VR _talk 16:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VR: you are overlooking the main issues with this section: the title, counter views, summary of major points (removing redundancy). For over a year now we've known that the title "Designation as a cult" is not supported by a single source (which would make this heading WP:OR and WP:ATTACK); yet it has not been changed despite my efforts to correct this. You are also not acknowledging the many RSs available that say the IRI pays international press to discredit the MEK through propaganda (which, among other things, involve characterizing the MEK as a cult). Vanamonde already suggested the article is "twice as long as it should be, and is mired in allegations, counter-allegations, and denials by all parties involved" (here is another list of recommendations complied by Idealigic that Vanamonde made to help us fix the article). Let's summarize this text with views on both sides of the argument, remove the misleading heading, and put this text in another section where it makes more sense (like "Perception"; which is what Vanamonde and Bahar have suggested). That is what I'd support. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka, I did not propose (in this section) a name or location for the text. I proposed replacing what I feel is poorly written text with better written text. In my proposed text I did include a sentence on Iran exploiting cult allegations to demonize the MEK. Once again, what specifically do you dislike here?VR _talk 18:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was specific in last comment. If it hasn't been obvious already by the countless talk page discussions here, I'll make it obvious now: for a long time there has been relentless attempts to change the narrative of this page, from the MEK being the Islamic Republic's main democratic political opposition, into the MEK "being nothing more than a cult" (the same narrative that the Islamic Republic has spent millions in getting the international press to say about the MEK). I really don't understand why that has been tolerated here. It wouldn't have been tolerated with a Western political group; there are many sources calling the Trump administration a "Cult" ([10] [11] [12] [13] etc...); yet there isn't a single mention about that in that article, and rightly so. Your proposed "better written text" does just that: compiles allegations of entities that have called the MEK a cult, even though there have been US, UK, France officials dismissing such claims (something you fail to say in your version). You're also WP:IDHT the issue with the title. To close, your text uses cherry picked sentences from cherry picked sources to give prominence to a narrative that the MEK is a nothing more than a cult, and that's the equivalent of using Wikipedia as a platform for mischaracterisation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria you yourself admitted, after input from Vanamonde, that none of the sources "dismissed" claims that MEK was a cult. I don't believe I cherrypicked sources. I have yet to find a single scholarly source that says MEK is not a cult. Which scholarly sources have I missed on this topic? VR _talk 13:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VR, you keep responding with WP:IDHT. To put it another way (and that's the last I'll say here) I could use the sources I provided here on the Donald Trump administration being called a cult, and create a narrative (even a section titled "Designation as a cult", as it has happened here) on that article saying the Trump administration is a cult. But obviously, that wouldn't fly. Yet, you are trying to do just that here. Through RfC consensus, we determined to summarise a vast amount of POV pushing into "The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."[337][338] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[339][340] “cult-like",[341][342] or having a “cult of personality”,[343][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[344][345][346]. We really don't need more than this in the article (Vanamonde has been repeating that the article needs to be summarised). Yet here you continue to try to develop a narrative that the MEK is a cult (as well as that the MEK is unpopular). That infringes WP:NPOV.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria I am trying to reduce the size: the current version is 342 words (2200 characters), my proposal is 227 words (1600 characters). Unless my word counts are wrong, you seem to have misunderstood. Consider that Ghazaalch just pointed out an entire chapter devoted to MEK's cultishness in the RAND report, and I recently found a book that extensively covers MEK's cultishness (that book is published by Routledge and got a positive review in the Journal of Mental Health). I think 1600 characters (just 0.6% of the article size) is a fair proposal.VR _talk 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria: It seems that you would like to summarize the section "Designation as a Cult" to Various sources have described the MEK as a “cult”,[339][340] “cult-like",[341][342] or having a “cult of personality”,[343][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[344][345][346] which roughly means Some say MEK is a cult and some say no. Is it the way people write an article? Shouldn't we explain different aspects of cultic characteristics of MeK to the readers who want to know why MEK is called a cult, and why some others say it is not a cult? So I am going to use the chapter Cultic Characteristics of the MeK in the RAND report to improve this section, as I proposed below. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• While the suggestion is brief enough – in accordance with the consensus among the users – it is in accordance with WP:DUE and hence WP:NPOV by mentioning all the major viewpoints mentioned by the reliable sources. Digging through the comments, there's NO compelling argument why these well-sourced but brief material should be included in the text. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I think this version is highly in accordance with the notion by Someguy (that's endorsed by Vanamonde) since VR's version takes the "broad sources" to determine due weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At the previous RFC, the matter/suggestion of VR is completely reasonable -- according to the comment of the administrator who closed the previous discussion. This suggestion specifically complies with WP: DUE and WP: Verifiability policies. Not only the current version is brief, but also due to the agreement between all users to use scholarly-sources, this version makes good use of those sources and expresses very important content without mentioning unnecessary details. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most neutral version is the one that already received consensus through the RfC. If VR is interested in cleaning up the article from redundancy, then why not focus on the "Human Rights record" section? There is a lot of redundancy there. Idealigic (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear is that the sources disagree with you. In truth, I mean that the decision for neutrality ought to be based on sources. Deleting some outstanding views can make neutrality problem. Currently, the outstanding comments have been removed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal has many problems. It isn’t neutral. It starts with the “governments and officials” that described the MEK as a “cult”. What about the government officials that have negated these allegations? The same thing with “academics”, “journalists”, and the rest. Also “former MEK members who defected” - have you read the Disinformation through recruited MEK members in the article? Also it’s not that the Iranian government “regularly exploits such allegations to demonize the MEK”, the Iranian government makes up these allegations and pays the press to publish them through a disinformation campaign (^[28][29][30]). This proposal focuses on all the sources that call the MEK a cult, and leaves out all the ones that say these allegations are disinformation from the Iranian government. It violates neutrality guidelines. I am in favor of making that section shorter, but this is not the way to do it. Barca (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barca can you present the sources that deny that MEK is a cult? I provided 15 scholarly sources that describe MEK as a cult (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult). How many scholarly sources say that it is not? If you can't find a similar number of scholarly sources that deny the cult allegation then your argument amounts to WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR _talk 02:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given sources in my last comment (and linked to sections with even more sources). You can also see the sources Mhhossein removed from the article that say the Iranian regime pays the press to say the MEK is a cult, and you can see the past discussions where editors have talked about this, like this RFC for example, where Nika2020 provided sources like these.

• "retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".^[31]
• "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.^[32]
• "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".^[33] 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",^[34] not addressing claims of being a cult by various journalists.".

That amounts to a lot of sources. Barca (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We were actually expecting to see scholarly sources on your part. It is clear that these claims can safely be ignored in the face of the strong scholarly sources provided by me and Vice Regent. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Do you have comments on this? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac recently Vanamonde closed an RfC where they said The sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor. That RfC included the very sources you mentioned above. Do you have any other objections to the proposal?VR _talk 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The MEK is believed to have become a cult to survive"? Then " Critics often describe the MEK as the "cult of Rajavi" That is only two sources that have said this according to what you've provided. Then all the things you write about marriage? why? it's already starting to look like the other section about 'Ideological revolution and women's rights'. Would it be acceptable if I propose a way to shorten this section that is not as biased? Bahar1397 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My objection with your proposal, VR, os that it isn't neutral. It starts with the “governments and officials” that described the MEK as a “cult”, when there are other government officials that negated these allegations. The same thing with “academics”, “journalists”, and the rest. Also “former MEK members who defected” (see Disinformation through recruited MEK members). Like I already said, this proposal focuses on all the sources that call the MEK a cult, and leaves out all the ones that say these allegations are disinformation from the Iranian government. It violates neutrality guidelines. I am in favor of making that section shorter, but if we do that, it also needs to be neutral, which now it clearly lacks.

