Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 32

Fork out
I'm total newcomer to this article, so feel free to shoot my proposal down. I think this article looks WP:TOOBIG and might benefit from some forking. For example, maybe we can create articles on History of the People's Mujahedin of Iran and Ideology of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (currently a redirect) as those look like the biggest sections.VR talk  04:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the article is that it currently has a lot of POV quotes. If each quote came from a reliable person and added new information, then that would be a different matter, but in many cases it's a collections of quotes calling the MEK a cult (a large portion from ex-MEK members), and the argument some of us have made here is that the reader doesn't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said the MEK is like a cult. A sentence is enough for this. If we were able to copy-edit some sections this way condensing repeated POV redundancy, that would massively improve the article. Alex-h (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal is a good compromise as it allows things to be summarized on this page and the content, which many users think is not redundant and want to keep, is still available at a more specialized page.VR talk  14:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The users repeatedly show they are confusing "verified" (not WP:verfiability) with "notable, due etc". They think only verified materials should be included in the Wikipages. --  M h hossein   talk 07:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To followup: yes, yes, each of the two sides wishes to redact the things it does and they do not often align. I see that activity here has been reduced — has this article achieved stability? If so, forking could be the next thing that's worth hashing out. The reader deserves concise summaries alongside links to forks when further expansion is due. Which this article currently fails to do. El_C 12:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article still has NPOV problems. I personally would not be opposed to forking some sections. If the OP has a particular suggestion, we could explore the route further. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm asking about stability — of course, each side will continue to see NPOV issues probably indefinitely as the price of compromise and the the consensus process. Forking would be good because this article is a bit unwieldy. I would encourage someone well versed in the article and its sourcing material as well as past discussions here to be bold and start us off. I think the best way would be to go one section at a time and author or refactor the fork while trimming the main article. But that should be done slowly and through the use of drafts. El_C 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I could give it a try. Will slowly work on this as suggested and make a proposition when I have a draft ready. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That will end no where if the result should be something like the recent ridiculous RFCs you opened. They were attempts at censoring many DUE portions of the article. -- M h hossein   talk 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @El_C: I have been following the developments of this page for a while. The issue is not POV or like. I agree the issue is stability. The recent RFCs signal the strategy behind reshaping the page. You can find in the archive where I discovered plenty of gamings and edits with misleading edit summaries. This page had been the goal to a pro-MEK sock farm in the past and I believe that would be wise to be cautious about the closely similar developments. That said, forking should be done carefully to avoid POV forks and it should be accompanied by guideline based discussions/arguments (selective ignoring of the reliable sources that MEK is the target of misinformation campaign is not of course a guideline based argument!). -- M h hossein   talk 12:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, all I've done here is try to adhere to the suggestions of others, and yet you continue to routinely cast aspersions and rehash failed reports you've submitted against me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "adhere to the suggestions of others"? Can you show who suggested to mass remove well sourced and DUE portions of the page? -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent suggested forking out some sections, El_C agree, and I offered to help with what both Vice regent and El_C suggested. If you don't want me to do this, then by all means you can go ahead and get us started. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "I'm asking about stability — of course" --I would not interpret it as "agreement". I'm concerned about that "stability", that's why things need to be discussed before any action is taken. Forking means leaving important things and taking the rest to a separate page. I am afraid you can be wrong selecting those important things like here. --  M h hossein   talk 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This bound to be a long, painstaking process. But I am optimistic that it is doable and I maintain that it is worth doing in the interest of improvement. El_C 13:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think this could be good for the article, and I'd be willing to try to make it work if Mhhossein is willing to collaborate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained mass reverts by Kazemita1
Please explain, in detail, all of the reverts you did in your last edit. Barca (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * all of you, including, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy. And yes, Kazemita is also obliged to explain himself here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is like a pattern in this article; they make mass changes with an edit summary which is not covering the whole story. -- M h hossein   talk 06:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde: Which edits in particular would you like me to explain? Nika2020 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you made any edits that were reverted, that you still want to reinstate, you need to explain them here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for them. You were reverted at least once that I can see, so unless you agree with Kazemita's mass revert, you have a fair bit of explaining to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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


