Template:IRANPOL GS talk

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).

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.

@Kazemita1: Please explain, in detail, all of the reverts you did in your last edit. [1] Barca (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Vanamonde, I mostly want to understand why Kazemita1 reverted content that is repeated in the article. I had created a talk page discussion about this [2], saying that there were some repetitions in that section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "On August 30 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar.""^[1][2][3][4]

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

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

• The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar and Mohammad-Ali Rajaei. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi,^[1] Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).

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

Vanamonde: in this discussion, I have tried to get Kazemita to answer why in his revert [3], they added repetitions back in the article:

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

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

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

This is not a content dispute. Kazemita's revert [4] distinctly repeats Bahonar and Rajaei's assassination, and Kazemita will not provide a direct explanation of why he added these repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• "On August 30 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar.""^{[7][8][9][10]} The MEK later claimed responsibility for the attack.^[5][11]

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

Here is what I was talking about:

On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the popularly elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. An active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, was identified as the perpetrator, and according to reports came close to killing the entire government including Khomeini.^[7] Kashmiri was a member of the MEK who infiltrated the Islamic Republican Party (IRP) and come up through the ranks, reaching the position of secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. He planted an incendiary bomb in his briefcase that blew up the Prime Minister's office in 1981.^[12][13]

At first, it was thought that Keshmiri himself died in the explosion,^[14] however it was later revealed that he slipped through the dragnet.^[15] The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups, but "assassinations of leading officials and active supporters of the regime by the Mujahedin were to continue for the next year or two."^[16]

The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi,^[1] Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).^{[1][2][17][4][5][18]}

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

Kazemita1: Most of what you suggest is ok with me, but why you are not including "Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."^{[7][19][20][21]}? This is depicted by the sources. You also have not explained yet why you added back those repetitions in the article instead of just adding what you are now suggesting. Nika2020 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, kindly write your full proposal similar to what I did above. It appears we are converging. Thank you.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will write my proposal, but first please give an explanation why you added back those repetitions in the article instead of just adding what you are now suggesting. Thank you. Nika2020 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: you have not answered. Can you please give an explanation why you added back those repetitions in the article? Nika2020 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have you answered Vanamonde's question. So, may I suggest we get back to the civil discussion we had a few lines above?Kazemita1 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: Vanamonde told me that if I had "I had made any edits that were reverted, that I still want to reinstate, I need to explain them here and obtain consensus".[5] I have explained the edits I want to reinstate, but you have not explained why you added those repetitions back in the article. Since it was you who reverted (not me), you need to explain it. Please explain why you added those repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to quote Vanamonde here:

"all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy."

Let me know when you are ready to get back to constructive discussion. As a quick reminder, I came up with a proposal that removed two redundant sentences. You had responded that you agree with most of my proposal. I guess given the 7 day silence period I can safely assume consensus is reached.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: In this talk page discussion Kazemita1 still has not explained why he added repetitions back in the article [6]. I have explained why I removed those repetitions [7], and Kazemita1 has explained what he thinks should be in the article instead of those repetitions, but he never explained why he added those repetitions back in the article. Can editors just revert things like that without giving any sort of explanation? Nika2020 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been so much pointless argument and stonewalling here that I no longer have any idea what the disagreement is about. If you agree with Kazemita's proposal, or portions of it, please implement that proposal, and then list what further changes you want to make, here. Kazemita and everyone else can then comment on the proposals specifically, instead of about a diff which includes some stuff that's been agree on and other stuff that hasn't. As I have suggested before (this applies to anyone looking to make any change) the more narrow and specific the proposal is, the clearer the resulting consensus will be. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kazemita1: this is my suggestion for the "Assassinations" section:

On August 30, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."^[1][2][3][4] The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups.^[5] The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi,^[6] Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998).^{[6][7][8][9][10][11]}