Here are balancing sources copy pasted from other posts:

1* "The United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, and Committee on Foreign Affairs published an enquiry on derogatory descriptions of the MEK, including "cult"-like allegations. The enquiry found that since 1979, the Iranian government had gone through "extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI", adding that for years, MOIS had conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI.""^[35]

2* "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK.^[36] On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"^[37][38]

3* "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."^[39]

4* "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."^[40]

5* "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”^[41]

6* "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."^[42]

7*"retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".^[43]

8*"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.^[44]

9*"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".

10*"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".^[45] 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",^[46] not addressing claims of being a cult by various journalists.". Barca (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These "denies " that you mentioned above, have been denied by sources more reliable than what you provided above. According to RAND report for example, MEK's supporters "vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult. They allege that former MeK members and critics of the MeK are either Iranian agents or their dupes. However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch.(For example, see Singleton, 2003; Banisadr, 2004, Iran-Interlink, undated, 2008; and Human Rights Watch, 2005. For typical characteristics of cults, see, e.g., Bale, 2001; Lalich, 2004; and Lalich and Langone, undated.) They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC.^[47] Ghazaalch (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you say which of these sources support "The Swiss government named thirteen Iranian officials, with special mission stamped into their passports as participants in the assassination." Please be specific by naming the source and mentioning the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, please change your discussion heading. Second, I just added the source; not the content, and the source says: "The United States on Friday said it was imposing visa restrictions on 13 Iranian officials it accused of involvement in “gross violations of human rights” for a 1990 assassination of an Iranian opposition figure in Switzerland. The U.S. State Department did not name the 13, but in a statement said it was also designating a 14th Iranian, Hojatollah Khodaei Souri, who it said as director of Iran’s Evin Prison ran an institution “synonymous with torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” “The United States will continue to pressure Iran to treat its own people with dignity and respect,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said." REUTERS

• Are you sure you are only performing a "Sentence fix" here? You have also removed the "desiring to gather Iranian opposition at home and overthrow the Islamic Republic". Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure. I don't know if you have been following the discussions in this talk page, but we need to remove redundancy from the article (i.e. things that are repeated, etc.). The MEK looking to overthrow the Islamic Republic is overtly covered in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefka, you are on very thin ice here. If you remove content, your edit summary needs to explain why. If you replace a CN tag with a source, the source needs to cover all the content, and if it does not, the content needs to be modified to reflect the source. And if other editors have made similar errors here, that's reason to communicate that to them, but it's no excuse for your edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood.. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 24#Misleading edit summary and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 21#Deceptive edit summary. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefka Bulgaria why did you say this has nothing to do with MEK's ideology? It seems relevant, though I think it can be summarized.VR _talk 06:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Observers noting Israel's support of MEK" has nothing to do with the MEK's ideology; this is the typical redundant sort of allegations that is plaguing this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Idealigic: You need to revert your recent edit which is clearly a violation of the page restriction. Being totally relevant to the context of the para, the disputed content is not redundant. Before a consensus is reached you should not have moved against the page restriction. Considering this recent warning by Vanamonde93, I guess this removal is not accepted. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Your comment please. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I didn’t think I was breaking the article’s restrictions since I was reverting your edit, which I thought we were allowed to do (if I am breaking the restrictions, I will self revert). Also observers saying Israel is supporting the MEK does not seem to belong with text about the founding of the NCRI (where you put the text). Also observers saying Israel is supporting the MEK is already in the article:

• "According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this."
• "Israel's foreign intelligence agency Mossad maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s."
• "Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel."
• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials[who?], who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists."
• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Idealigic (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idealigic, Given that Mhhossein's edit was itself a revert of a previous change by Stefka, your removal was indeed a violation of the restrictions, so please self-revert. However, given that this content has been challenged, Mhhossein, you really should also provide a justification of the content on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, didn't Stefka removed this from the "Ideology" section, and Mhhossein put it back in the "History" section? Since the text was put back in a different section, does that count as a revert? (if it does, then like I said, I will self revert right away). Idealigic (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idealigic, If you really want to get into the weeds; Mhhossein's edit had the effect of a) replacing the content in the article, and b) moving it. Action (a) was essentially a revert of SB. Action (b) was effectively a new edit. So, if you want to be pedantic, you could move the content back to where Stefka removed it from, in the ideology section, and demand that Mhhossein obtain consensus for the move. Removing it altogether is not an option sans consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly trying to understand what constitutes a revert. I self reverted. Mhhossein please provide justification of why the content should be where you have placed it. Idealigic (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Razavi's portion seems like being repeated, though the second part saying "Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection" is not redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Does Mhhossein's response provide a justification for their edit? I don't know how to follow this up, but if you think it has been answered I'll just let this go. Idealigic (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point none of the arguments provided are strong enough for any sort of consensus to be discernible. Feel free to discuss it further, but please stop running to me for input after every other response. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you are saying "Razavi's portion seems like being repeated", so does that mean that this can be removed for clearing redundancy in the article? How is the second part not redundant? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic: Likewise, I'd like to ask you stop pinging Vanamonde93 for every single issue you face here. Instead, you're advised to engage in constructive discussions over that issue. As for your question, The second part is not redundant because it's providing unique info, i.e. Israeli commentators confirming the MEK-Israel connection is not repeated anywhere in the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Do you then agree we can remove "According to Sam Razavi, observers have noted Israel's support of the MEK after their exile from Iran."? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's removable. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Now about the second part:

• "According to Patrick Cockburn "Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection", although the MEK have denied any association with Israel."

And the other excepts that Idealigic pointed to:

• "According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this."
• "Israel's foreign intelligence agency Mossad maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s."
• "Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel."
• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials[who?], who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists."
• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Some of these can clearly be merged into something like "Some sources have said there is a connection between the MEK and Israel, including providing the group with financial support or a connection through Mossad. Other sources say that there is no proof about this and that the MEK have denied such claims."

@Mhhossein: do you agree these repetitive sentences can be merged? (if you do not agree with the way I have merged them, then please provide alternate proposal). - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shedding light on Mhhossein's Feb-Mar edits

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain this revert you did? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, MEK's refusal to participate in the referendum should not be removed since it's a noteworthy point in history of the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: when did I remove that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: this information is repeated several times in the article:

• "The MEK was then joined by other groups that opposed the new constitution, including the People's Fedayeen and the Muslim People's Republican Party. Despite the opposition, the 3 December 1979 referendum vote approved the new constitution.[1]"
• "The MEK was joined by other groups that vehemently opposed the new constitution and refuted to participate in the refrundum to ratify it. Despite the opposition, the 3 December 1979 referendum vote approved the new constitution.[38] As a result, Khomeini subsequently refused to permit Massoud Rajavi and MEK members to run in the 1980 Iranian presidential election.[39]"
• "The Mojahedin later refused to participate in the referendum held in December to ratify the Constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts, even when Ruhollah Khomeini had called upon "all good Muslims to vote 'yes'".[38] By boycotting the referendum, the MEK argued that the new Constitution had "failed to set up proper councils, nationalize foreign holdings, guarantee equal treatment to all nationalities, give 'land to the tiller', place a ceiling on agricultural holdings and accept the concept of the classless tawhidi society". Once the Constitution had been ratified, the MEK proposed Rajavi as their presidential candidate. In launching his presidential campaign, Rajavi promised to rectify the Constitution's shortcomings.[38]

So all I did was remove one of the repetitions, and replaced it with new information. Why did you revert it? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said elsewhere, redundancy is a serious problem in this article, with respect to content that is both supportive and critical of the MEK. If anyone has objections to removing a specific instance of content repeated in the article, I would expect engagement with respect to how that redundancy is to be reduced. That applies to Mhhossein here, but also to others elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the point Vanamonde, you're right. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have suggested that we remove redundancy in the Human rights records. I would like to get this proposal started. If there are significant disagreements, we can start a new RFC. If we can come to a compromise, then we won't need a RFC.

