Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 30

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

Human Rights record and allegations

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

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

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

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

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

I also propose removing some sources to avoid cluttering the text with citation overkill. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * did I miss any important events here?
 * The proposal has several significant issues. You have removed many notable info from the section and condensed them into 'citation overkill'. Now are you are suggesting the removal of those sources. That's funny! Are you saying we should avoid being specific and instead propose using vague words such as 'Certain sources', 'other sources' and etc? Where are the names of the politicians? For instance, why did you remove "ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat"? No, if there's anything duplicated please let us know. But, the cultish characteristics of the group truly deserves a subsection. -- M h hossein   talk 12:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) "Where are the names of the politicians? ":
 * We don't need the name of each person that ever called the MEK a "cult", "cult-like", or "cult of personality"; this is why I've summarised as follows:
 * 2)"why did you remove "ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat"?
 * I've summmarised them as follows:
 * 3) "But, the cultish characteristics of the group truly deserves a subsection.
 * I've summarised them here, including all sides of the arguments:
 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? any thoughts (with any concrete suggestions/objections)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why we should not go in this way. The question is why you have condensed the materials in such an awkward manner? You have removed the names of the politicians, why? Your suggestion seems like a blatantly clear strategy to pretend the MEK's hands are clean by removing some well-sourced materials from the article. This version by you is ridiculously fed up with citations whose details are removed by you with no logical ground (and you're then suggesting to remove the citations, a step which removes the last traces of BAD things about MEK from the article! Hahaha). Nope, you have failed to elaborated on why exactly these well-sourced materials should be removed? Many many sources has discussed the MEK's characterization as a cult and any attempt at removing those materials is a move against WP:NPOV. -- M h hossein   talk 06:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good proposal. We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult. A line or two encapsulating the general consensus about this is plenty. Alex-h (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Stefka's proposal is a good starting point towards fixing that section. I will later start new discussions on some things I would also include there. Ypatch (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I recently asked the question of adding "Cult of personality" to the Qasem Soleimani and Donald Trump articles (since there are enough RSs saying both have a personality cult built around them). For the Qasem Soleimani article, I was told by another user that adding a single sentence about this somewhere in the article's body was plenty. For the Trump article, I was told by another user that this was a "pejorative term", and shouldn't be included in the article. The question is then, why do we need to repeat the "cult"/"personality cult"/"cult-like" allegations multiple times in this article? Hence my proposal. I think mentioning it once it's plenty. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So that's why your're confused! You are comparing two far way different topics. One is Bio and the other is a group where there are dozens of dozens sources saying either they are/represent cult or they have cult-like characteristics. You need to stop removing the well sourced materials from the article. You have already reverted two of my edits. -- M h hossein   talk 02:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Stefka's proposal is a good starting point towards fixing that section. I will later start new discussions on some things I would also include there. Ypatch (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I recently asked the question of adding "Cult of personality" to the Qasem Soleimani and Donald Trump articles (since there are enough RSs saying both have a personality cult built around them). For the Qasem Soleimani article, I was told by another user that adding a single sentence about this somewhere in the article's body was plenty. For the Trump article, I was told by another user that this was a "pejorative term", and shouldn't be included in the article. The question is then, why do we need to repeat the "cult"/"personality cult"/"cult-like" allegations multiple times in this article? Hence my proposal. I think mentioning it once it's plenty. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So that's why your're confused! You are comparing two far way different topics. One is Bio and the other is a group where there are dozens of dozens sources saying either they are/represent cult or they have cult-like characteristics. You need to stop removing the well sourced materials from the article. You have already reverted two of my edits. -- M h hossein   talk 02:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Trump's_%22Cult_of_Personality%22? also asked] if "cult of personality" should be added to the Presidency of Donald Trump, and was told this: "No. For the same reason: This is a pejorative term." Mind you, this proposal is not about excluding these term(s) from this article, is about not repeating them constantly, turning the article into "According to XYZ, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to ABC, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to EFG, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; etc..." There is really no need for that, hence my proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Presidency of Donald Trump is far way different from People's Mujahedin of Iran since the former is on Presidency of Donald Trump and the latter is on People's Mujahedin of Iran! So, the discussion of whether or not Donald Trump has created a term or his presidency constitutes a cult is not something to be comparable to the case of People's Mujahedin of Iran! In contrast to what you're trying to indicate, there's no issue of "According to..."