Let me know if it's ok with you, Nika2020 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed admission of guilt from the original text. Background on Kashmiri is also removed from the text. You also removed Mujahedeen's further attempts in the future. In doing so, some important sources were also removed. I thought we were going to remove repetitive content.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: I did remove repetitive content. If you are not ok with this, then please use my version as a starting point to add things you think are missing. Nika2020 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Kazemita stopped answering. What should I do here? Kazemita had reverted and added many repetitions back in the article (which are still in the article), and never explained why. Can I revert this? What are my options if he stopped answering? Nika2020 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nika2020: Kazemita has been blocked. Unless and until he is unblocked, he cannot reply. You may reinstate any edits to which Kazemita was the only one objecting. Any other edits, and any edits you make now, that someone else has objected or objects to now will need to be discussed with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vanamonde. I have reverted Kazemita's edit based on your response. In case someone else wants to discuss further any of this I trust they will let me know. Nika2020 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored some of the undiscussed removals of longstanding materials including assassination of Sadduqi by Ebrahimizadeh and failed assassination of Khamenei. I have also partially restored removals. They are not really redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vanamonde93: After Kazemita was blocked, I received your permission to reinstate any edits to which Kazemita was the only one objecting, but Mhhossein now restored some of those edits again without first discussing or receiving consensus. Isn't that breaking the article's restrictions Shouldn't Mhhossein have tried to discuss or reach a compromise before restoring his version? I had been discussing these edits with Kazemita since May 2019! It takes all the value away from having these discussions if after all this time and getting permission to reinstate these edits, Mhhossein can just revert without making an effort to first discuss or reach a compromise. Nika2020 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nika2020: I have reviewed your discussion with Kazemita. Can you say how my edit is against that discussion? Your desired portions are in effect, as far as I see. However let me know the partts you think is against the consensus. Also, can you say where you have explained the removal of the portions including assassination of Sadduqi by Ebrahimizadeh and failed assassination of Khamenei? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nika2020: I explicitly told you above that if any other editors objected to your changes, you would have to discuss it with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: The compromise I was working on with Kazemita did not include many of the text that you reinstated back in the article. You just reinstated this without asking anyone. As far as I understand the restrictions in this article (in which text that has already been reverted cannot be added back again without first having a discussion or reaching consensus), that is a violation, this is why I'm asking Vanamonde. Nika2020 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those changes were not discussed by you though they were well referenced and DUE. That's why I re inserted them back into the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Can you say how these things you inserted back are "DUE"?:

• "See also|Assassination of 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."

Nika2020 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: your response is requested here. Nika2020 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MEK is considered by numerous reliable sources as being a major accused party in the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. That makes it a suitable candidate for being used as hatnote above the 'Iran nuclear program' section. As for the Baer's comment, it's DUE and needed since it's in line with the NBC report on the MEK-Israel relationships. Baer is both an author and a politician making his voice valuable for this section. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mhhossein: The article says that "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, 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." So that is only one source. Then there are other sources saying "A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists." So there is only one source saying this, and then that is disputed by other sources, so where did you get "considered by numerous reliable sources as being a major accused party in the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists"? Also the quote from Baer is only a guess of who the perpetrators could be, which is not evidence-based, only on Baer's POV. How are any of these two things DUE? Nika2020 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you talking about that "well-sourced and convincing investigation last year by NBC News"[8]? The view is both echoed [9]P.131 and supported by other reliable sources like "Some observers also accuse them of helping assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists"P.209. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: Yes, I'm talking about that single investigation by NBC, that's the only investigation about this, so why are you saying "numerous reliable sources"? It's just one NBC report. And the quote from Baer is only a guess of who the perpetrators could be. How are such things DUE?? Nika2020 (talk)

• Please read my response once again. It's not simply a "single investigation by NBC". The view held in the ""well-sourced and convincing investigation" by NBC news is held by other sources like P.209. The report is echoed by some more reliable sources, as I showed. There's a large difference between a single POV and a POV reflected in multiple sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: It is a single investigation, it is one investigation by NBC news that has been also published in other sources, but one investigation notwithstanding. Nika2020 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: AFAIK, MEK is not open to outsiders and few journalists could see inside or talk to the current members. That's why, the quotes by the former members reported/endorsed by the reliable sources is vital to this page. Anyway, thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Why are you rehashing arguments from the RfC here? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rehashing of older things or saying why no consensus is achieved, but meant to say why the quotes are crucial to this page. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Would you please elaborate on "turning this into a readable article"? Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so at great length on this talk page before. I am not going to repeat myself, because it's utterly exhausting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A diff to that comment can be helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could skim the archives to find my comments just as quickly as I could, so I'm not going to spend my time doing that. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

• "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."
• "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."
• "In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) As well as this:[reply]

• "Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused"."
• "MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."
• "In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies"

Into this?:

Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses,^[12][13] while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.^[14][15] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes:

  1) Per WP:UNDUE: random claims by random people who have defected the MEK lack any sort of fact-checking, and fact-checking is needed in a controversial article such as this one where there is a misinformation issue.