I think the following redundancy can be better edited:

• "In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports[by whom?] of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members. In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981."

• "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. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed."

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

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

• "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"."

• "Hyeran Jo, in her work examining humanitarian violations of rebel groups to international law, states that the MEK has not accepted International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits to its detention centers.[443] According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK controlled their people most importantly by "abuse of women". According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp. Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings"."

• "Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured". 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. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[303] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"

• "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime."

• "In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members."

I think this can be a decent summary:

• "In 2004, Amnesty International said it received reports from MEK defectors of human rights violations. In 2018, Amnesty International presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents. In 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the MEK had committed human rights violations against its members. The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs , who published a counter-report in September 2005 saying that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK. Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". Other MEK defectors have also accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime. In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.""

- MA Javadi (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this section has a lot of redundant text; and agree with MA Javadi's proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As I told Stefka Bulgaria–who used to propose such super trimmings in the past– you need to specify, by details, which portions are redundant and why they are so. This proposal, in this form, is going to remove a lot of longstanding text, without explaining why. Please, explain why every single portion needs to be removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: the portions I did not include are redundant because they don't add any significant new information, they only repeat what is already in that section. Is there any portion that I proposed removing that you think should be kept? MA Javadi (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MA Javadi: I suggest you take another look at the amount of longstanding content you wish to remove. If you think this super-trimming should be processed, then you need something more than they "are redundant because they don't add any significant new information". Actually, the onus of building consensus is on YOU. I see some of the removed content are not redundant and would better stay. Moreover, your proposal can be described as POVish and disingenous. It's conveying the false impression that the human rights reports are not true and they are dubious/fabricated. Among other things, you have removed phrases like "carried out by the MEK against its own members", "despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981", "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. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed", "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses" and etc. These are not all, but some of the evidences showing your proposal is not applicable. Going through the archived discussions show Stefka Bulgaria tried to do a similar removal. To reach a compromise, I suggest you a case by case strategy. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - This is my reply to your points:

• "carried out by the MEK against its own members". Ok, if you want, then let us keep this.

• "despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981". This is covered in better detail in other parts of the article (see for example "Assassinations", or "Operations Shining sun, Forty Stars, and Mersad", or Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988))

• "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses". The section already covers that the MEK is being accused of human right abuses.

• "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. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed". These are allegations from phone interview of alleged former members, with the MEK denying this.

I am trying to summarise content and reduce redundancy that is both supportive and critical of the MEK, specially removing allegations from both the MEK and MEK defectors. If you don't agree, then explain what you would propose instead. Filibustering so that the section remains the same is not good. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you say, your proposal is suffering from POV issue. See my previous comment please. I did never say these were the only items making your proposal problematic. For instance, "Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981" contains two POVs that are meant to balance each other. You are proposing to remove one and leave the one in favor of MEK. Moreover, the third item should not be removed. The report by the Martin Kobler being the UN special envoy to Iraq at the time has in fact merit of inclusion. Lastly, parts of the "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps" should not be removed on the grounds that it's a phone interview or like. How about making proper attributions? It is also interesting that you have totally removed Jason Rezaian's remarks. No, this is not a correct approach. You can't selectively remove anti-MEK items. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - What would be a good compromise for you then? - MA Javadi (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - Do you intend to give a response for a compromise? MA Javadi (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the belated reply. How about acting in a step by step manner. We can determine which portions are redundant, but one by one. We can also have classifications to facilitate the process. For instance, the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals. -Mhhossein ^talk 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - I have already explained which parts I think are redundant and why. Since you have not agreed, can you then say which parts you think are redundant and why? (no stone walling please). MA Javadi (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am not finding your explanations justifying removal of that huge amount texts. Please help me navigate that so-called explanation. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you asked me to take things case by case. I replied to to your case by case. What is your response about this please? MA Javadi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were given a due response at the time. For the points you raised:

"despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981" (I explained how removal of this goes against WP:NPOV).

"In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses" (Is there any other sentences directly accusing the leader(s) of human right abuses?)

Moreover, I told you why the mentioned portions of "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps" should not be removed completely. To go ahead towards a compromise, I suggest you list the identical or redundant portions in a classified manner (I am not asking to copy/paste all of the section here). For instance, I already asked you to show the portions which are similar to the Kobler's report. I suggest to move step by step since this would make the work simpler. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I proposed one way of improving the section, but you didn't accept my proposal by saying I should take this step by step. So I then tried taking this step by step, but you also refused my proposal saying some specific parts of information remain missing. There is no question that this section has redundancy. Since I have already tried to solve this in all ways that I can but you keep refusing my proposals, then how would you solve the redundancy problem in that section? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not "keep refusing your proposals". You did not actually follow a step by step approach. In contrast, you failed to respond to my latest comments. For instance you did not say why "you were proposing to remove one and leave the one in favor of MEK". To show my good faith I suggested to categorize the section into two parts; "the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals. I have also gone through your proposed change and explained how it's not a suitable change. Can you please specifically explain which portions are redundant and why? I am really willing to see your explanations. That will boost the consensus building process. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I already said, step by step, some portions that are redundant in this section, and you rejected my step by step saying they are not redundant. So if you don't think any portions are redundant in "Human Rights Record", just say it instead of asking me for step by steps that you will just continue to reject. And if you think some portions in "Human Rights Record" are redundant, then just say which, so we can work on fixing it (which is what I have been trying to do here since early March). - MA Javadi (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I said "your proposal is suffering from POV issue." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This text is out of place and no well sourced: In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981. The report doesn't say that MEK is peaceful, but rather the MEK members imprisoned by Iran were peaceful. This also looks like redundant as it already covered in People's Mujahedin of Iran#1988_execution of MEK prisoners.VR _talk 18:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: @Vice regent: Ok but can we remove redundant POV from both sides? or do you intend to leave in the redundant POV that is critical of the MEK and remove the rest? I am ok to compromise, but you first need to offer a compromise. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently states By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland". Discussions about this piece of content have gone in circles. I am going to attempt a more closely monitored discussion about it. As I see it, there's some facts that are not contested. 1) The MEK's support declined during the 1980s, as the result of something. 2) The MEK collaborated with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. 3) The decision to collaborate with Hussein was made in 1983. The questions that remain to be answered are; 1) Why did the support decline? 2) How is this to be phrased in the lead, if at all? In support of the current wording, or VR's proposal above, or Fences&Windows wording, supporters have presented the Ronan Cohen source. If you think there are other weighty sources supporting this content, or a similar version, please present it here. If you think there are sources supporting a radically different version, including removal, please present those. Please keep the discussion focused on this short time-period, and on heavy-weight, directly-relevant, sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moderated discussion. I presented 19 reliable sources that say the MEK became unpopular (see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 39#Mek Unpopular) and observe that:

• 19/19 of them say the decrease in popularity happened due to collaboration with Saddam.
• 16/19 say the MEK came to be viewed negatively by at least "most" (if not more) Iranians.
• In terms of intensity of their unpopularity, 9/19 use the word "traitor" or "treason" to describe the perception of the Iranian people towards the MEK, 5/19 use adjectives like "disdain", "detested", "discredited", "strongly opposed", "magnified Iranian public opinion against", while 5/19 do not use any adjective to describe drop in popularity.
• 11/19 implied (through tense or otherwise) that MEK's unpopularity had remained as of the time of source publication (10 out of 11 of such sources were published in last 20 years).