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

Kazemita added back those repetitions, even though I had not received any objections in that talk page discussion. Nika2020 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of things you are missing here; first "Shirazi" and "Bahonar" are two different people. Second "Bomb debris ..." is caption of a photo. Also, some of the removals are unnecessary. Third, some of these belong to different sections of the article and mentioned for different reasons. Fourth, admission of guilt should not be removed. In other words when MEK admits to an assassination, it is counted as a valuable historical fact. That is different from reports by third party sources.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


 * This is not a content dispute. Kazemita's revert distinctly repeats Bahonar and Rajaei's assassination, and Kazemita will not provide a direct explanation of why he added these repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are stonewalling here. Redundancy in any article is a problem regardless of POV. At the very least you need to explain why the duplicated material needs to exist in each section, and why it should not be combined. That goes both ways, of course; there's redundancy with respect to material that reflects negatively on the government also. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I found the following two sentences in the "Assassaination" section redundant:
 * "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
 * "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

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


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

Do you agree? If not, please make your suggestion of how the text should read Nika2020 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is what I was talking about:

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

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

The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998). Kazemita1 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kazemita1: Most of what you suggest is ok with me, but why you are not including "Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."  ? This is depicted by the sources. You also have not explained yet why you added back those repetitions in the article instead of just adding what you are now suggesting. Nika2020 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * you have not answered. Can you please give an explanation why you added back those repetitions in the article? Nika2020 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither have you answered Vanamonde's question. So, may I suggest we get back to the civil discussion we had a few lines above?Kazemita1 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


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

"'all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy.'" Let me know when you are ready to get back to constructive discussion. As a quick reminder, I came up with a proposal that removed two redundant sentences. You had responded that you agree with most of my proposal. I guess given the 7 day silence period I can safely assume consensus is reached.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * this is my suggestion for the "Assassinations" section:

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

Let me know if it's ok with you, Nika2020 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed admission of guilt from the original text. Background on Kashmiri is also removed from the text. You also removed Mujahedeen's further attempts in the future. In doing so, some important sources were also removed. I thought we were going to remove repetitive content.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * Kazemita has been blocked. Unless and until he is unblocked, he cannot reply. You may reinstate any edits to which Kazemita was the only one objecting. Any other edits, and any edits you make now, that someone else has objected or objects to now will need to be discussed with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vanamonde. I have reverted Kazemita's edit based on your response. In case someone else wants to discuss further any of this I trust they will let me know. Nika2020 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have restored some of the undiscussed removals of longstanding materials including assassination of Sadduqi by Ebrahimizadeh and failed assassination of Khamenei. I have also partially restored removals. They are not really redundant. -- M h hossein   talk 13:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After Kazemita was blocked, I received your permission to reinstate any edits to which Kazemita was the only one objecting, but Mhhossein now restored some of those edits again without first discussing or receiving consensus. Isn't that breaking the article's restrictions Shouldn't Mhhossein have tried to discuss or reach a compromise before restoring his version? I had been discussing these edits with Kazemita since May 2019! It takes all the value away from having these discussions if after all this time and getting permission to reinstate these edits, Mhhossein can just revert without making an effort to first discuss or reach a compromise. Nika2020 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Nika2020: I have reviewed your discussion with Kazemita. Can you say how my edit is against that discussion? Your desired portions are in effect, as far as I see. However let me know the partts you think is against the consensus. Also, can you say where you have explained the removal of the portions including assassination of Sadduqi by Ebrahimizadeh and failed assassination of Khamenei? -- M h hossein   talk 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I explicitly told you above that if any other editors objected to your changes, you would have to discuss it with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: The compromise I was working on with Kazemita did not include many of the text that you reinstated back in the article. You just reinstated this without asking anyone. As far as I understand the restrictions in this article (in which text that has already been reverted cannot be added back again without first having a discussion or reaching consensus), that is a violation, this is why I'm asking Vanamonde. Nika2020 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, those changes were not discussed by you though they were well referenced and DUE. That's why I re inserted them back into the article. -- M h hossein   talk 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you say how these things you inserted back are "DUE"?: Nika2020 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "See also|Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists"
 * "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."
 * your response is requested here. Nika2020 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MEK is considered by numerous reliable sources as being a major accused party in the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. That makes it a suitable candidate for being used as hatnote above the 'Iran nuclear program' section. As for the Baer's comment, it's DUE and needed since it's in line with the NBC report on the MEK-Israel relationships. Baer is both an author and a politician making his voice valuable for this section. -- M h hossein   talk 13:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says that "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists." So that is only one source. Then there are other sources saying "A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists." So there is only one source saying this, and then that is disputed by other sources, so where did you get "considered by numerous reliable sources as being a major accused party in the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists"? Also the quote from Baer is only a guess of who the perpetrators could be, which is not evidence-based, only on Baer's POV. How are any of these two things DUE? Nika2020 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about that "well-sourced and convincing investigation last year by NBC News"? The view is both echoed P.131 and supported by other reliable sources like "Some observers also accuse them of helping assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists"P.209. -- M h hossein   talk 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm talking about that single investigation by NBC, that's the only investigation about this, so why are you saying "numerous reliable sources"? It's just one NBC report. And the quote from Baer is only a guess of who the perpetrators could be. How are such things DUE?? Nika2020 (talk)
 * Please read my response once again. It's not simply a "single investigation by NBC". The view held in the ""well-sourced and convincing investigation" by NBC news is held by other sources like P.209. The report is echoed by some more reliable sources, as I showed. There's a large difference between a single POV and a POV reflected in multiple sources. -- M h hossein   talk 06:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a single investigation, it is one investigation by NBC news that has been also published in other sources, but one investigation notwithstanding. Nika2020 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to repeat. 1- It's a "well-sourced and convincing investigation" and 2- the view is independently held by other reliable sources: "Some observers also accuse them of helping assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists"P.209. --  M h hossein   talk 04:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

