Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Copyediting cult claims RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

Previous version

According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a "cult nature"; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was "ashamed" by this statement. A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq. In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you". An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".

New version:

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

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". Rubin argued the cult revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi.

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

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

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

Proposal reflecting the RfC consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like Idealigic, I'm also fine with Stefka's original sentences if Idealigic's doesn't get consensus. Alex-h (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h can you provide the page number of the reference that says “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? VR _talk 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, I have not read the book, but had a glance at the introduction where it writes "We at the European Parliament decided to conduct a full investigation into the alleged human rights violations by the PMOI contained in the HRW report. We found the allegations contained in the HRW report unfounded and devoid of any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was procedurally flawed and substantive inaccurate. Moreover, in the course of our study we became aware of an elaborate and complex misinformation campaign by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security against the PMOI", if that helps? Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

But is that related specifically to the claim of "cult"? If not, it may belong in a different section. Also, it seems that the book reflects the views of its authors who happen to European MEPs but not necessarily the Parliament as a whole. In that case, "the European Parliament's report" would be a bit misleading and I'd prefer to either name the MEPs or say "a report by some European MEPs".VR _talk 16:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, Idealigic, and Alex-h: Following a note by Mhhossein on my talk page, I made an effort to determine whether the proposed text contains a misquote. I have spent the last 30 minutes trying to verify the quote "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". I obtained an electronic copy of the People's Mojahedin of Iran : mission report and searched through it for the quote. In fact, I searched for the words "falsified", "information", and "traceable" individually and could not verify this quote or anything close to it. Furthermore, neither a Google search nor a Google Scholar search for the quote "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence" turned up any material that did not originate from Wikipedia. I am now deeply troubled and I am worried that the RfC I closed, above, was invalid to begin with. Where did this quote originate? What page number of the cited reference does it appear on? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that Stefka Bulgaria was the one to originally introduce the quote, so hopefully they can show us where the quote is from. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevin: I don't have access to the book at this time, but I believe the original quote is "A delegation of the European Parliament and the US military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of intelligence (MOIS)", included in "Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition" by Cheryl Benard, Austin Long, Angel Rabasa, containing the footnote "Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005.". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The page would be needed to see what are the "claims" that are being referred to.VR _talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link (it's on page 118), and it reads:

"In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has bben found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the U.S. military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (“MOI”)."[Footnote: "See Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005."]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevin The article also includes this source/statement (I don't have access to the book):

• 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".

There are also other sources that say similar things:

• "Ever since coming to power, Iran’s clerical leaders have claimed that the MEK is a cult that lacks meaningful support inside Iran." IntPolicyDigest
• "The People's Mujahedin is a resistance group that has been fighting for regime change in Iran for decades, despite the Iranian government trying to dismiss the group as a "cult."" Fox News
• "Accused misdeeds aside, the group is also frequently referred to as a cult whose members suffer cruel deprivations and human rights abuses. Their devoted support of NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi and her husband, Massoud Rajavi is, accordingly, indicative of an absence of free will. Every one of the foregoing assertions and charcterizations about the NCRI and MEK is false or deceptively misleading. Only their endless repetition by the Tehran regime's propaganda and intelligence services has caused many in the West to assume they are true. Corroborating evidence is non-existent, fabricated or distorted in ways that for years went critically unexamined in the U.S. and elsewhere." The Ayatollahs and the MEK - Iran's Crumbling Influence Operations; University of Baltimore
• I've come across others; I can look for them if needed...

One only needs to read through the article's sections "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" or "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" to get a glimpse of what the clerical regime in Iran have been trying to do to discredit/oppress the MEK. These sections were the basis for starting that RfC you closed, and the reasoning was that adding a collection of quotes all repeating that "the MEK is a cult" is basically turning the article into an attack platform against a legitimate political group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Stefka, the sources may not be saying what you want them to say. The Tater quote doesn't say the cult allegation is false, only that it is exploited by Iran. Same thing with Fox news (which is a controversial source) and Adam Ereli. Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. is indeed saying the cult allegations are either false or misleading.VR _talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And we know that Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book is not reliable for this page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book may or may not be at the same calibre as other sources (such as mcclatchydc.com for instance), but we have a link from the University of Baltimore website saying that "Ambassador Lincoln J. Bloomfield Jr. has published a new monograph,  The Ayatollahs and the MEK–Iran's Crumbling Influence Operation , through the University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs.", so this looks to be a publication by a U.S. ambassador released by University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs.  In any case, here are more quotes:

• "Mr Kinglsey goes on to infer that some people regard the MEK as “a duplicitous terrorist cult”, notwithstanding the fact that the highest courts in America, the UK and the EU unanimously agreed to remove the MEK from their respective terrorist lists many years ago, after finding that they had been blacklisted erroneously based on similar “duplicitous terrorist cult” allegations by the fascist Iranian regime." source by Struan Stevenson. 
• "The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.” source by Ivan Sascha Sheehan
• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult." source by Majid Rafizadeh
• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat." source by J. Adam Ereli

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source by the United States Congress and United States House of Representatives titled "Camp Ashraf : Iraqi obligations and State Department accountability", that reads:

"Derogatory descriptions of the MEK/PMOI including describing the bonds of commitment between its leaders and members as "cult"-like, are widespread. On this point the author offers two observations. 

The first related to the number of MEK/PMOI imprisoned, assassinated and executed at the hands of the ruling regime in Tehran, particularly in 1980-81 after MEK broke ranks with Ayatollah Khomeini regarding the shape of Iranian politics after the Shah's overthrow, and both side clashed violently. Estimates of MEK/PMOI supporters, including casual and suspected supporters, killed at the hands of the Iranian government exceed 100,000, and the mullahs have since targeted MEK figures in exile abroad. This conflict has bred deep and enduring enmity. 