If needed, I can post a detailed source analysis below. In conclusion I think 1) the support declined due to their collaboration with Saddam. 2) The wording belongs in the lead and should include their unpopularity among most Iranians, the Iranian perception of MEK's collaboration as treacherous and that this unpopularity has lasted to present day.VR _talk 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde by "heavy-weight" sources do you mean we should focus on scholarly sources as opposed to news/magazine articles? VR _talk 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: we can certainly consider non-scholarly sources, but where they exist, academic sources need to be given more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting with Tariq Aziz

1. “The organizations' ties with Iraq (mainly Rajavi's meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983) were exploited to demonstrate the organizations betrayal due to its willingness to join forces with Iran's enemies on the outside.^[1]
2. “At the beginning of January of 1983, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tarqi Aziz, which culminated in the signing of a peace communique on January 9 of that year. Rajavi, acting as the chairman of the NCR, co-outlined a peace plan with Aziz based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Treaty.^[2]
3. “The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the exiled leader of an Iranian leftist group met for four hours today and said afterward that the war between their countries should brought to an end. The conversations between Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz of Iraq and Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedeen, an organization that includes a guerrilla wing active in Iran, were described by Mr. Rajavi as the first of thier kind. He said the exhcnage of views had been "an important political turning point on the regional level and for the wrold in relation to the Iran-Iraq War"^[3]
4. “Despite the mortal blow inflicted on the organization, the Iranian regime continued to regard the Mujahidin as a real threat, and therefore continued to persecute its followers and damage their public image. The organizations' ties with Iraq (mainly Rajavi's meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983) were exploited to demonstrate the organizations betrayal due to its willingness to join forces with Iran's enemies on the outside.^[4]
5. “The Paris meeting between Rajavi and Iraqi Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz in December 1982 was widely criticized. The Mujahidin justified it on the grounds that it highlighted their desire for peace.”^[5]
6. “The peace formula which was thrashed out after nine hours of talks between Masood Rajavi (who heads the coalition of Irnanianb opposition between called National Council of Resistance) and Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Foreign Minister in Paris last year includes points (a) Declaration of immediate ceasefire. (b) Formation of a Commission to supervise the ceasefire. c) withdrawal of forces behind the borders, both on land and the river, as stipulated by the 1975 Algiers Accord. d) Exchange of all Prisoners of War....”^[6]
7. “Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran's civilian areas.”^[7]
8. “In January 1983 Masood Rajavi, the leader of the exiled Mujahedeen National Council of Resistance (NCR), one of the principal forces of opposition to Khomeini's Islamic regime, met in Paris with Iraqi Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz. The Two issued a joint call for peace between their countries.”^[8]
9. “The Paris meeting between Rajavi and Iraqi Vice Premier Tariq Aziz in December 1982 was widely criticized. The Mojahedin justified it on the grounds that it highlighted their desire for peace. According to the Mojahedin, the Iraqis initially promised to halt attacks on civilian targets inside Iran, but they did not keep to this when the war flared up again in February 1983”. * Middle East Research and Information Project [Quotes: Point 4 of the Joint Communique issued by Tariq Aziz and Masud Rajavi on January 9, 1983, stated that Rajavi had asked the Iraqis not to attack Iranian cities and villages. Reports from the front stated that on February 10 Iraqi planes attacked the cities of Abadan, Dezful and Khvaz (International Herald Tribune, February 11, 1983)].
10. “The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the exiled leader of an Iranian leftist group met for four hours today and said afterward that the war between their countries should be brought to an end. The conversations between Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz of Iraq and Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedeen, an organization that includes a guerrilla wing active in Iran, were described by Mr. Rajavi as the first of their kind. He said the exchange of views had been an important political turning point on the regional level and for the world in relation to the Iran-Iraq war.New York Times
11. “The Iranian guerrilla chief opposing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni's regime met unexpectedly Sunday with the Iraqi deputy prime minister and said afterwards the 28-month Iran-Iraq war could be ended by negotiations. Massoud Rajavi, head of the Iranian Mojahideen Khalq guerrilla group, met for four hours with Iraqi Deputy Priem Minister Tarek Aziz at Rajavi's exile home in Auvers-sur-Oise outside Paris”UPI

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefka, that's a lot of sources; but what is the narrative being offered here that contradicts the narrative in the content being discussed? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but to me it looks like the most significant and definite episode between the MEK and Iraq prior to 1986 pertains to this meeting between Massoud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz. This narrative is currently missing from the relevant section in the lede:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

Then in 1986, this happened:

• “In June of 1986, the conservative French rime Minister formally expelled the Mojahedin, justifying his decision by statin that their last actions, including their role in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the bombing of the IRP headquarters in 1981, were to be considered, "actions contrary to the standing of political refugees." The Islamic Republic had further encouraged France's complicity in granting the request to deport the Mojahedin by promising to use its influence on Shi'i mmilitias in southern Lebanon to relinquish French hostages whcih they were holding. On June 8, Rajavi visited Baghdad and held a series of publicized meetings with various high-ranking Ba'athist officials in which he effectively secured Iraq as a base for the opposition and cultivated what was to be a long-lasting, relationship with the Iraqi regime. The Mojahedin, effectively backtracking Khomeyni's move a decade before, had secured a desirable base for their paramilitary operations and a valuable patron in Baghdad. The deportation from Paris and move to Baghdad remains an intriguing and crucial episode in the history of the Mojahedin's exile. In Examining both the accounts provided by the Islamic Republic's media sources and the press organs of the Mojahedin, it seems clear that they Khomeyni regime intended the Mojahedin to be exiled to an obscure and distant country which would weaken their contacts with allied oppositions and keep them out of the European limelight. Instead, Iraq hastened to court the Mojahedin prior to its outsting, and the Islamic Republic found the opposition moved to a location which allowed the Mojahedin to resume its border raids"^[9]  

I think we need to determine if the matter concerning the MEK's popularity derives from events occurring from 1986 onwards, or from events that occurred prior to 1986. Determining this would help us formulate a more accurate narrative of events as they unfolded. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka, you've provided a number of sources discussing the occurrence of a meeting in 1983. The content we are discussing here presumably refers to the outcome of that meeting. If the meeting had other outcomes that the current content does not discuss, then you need to elaborate on what those were, with sources. Likewise, VR above has provided sources stating that a decision the MEK (or their leader) made in 1983 led to a decline in popularity. If you believe there is evidence directly supporting a different narrative, please provide it. I want to emphasize the need for direct evidence. Weighty sources discussing the Iranian governments attemps to portray the MEK in a poor light are worthy of inclusion in the article in their own right, but the mere existence of propaganda does not obviate other sources provided above. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde. As far as I can see, the only source that VR provided "stating that a decision the MEK (or their leader) made in 1983 led to a decline in popularity" is this one (which does not mention anything about the MEK's decline in popularity):

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

Then there are these two sources, which basically say the MEK received financial support from Hussein since 1980?:

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

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

And then there is this last source by Amir Taheri (who has been said to fabricate stories; so we should consider better sources).

The majority of remaining sources refer to a decline in popularity as a result of collaborating with Iraq/Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but as far as I can see, are vague about weather this is about before or after 1986 (this year is significant because that was when the MEK was kicked out of France and put its hearquarters in Iraq, launching raids agains the IRI from then until the end of the Iran-Iraq war). These are the sources I've found that are a bit more specific about the MEK losing popularity in Iran after it based in Iraq:

• "Following exile from Iran and Paris, the MEK relocated to Iraq and provided Saddam Hussein’s regime support against Iran. By MEK’s own estimate, it killed over 50,000 Iranian troops—a decision seen as a betrayal by many Iranians, which Tehran continues to weaponize as a narrative against the group."

  The Observer

• "Prior to establishing an alliance with Saddam, the MEK had been a popular organization. However, once it settled in Iraq and fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people and, as a result, faced a shortfall of volunteers."

  RAND

• "At the height of the war between Iran and Iraq, the MEK sided with Baghdad, sending as many as 7,000 of its members to Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran... That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said."