! Attribution should be made whenever needed and DUE weight should be given to them. -- M h hossein   talk 11:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are 20 sources saying the MEK is a cult, we don't need to include those 20 sources separately saying each source says the MEK is a cult. I agree that mentioning it a couple of times gets the point across. That proposal looks fine to me.Barca (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is being turned into a collection of cult accusations. Those sections do need copyediting. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In this section I proposed copy-editing and merging two sections of the article (on account that both sections include repeated and overlapping information concerning "cult" claims). I presented a proposed summary of the main points, and asked other editors to comment on whether I had missed any important points. I seem to have received support from the majority of editors for my proposed copy-edit, and an objection from one editor. Does this count as majority consensus? no consensus? what's the appropriate way forward here? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The clearest objection raised to your proposal is that it removes the piece about marriage and romantic relationships (please don't try to finesse that point; it has been removed). If you include that point, your proposal would have fairly clear consensus. At the moment it's a little harder to judge, because many of those commenting are not saying anything very substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. To be certain I've understood: I have consensus to go ahead with the edit as long as I also include ""In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children."? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment, yes (no comment on the specific wording used; Mhhossein's objection was about that incident, not the words used to describe it). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll go ahead with the edit then, and if Mhhossein proposes a different wording then that info can be reworded. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93: I'm afraid, how did you realize that after adding "ban on romantic relationships and marriages" there's clear consensus for this wholesale removal of well-sourced contents? Some of my objections:"The question is why you have condensed the materials in such an awkward manner? You have removed the names of the politicians, why?" -- M h hossein   talk 12:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You have not substantiated those objections enough for them to carry weight. If you want them to count for anything, please discuss in detail, with reference to the sources, why the material should not be trimmed. Remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93: First of all, Stefka Bulgaria's main claim is that the article has "overlapping information concerning "cult" claims" in the two sections and he has failed to show which of the portions are overlapping. He needs to address them case by case. Secondly, the cultish/cult-like/cult of personality behavior/characteristics of the group is deeply covered by plenty of high quality reliable sources so that it warrants dedicating a separate section the topic, as per DUE. I think presenting the list of the sources on cultish/cult-like/cult of personality behavior/characteristics of the group may add to the complexity of this TP but one may refer to and  to see some of them. Thirdly, the suggested merger constitutes removal of several well-sourced material which is needed in the page in terms of adding encyclopedic content. Those valuable info are then condensed down to some instances of citations overkill. Why should some vague words such as "some sources", "certain sources" and "other sources" adding to the confusion of the readers? Fourthly, plenty of DUE and well-sourced content from "Human rights record" are removed in this mass removal suggestion. Where's the "Amnesty" report? I think this is Stefka Bulgaria who needs to explain why he intended to remove the 2004 Amnesty report, the 2013 UN report, the details of the HRW report, Hyeran and  Ronen A. Cohen's works and etc on the basis of "repeated and overlapping information". Where are those materials repeated? Last, but not the least, probably Stefka Bulgaria should be hold to explain why he attempted to perform such a mass removal of well-sourced and DUE content on a false ground? --  M h hossein   talk 07:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * u|SharabSalam: You've reverted this edit without substantiating or addressing the points raised in this TP discussion. Since you can't revert simply based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, please address the points raised in this TP discussion, defending your revert through RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * u|SharabSalam: Pinging you again in case you missed my earlier post. You need to substantiate why you reverted this edit through the points raised in this TP discussion/RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost 4 days go, SharabSalam he responded why. -- M h hossein   talk 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those two sections currently are an untidy mix of random quotes. The said cult characterizations are coming from the supposed (mis)treatment of its members. That falls right into "Human rights record" territory, so a merge of these two sections would be fitting. I also support the subsequent trim that establishes the main points, making for a more coherent narrative, so I agree with Stefka's proposal here. Nika2020 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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