The second observation concerns the prevalence of sophisticated, unattributed information operations in the West generated by the Iranian government, mentioned in the cover memorandum.  ... This inquiry has found that the Iranian government has since 1979 gone to extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI and its leaders in Europe, Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. ... Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) has for years conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI. This has occurred as Iran's diplomatic efforts (noted above) have explicitly sought to pressure the US and other governments to isolate the MEK as a terrorist group." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: What are you going to prove? That they are not a Cult and this is Iranian government calling them as such? If yes, are you backing your position by Kinglsey's POV along with Stevenson's book - we discussed that the latter source was MEK sympathetic (see [1]) - the alleged comments by a think tank head and the US congress report (so what's this source is saying?) Were Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin - the journalists who visited the MEK camp in Iraq and said MEK had cult-like characteristics- all recruited by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither trying to prove that the MEK are or are not a cult; I've made my position clear that my proposal was about reducing a lengthy list of quotes all derogatorily calling the MEK a "cult". Why? because having a section (misleadingly) titled "Designation as a cult" and adding a long indiscriminate list of "cult" quotes there comes across as an attack effort against the main political opposition to the clerics in Iran.

Also, you're failing to acknowledge many of the sources I've provided, including the United States Congress source just above.

For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article despite this being already overtly covered in the article ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], etc...) even going as far as trying to add "Cult of Rajavi" to the group's "Other names" section.

I find that trying continuously to add derogatory quotes in a contentious political article is problematic for a number of reasons; yet, you have persistently done this here. We have many sources calling the Trump administration a "cult" ([11], [12], [13], etc.), but that has never been considered a viewpoint to merit inclusion there (least merit its own section). However, the same has not been applied here, not even to the point of reducing verbosity (despite receiving a majority vote in that RfC to do so). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They are neither "derogatory" nor "attacks". Your previous comments are persistently trying to imply that the BAD things regarding MEK are attacks coming from an Iranian campaign. What do you say about those scholars and journalists, did they have links to Iran? Taking the independent reliable sources into account shows something else. I am talking about those reliable sources that your RFC aimed to remove. Those quotes are not "derogatory", rather they are how the reliable sources portray the group's internal incidents. The RFC you referred to togther with the one that was overturned as a result of the AN discussion, are exactly showing this approach of going ahead by such RFCs - which are not backed by guidelines - no longer works. You need to cover the things as it is - which means major POVs should be included based on their due weight. Just look at the level of condensation you were suggesting! (Do I need to emphasize that the Google results for "the cult of Rajvi" is clearly showing the title is widely used across the sources when referring to MEK.) --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources say they are "derogatory descriptions", and you keep trying to fill the article with them. Also the sources in the section about the disinformation campaign against the MEK (which I've just updated) speak for themselves. Filling the article with a vast amount of derogatory descriptions (as well as with other sources denouncing them) isn't good for the article; hence my proposal to reduce the verbosity, but once again we have not been able to advance the editing process here (despite having received majority vote to do so in that RfC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop Original Research. There are many other sources that don't call these "derogatory". I know at least three journalists who have visited the MEK'c camps and believe they are Cult. So, should we sya they are cult? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding the RfC closure

I received the following question on my talk page, and I hope my answer there will be helpful here:

Hi Kevin,

About the RfC you re-closed on the MEK talk page, I don't quite understand your re-closing comments.

We currently have several paragraphs in the article consisting of a list of people basically calling the MEK a cult in a section title that misleadingly says "Designation as a cult" (when there isn't a single source to support that the MEK was ever designated a cult).

There was a majority vote in that RfC that agreed we didn't need to have this long list of people calling the MEK a cult, the majority basically saying that a couple of lines was enough.

I thought your initial suggestion of coming to an agreement about the final wording was a good idea since we could look at the sources and determine proportion according to sources, etc. So I don't understand why this was overturned to "no consensus"?

Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Thanks for reaching out. You are correct that, on the substance, my close did not interpret consensus all that differently. My new closure says that if participants reach a consensus about the appropriate distribution and length of the section, consistent with UNDUE, then that should be implemented, and that there is general agreement to reduce in length if possible – which is not all that different from my original closure.

1. The appropriate length of a section is, for the most part, an editorial decision (unless the new section length would make the section so disproportionately larger or smaller than other sections compared with their significance, counted by reliable secondary sources, that it is UNDUE). Therefore, it is essentially controlled by a rough consensus of people, counted for the most part numerically.
2. However, WP:UNDUE requires that appropriate weight be given to viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. I write about this quite extensively in my third and fourth paragraphs, but to summarize: if the vast majority of reliable secondary sources call MEK a cult, and the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to e.g. three sentences, then all three sentences should probably describe sources calling MEK a cult. However, if the size of the section is e.g. 15 sentences, it may be OK to spend one or two of them discussing reliable secondary sources which call MEK not a cult. Similarly, if the split of sources is closer to 70%/30%, then if the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to three sentences, perhaps two of those sentences should describe sources that call MEK a cult and one should describe sources that call MEK not a cult.
3. This is why I was so alarmed in this case. In the article as it stood before the RfC, the most prominent "not a cult" sentence was a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded). A sentence relying on this misquote was 20 of the 37 words (54%) of the RfC-proposed text, and Idealigic's post-RfC proposal offers it similar prominence (19/45 words, 42%).
4. That alone is enough to render the RfC effectively invalid. The broader issues that this represents, of course, is that you're going to need much better sourcing overall than you've presented if you want to call the cult allegations "false" or "falsified information" (very few of them outright say it). Instead of trying to insert information saying that MEK is not a cult or has improperly been considered a cult, you may be better off (though I'm not familiar with the sources) by inserting information supported by reliable secondary sources: (a) specifically refuting particular elements (e.g. "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like"); or (b) discussing sources regarding how the government of Iran has attempted to cause others to believe MEK is a cult. However, be careful not to juxtapose those sentences with "is a cult" claims in a way that implies that sentences supporting (a) or (b) are also arguing that MEK is not a cult, unless the reliable secondary sources specifically state that MEK is not a cult.