  Al Jazeera

So my arguments are the following:

• If we include anything prior to 1986 in the lede, WP:DUEWEIGHT would suggest it'd be about Rajavi and Tariq's peace treaty meeting; which, according to James Piazza,

  "was highly significant in that it marked the beginning of what was to become a long-term relationship between Baghdad and the Mojahedin, one which would guarantee future Mojahedin funding and military support, and it marked the first diplomatic act of the NCR as a true government in exile"

  ^[10]
• We can then include the circumstances that led to the MEK moving to Iraq in 1986 (kicked out of France / support from Iraq / launch raids against the IRI / etc.), and the impact sources say this had on its popularity in Iran (also considering the sources that say the IRI used this as propaganda against the MEK).

There are considerable amounts of sources/details here, so sorry if I missed anything. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you are getting at. However, the only portions of the current content your sources challenge are a) the date "1983", and b) the use of Rajavi's name in place of "the MEK" or equivalent. I am still not seeing evidence against the strength of the language used about the decline in support. ViceRegent, do you you have sources specifically stating that the 1983 is the correct one? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde I agree with Stefka that most sources attribute decline in popularity as a result of collaborating with Iraq/Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war as opposed to being specific about a date. So I changed the wording to say that in this edit (which stefka reverted). Can we agree that edit was correct and should be restored?

On the other hand, we have solid scholarly evidence of MEK-Iraq collaboration by (meaning on or before) 1983. Stefka already presented 3 scholarly sources that discuss MEK-Iraq collaboration as happening "by 1983", "since 1982" and "after 1980". Here are 4 other scholarly sources on this collaboration:

• During 1983, Rajavi began building connections with the Iraqi leadership. This was done through KDPI, who were connected to Saddam Hussein. Iraq and the DPI allowed the Mojahedin to set up bases in the northern part of Iraqi Kurdistan. During the first phase, these bases were used for training and military coaching.
  — Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. p 60

• Third, the Mojahedin's unbashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some of their allies. The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin...[long list of MEK projects that Iraq funded]
  — Ervand Abrahamian, The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, p 248

• As it went into exile, MEK’s willingness to side with Saddam’s Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war disturbed its already diminished cadre. During a key 1983 meeting between Masud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz, an alliance was forged.
  — Ray Takeyh, Council of Foreign Relations,[14]

• In his opposition to Khomeini, Masoud Rajavi had taken to cooperating with the Iraqi leadership. In January 1983 Rajavi had a publicly acknowledged meeting with Tariq Aziz, deputy premier of Iraq, in Paris.
  — Dilip Hiro, Iran under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals), p 230

VR _talk 02:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VR: you were trying to modify this text during an active RfC specifically about editing this text, which would render that whole RfC void. That's why I reverted you, and that's what I told you was the reason why I reverted you. There are also several other problems with the text you are proposing:

• Most of the sources you provided in your last post re-inforce my argument that the most significant event that happened between the MEK and Iraq prior to 1986 involves Masoud Rajavi's peace treaty with Tariq Aziz.
• In your proposed edit, you've placed the mention of the MEK's decline in popularity right after the quote saying that Masoud Rajavi "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support", which chronologically gives the misleading impression that this pertains to 1983 (and, by your own account, that doesn't reflect what the majority scholarship says).
• Your proposed edit also doesn't solve the issue with the proceeding statement in the lede: "...where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." - can you provide the sources that say the MEK "was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein" in these operations? I think wording here is important, and needs to reflect concrete scholarship narrative. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are both being unnecessarily stubborn here. It's patently obvious, based on most of the sources presented in this section, that the alliance between the MEK and Iraq being initiated in 1983 was a significant point in the MEK's history. It's also clear, again based on these sources, that the MEK's alliance with Iraq during the war was what led to it's decline in support, and most of these sources do not provide a clear date for when the MEK was fighting with Iraq in the war. Essentially, there is consensus to say, in the lead, that a) the MEK and Iraq forged an alliance in 1983, following a meeting between Rajavi and Aziz; b) the MEK fought alongside Iraq in the war, with consequences as already stated in the lead. I am not seeing consensus to imply that the MEK fought in the war beginning in 1983, as the current version does. I am not seeing an issue with the ordering of sentences (Stefka's second bullet point above); these are successive events in the history; they will necessarily be in successive sentences. The issue about the different operations is a separate point; Stefka, if you take issue with the current wording, please raise it separately; this discussion is about the first two sentences in that paragraph, and does not establish consensus for anything else. Please craft a proposal along those lines, and please be aware that I have little patience for further stonewalling. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria and Vice regent: I would hope you both intend to follow through here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde: sorry for the late response; off-wiki life getting in the way. I agree with both your points in your last comment. Shall we go with that? Shall we also mention that the meeting in 1983 was "justified" by the MEK "on the grounds that it highlighted their desire for peace."^[11])? (...Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran's civilian areas.”^[12]) ("The Two issued a joint call for peace between their countries.”^[13])(“...which culminated in the signing of a peace communique on January 9 of that year. Rajavi, acting as the chairman of the NCR, co-outlined a peace plan with Aziz based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Treaty.^[14]) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your sources also adds that this was a part of MEK's propaganda plan. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone for the late response. Like Stefka, off-wiki life getting in the way. I agree with Vanamonde's points a and b and agree that the lead shouldn't imply MEK fought in the war beginning in 1983. I agree that operations should be covered in a different subsection.

Regarding MEK's view that the 1983 meeting "highlighted their desire for peace": that is a significant POV but not the only one regarding the meeting. As Mhhossein points out, Dilip Hiro calls this MEK's "propaganda". Several of Stefka's sources (#5, #9 etc) say this meeting was "widely criticized". There are a lot of sources that cover opposition by Bani-Sadr (a major partner in MEK's NCRI) to both the meeting and MEK's agreement with Iraq. Ronan Cohen argues MEK's agreement with Saddam constituted Rajavi’s virtual concession regarding Iran's territorial lands (p 63). All of these aspects of the MEK-Iraq agreement should be covered in the body but not sure if they belong in the lead.VR _talk 01:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka, any analysis of the motivations behind that meeting will require a separate discussion. This discussion has clearly established consensus for modifying one extremely contentious sentence in a manner that is consistent with the sources all of you have provided. Anyone is free to implement this consensus in a reasonable way. If you have disagreements about the phrasing, further discussion may be required, but again, I will not look kindly on stone-walling. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: would this implement the consensus in a reasonable way?:

In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq following a meeting between Rajavi and Aziz.^{[15][16][17][18]}

Then for the second part, could this phrasing be considered neutral/representative of the sources?:

The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran.^{[19][20][21][22]}

If there is another fair/neutral phrasing option, then I'd be open to it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, You've considerably watered down the language currently in the article in the second part of your proposal. I have no opinion on the specific wording, but unless you persuade Viceregent and others that this is the correct wording, a reformulation that more closely approximates the current wording has a stronger claim to consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking some handful of sources against a lot of other reliable sources looks like in vain (though none of the provided sources are saying MEK was not seen as a betrayer). In other words, your suggestion is not representing most of the scholarly sources. Needless to say your suggestion is factually wrong. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein How's my suggestion "factually wrong"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein pinging you again. How's my suggestion "factually wrong"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracy is the least problem with your suggestion. However, no one can find sources supporting the statement that MEK's siding with Iraq during the war had "a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran". I believe it's made/synthesized by you. The soul of your suggestion goes against the vast amount of reliable sources commenting on the consequences of the MEK supporting Iraq in attacks against Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned this up and implemented some of the consensus, leaving the current "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" as is. My proposal offered this version:

• which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."