 * See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In the same manner, this article is not an indiscriminate collection of criticisms. I've proposed cleaning up those sections, and asked you to provide any particular information that I may have missed (MEK defectors saying the MEK is a cult is already covered in the proposed summary). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE is talking about "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" and "Exhaustive logs of software updates".It has nothing to do with our discussion. Do you have anything more saying why you removed the report by the The Intercept? -- M h hossein   talk 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, MEK defectors saying the MEK is a cult is already covered in the article and in the proposed copy-edit in the section above. If there is something I may have missed, please let me know, but we're not going to add more "MEK defectors said the MEK is a cult" allegations because that's already in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's where you're are puzzled. What your you have removed was actually what The Intercept believes, NOT what the former members of MEK say: The Intercept is a notable source and the article needs to be featured with such fresh portions analyzing the testimonies of the former members. -- M h hossein   talk 17:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What in that source, as well as the RAND source you recently added, doesn't summarise what's already included in my proposal? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and why do you think your proposal is the determining criteria? -- M h hossein   talk 02:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you have removed the viewpoint of The Intercept (which was neutrally presented in the article), not the former members. That you tend to remove the well-sourced materials should not be a ground for reverting further inclusions. -- M h hossein   talk 03:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For your attention. -- M h hossein   talk 11:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite being pinged 18 days ago, Stefka Bulgaris is not commenting why has removed the POV of The Intercept which I had inserted recently. Summarizing should not be used as a pretext for removing the well sourced content. I think this is an indication of wp:silence. Can I go by that? -- M h hossein   talk 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mhhossein. I answered you already a couple of times. MEK defectors saying the MEK is a cult is already covered in the article. Adding different variations of "MEK defectors said the MEK is a cult" isn't making the article better. That was my objection to your edit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment can be deemed as being misleading. What you have removed was in fact The Intercept evaluation of the defector's testimonies (which is found no where in the article). That's why I have asked Vanamonde93 to judge your replies and your long silence. -- M h hossein   talk 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93: Stefka Bulgaria claims he has removed simply a "MEK defectors said the MEK is a cult" sentence, while what he removed was the evaluation of the Intercept of the defector's testimonies. -- M h hossein   talk 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, see my previous response to you here. We don't need to clutter the article with every source that ever called the MEK a "cult" or "cult-like". We already have a lot of sources describing the MEK as a cult in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also include "According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK". Other than that, I'm ok with this proposal. It condenses the information to each point without making a huge song and dance deal about everything every person ever said about the MEK. Ypatch (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also added that in the proposed summary: "Other sources have dismissed these claims, some stating that it is “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”. If you approve/disapprove of the proposed text please indicate this in the section above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal is nothing but the whole removal of well-sourced materials regarding MEK which makes the page even more POVish. -- M h hossein   talk 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