Hope this provides a good overview of my thinking, but I wrote this while rushed so please let me know if you have further questions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Ideology

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

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

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

One source to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight. Idealigic (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is regarding this edit. Perhaps that gives it undue weight for it to be mentioned in the lede. But this information can be mentioned in the main body?VR _talk 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence campaign

This current section People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Intelligence_campaign_against_the_MEK seems redundant and a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can we summarize and shorten it? VR _talk 23:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been expanding these sections with the aim of attending the WP:DUE and MEK-sympathetic sources request. Properly representing the body of sources from all sides is necessary, and since there seems to be a large amount of derogatory depiction of the MEK in the article already, then it seems that we need a similar amount of coverage about the efforts that have been made to delegitimise the MEK in the West so that appropriate weight is given to the different viewpoints.

I would be in favour of summarising redundancy in the article. To give proper weight to the different view points, if we shorten the propaganda/intelligence campaign against the MEK, then I propose we also shorten redundant derogatory depictions of the MEK (something that's currently excessive in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We have to mind WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "average" Western reliable source depicts MEK generally negatively. It doesn't help that they were once designated a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, I would agree with removing redundancy everywhere, both pro-MEK content and anti-MEK content.VR _talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of MEK-trashing in Western sources, but there are also a fair amount of reliable sources that commend the MEK. Also what Stefka pointed out, there are reports of the Iranian government running a media demonization campaign to promote the MEK as a terrorist cult in the West. I think all this needs to be in the article, but I don't think we need long paragraphs continually banging you over the head with the same information, which is what is in the article now. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: I agree with VR saying the section should not be FALSE BALANCED. Addition of POVish narrations MEK-sympathetic sources to the already oversized page, not only is a good tool to reach what you could not make via those awkward RFCs, but also is making the article full of unnecessary things. Establishing WP:DUE, more than other things, requires paying attention to high quality sources. Hence, Varesteh's claims is rarely an improvement to this page. What is it adding to the page? As for this unnecessary insertion, MEK sympathetic sources like Vidal-Quadras, Giuliani and Ereli should not be used to give weight to such a position. Neither Hamid Bahrami's nor Majid Rafizadeh's claims (who are they??? I know Bahrami is a former political prisoner!) are adding something new to the page. Though their reliabilities are highly questioned here. Also, do you think Al Bawaba is a reliable source here? As for the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report, it is known that MEK's "supporters have also hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm, to persuade members of Congress to support its cause". There are similar issues with [14]. Also are 'verfassungsschutz' and 'english.aivd.nl' reliable? You should not just insert everything you find on the net. You can see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Blanket removal of sources

@Mhhossein: why did you blanked-remove all of the sources that Stefka added to the article pointing out to a demonization campaign by the Iran regime against the MEK?

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

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

3* "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."

4* "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

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

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

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

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

You also refer to the 1st source as "the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", but it seems to be a report by the U.S. Congress. The other sources also seem to meet WP:RS.

You seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK, but when someone offers a counter-view that says there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK, you blanket-remove all of it? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: See my comprehensive explanations. Also, please avoid from making personal attacks ("you seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK" is a clear comment on me which is prohibited). Take a look at the "Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", you'll see it's what I said. Was it necessary to copy all of them here? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: These sources by Dr Majid Rafizadeh, Ivan Sascha Sheehan, Joseph Adam Ereli, also the sources by Arab News, Intelligence and Security services, etc., why did you remove them? (I don't see an explanation for this in your past post) - MA Javadi (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, your "comprehensive" explanation doesn't take into account many sources you removed from the article, and this is not the first time your edit summary doesn't reflect all of the edits you made in the article ([15]). Idealigic (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Both of you: Read my comment once again please. I have tried to cover all of your questions. As for [16], this is simply an opinionated piece. Futhermore, Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: here you appear to be in agreement that "Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia.", so your response to removing these sources does not justify their removal.

For instance, DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara), and he writes:

"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Ivan Sascha Sheehan is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. He writes:

"well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

Joseph Adam Ereli is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs] and he writes

""To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."

For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article (despite this already being overtly covered), but you won't allow opposing POVs describing a well-financed propaganda campaign against the MEK. By doing this, all POVs (except your preferred one) are not properly weighted, but then in these RfCs you propose that "major POVs should be included based on their due weight". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop making accusations and personal attacks once for ever. I am not, however, going to comment on you. This would make the discussion useless and frustrating. But, if you're here to know the fact: See this and this to know about how MEK sympathetic the source is. For instance "...In contrast to Katzman, J. Adam Ereli, another MEK panelist..." and "The Thursday appearance on the panel won’t be the first time that Ereli has participated in one of MEK’s events. In July, 2014, Ereli appeared at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a coalition whose sole purpose is supporting the MEK, and praised the NCRI." Also, I already said why Rafeizadeh and Sheehan are not proper additions to this page now. Are they adding something new? Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: there is nothing in this Wikipedia page about the $80,000 that was offered to the head of the Mackenzie Institute to label the MEK "a terrorist cult". More importantly, these sources that you removed help provide weight to opposing POVs so that when cleaning up the article for redundancy is proposed (as I have with the recent RfCs), then we are able to weight accurately sources representing both sides of arguments. Here you are removing several reliable sources from one side of the argument ([17][18][19][20][21][22][23]), but then yourself and VR protest that there is a WP:FALSEBALANCE in establishing what is WP:DUE in the article. How can we establish accurately what is WP:DUE if you keep removing all the sources from one side of the argument? (as with the previous post, I've been specific about the issue and about which sources I'm referring to, so please don't give another Straw man response). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will reply very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Had you read my previous comments carefully, you wouldn't be asking these questions. I told you that a work by Sheehan "is used already for saying pretty much the same thing". Moreover, as I told you last year and this year, the source used, being an opinion piece, falls below the minimum standards as regards a reliable source. As for your comment on maintaining DUE, it seems like sophism; you can not use those questionable sources, to make a false balance. Considering the RFCs you've started recently, you are probably missing regarding DUE. Using your logic, a dozens of more reliable sources can be added saying MEK is a "cult" or like (I think you're well aware of these sources). --Mhhossein ^talk 16:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Have read your previous comments attentively and indeed you have not answered various points I raised here. You are removing content backed by reliable sources that isn't in the article and your responses thus far have mainly been straw man arguments and bludgeoning. First you say opinion from scholars are ok, but here you say they are not, then you say WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims should be removed, but then insert other exceptional claims. You say we should not include MEK claims, and then want to include numerous claims from former MEK members. You are not consistent with your own wikilawyering. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". Also, can you find another reliable source talking about this so-called Komite report? So much detail was added on a claim by MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I cannot see your reply to Stefka's last post here. I am curious to your answer about these issues.Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: where in your response do you address the sources about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult?