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

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

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

2) You can add DUE material per NPOV.

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

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

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

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

• Strong No: WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The mentioned quotes are now having due weight since they are major points being covered by the high quality reliable sources.

A.

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."

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

B.

"In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades."

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

C.

"Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused".

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

D.

"MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."

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

E.

"In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[290][290] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign."

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

• Yes: Mhhossein's argument is essentially inaccurate. Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [10], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then these other quotes should follow the same rule. Also this RfC does not propose to remove the quotes, but to summarise them, and that is a fair compromise considering the controversies surrounding them. Barca (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This is not summarizing but censoring. Anyway, "We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members." (sources like [11] and [12]). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This proposal does provide a balance of POVs from both sides: "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime." (what we currently have in the article is a disproportionate amount of text representing only one side, which is what's creating WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and NPOV problems). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A report named "People's Mojahedin of Iran" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said that "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign, which is also carried out through former opponents of the regime. As in previous years, the Iranian intelligence service is trying to recruit active or former members of opposition groups. This in many cases is done by threats to use force against them or their families living in Iran."

^[1]

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

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

• Yes For not making Wikipedia a platform for malicious or scandalous allegations about an opponent with the aim of damaging their reputation. We know that the Iranian regime recruits people that have left the MEK to spread fake information about the MEK (it's in the article). A mention that former members have protested human right abuses is what we need in the article, the rest is a mess of malicious POV quotes. Ypatch (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I'm open to a re-word, but Stefka Bulgaria's version completely strips all details from here.VR _talk 23:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the previous RFC and the subsequent post-closure discussions made me start an RFC regarding inclusion the following quote allegedly made by Maryam Rajavi:

Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.^[1][2][3]

Should it be included in the article? Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: Per WP:DUE. It is interesting to know the quote is portrayed by Center for American Progress as being "infamous". Furthermore, it is covered independently by three reliable sources Foreign Policy, Center for American Progress and The New York Times with dozens of other reliable sources, like RAND report, The Intercept, Salon, The Guardian using the quote when portraying the group's collaboration with Saddam. This shows the quote is not only DUE but also adds to the encyclopedic value of the article. Why should not such an important and infamous quote be used in the page? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. As mentioned by the user concluding the previous RfC, this statement could stay in the article. It has enough coverage thru independent reliable sources and MEK's treatment of the Kurds begs more attention in the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No: It was determined in the last RfC that this claim is an allegation from an MEK defector, and therefore not suitable for the article. Here are my reasons not to include this (again):

1. This is not coming from a scholarly / journalistic analyses, but it's rather an allegation from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)

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

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

4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of "reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Mhhossein is not presenting this neutrally. The full quote is "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." so this is coming from yet another former MEK member making allegations, so it is not WP:DUE. On the contrary, these are unverified allegations by people that have vested interests on this topic, and therefore could be just making it up. Factual integrity above everything else. Nika2020 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you need to read the quote once again. "former Mujahedeen members" (not solely one member!). Also, the source describes the quote as being "infamous" adding to its weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No. For what Nika2020's explanation is saying. If it's not coming from a reliable source, then it should not be in this article. "Former Mujahedeen members remember" are not reliable sources, and Mhhossein not including that part of the quote gives me even less faith in this proposal. Idealigic (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No This statement is from people that have left the MEK, they are not from "noteworthy" sources. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what this is, a random statement from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No: These are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [13], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then this other quote should follow the same rule. Barca (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be highlighted that "infamous quote" is used by the sources (see my previous comment for those sources) to explain the level of the MEK-Saddam Hussein cooperation. That's why including these highly repeated quote would be useful. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Mhhossein is debating that this is an "infamous quote" that explains the level of the MEK-Hussein cooperation, but it's not. This is a claim from some people saying they heard Maryam Rajavi say "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." Inserting a quote in a Wikipedia article which isn't verified but is defaming would pose WP:BIO violations (which is why I suspect they haven't tried to insert it in the Maryam Rajavi article). This quote could easily have been fabricated, and even if it wasn't, it does not explain anything except trying to characterise a BLP as someone who ordered the killing of Kurds - something that doesn't appear to be verified by any other source. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say this. Reliable sources say this!!! Let's see what your comment is saying:

• "Inserting a quote in a Wikipedia article which isn't verified but is defaming would pose WP:BIO violations". This is False. Nowhere in WP:BIO you can see the "verification" or lack thereof. As WP:BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." For this quote there are various reliable sources.
• "This quote could easily have been fabricated". The sentence in the article reads as if she is quoted as ordering to kill the Kurds, so proper attributions is made and there's no issue.
• "it does not explain anything except trying to characterise a BLP as someone who ordered the killing of Kurds - something that doesn't appear to be verified by any other source." MEK's role in helping Iraq's Saddam with suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings is like an established fact:

"It aided Saddam with operations against the Kurds in the north..."by Oxford University Press, P. 250

"the report, drawing on U.S. government sources, notes, “Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, ‘a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border.’” The report goes on to cite the Kurdish leader—and first president of Iraq after the fall of Saddam—Jalal Talabani, as telling reporters at the time that “5,000 Iranian Mojahedin [MEK] joined Saddam’s forces in the battle for Kirkuk” and points to Wall Street Journal reporting as well on the MEK’s part in this bloody campaign"by POLITICO

"The NLA's last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991 when it joined Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion," the state department report said" by the Guardian. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein - you're not listening. This would be like someone without any credible qualifications making unverified claims that the Supreme Leader of Iran said something outrageous, and then me persisting to have it wikivoiced in Wikipedia. That's how fake news is spread. Also all the quotes you have presented talk about the MEK, and not Maryam Rajavi. In other words, you are trying to bridge huge gaps through bits and pieces that don't hold up, which adds up to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH in a contentious topic. No, adding this quote to the article is not a good idea. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response is still the same. I showed multiple reliable sources are using the quote (some of them independently) hence DUE is applied. There's no Original Research. You said "[it] doesn't appear to be verified by any other source" and I showed your argument is false. Maryam Rajavi is the MEK's leader so the operations involving attacking the Kurds had been under her direct command. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of research into the alleged participation of the MEK against Kurds in Iraq, and found sources saying that the MEK never took part in the Kurdish uprising and that the allegations originated as part of a disinformation campaign by MOIS:

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."
• "From our independent investigation and discussion with parties involved, we find these allegations false . . . Most of the allegations made against the BNAA regarding the Kurdish people come from a man named Jamshid Tafrishi- Enginee, who was cited by people at this session of the sub-commission as a former leader of the Iranian Resistance. Our investigation indicates that Mr Tafrishi-Enginee joined the Resistance in 1988, but left after 19 months with a low rank. In his letter of resignation, hand-written and dated 23 September 1990, he sites personal problems and requests leave to transfer to a refugee camp. He then traveled to Europe where he began to campaign publicly against the NLA. There is compelling evidence that he is in fact an agent of the Khomeini regime's Ministry of Intelligence. In a letter dated l4 July 1999, Mr Hoshyar Zebari, then head of the Kurdish Democratic Party's international relations and presently Foreign Minister of Iraq (see document [97]), wrote, The KDP as a major Kurdish political party has led and participated in the Kurdish Spring uprising of 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan . . . The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin-e-khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs."^[4][5][6] 

There is a lot of misinformation going around about the MEK it seems, and more of a reason not to include this alleged quote. I will add this new found info to the article and start a new RfC about the allegations involving the MEK against the Kurds in Iraq. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not used these two quotes to reach such a strong conclusion, i.e. "MEK never took part in the Kurdish uprising". This claim seems silly in face of vast number of sources saying MEK were involved in cracking the Kurdish uprising in Iraq. Here are some of the sources:

• "It aided Saddam with operations against the Kurds in the north..."by Oxford University Press, P. 250
• " ... to Saddam that MEK fighters not onlyassisted the Iraqis inthe IranIraqWar but also helped Saddam putdownthe 1991 Kurdish uprising"[14]
• "the report, drawing on U.S. government sources, notes, “Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, ‘a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border.’” The report goes on to cite the Kurdish leader—and first president of Iraq after the fall of Saddam—Jalal Talabani, as telling reporters at the time that “5,000 Iranian Mojahedin [MEK] joined Saddam’s forces in the battle for Kirkuk” and points to Wall Street Journal reporting as well on the MEK’s part in this bloody campaign"by POLITICO
• "... The Kurds and Shiite Arabs have long reviled the MEK because Saddam Hussein used it to help put down their uprisings ..."P.217
• "MEK fighters not only assisted the Iraqis in the Iran–Iraq War but also helped Saddam put down the 1991 Kurdish uprising."P.76
• "In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north."By the Guardian
• "where it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88) and reportedly helped quash Kurdish uprisings in the north and Shia unrest in the south (1991)."by Council of Foreign Relations.
• "They were helped out by Arabs, and then turned themselves over to the Kurds, ..."by the New York Times