For your attention. -- M h hossein   talk 11:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: Please elaborate on why you removed my recent addition to the article, since your edit summary is not justifying your revert. The RAND corporation report is not making an excessive cult claim, rather its explaining the different cultish aspects of the group, namely "confiscat[ing] the member's identity documents, threatened them with persecution in Iran and prosecution for illegal immigration in Iraq, and prevented those who wished to do so from returning to their home country." Please provide substantiated objections. -- M h hossein   talk 14:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

This is the same reason I didn’t propose to include every single author/source that ever said there is a cult of personality built around [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini#Cult_of_Personality? Khomeini]; because that would be damaging to the article. Nevertheless, you insist that "Cult personality" shouldn't even be mentioned in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini#Cult_of_Personality? Khomeini], Khamenei, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qasem_Soleimani#Personality_cult? Soleimani] articles, while here you continue to add "cult" claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to agree that “cult” is a “pejorative” term, yet here you are constantly trying to include new sources that repeat that the “MEK is a cult” (while you won’t even allow that to be summarised or even mentioned in other articles about this group’s political oppositions). As shown above, "Cult" claims are already (overtly) covered in this article. Continuing to add every “cult” claim we can find is damaging to the article, violates WP:NPOV, and is turning the article into a WP:COATRACK to paint the MEK as a "Terrorist cult" (a term used by the IRI against this group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! maybe we can just change the title of the article to "Cult of The People Mojahedin of Iran", LOL! - MA Javadi (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: Once again I explain, that YOU "are trying to clean up by summarising the main points" can not be a ground for depleting the article of DUE and notable materials supported by high quality sources. As I stated in my previous comment, "the RAND corporation report is not making an excessive cult claim". It is explaining in what terms the group is characterized a cult. So, please explain why you removed it from the article? -- M h hossein   talk 13:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that in my previous posts: who/how/why the MEK is described a cult is already (overtly) covered in the article (see the text in green I provided just above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you exactly say where in the article is "confiscat[ing] the member's identity documents, threatened them with persecution in Iran and prosecution for illegal immigration in Iraq, and prevented those who wished to do so from returning to their home country" is repeated? -- M h hossein   talk 06:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: you've recently removed two well-sourced portions from the article. The RAND report is adding something new and DUE to the article explaining how the MEK's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces' operations at the camp Ashraf. It is not saying MEK is a cult or like so your argument mentioned in your edit summary is completely false. As for the '2012 US government document', it is a governmental document which has official consequences and hence would be weighty enough to be included. You can not simply compare it to the comments by other identities. -- M h hossein   talk 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Removal of RAND report and 2012 US government document by BarcrMac
 * for your attention. -- M h hossein   talk 11:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: your determination to repeat the word "cult" in this article is quite something. You persisted for having "Various scholarly works, media outlets has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult."" in the lead, you persisted to have added "Rajavi Cult"[ to the MEK's "Other names", and now you are trying to add that the US government portrayed the group as displaying "cultlike behavior" , but the U.S. describing the MEK as a cult is already in the article ("United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323]") Right now the word "cult" is repeated about 20 times in the article, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you. You are not making the article better by repeating the word "cult" over and over using again different sources. [[User:BarcrMac|Barca]] (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not mentioning a more fresh document was making a similar point? -- M h hossein   talk 13:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @BarcrMac: You are clearly avoiding to say why you have removed the portion from the RAND report explaining how the MEK's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces' operations at the camp Ashraf. As it's clear, the wording is not adding further "cult" claim, rather it is adding a valuable encyclopedic info into this article. Please explain why? -- M h hossein   talk 11:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: Your edit included "and in 2012 a U.S. government research document portrayed the group as displaying "cultlike behavior", but like I said, the U.S. describing the MEK as a cult is already in the article ("United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation".[323]") In that edit you also inserted "The group's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces operations at the camp Ashraf and its strategies twoard the group. According to RAND corporation, MEK's history of cult behavior would likely had made the attempts by the coalition force aimed at dismantling the group, as allowed by the Geneva Conventions, become "difficult and frustrating" and it could led to violence, especially "self inflicted violence". I thought that was superfluous content, specially considering that "cult" is repeated so many times in the article already. You seem to be trying to insert any cult quotes as possible and hope some of them stick. Barca (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BarcrMac is not substantiating well why he has removed the following portion: He says it's a "superfluous content" while I believe this is adding an DUE and well sourced material to the article and the content is not repeated anywhere in the page. For repeating "cult", I can edit it so that only it's used once in this content. -- M h hossein   talk 06:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * when was the content under dispute added to the article for the first time? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was add here and removed here. -- M h hossein   talk 06:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case,, you need to establish consensus for the addition; it's too recent an addition for anything else. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But the objection needs to be some sort of substantiation. I tried to build consensus and "I thought that was superfluous content" is not a substantiated objection since the content is DUE, new to the page (there's no duplication) and well-sourced. -- M h hossein   talk 05:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The responsibility for trying to obtain consensus after proposing a change is on you. The responsibility for providing policy-based rebuttals to that proposal is on anyone who disagrees with the proposal. The validity of arguments against any proposal, though, can only be made by someone assessing a proper discussion, not just an argument between two editors; and if a substantive disagreement persists after a discussion, then an RfC would be necessary. An argument that a specific addition is superfluous would not carry much weight in an RfC, but that doesn't negate the need for more discussion at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to build consensus and this discussion had been opened since 10 days ago. Users were free to participate the discussion. The only objection raised by the only participant is "superfluous content". I deem there had been enough discussions here considering that I opened the topic 10 days ago. BarcrMac has reverted me and he fails to substantiate his action. Are you telling me I should ask other editors