Then Stefka provides a diff where you agree to use opinions from scholars, but now you are saying "being an opinion piece, falls below the minimum standards", and remove opinion pieces from scholars. You need to explain this too.

You then say these are "questionable sources" that make a false balance: The General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD) , Bundesamt Für Verfassungsschutz, The General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD) , Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, The Baghdad Post. You need to explain how they are "questionable" sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article (2nd RfC)

This RfC takes into account the points made in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article".

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) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face."

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".

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish".

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?:

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"." Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like", or having a “cult of personality”, while other sources have dismissed these claims. while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".
(I've ammended the text based on the feedback by VR and MA Javadi. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC))

I don't think this so-called amendement is in-line with VR's comment. @Vice Regent: Is it? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. This RfC proposes a reduction of redundant text in the article. The given text is redundant because it all refers to the same thing: different entities calling the MEK "cult" or "cult-like" (a contentious label).

In the previous RfC, it was questioned whether such a reduction would leave "enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:UNDUE).

To help with this, I provided sources with a counter-viewpoint saying that there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK to, among other things, depict it as a "terrorist cult" in the West, but Mhhossein removed these from the article; here are some of the sources that were removed:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

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

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

Some of these sources don't refer specifically to the "cult" allegations, while others do. Comparing specifically the "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" allegations presented in this RfC, there is a majority viewpoint in favour of "pro-cult". As such, "pro-cult" allegations have been given prominence in the proposed summary of the text.

Although the final wording of the summary can be further tweaked, this RfC mainly proposes reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations; something that's been needlessly over-emphasized in the article (making it come across as an attack against a legitimate political group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Just looking at the material that is to be shortened, what one US colonel said is clearly WP:UNDUE, as is the bit about $80,000. These are clear signs that the material needs to be summarized. Furthermore, the summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria appears to summarize viewpoints in about the right proportions. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

This RFC is as ridiculous as the previous one. Tag teaming or like won't work here. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria I am once again concerned that you may not be quoting sources properly. For example, you write "while other sources have dismissed these claims" and you cite this source. But the source seems to say (emphasis added),

And yet another officer, who was there at precisely the same time and is now a retired general, has become an active lobbyist on the MEK's behalf. With his open smile and earnest friendly manner, he is a good advocate. "Cult? How about admirably focused group?" he says. "And I never heard of anyone being held against their will."

It is a misrepresentation to call an MEK lobbyist as "other sources". More accurate would be to say something like "MEK denies the allegations". Nor does this source you cited dismisses the claim. It merely argues that Iran has tried countries to label MEK as a cult, not whether the allegation is false or not.VR _talk 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@VR: here are three sources:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

  by DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH who is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara).Arab News

• "well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

  by Ivan Sascha Sheehan who is is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. IntPolicyDigest

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications. This unprecedented demonization campaign tells me that the regime views the MEK (and only the MEK) as an existential threat."

  by Joseph Adam Ereli who is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs. National Interest

Feel free to propose a suitable summary, which we could then use as an option for the final wording. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment VR. That's why I say this RFC is as ridiculous as the previous and won't make an improvement to this page. Some sources are cherry picked to reach a desired inclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per WP:NOTADVOCACY - we can report objectively without overstating or amplifying and the article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - this summary is sufficient. About the final line, if we include Stefka's sources, then "The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media" could be a better representation of the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the RfC as a whole, but the use of the word "dismissed" is not justified based on the sources provided here. Please either modify that or provide better sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think "The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media" represents sources more accurately, then I'll change it to that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the text. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Deleting sources indicating a "highly organized misinformation campaign" against the MEK, and then adding all other sources that call the MEK a cult, is not neutral editing.

These sources calling the MEK a cult can be shortened, and Stefka has given a good proportion to the weight of the different viewpoints. I support shortening and if the final wording needs to be changed, then it can be changed, but this content needs shortening so it can be a more neutral article. Idealigic (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic I neither agree with Stefka adding lots of redundant material on the misinformation campaign, nor with Mhhossein's blanket removal of it. I think some mention of that needs to be made in a neutral fashion.VR _talk 00:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed. Unfortunately we keep getting stuck at what the final wording should be. That probably happens because of the "all or nothing" attitude - discussion hinges between getting rid of (almost) everything vs getting rid of nothing. So I made this incremental edit, it reduces the first paragraph from 115 words to 85 words and gets rids of all redundancies and long quotes that were previously in the first paragraph. Hopefully this is something everyone can agree with. If so, I can then trim the second paragraph and so on.VR _talk 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

VR: My comment shows I support "case by case" investigation. But they are aiming to perform a mass removal of wells-sourced and DUE contents from the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein mass removes the "anti-cult" arguments from the article, and then proposes that the "pro-cult" arguments be kept based on WP:DUE. Then Vice Regent agrees that both "anti-cult" and "pro-cult" arguments should be shortened, but then proposes that the majority of "pro-cult" arguments be kept. This comes across as saying one thing and doing another in order to keep the article filled with "MEK is a cult" quotes. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My edit is comprehensively explained. In fact, I saved the article against tons of dubious and repeated materials. There, I asked you to "see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section." So, these two cases are never comparable. Just look at the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria this revert makes no sense. I tried reducing redundancy (again reduced 115 words to 85 words) but you restored the redundancy. Yet here you are complaining about redundancy in the section. Your revert doesn't even make sense in terms of paragraph structure: the section should not be starting with the sentence on children that you moved to the very top.VR _talk 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