This was based on the following sources:

• “This has further weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.”^[23]

• "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war."^[24]

• "...its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq”^[25]

• "“During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process.”^[26]

For those wishing to keep the lede as is, can you provide the sources and respective quotes that supports the current wording? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the proposal, obviously; but since I am so frequently critical of behavior on this page, I wanted to commend both this post and the edits implementing consensus from this discussion. If more of you folks were willing to implement a consensus that you didn't like, progress here would be quicker. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly agree with your edit Stefka, but have made a few edits of my own. If I made an error, feel free to point it out. I kept my edit summaries detailed enough to speak for themselves but if something is unclear lemme know and I'll explain.VR _talk 00:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VR: you changed text that we had consensus for (and some long standing text) but said nothing about the part I’m trying to get consensus for (see my last post above). I’ve reverted you. Please discuss providing sources for any proposed changes (as I've done above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert is not constructive. Can you give an actual reason for reverting me? I gave three detailed edit summaries explaining my changes ([15], [16], [17]). What exactly do you not like about my edit?

Can you point me to where we have consensus for the exact wording that you prefer? I see broad consensus for certain things but not for exact wording.

Which changes of mine do you think were unsourced? I didn't introduce any new content, but only worded it differently and removed one logical error that you introduced.VR _talk 14:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We had consensus for:

"The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war"

You also changed "Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)" to "Iran" (it was the government who made that request). Then, the lede already establishes that "The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. It was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings"; so saying that The MEK and Iraq jointly conducted several operations against Iran" is not needed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall consensus for any exact wording but instead consensus for certain concepts. If you disagree please provide talk page comment links. This wording:

"The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war..."

implies two contradictory things. The paragraph starts with In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq, meaning the MEK had sided with Iraq by 1983. But your additional wording implies that MEK "then sided with Iraq" after 1986 and hadn't sided with Iraq before then (that's what "then" implies). That doesn't make sense as it implies the MEK hadn't sided with Iraq prior to 1986. I believe consensus was that MEK had formed an alliance with Iraq (and therefore sided with Iraq) by 1983. Reflecting this consensus, I wrote:

MEK's decision to side with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war was...

My version is actually shorter and makes more sense. Secondly, shortening "Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)" to "Iran" is very common all over wikipedia, news and books. Thirdly, your version of the lead lumps the post-Iran-Iraq War 1991 Iraq uprisings with the rest of Iran-Iraq war even though they happened in separate periods. My wording merely clarified it. Also why are you separating mention of operations to two different parts of the paragraph? Your wording seems disorganized. Finally you removed all mentions of Saddam from the paragraph. Did you have consensus to do so? It wasn't just MEK's alliance with Iraq that was so repugnant to Iranians but in particular their collaboration with Saddam. Of the 19 reliable sources I presented at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 39#Mek Unpopular, 15 explicitly used Saddam's name when describing MEK's alliance with Iraq.VR _talk 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VR, SB, enough already. The substance of VR's edits are very obviously helpful without changing content; SB, I'm really not seeing a substantive objection. Conversely, VR, you really ought not to be changing terminology without a proper explanation; why change "Iraq" to "Saddam", in particular? I'm trying to AGF here, but the most obvious explanation is that "Saddam" has a negative emotional association that "Iraq" does not. At the very least it should have been "Hussein". Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, the belief that "Hussein" is Saddam's last name is a common misconception, but nothing more; in fact, Hussein is the name of Saddam's father, and it would make no sense to refer to him as such. Considering that Saddam's actual last name (more accurately rendered as "al-Tikriti") was suppressed during the period of Ba'athist rule in Iraq, most reliable sources—and virtually all Iraqis—generally refer to him as "Saddam."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken about Saddam's name, but the rest of my post stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point about this is that the war was not known as the "Khomeini-Saddam war" but as the "Iran-Iraq war" (which is something that VR himself argued in a previous post). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across a source that says that the MEK supported the Kurdish rebellion (I added this to the article). Idealigic (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to Stefka Bulgaria's original research, the reliable sources say something different:

• "Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland." -Vanguard of the Imam
• "The MEK was then welcomed into Iraq, where it supported Saddam Hussein's war..." -CFR
• "The MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army"BBC
• "MEK supported Saddam..."Operation Iraqi Freedom and the New Iraq
• "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support." -Vanguard of the Imam
• "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." -Business Insider
• "The group later broke with the regime and sided with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when more than a million Iranians died"P.532
• "...the move towards saddam hussein was allegedly an attempt by the MEK an attempt by the MEK to maneuver against the government, with the goal of acquiring arms, training facilities, and financial resources."P.67
• "According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran. In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received "protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land".[18][19]
• "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran."-RAND report

These are just some of the sources using "Saddam" when referring to Iraq under Saddam. That said, the longstanding version should be restored. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Iran-Iraq war being internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war is not original research.

With respect to the sources you have presented, you used "Vanguard of the Imam" twice, RAND report twice (and it is also quoted by the Al Jazeera which also says "At the height of the war between Iran and Iraq, the MEK sided with Baghdad, sending as many as 7,000 of its members to Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran.") Also RAND and "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" look like think tanks that lack peer-review? The Business Insider link looks like questionable source by an author who does not look like an authority in their field.

This does not mean that there aren't some reliable sources (here or otherwise) saying "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Iraq". But there are many scholarly sources written by authorities in their field using "Iraq" or "Baghdad":

• "The Mojahedin's unabashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some o their allies. This issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst o some o the most intense fighting o the war, Raavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister."^[27]

• "Many analysts believe the PMOI's decision to ally with Iraq caused its support inside Iran to evaporate."^[28]

• "Within seven days, Soviet Radio carried an official notice that Iraq had expelled the Mojahedin, disclaiming Iraq's convenient use of the movement during the Iran-Iraq War"

• "The opposition based on the Mojahedin's alliance with the Ba'athist Republic o Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war"^[29]

• "soon siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and remaining in Iraq after the end o the conflict."Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

• "Since 1986, when the Iraq-Iran war was at its climax, the Mojahedin organization and its private army, the National Liberation Army (NLA), were fortunate to gain Iraq's financial support as well as the supply of equipment that was needed for the foundation of the army and for its continuous operations. Iraq's motives for supporting the Mojahedin are unknown, but it can be assumed that their existence justified the Iraqi struggle against the Iranian Islamic religious regime since it feared that that regime was trying to control the Iraqi Shi'ite majority and establish in it a Shi'ite Islamic Republic."^[30]

• "This has further weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War."^[31]

• "Bani Sadr left the NCR after the MEK formally sided with Iraq against Iran in 1983"^[32]

• "The alignment with the MEK provided a strategic advantage for Iraq, including in prodding Iran towards further radicalization and increasing the international isolation of Tehran."^[33]

• "Near the end o the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Baghdad armed MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces"^[34]

Idealigic (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Some one is picking up information from its place, under the pretext of shortening article, and put it in the wrong place, under the pretext of self revert. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed it because it’s repeated here:

”The MEK is accused of detonating a bomb at the Islamic Republican Party headquarters on 28 June 1981. Two days later after the incident, Ruhollah Khomeini accused the MEK. The incident, called Hafte Tir bombing in Iran, killed 73, including Mohammad Beheshti, the party's secretary-general and Chief Justice of Iran, 4 cabinet ministers, 10 vice ministers and 27 members of the Parliament of Iran.”

• I then realized that the part ”From 26 August 1981 to December 1982, it orchestrated 336 attacks.” was not repeated, so I restored this (my logic was to restore according to date, but perhaps the text should have been modified to explain that it was the MEK who carried out these attacks?).
• Ghazaalch then undid my restore saying “The sections need to be shortened”.
• Then Ghazaalch put everything back in the article again saying “You are picking up information from its place and put it in a irrelevant place.”
• Then Ghazaalch reports me here to Vanamonde instead of just putting the text where they think it should go or making it clear that it was the MEK who carried out these attacks.
• Currently the information about 1981 remains repeated in the article. Bahar1397 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BarcrMac: you are repeating the information that already exist in another section, in a new section. Then you delete the old information. This is a kind of moving information to another section, without consensus. The following part however should move, since it is more related to the new section. I'll do it for you.