You can of course find more sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yes - per:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No ; the cult stuff really is different from "Human rights record". For example, indoctrination and demanding celibacy are not your typical human right violations but they point to cult-likeness. Those are two different categories, with little overlap.VR _talk 04:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• YES ; both sections are pretty much about the same thing. Indoctrination and demanding celibacy are forms of human right abuses, all in both sections is about human right abuses or different people saying that the MEK committed human right abuses against its members. Also the title "designation as cult" is not supported by any of the sources. It is suggested in this talk page that this article is too long, and here is a good opportunity to start reducing redundancy . Ypatch (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we summarize the following:

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

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Into this?:

Certain sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,^[1][2] “cult-like",^[3][4] or having a “cult of personality”.^[5][6] Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence.^[7][8]

• Yes - per:

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

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

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

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

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

@Stefka Bulgaria: So that's why you're puzzled; you think it's redundant since "it all talks about the same thing" (we know it's a clearly false description for redundancy or lack thereof since then the whole page is redundant as it all talks about MEK!). As for the imaginary consensus, see my next comments [15]&[16] which you failed to response. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 'No, many of the items which have been suggested to be deleted in here, are important sentences and DUE. The whole text cannot be considered the same, together. For instance, the following matter that: "What is the report of the government of the U.S. and the politicians of other countries concerning it", it will add useful information to the text. I don't see any specific reason to delete the view of "academics" (It is better to keep "expert and formal opinions"). The views of the former members should be maintained, too, but it ought to be noted that attribution should be done appropriately. Generally, I am against this RFC in this manner. It would be better to be determined (item-by-item) why a sentence should be deleted. Meanwhile, the sentence which has been suggested as substituting, has the problem of "Unsupported attribution" itself. i.e. this question is find in the mind that: the purpose of "certain sources" is exactly related to which sources? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm total newcomer to this article, so feel free to shoot my proposal down. I think this article looks WP:TOOBIG and might benefit from some forking. For example, maybe we can create articles on History of the People's Mujahedin of Iran and Ideology of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (currently a redirect) as those look like the biggest sections.VR _talk 04:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article is that it currently has a lot of POV quotes. If each quote came from a reliable person and added new information, then that would be a different matter, but in many cases it's a collections of quotes calling the MEK a cult (a large portion from ex-MEK members), and the argument some of us have made here is that the reader doesn't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said the MEK is like a cult. A sentence is enough for this. If we were able to copy-edit some sections this way condensing repeated POV redundancy, that would massively improve the article. Alex-h (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my proposal is a good compromise as it allows things to be summarized on this page and the content, which many users think is not redundant and want to keep, is still available at a more specialized page.VR _talk 14:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The users repeatedly show ([17], [18], [19]) they are confusing "verified" (not WP:verfiability) with "notable, due etc". They think only verified materials should be included in the Wikipages. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To followup: yes, yes, each of the two sides wishes to redact the things it does and they do not often align. I see that activity here has been reduced — has this article achieved stability? If so, forking could be the next thing that's worth hashing out. The reader deserves concise summaries alongside links to forks when further expansion is due. Which this article currently fails to do. El_C 12:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has NPOV problems. I personally would not be opposed to forking some sections. If the OP has a particular suggestion, we could explore the route further. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about stability — of course, each side will continue to see NPOV issues probably indefinitely as the price of compromise and the the consensus process. Forking would be good because this article is a bit unwieldy. I would encourage someone well versed in the article and its sourcing material as well as past discussions here to be bold and start us off. I think the best way would be to go one section at a time and author or refactor the fork while trimming the main article. But that should be done slowly and through the use of drafts. El_C 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could give it a try. Will slowly work on this as suggested and make a proposition when I have a draft ready. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That will end no where if the result should be something like the recent ridiculous RFCs you opened. They were attempts at censoring many DUE portions of the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: I have been following the developments of this page for a while. The issue is not POV or like. I agree the issue is stability. The recent RFCs signal the strategy behind reshaping the page. You can find in the archive where I discovered plenty of gamings and edits with misleading edit summaries. This page had been the goal to a pro-MEK sock farm in the past and I believe that would be wise to be cautious about the closely similar developments. That said, forking should be done carefully to avoid POV forks and it should be accompanied by guideline based discussions/arguments (selective ignoring of the reliable sources that MEK is the target of misinformation campaign is not of course a guideline based argument!). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, all I've done here is try to adhere to the suggestions of others, and yet you continue to routinely cast aspersions and rehash failed reports you've submitted against me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"adhere to the suggestions of others"? Can you show who suggested to mass remove well sourced and DUE portions of the page? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent suggested forking out some sections, El_C agree, and I offered to help with what both Vice regent and El_C suggested. If you don't want me to do this, then by all means you can go ahead and get us started. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm asking about stability — of course" --I would not interpret it as "agreement". I'm concerned about that "stability", that's why things need to be discussed before any action is taken. Forking means leaving important things and taking the rest to a separate page. I am afraid you can be wrong selecting those important things like here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This bound to be a long, painstaking process. But I am optimistic that it is doable and I maintain that it is worth doing in the interest of improvement. El_C 13:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this could be good for the article, and I'd be willing to try to make it work if Mhhossein is willing to collaborate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher In your revert, you say that the following are not RS:

• Global security: Iran, fifth report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee

• Camp Ashraf: Iraqi obligations and State Department accountability by the United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs.

How are these not RSs? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much space in the edit summary to express myself so I might have expressed this poorly. I'm not saying the report is an unreliable source. My problem is that the claims you've added about the allegations being false according to "International Educational Development" are not sourced from the report, but are instead sourced from the written evidence the NCRI (for all intents and purposes the MEK) submitted to the Parliamnetary report. This may be poor reading on my part, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find the comments replicated outside of the NCRI's own evidence submissions. What the MEK says about the MEK is clearly not a reliable source. --Brustopher (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Brustopher, MEK can only be a reliable source for its own POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher Thank you for your response. Can you please say where in these two sources it says that the the report derives from evidence the NCRI submitted? I can't see that anywhere in these two sources. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the report at p.236 you can see these comments arent within the body of the report, but are in fact part of a memorandum submitted by the NCRI. Brustopher (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher: Thanks again for the link; I had not seen the report on this PDF format where it is indeed shown that this is part of a NCRI report. I propose including it in the article in this format:

"According to a NCRI report, in 1999 Hoshyar Zebari stated that the MEK were "not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath". The report also said that the allegations concerning the MEK targeting Iraqi Kurds and Shiites are false and can be linked back to a misinformation campaign by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS)."^[1][2][3]

What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka, you're reaching. Look for some independent sources, please; denials from non-independent sources are rarely worth anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I thought it could be useful for the groups own POV, but I'll have a look to see if there are better sources for this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is currently in the lede:

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

^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

"It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."^[2]

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

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

Some sources if you're still doubtful:

• "The group later broke with the regime and sided with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when more than a million Iranians died"P.532
• "...the move towards saddam hussein was allegedly an attempt by the MEK an attempt by the MEK to maneuver against the government, with the goal of acquiring arms, training facilities, and financial resources."P.67
• "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.
• "According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran. In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received "protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land".[20][21]

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

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

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

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

"According to Afshon Ostovar, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in 1983."^[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [22] I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This revert made me go through those discussions of 2019. As far as I I can see User:Ryk72[23] showed the group had been once designated by the Japanese government as a terrorist organization. The explanations should be added to the group's history of designation. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the Japanese Government websites, it appears that MEK (as ムジャヒディン・ハルク) was added to the list of terrorist organisations (aligned to UNSCR 1373) on July 5, 2002 (平成14年7月5日) (See:[24] & attached list[25]) and removed from the list on March 24, 2013 (平成25年5月24日) (See:[26]). Let me know if any questions. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the listing and delisting should be added.VR _talk 20:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [27] Are you saying the MEK did not capture Mehran in 1988? Also the version you added does not have a source. Barca (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]