VR: for the sake of not WP:BLUDGEONING these RfCs further, I'll keep it brief: Place a vote here explaining why the article should include the amount of "cult" quotes you're wanting to include in it. A closing admin will then review consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• The RFC is fundamentally against the previous closure: The previous closure asks for addressing "whether a significant reduction in the size of the section would leave enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source." However this new RFC is not doing that at all. Also, this new one is quite the same is the previous one which aimed to replace the 6 well-sourced paragraphs (almost 680 words) with one paragraph (37 words!!!). There's no sensible difference in the current suggestion containing 80 words. So, this RFC is actually suggesting to condensate the content by 88 percent without a case by case study of the alleged redundancies. Moreover, the current RFC does not take into account "proportion of content that should be devoted to "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" viewpoints", as demanded here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It was explained to you by the previous closing admin that: "the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision [...] in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support". As I said to VR, you can place a vote here explaining why the article should include the amount of "cult" quotes you're wanting to include in it and a closing admin will then review consensus. That's the last I'll say here too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Almost nothing has changed from the your previous failed RFC and that's exactly why this new RFC is against that closure. The page is covered by General Sanctions and consensus required rules here. Despite this, you are repeatedly asking to condense a key longstanding text to be condensed by 88 percent without explaining what are those so called redundancies. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No: As I explained here and here, the current RFC is not improved in light of previous closure. However, the response to this proposed change is NO. The main reason provided by the OP is that the title "cult" is a Contentious label. This is while, according to the guideline these titles can be used when they are "...widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," which is exactly the case here. I mean there are a vast number of secondary reliable sources widely and deeply covering the cultish nature of the group. "Designation as a cult" already contains multiple reliable sources, but I will try to provide a categorized list of some other sources (probably some are already used):

1-Scholarly works

• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum", By RAND Corporation. This source provides a specialized review on the cultish nature of the group. More specifically, the report explains how the group could be handled by the U.S. military personnel given the MEK's cultish behavior. This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

A work by The Intercept sheds lights on the RAND report as such: "You think only people inside of dictatorships are brainwashed? A 2009 report by the RAND Corporation noted how MEK rank-and-file had to swear “an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran” and highlighted the MEK’s “authoritarian, cultic practices” including ‘mandatory divorce and celibacy” for the group’s members (the Rajavis excepted, of course). “Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family,” explained the RAND report."

• Ervand Abrahamian, a professor emeritus of Iranian and Middle Eastern history and politics at Baruch College in New York:

"I call them basically a cult". --[24]

• Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge.

"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.

So, the very fact that the ideological revolution was an important milestone for becoming a cult should be mentioned somewhere in the page. The source also quotes Abrahamian as such:

By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.

2-Journalistic works

• "The Cult of Rajavi", an infamous article by Elizabeth Rubin of The New York Times. In 2003, Rubin visited the MEK camp in Iraq and reported her observations in the New York Times. This worked coined the term "The cult of Rajavi" which was later echoed by many other reliable sources.

"The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife, Maryam."

As I just said, many other works on MEK was later influenced by Rubin's piece. According to Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK), by Council on Foreign Relations, "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis." Another instance is The Inercept which mentions the Rubin's 2003 work and adds the Rubin's 2011 work as a complementary note.

• "Defectors Tell Of Torture And Forced Sterilization In Militant Iranian Cult", by The Intercept.

"But over the last four decades, it has devolved into a secretive, cult-like group that resembles a militant, Islamist version of the Church of Scientology. The MEK has carried out bombings, sabotage missions, and murders."

• "Here’s Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group", by The Inercept.

"Rather, the biggest problem with U.S. politicians backing the MEK is that the group has all the trappings of a totalitarian cult."

• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long-read by the Guardian.

"Widely regarded as a cult, the MEK was once designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and UK, but its opposition to the Iranian government has now earned it the support of powerful hawks in the Trump administration, including national security adviser John Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo."

• Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group.

"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules."

• "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult", by Trita Parsi.

"Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)."

• The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex, by BBC.
• The MEK in Albania

"MEK is a terrorist cult that resides in Albania, and which struggles to overthrow the government of a country that has done nothing wrong against Albania."

3-Official Reports

• U.S. state department report published in 1994. According to the Intercept, the report writes that Massoud Rajavi "fostered a cult of personality around himself" which had "alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another."
• U.S. state department report published in 2008.

That said, given the fact that the the section contains even more sources, the proposed text in this RFC is paying far too little weight to the number and depth of coverage by the reliable sources. Moreover, the above list proved that MEK's cultish/cult-like descriptions don't solely stem from the MEK's separating of children from parents. Actually, the sources go through the details and portray a set of behaviors that indicate MEK is/resembles a cult. For instance, the RAND report lists the following items in APPENDIX B of the report to show that MEK is a cult, or has cult-like attributes:

1. "Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership"
2. "Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation"
3. "Sexual Control"
4. "Emotional Isolation"
5. "Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure"
6. "Deceptive Recruitment"
7. "Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation"
8. "Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options"
9. "Patterns of Suicide"

Though RAND report provides a complete list of the items indicating MEK's cultish behavior, other sources have occasionally mentioned these items (see the above list. For instance, Rubin's piece in New York Times talks about a metamorphosis "into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult".) That's why the current proposed text, which is a 80-words paragraph, is never a proper response to the above points and can't resemble the current section, which is a well-sourced-6-paragraphs-680-words text.

--Mhhossein ^talk 03:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove US from list of Allies in infobox?