as to why BarcrMac has reverted me? Take Kazemita1's comment into account, too. As and admin, you are expected to evaluate the discussions. -- M h hossein   talk 13:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * if you are not happy with my answer, why don't you ping me instead of Vanamonde? I case you were not told this already, verifiability does not mean the content should be included. The content you are trying to include is filled with superfluous "ifs". If we were to fill the article full of "ifs", then we would have a lot of descriptions about things that could have happened (but have not). The articles needs facts established by DUE weight, and about things that are actually of some importance (not just included because the mention the word "cult", something that is already about 20 times in the article). Barca (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You were pinged multiple times and you only said it's "superfluous" without elaborating why. Your recent answer is even worse than the previous ones. "If"? What kind of "if" do you see in the content? Are you sure you're talking about this revert by you? You are persistently failing to say why the following content, being supported by a high quality and reliable source, is not DUE. -- M h hossein   talk 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree with this merge. Two different subjects cant be merged into one section. Also, allegations? Thats unsourced. All reliable scholar sources call them cult, its not an allegations, its a fact.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing well-established sourced content will initiate new attempts from all sides to remove unfavorable content. RAND and Intercept have been accepted as reliable sources throughout the discussions in this article (and probably the rest of Wikipedia). --Kazemita1 (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand what you're saying here. Can you not see a distinction between material that's been in the article for a while, and material added two weeks ago? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When Kazemita was indef blocked in January, he said "I hereby assure you that I will not be editing the People's Mojahedeen of Iran's article for one year, neither thru my Wiki account nor an IP. As you mentioned, I might contribute to the talk page. You know what, I just changed my mind. Please, block me for a period of one year. I do need that break from Wiki to cool-off my head.", which user:El_C took in good faith and changed the block to 3 months. User:RoySmith said "I'm just seeing a user who's disruptive. The whole thing above about the Double Jeopardy Clause was absurd. We're here to write an encyclopedia. I honestly don't see that Kazemita1 is contributing to that. And, given their long block history, I don't have any confidence that this will change. However, if your judgement is that they will become a productive contributor, I would have no objection if you unblock them." Kazemita's first edit after his block in to come straight back to this article, and although he hasn't made any violations, I'm just pointing out the obvious direction we are heading towards here again, which Vanamonde and others involved here have to endure for the time it lasts. Barca (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't remember the context here. Do you have a diff where I wrote that? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . I am aware of the long-standing text policy. I am trying to remind everyone that objection against inclusion should be substantiated. After all this used to be how things were done in this article.Kazemita1 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * RoySmith it is this one Barca (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The objection that the content being proposed deals only with hypotheticals is substantive enough that you need more participants to reach a consensus (or clearly determine the absence thereof)., you have the option of starting an RfC, or of letting this go. You do not have clear consensus for this addition at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence, i.e. "The group's cult behavior would affected the U.S. led coalition forces operations at the camp Ashraf and its strategies toward the group" is not hypothetical. The source actually says: "MeK’s cult behavior and questionable recruiting practices are significant insofar as they affect both the daily operations at the camp and the strategic disposition options available to the group". -- M h hossein   talk 07:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't seem to be discussing a hypothetical, but the way you phrased it was. Moreover, the source isn't being specific. There isn't anything here to entirely ignore Barca's objection, and as such, you don't have consensus here. Please do not belabor the point. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued disputes
All of you editing this page need to realize that and myself will not be monitoring this dispute forever. If The bunch of you cannot work on this page collaboratively in the absence of continual administrator intervention, then you will likely be removed from the topic. I am specifically referring to the umpteen pings I receive for each new disagreement, when in almost every case, the issue is a legitimate content dispute that needs to be settled by consensus building. Ideally, this would be the editors here making compromises, but since I've yet to see evidence that that is possible, then you need to start RfCs; and if that seems like a pain in the neck, well, it's entirely self-inflicted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: Not every objection raised in this TP is substantiated. So, there should be someone evaluating the comments. -- M h hossein   talk 05:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Vanamonde, yes, I think RfCs may be the best way to resolve most of the disputes here, though RfCs here tend to take several months (and most end in no-consensus). I've also tried third opinion, but editors here have refused to engage there. As an alternative, if there is an evident majority consensus in a given talk page discussion, could that be considered as a form of consensus building (that seems to be the case in other Wiki articles)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, but that's still not cause to run to an administrator every other comment; there still needs to be a substantive discussion among multiple users, at the end of which someone unvinvolved can assess consensus. "I made an edit, Editor X disagreed, but didn't substantiate their objections, can I reinstate this?" is patently silly, but there's been a lot of stuff along those lines of late. I'm afraid not. Numbers don't generally matter; they only do when both arguments have equal basis in policy, and that usually not the case. The alternative to RfCs is not vote-counting. The alternative is compromise. I have yet to see evidence that anyone on this page is capable of that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem often arises when editors argue whether a revert was substantiated or not. This often becomes a spiral of reporting and re-reporting to the dedicated admin overseeing this page. But those days of having a dedicated admin devoted entirely to this page are pretty much over, it seems. From now on, reporting any purported violations should go to ANI (not this article talk page), where they will be evaluated by admins and editors who have not been read-in to this overarching dispute. Maybe that's a good thing. El_C 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So then Mhhossein goes ahead and removes from the lede information so prominent it has its own section and its own Wiki page. Ok, I tried, but can't. I'm too stepping away from this page for a while. Good luck to other involved editors. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, but I guess I'm giving notice here that a) I'm not willing to monitor this talk page indefinitely, and b) if I find that there's one or more users consistently making admin intervention here necessary, I am entirely willing to remove them from the topic, because editing in a way that requires constant admin supervision is a form of problematic editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , understood. The General Sanctions give you a lot of leeway in exercising your discretion. Which I support you doing in any way you see fit. Thanks again for picking up the slack! El_C 18:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