On 22 June 1981, IRGC and Hezbollahis responded to anti-regime demonstrations against the dismissal of President Abolhassan Banisadr, to what came to be known as "reign of terror" in Iran. The Warden of Evin prison announced the firing squad executions of demonstrators, including teenage girls.[citation needed]

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: I was actually trying to put everything in one place so that we don't have repeated information in the article.

Now we have this in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)":

1. "On 30 August a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Khomeini's government identified Massoud Keshmiri (secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active MEK member) as the perpetrator"
2. "although there has been much speculation among academics and observers that the bombings may have been carried out by IRP leaders to rid themselves of political rivals.
3. "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 government by the Mujahedin were to continue for the next year or two"."

And this in "Assassinations":

1. "On 30 August 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"."
2. "According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP""
3. "The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of MEK and other leftist groups."

This information is also repeated in "History":

"until June 1981, when they declared war against the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran and initiated a number of bombings and assassinations targeting the clerical leadership. Many MEK sympathizers and middle-level organizers were detained and executed after June 1981."

Please explain your revert. Barca (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you pretend that you were trying to reduce repetitions, while you your edits [20] [21] show that you increased it? Ghazaalch (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: As I say in my last message, I was actually trying to put everything in place so that the information is not repeated. Do you agree or disagree that the information I showed in my last message is repeated? If you agree that it's repeated, then we should remove one of the repetitions. If you don't agree, then maybe RFC is the next step. Barca (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could delete the repeated information, as I did. What I objected here was another subject. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: With your revert, you put back in the beginning of section Assassinations that "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government." "MEK responded" to what exactly? Can you please explain how it makes sense to have this at the beginning of that section? Barca (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not because of my revert. however, I made it right.Ghazaalch (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: I think the remaining problem is that now the section Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) is missing all this information about attacks and counter-attacks between the MEK and the Iranian regime. Is there a reason why this information can't be part of "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Ghazaalch stopped responding. My question was if there is a valid reason why the information in "Assassinations" can't be part of "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)". It isn't necessary to have two separate sections since the assassinations that took place around that time form part of the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)". Having all the information in one place also provides better context for the reader. Do I have consensus to make this edit? or should I start a RfC? Barca (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac, Ghazaalch seems to have agreed above that removing repetitions is okay. However, please interpret very very narrowly; we have had far too many conflicts over edits that some see as reducing repetition, and others see as removing important content. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: My question was if it was ok to move the information in "Assassinations" to the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" since having all the information in one place provides better context for the reader. Can I go ahead with this edit, or do I need to start a RFC? Barca (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac, all this discussion has done is establish that reducing redundancy is okay. Any other edit will have to follow the usual BRD process. You may make it, but if it is challenged, you will have to obtain consensus here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed edit and the justification provided is not acceptable. In other words, "having all the information in one place" makes the sections unnecessarily long and make the navigation of the page more difficult for the readers. Needless to say that the "Assassination" section is well justified given the history of MEK reflected in the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I argued that having all the information about the 1981 conflicts between the MEK and the Islamic Republic in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" provides a context to these conflicts, but Mhhossein is saying now that the won't give consensus for this (not that he has to), but the way it is now in "Assassinations" reads like the MEK and the Islamic Republic attacked each other without reason, and the reasons why they attacked each other are listed in “Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" (a section that is also missing these important attacks). What do you suggest I do here please? Barca (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried pointing to specific redundancies, and asking Mhhossein how he would resolve them? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanamonde93: yes, I do believe I have tried this. In this instance the problem is not redundancies, the problem is that we have a section with information about attacks between the MEK and the Islamic Republic but the section doesn't have any context about the attacks ("Assassinations"), and then we have another section with information about the context of the attacks, but the section does not mention the attacks ("Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"). I have offered to solve this by combining information about the attacks and their context in one section, having all the information in one place, but Mhhossein is saying this is not acceptable (see his objection). I disagree with Mhhossein's objection. What do you suggest I do here now? Barca (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BarcrMac, a discussion requires more than just one post and one reply. I don't see either of your positions as unreasonable, so maybe you can come to an agreement. If you can't, obviously, an RfC is the next step. Regardless, running to me every day or so isn't going to get you anywhere; given the attitudes of all the editors involved, this page is likely to remain deadlocked for the foreseeable future, and there's nothing I can do about it. If anyone was interested in seeing large changes made, they're going to have to offer compromises. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mhhossein: can we come to some kind of agreement or compromise in moving some of this information to "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are actually asking to remove a well sourced section so that there's effectively no "Assassination" section, then such a move is not in accordance with the scholarly sources and WP:DUE should be applied. However, what do you mean exactly by "some of this information"? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Am I correct saying that in a talk page discussion, older comments should be placed at the bottom of the discussion as per WP:BOTTOMPOST? I was reverted. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(*sigh*) Stefka Bulgaria, that was unnecessary. WP:TPO allows for chronological reordering, when that does not change the meaning of a comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Vanamonde; just thought that "Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult" is a subsection or threaded discussion within the RfC? (shouldn't votes go where the RFC is being proposed rather than in subsections or threaded discussions?) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you ought to have moved all the !votes, not just one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Never mind, I have that backwards. This is a silly dispute, but it comes down to poor organization in that section. The subsection is bloody confusing for anyone trying to get a sense of the whole discussion. I have moved all !votes into the main section; let this be an end to this particular dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vanamonde. I know it was silly and sorry for pinging you for such a clear thing. I can't realize how there could be an objection to what the MOS says. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: In this RFC Mhhossein also writes that my vote is "original research" following with "There's a trend in this TP by the pro-MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources because allegedly there is a propaganda against MEK." Can you please comment about this? Nika2020 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nika2020, I see a lot of poor arguments by all parties in that thread, but I do not see the need for admin intervention. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, poor arguments aside, writing "pro MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources" - isn't that Ad hominem? (I never said that I'm either a pro MEK user or that we should ignore a lot of reliable sources) Nika2020 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particularly helpful manner of speaking, but none of you have been discussing this dispute in a helpful manner, and I am sick to the teeth of it. When some users have been continuously seeking to minimize criticism of the MEK, and others continuously seeking to maximise it, that language still isn't ideal but isn't something I can sanction over. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, why are you grouping me with Mhhossein or others here? All I did was write a (civil) vote in a RFC, and Mhhossein then alluded that I (and others in that RFC) said something that nobody really said. That's a considerable difference. Nika2020 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sort of comments are not helpful to our discussion. But, I don't see a considerable difference and I did not describe you in person. Needless to mention that this description was also used by an admin here referring to the parties being involved here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein which admin used the description "There's a trend in this TP by the pro-MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources because allegedly there is a propaganda against MEK."? Nika2020 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not willing to continue this useless discussion.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria can you explain why you reverted this? There is a scholarly source that says MeK considered Shatt al-Arab as belonging to Iraq, not Iran, and this was recognition was significant. So why did you remove it from the article?VR _talk 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria:.VR _talk 22:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a list of 15 scholarly sources that clearly say the MEK is a cult (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult). In response, Nika2020, Ypatch and BarcrMac argued that this assertion was disputed and provided some sources. But looking at their sources (below) it should be obvious that this argument violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. None of their sources (except one) are scholarly and many of their sources aren't even WP:RS. I would like Vanamonde93 to advise whether Nika's, Ypatch's and Barca's sources are as strong as the sources I provided and if not then can we safely say that the view that MEK is a cult is much more common among scholars than the view that MEK is not a cult?VR _talk 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Nika2020's and Barca's provided sources are weak:

• "retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".[22]
  • This US general is unnamed and described by the source as an "active lobbyist on the MEK's behalf" (which would make him a WP:COISOURCE). The fact that he's anonymous makes it impossible to verify any scholarly credentials he may hold.
• "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.[23]
  • Barca didn't fully quote the the source which says French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, for “its violent and non-democratic inspirations,” ″cult nature” and “intense campaign of influence and disinformation.” The terms were unusually harsh for the French government...Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was “ashamed” by the French government statement. It would be a stretch to say that Kouchner specifically denied that MEK was a cult based on this alone. In any case Kouchner is not a scholarly source.
• "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".
  • Rudy Guiliani is not a reliable source (let alone a scholarly source), and is accused by PolitiFact of frequently making inaccurate statements.
• An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded.
  • Once again Barca didn't quote the source fully. According to Stefka, the book's position is more complicated: "In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has been found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the U.S. military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (“MOI”). Indeed, accusations that the group operates like a cult represent a degree of confusion about the organization. The discipline and dedication shown by MEK members is more akin to what one might observe within..." Stefka's quote cut off here and I have no idea what the authors say after this. So the source says that some of the claims behind the cult assertion are unfounded but we also need the full quote to evaluate the source's position.
  • Two of the authors of the source (Cheryl Benard and Austin Long) are professors. But who is the publisher? According to Amazon, it is "Metis Analytics" but when I google "Metis Analytics" publisher this book shows as the top result. Has this publisher published any other books? According to this site the author of the book "Cheryl Benard is the president of Metis Analytics, a Washington, DC-based research company." So is this akin to a WP:Self-published source?
• 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".
  • Nowhere is Tanter saying the MEK is not a cult.

Ypatch provided some additional sources. But none of these sources deny that MEK is a cult, only that Iran wants MEK to be labelled as a cult. There is no logic to the idea that just because Iran says something it must necessarily be false.

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."[24]
  • Arab News is definitely not a peer-reviewed scholarly source. In fact it is not even a reliable source for topics related to the Saudi government (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Arab_News) and MEK is funded by the Saudi government. The author, Majid Rafizadeh, appears to have not published peer-reviewed publications (I couldn't find any) and Stefka acknowledged he's not an expert on the MEK.
• Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.[25]
• the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications.[26]
  • Just because Iran is trying to do something doesn't make it false. The sources I provided were not connected to Iran.

VR _talk 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Sources that say the MEK is cult-like are already represented in the article. Vanamonde also suggested that the article needs trimming, not expanding. Nika2020 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vanamonde for closing the RFC.

I have removed "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."" from the main-space per the closing consensus.

About the first part of that sentence, "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization", are there any other better sources supporting this?

And about Proposal A, I would like to get a dialogue started with suggestions to present the information in a more compact manner that better reflects the sources. Bahar1397 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar1937, if you want to better organize the cult section there is already a discussion at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC follow-up. So far there have been no good arguments against that proposal.VR _talk 15:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Vanamonde stated As such, I would say that consensus has not been established to remove it entirely, but there aren't strong arguments for keeping the simile in the second piece of the sentence. So I don't think there is consensus to simply remove it, so lets replace the simile with something that is better sourced? Terror, Love and Brainwashing is a scholarly, in-depth account of MEK's cult practices and we can find something similar in it that would be sourced to Alexandra Stein, an unaffiliated scholar who has published in peer-reviewed publications on the topic of cults. The book repeatedly gives examples of MEK's "brainwashing" and emotional and psychological manipulation. Would that be better source?VR _talk 16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will take a look and comment there. What about ""During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization"? I am seeing that the author of the book you propose is using examples from Masoud Banisadr? What is your proposition here? Bahar1397 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the article currently says

It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.

This is both poorly sourced and a violation of WP:NPOV.

Abrahamian is referring to MEK's popularity in the early 1980s, a long time ago. Katzman only describes MEK as Iran's "most active" opposition group, not the biggest, and is dated to 2001 (20 years ago). This source describes MEK as The MEK, which has been in exile for years, is Iran’s most organised and only armed opposition group. It makes no mention of MEK being the biggest.

Having this statement at the top of the lead without any indication of MEK's unpopularity is very WP:BIASED. High quality journalistic sources published in recent years have called the MEK a "fringe" group: New York Times, CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted inNBC News. We have consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Iran-Iraq war that MEK became unpopular inside Iran due to its collaboration with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.

I was able to find only one source (currently not in the article) that refers to MEK as the "largest Iranian opposition group" in the context of "opposition outside Iranian borders". But if we include it, we should also consider sources that give the opposite view.VR _talk 22:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MEK has been the Islamic Republic's main political opposition since the revolution.

• "The MEK has been the leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic for years."^[1]
• "The People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, also known as Mujahedin-e-Khalq or MEK, comprised most of the victims of 1988’s “summer of blood,” and it has been expressly identified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as the driving force behind the recent uprisings. His warnings no doubt helped to justify the killing of 1,500 peaceful protesters last November, as well as the imposition of multiple death sentences in the ensuing months. Ever since coming to power, Iran’s clerical leaders have claimed that the MEK is a cult that lacks meaningful support inside Iran. If that is the case, how can they logically claim that the group is responsible for the ongoing protests in Iran? Why would Tehran spend massive sums of money and decades of political energy on demonizing a movement that allegedly has only a marginal impact? Why would the regime risk its already heavily damaged relations with the international community by using its embassies and diplomats in 2018 to execute terrorist attacks on the MEK in Europe?"^[2]
• "But it also continued its anti-regime activities within Iran, where it had emerged as the clerical regime’s most potent and capable foe—the “public enemy number one” of Iran’s ayatollahs."^[3]
• "Having been removed from the US list of terrorist organizations in 2012, the NCRI is increasingly being recognized as the most important player in the landscape of resistance to Tehran’s clerical regime — both at home and abroad."^[4]

It is a an established fact. Ypatch (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch you have quoted the sourced improperly and some of your sources aren't reliable.

• "The MEK has been the leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic for years."^[5]

This source also says Many former U.S. officials and Iran experts question the MEK's democratic credentials, as well as the depth of its support base inside Iran...Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians. In the 1990s, the Rajavis instituted a number of cult-like measures to prevent defections.

• This source simply questions Iran's claims about MEK without saying MEK is the largest opposition group.
• You took the third quote out of context, here is the full quote: "But it also continued its anti-regime activities within Iran, where it had emerged as the clerical regime’s most potent and capable foe—the “public enemy number one” of Iran’s ayatollahs. Then, in the late 1990s, the MeK became..."^[6] Obviously, this is a reference to MEK's potency before the 1990s. It has no relevance to today. In fact, the same source also says "To its detractors, MEK represents a fringe element that promotes an unpopular, unworkable vision of Iran’s future." And also, Iranian opposition elements remain deeply distrustful of the organization, citing its insular, exclusionary nature and claiming that, among other things, it fundamentally lacks support on the Iranian “street.”
• This source is not reliable as it is controlled by the Saudi gov't, which also funds the MEK.VR _talk 23:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found two scholarly sources that say the MEK supported the Kurdish rebellion, which I added to the article.

• "The Mojahedin's support of the Kurdish rebellion, their opposition to the Velayat-e Faqih, and their boycott of the constituional referendum in 1979 further strained their fragile relationship with the fundamentalists."^[7]
• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings; … violating the rights of the national minorities, especially of the Kurds"^[8]

Also the sources in the article say that the MEK deny fighting against the Kurds.^[9][10] Idealigic (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Mhhossein about the sources supporting the current statement in the lead about the Kurds, but he never responded. Abrahamian (p. 208) doesn't look like it's supporting this. The second source, which is no longer live, says the US accused the MEK in the early 1990s of participating in this, but that is only an accusation. The third source, which is also no longer live, it also says this is an allegation. And concur with Idealigic that these last two sources say the MEK deny these allegations. I will fix to better reflect the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]