The source cited for its inclusion is an article from 2018 titled "M.E.K.: The Group John Bolton Wants to Rule Iran." Bolton's ideological positions are fairly far removed from the mainstream, but at that time he was National Security Advisor, so his position on such matters were relevant, at that time; but, he was booted from his position quite a while ago, so the his position as it relates to US policy is not particularly relevant anymore. Are there any other sources that support listing the US as an ally to this group? Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the same can be said about some of the other "allies" listed in that infobox. About the U.S., maybe it's too soon to say whether it remains its "ally" or not. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Operation Shining Sun

@Idealigic: At first you removed the "Operation Shining sun" from the body and the infobox, alleging the source was not reliable. Now, after I have found a reliable source for that, you claim it's not enough. Please explain why there should be more than one source for that? I see your edits are becoming tendentious. You have recently reverted a user without explaining why! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You tried to use this theglobepost link to put in the lead that the MEK was involved in a battle. If you insist that this is a reliable source for this, my suggestion is that you ask at RSN and see what they will say there about that. Then you used another source that looks more reliable (I cannot access it though), and I reverted you with edit summary "One source for to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight." You also have removed single reliable sources claiming "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources", as such if you want to put in the article that the MEK took part in a battle, you need "multiple high-quality sources". And if you think this means my editing is "tendentious", then this would mean your editing is also tendentious, and werent you blocked for tendentious editing in April? Upon request, I can provide more ways in which I think your editing has been tendentious, if tendentious editing is what you really want to discuss. Idealigic (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Idealigic. I've submitted the RfC below taking note of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This straw man fallacy mixed with a battleground language won't be an improvement to this discussion. It's hopeless to see the portion of your comment saying MEK's participation in the operation is an exceptional claim. Cohen's scholarly work, which you removed, is just reliable enough for this. @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Should I really find more than one source saying MEK started "Operation Shining Sun" against Iran? The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you show me where your scholarly source supports your assertion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Sure, you can see it in P. 5 "In the document, which was exposed after Operation Shining Sun which took place in April 1988 and probably referred to that operation as well, the Komite’s advice to their leadership...". The context is on the MEK's activities against Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I did see that quote, but I don't buy it, sorry. The source is not explicitly saying the MEK initiated that, and if it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly, then you should be able to find a source making it explicit without trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in that source says that the MEK were involved in Operation Shining Sun. Ypatch (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The users supporting pro-MEK POVs here are well aware of the operation. They know it well. Yes, "it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly." I could find more sources [25] and [26]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have provided those sources upfront, instead of the one you did...I can verify the first, I don't have access to the second. @Idealigic and Stefka Bulgaria: I think the onus is now on you to say why you oppose the inclusion of this content. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The second source mentions “Operation Bright Sun” (a different name) on page 22.VR _talk 02:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Can I insert it into the article? It's well verified by, at least, three reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Yes, both “Operation Bright Sun” and "Operation shining sun" are the translations for the original title of the operation, i.e. "Template:Lang-fa". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Well, the content was objected to by Idealigic before, so you've to give them a chance to respond. If they continue to remain active but do not engage here, then yes, you may reinstate that content. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein removed a reliable source from the article with the edit summary "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources")". Now Mhhossein wants to add in the lead "Operation Sunshine", but this looks to be supported by one reliable source. Can somebody explain why WP:EXCEPTIONAL can be applied in some instances, but not for others? If "Operation Sunshine" is to be added in the lead and infobox, shouldn't it "require multiple high-quality sources"?Idealigic (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Simply because it's not an exceptional claim. I could show, at least, three sources for that. Vanamonde: Just see he has never followed our comments and still says there's only ONE source. Moreover, Idealigic objection is not substantiated. Time to insert the material? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Cohen source does not say the MEK were in "Operation Sunshine", the Piazza source says "Operation Bright Sun", and the Buchan source is the only source that mentions (only once) "Operation Shining Sun". If there is consensus that one mention in one source is enough to put something in the lead and infobox, then why not the other information that Mhhossein removed? Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Template:Lang-fa". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Template:Lang-fa" (see the Google translate results). Your objections are becoming some sort of stone-walling. Vanamonde: Insights please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic is asking a reasonable question, not "stone-walling". I think a good compromise would be to add “Operation Bright Sun” in the body for now, and if more sources are found, then we can also add this in the lead. I will use the Piazza article Mhhossein provided since it's the source with the most detail and put this information in the corresponding section. But since we are adding this, I also think the information Mhhossein removed should be put back. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic and MA Javadi: "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Template:Lang-fa". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Template:Lang-fa" (see the Google translate results). So, this source should be counted. I will insert it back into the info box and the body if you fail to raise a reasonable objection for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Words "bright" and "shining" have the same meaning. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I worked on the (body) section about this information which had big problems such as certain things not being in the source and copy-right violations. I have added "operation Bright Sun" in the title of the section (Operation Bright Sun, Operation 40 Stars, and Operation Mersad) and in the section itself. I used mainly the Piazza scholarly article that Mhhossein provided here since it's the source with the most detail. I also removed "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses" based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL since, like Mhhossein in their edit here, I have not been able to find other sources to prove this information is supported in other sources except this one. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are those copyright violations and/or non-verified contents? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• @idealigic: You were asking for more sources on MEK's operation shining Sun. Now, you have removed those reliable sources from the article. Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think I may have made as mistake there. I wanted to remove your original research that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same (this is not in the sources, it's your own claim). I think we should be faithful to the sources. Maybe something like "Piazza called this operation bright sun", and others called it "shining sun"? we need to be careful that the dates match though. Additionally, you added the Ronen Cohen source and the Piazza source in the lead section supporting Shining Sun. Vanmonde told you that Cohen did not explicitly say the MEK initiated Shining Sun, and Piazza says Bright Sun, so please remove these two sources from the lead section since they don't match with what you are trying to say. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is more than clear that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same. Don't say that excuse again. Actually, "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" !!! Vanamonde correctly asked to find another source explicitly saying MEK launched the operation, and I did. Are there further reasons behind your removal of the reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't question that in your mind you see things in a particular way, but we don't follow that. No matter how many "!!!" exclamations you use, we follow the reliable sources. I suggested one solution that follows the information in the sources, so I am waiting for your answer why you don't think this is a good proposition. Idealigic (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So I am going to restore those reliable sources if you have no guideline based explanations for your removal of sources which lies against your own claim.--Mhhossein ^talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about removing contentious content from the lede

Shall we remove the following from 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."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes. Per: WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:UNDUE and WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT:

• About the first part of the sentence in question:

"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"

There is only a single source that passingly mentions "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support." Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources""), this is a major/contentious and WP:UNDUE claim. Besides this passing mention, no other source has been found describing the MEK siding with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

About counter-arguments saying that the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, please note that this is already described in detail in the lede: ("In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.")