"Assassinations" section is untidy
The article's section "Assassinations" is untidy. On the top of that section there are five links to other articles, and there are some repeated things (like Shirazi for example, it's repeated). I would tidy-up this section only including the most notable episodes. Nika2020 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nika2020: You need to say exactly which one is UNDUE or repeated elsewhere in this page. "Untidy" is not something you can remove the well sourced contents with. -- M h hossein   talk 16:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


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


 * Mhhossein: those are some of the repetition problems in the Assassinations section. Also since we already have a Wikipedia page about List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, my suggestion is to only name the most important historical episodes. This can also include the context and what each side said. What do you think? I can give it a try. If you don't respond I will assume I have your consent.Nika2020 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nika2020: Many of the stuff you removed in your last two edits were not repetitive. I understand you recently joined the team. Please, be advised that big changes in a volatile article like require long discussions and generally do not lead to consensus. Please, focus on small steps instead.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Also, please, note that this policy applies to many other sections of the article as well. For example, the section on 1988 executions has plethora of repetitive content. Kazemita1 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Mhhossein's removal of content
please explain your edit where you removed:


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


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

Barca (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, please check the edit once again. After my edit, for instance, "After the Iran regime had executed 2,500 MEK members, the group counter-attacked against Friday-prayer leaders, revolutionary court judges and members of the IRGC" is still in the page. As for the quotation, I don't think it is even worthy of mentioning in the page. It's not DUE, probably you can include the content in his own page. َ"According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK saw Iran's security agencies as servants of a religious government and a cause for Iran population's state of unhappiness. The MEK first fought against the Revolutionary Guards and later against military units" is in the page after my edit. "Its targets were "the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only" was removed because the page already has "Struan Stevenson and other analysts have stated that MEK targets included only the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions". -- M h hossein   talk 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In the quote you removed (" Ebrahimzadeh (MEK fighter who on July 1982 killed 13 IRGC and Ayatollah Saddugi) wrote “I am willing to die to help hasten the coming of the classless society; to keep alive our revolutionary tradition; and to avenge our colleagues murdered by this bloodthirsty, reactionary regime”.) the MEK fighter is saying the purpose of why the attacks happened. Why are you saying this "it's not DUE"? Barca (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of why the attacks happens is already mentioned in the article. The full quote from Ebrahimzadeh's promotional comments is not really having due weight per your suggestion. The prominence of the Ebrahimzadeh's comment is currently not really as much justifying it's inclusion in the article. -- M h hossein   talk 05:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's ok to have the claims of former MEK members (who have done nothing historically significant ), while it's not ok to have the claims of MEK members who have actually participated in historically significant events? Barca (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because, -and I quote- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @BarcMac: Your comparison is essentially wrong since I tried to prove the former member's quote was DUE. -- M h hossein   talk 04:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


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