• About the second part of the sentence in question:

"a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

This goes against our WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT policies.

The MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country"; and that has also been described as "the largest Iranian opposition group".

Making any contention about the MEK's popularity (within an authoritarian regime that has banned the MEK and that is running a disinformation campaign against it to, among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”) would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede).

An actual poll to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran would be very difficult to do; as Ronen Cohen notes: "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." Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth without opposing views; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to removing this sentence. For the first part of the sentence, WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems the relevant policy for why this should not be there. For the second part of the sentence, the other sources given by Stefka (specially the one about the Iranian regime spending hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portray it as a group without popular support) should be enough to consider this inapropriate for the lead. Idealigic (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Stefka Bulgaria many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented. For example, three sources were provided for MEK's ties to Saddam pre-1986 at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_33#Different_proposal. Similarly, I provided fourteen (14) sources saying that MEK's popularity significantly declined due to its collaboration with Saddam. Here they are: Are there reliable sources that say MEK's popularity wasn't hurt by siding with Iraq? MEK being the largest opposition group doesn't directly contradict this statement.VR _talk 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: can you please present the "many, many sources" that say the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I presented fourteen (14) sources for the second part of the sentence you want to remove. Here are four sources for the first part:

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

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

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

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

^The meeting referred to by Taheri was a highly publicized meeting that took place in January 1983.VR _talk 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@VR: I was specific when I asked for (what you referred to as) the "many, many sources" which confirm a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede). Instead, you mention 14 sources that have nothing to do with the question, present 3 sources (none of which say anything about 1983 specifically), and present the one source that's already in the lede about 1983.

Since WP:bludgeoning the process is a recurring problem in these RfCs, I'll get straight to the point:

1) The collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK is already mentioned in the lede. If there are 3 other sources giving inconsistent dates prior to 1986 (which is what you've presented), these can go in the body where they can be contextualised according to their WP:WEIGHT, but in the lede they are WP:UNDUE. More specifically, the problem is that currently in the lede we have an allegation that the MEK collaborated with Hussein in 1983; this is backed by a single source and therefore constitutes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (and is also WP:UNDUE), hence this proposal to remove it from the lede.

2) About the "14 sources" you presented to support "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland": these are not polls or collected data; but rather these are opinions from different analysts. I have presented other opinion/reports that contradict this POV, for example the MEK being considered the Iranian regime's largest opposition group, or Iran blaming the MEK for the recent wave of major protests in Iran, or the following:

• "After two years of political struggle, the ayatollahs could not tolerate the growing, nationwide popularity of the MEK, and so they unleashed unbridled terror against it in the summer of 1981. The reign of terror has continued unabated. Tens of thousands of MEK activists, men and women, have fallen victim to brutal crackdowns. In the summer of 1988 alone, with a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, some 30,000 political prisoners – primarily MEK activists – were massacred. Most of those arrested and sentenced to death after the 2009 uprising belonged to the MEK. [...] Although it is irrefutable that the MEK enjoyed a constant and formidable presence in Iran, the regime has sought to ignore the MEK in its public positions, as part of an effort to eliminate its archenemy through simultaneous repression and propaganda. Toward that end, Tehran implausibly claims that the MEK lacks popular support and is inconsequential to Iranian affairs."

• "The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”

Sources representing both sides of the argument could all be teased out and contextualized in the body; instead, yourself and Mhhossein have argued that this one-sided POV be left in the lede as an undisputed fact; but it isn't an undisputed fact.

Also some of the sources you've presented are problematic. Trita Parsi, for example is the founder of NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime (the same Iranian regime that's running a disinformation campaign to brand the MEK "unpopular" and a "cult", and the same regime that is using "intimidation tactics" against journalists in the West and also in Iran).

To conclude: (and this is the last I'll say here to prevent further bludgeoing) there isn't official data or polls to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. We have sources saying the MEK remains popular, and we have other sources saying the MEK remains unpopular. What's most concerning is the −disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime to label the MEK unpopular (with Mhhossein removing this information from the article), and the fact that this "MEK is unpopular" POV is being pushed in the lede of this Wikipedia article as an objective truth (when it isn't). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Shedding light on a repeated scenario: You have repeatedly repeated the nonsense Original Research that we should be concerned about a disinformation campaign which aims MEK. You have of course received DUE and proportionate replies each time. In this comment, you have made concluding remark talking about "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign". It's quite interesting for others to realize you did pretty much the same concluding remark here (just see "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign" being repeated there). So, my response would be almost the same:"These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign...Using this [your] argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know!". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure (or organization). For example, Yasser Arafat says most Israelis came to regard him as an unrepentant terrorist, but the sources given don't cite any poll. There are many other examples on wikipedia where the (un)popularity of a group is supported by reliable sources that don't cite opinion polls. The fourteen reliable sources I cited for MEK's unpopularity are all independent of the Iranian government.

And why is MEK collaborating with Saddam in 1983 an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 was reported in newspapers[27]. Even the MEK's official website admits that Rajavi met the Iraqi PM in December 1982 and negotiated an agreement with Iraq[28]. Because this meeting was publicized in the first days of January 1983, many sources date it to 1982 instead.VR _talk 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - The stuff about 1983 is WP:UNDUE because only one source is backing this up, so this should not be in the lead of the article, and the MEK-Saddam cooperation is already in that section anyways. Then the stuff about the MEK's popularity, VR is saying that "there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure", but he is not taking into consideration other sources that say the MEK is a popular political opposition to the present-day Iranian government. To bluntly label a political organization popular or unpopular in the lead of a Wikipedia page, when there are sources that say both, should be taken with caution. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Only one source? LOL! Please follow the previous comments before commenting. Vice Regent clearly showed there are numerous sources for that ([29] and here). --Mhhossein ^talk 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I did read all comments very carefully before voting. The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 is not the same as 'In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War' (and the Tariq Aziz meeting with Rajavi is in the article already anyways). The RAND report talks about funding the MEK in 1980, and Terrornomics talks about the MEK receiving financial support 'since 1982'. In the lead there already are many reliable sources about the MEK-Hussein cooperation saying they were involved in the 1980s and 1990s in Operation Mersad, 1991 uprisings, and Operation Forty Stars. The only other unquestionable event before 1986 is the meeting with Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz, and this is already in the article. That leaves only one source to support that in 1983 Hussein funded the MEK, and this is why that is an WP:UNDUE statement for the lead. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's clarify it for you for in another way. Please respond: Is mentioning of 1983 the only issue you are pointing to? Since, even your own comment is proving MEK was receiving supports from Saddam multiple times. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My previous comment is clear. I don't think I will change your mind no matter what I write so I won't encourage this conversation further. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally, you did not say if mentioning of 1983 is the only issue you are pointing to. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No Per VR Above. There's extensive sourcing that siding with Saddam made them deeply unpopular. It is also not an exceptional claim to make, and I find the citing of WP:EXCEPTIONAL strange. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about a political party becoming unpopular after siding with an invading military force. I also must say I don't see the logic Stefka's objection that sources saying there was collaboration in 1980, 1981 and 1982, don't somehow support the source also saying there was collaboration in 1983. --Brustopher (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Brustopher you have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence, not about the MEK's popularity. You have also misunderstood the popularity portion, which is about representing all the sources, and not just a single view. Idealigic (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Brustopher is hitting the nail on the head by saying MEK-Saddam collaborations is not a big deal or an exceptional claim. Are all these wall of texts raised by OP aimed to remove 1983? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, do not make faulty generalizations that don't represent all the sources, least of all in the lead. If the MEK is the biggest opposition to the Iranian leadership, then saying that its appeal has been destroyed in Iran just doesn't make sense. According to the sources, it is unpopular for some but popular for others. When in doubt, like here, best to avoid making generalisations in the lead. The same about dates before 1986, they do not coincide, which can be maybe ok for other sections but not the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members (2nd RfC)

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) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As well as this:

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

Into this?:

Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization. Such accusations include a ban on romantic relationships and control over contact with family. According to a BBC report, "a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid. This RFC seems to have a similar form of the problem reported here by the closing admin. The RFC is proposing the following:

US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

This is while the source reads as such:

There are many other stories.
Children who never forgave their parents for abandoning them. Children who did forgive and are now joyously reunited. Divorcees who have got out of the organisation saying they still love their former spouses who are still in.
In over 25 years of reporting, I have been lied to often enough but, as successive former MEK members told what they had been through, their tears seemed real enough to me.
And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents.
Again, who to believe?

In contrast to what the OP is trying to imply, the source is not saying it as a fact that the UK and US politicians deny these statements. The author, in fact, is trying to portray various probabilities and is not saying which side is right nor he says he did ask the politicians. Actually, to show the doubt, he's asking "Who to believe"? Moreover, regarding the former members he says:

And the former members?
Some are embittered, others just seem broken.

That's why this RFC seems misleading. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've sorted that out for you amending the proposal. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

NO, it's not amended. The source does not say the politicians said such a thing. The biggest problem with the porposal, among other things which I will comprehensively explain in my comment, is that ONE source is cherry picked to push a certain POV. This is source can not be used in face multiple other scholarly works saying actually the opposite. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have amended this for you once again, though I doubt you'll be happy even with quoting the source directly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes:

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

  2) In the last RfC, Mhhossein argued that these are "major points reported by multiple reliable sources"; but they are not major points. These mostly constitute allegations by random people who have defected the MEK (or claim to have defected from the MEK) and 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.

  3) Per the previously-closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article.

  4) This RfC takes into account the points made and closing remarks in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article" that suggested the final text be longer than the previous proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Yes. I don't know what Mhhossein is talking about here but the BBC is talking about the MEK's internal social policies that some have interpreted as "cultish" characteristics (like requiring members in Iraq to divorce because it was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs and sending their children away because it would be safer for them). It then describes former members saying they participated in public confessions about sexual fantasies, then that

"And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

So the politicians are saying this, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that report which also hints at why we don't need so many redundant allegations all replicating the same cult material. The issue is not this BBC source, the issue is the abundant cult redundancy that needs to be abreviated.

In the previous RFC, Mhhossein wrote that "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.", but then Mhossein appears to remove the "weight to opposing POVs".

It is worrying to see an editor doing all this to pack the article with allegations that the MEK is a cult while at the same time removing the reports indicating that the Tehran government is trying to designate the MEK as a cult. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it an ANI comment or an RFC one? Also, "So the politicians are saying this"? Where in the source you found that? There's absolutely no factual statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I've now amended the text so it quotes the BBC source directly, so that's been fixed for you. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Read it once again, it seems even more nonsense than before. This is the third time you are proposing misleading proposals for RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Mhhossein just seems unwilling to reach any form of compromise. If we are not including claims from current MeK members, then by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members. We either include both (current and former member claims), or neither. Including both would open a can of worms, while excluding both POV sides solves this problem. The article needs fact-based information from authors such as scholars, not all this POV from COI interviewees. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

More removals by Mhhossein

@Mhhossein: - Please explain these recent removals you did [30][31]

1* "On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

2* "while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

3* "In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

4* "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

5* "on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

6* "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

7* "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8* "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Also you should explain why you added back the exceptional claim - "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses.".

Also please show where this is supported - "Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded." - MA Javadi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained my edits. As for this one, you can see my edit summary; the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere, also "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department" (this quote is from the Cohen source). Why should this pro-MEK propagandistic claim be inserted into the page? As for this one, it's being discussed elsewhere. Moreover, you can see a link to my explanations in the edit summary. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - I have presented each removal with a number. Please answer clearly to each one of your removals. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division

@Mhhossein: Also can you explain why you have removed "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division."? (diff). Idealigic (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Because, as my edit summary reads, it promoting the POV of MEK. Who says it was heavy? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)