MEK's designation as a terrorist organization by the Japanese government
This revert made me go through those discussions of 2019. As far as I I can see User:Ryk72 showed the group had been once designated by the Japanese government as a terrorist organization. The explanations should be added to the group's history of designation. -- M h hossein   talk 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From the Japanese Government websites, it appears that MEK (as ムジャヒディン・ハルク) was added to the list of terrorist organisations (aligned to UNSCR 1373) on July 5, 2002 (平成14年7月5日) (See: & attached list) and removed from the list on March 24, 2013 (平成25年5月24日) (See:). Let me know if any questions. - Ryk72 talk 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both the listing and delisting should be added.VR talk  20:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryk72: thanks for the info. I remember some users saying this might be some kind of hoax; do you think the sources are strong enough to determine we're not adding WP:UNDUE/WP:HOAX information to the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a hoax. The concern raised in that discussion was that we had included Japan in the same list as Iran & Iraq - indicating that Japan currently designated MEK as a terrorist organisation. Given the removal in 2013, this is, of course, verifiably not true - though, given that it was previously true, does not rise to the level of a "hoax". What is verifiably true is that Japan did (from 2002 to 2013) include MEK on their list of designated terrorist organisations (per UNSCR 1373). - Ryk72 talk 00:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing this up, Ryk72. I will add this to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members
Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) As well as this:
 * "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."
 * "Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused"."
 * "MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."
 * "In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies"

Into this?:

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


 * Yes:
 * 1) Per WP:UNDUE: random claims by random people who have defected the MEK lack any sort of fact-checking, and fact-checking is needed in a controversial article such as this one where there is a misinformation issue.
 * 2) Per WP:NOT and NPOV: we are not including claims by current members, so we should not include detailed allegations by former members either.
 * 3) Per the recently closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) As I already showed, probably you can't just remove the major points reported by multiple reliable sources since they are truly DUE.
 * 2) You can add DUE material per NPOV.
 * 3) Just like the mysterious IP!!! you are probably "misreading" the SpinningSpark's closure. The outcome of the previous "has little bearing on other quotes in the article or any future quotes". -- M h hossein   talk 19:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, for the same reasons as in the last RfC about this. These allegations are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK, and we don't include random accusations from the public in encyclopedia articles. A short mention of what each side said is more than plenty, although I would also be ok with removing that too. Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't remove. MEK is a closed group. By not including the information from former members we would have no way to know this group. It is no incident that so many articles about MEK in main-stream media include quotes from former members. I think we can trust Guardian, Intercept, BBC and Washington Post on this matter.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per factual integrity, which is completely missing in these contentious allegations. Nika2020 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As Iranians said, ""Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles.". -- M h hossein   talk 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man response. No matter how you frame it, these allegations were made by MEK defectors; hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong No: WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The mentioned quotes are now having due weight since they are major points being covered by the high quality reliable sources.
 * A.
 * It's a fact that former members have alleged the group has cult-like characteristics and should not be removed. There are plenty of reliable sources for this (P.106, The Intercept and Business insider). Needless to say that the cult-like behavior of the group is extensively reported by the third parties, too. So, the quote is now receiving DUE weight. Same argument can be used for the quote by Banisadr - author and researcher -, i.e. "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct." This is another way of describing the group's cult like behavior.
 * B.
 * The ban on romantic relationships inside the group is another statement covered by the reliable sources multiple reliable and credible sources (The NYTimes, The Guardian). It is also supported by third party sources P.89, so the fact that former members talk about ban on romantic relationships is a DUE major view point. Same goes to the sexual fantasies confessions. According to the BBC, "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies".
 * C.
 * If it was solely Batoul Soltani, Zahra Moini and Fereshteh Hedayati speaking of the sexual abuse inside the group, I would support removal of the content. But "former MEK members who have escaped the group also report sexual abuse and forced marriages during their captivity" and "over 400 female members of the group had sexual relations with him".
 * D.
 * Hmm...nothing new. But again the confession of sexual thoughts/fantasies is stated here.
 * E.
 * So far, BBC, The Intercept, The Guardain and the New Yourk Times have stated the testimonies of the former members regrading the sessions of sexual thoughts confession. So, this is truly DUE to mention in the article the former members had been forced to confess sexual to commanders. "Brainwashing" of the members is also reported in The Guardian, Vice and The Intercept so this is not a minor view! -- M h hossein   talk 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes: Mhhossein's argument is essentially inaccurate. Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox", and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then these other quotes should follow the same rule. Also this RfC does not propose to remove the quotes, but to summarise them, and that is a fair compromise considering the controversies surrounding them. Barca (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. -- M h hossein   talk 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with flat earth theories, this is about a political party and a whole lot of propaganda being used to discredit it, which has included using MEK defectors. The argument here is not to remove all those statements, but to summarise them so that this article doesn't become an attack platform that includes every allegation made by every defector. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument by BarcrMac is that we should not use these statements because they are not "verified". Who should verify these items? We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members. How about taking the MEK's propaganda campaign into account? -- M h hossein   talk 13:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainly for the sake of not bludgeoning this RfC further, I'm not going to go into the details of how fact-checking works in academia. Also, you can open a RfC about the MEK's propaganda campaign; this RfC concerns summarising a whole lot of unconfirmed allegations so that they are mentioned but do not take up most of that section (which is a fair way to solve the section's current WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT problems). That's the last I'll say here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not summarizing but censoring. Anyway, "We have some reliable sources endorsing the testimonies of the former members." (sources like and ). --  M h hossein   talk 06:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At around 3,750 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is meant to be a follow-up to this recent RfC, where it is proposed that several allegations in the article need to be removed or summarised. Would it be easier that I create several shorter RfCs instead? (the RfCs here tend to be difficult to close, so trying to make things as practical as possible for everyone). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a follow-on or not is immaterial; nor is the number of topics to be covered. The problem is the total quantity of characters following the until and including the next timestamp (05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)). Legobot simply isn't finding that timestamp before giving up and assuming that there is no RfC statement at all. You need to reduce that length, either by cutting it down considerably or by inserting a similar timestamp part-way through. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried to insert two more timestamps part-way through. Hopefully it'll work this time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's had, which is a great improvement. But you only needed to add one timestamp (Legobot doesn't care about anything after that point), and it should have been approriate to the time that the RfC was started. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - the short version solves the problem on both sides. The allegations are kept, but UNDUE details are removed. Idealigic (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - Agree with Barca and Idealigic here. POV from MEK members can be shortened so that they are represented in the article without having to occupy a large parts of that section (which would give WP:UNDUE weight). - MA Javadi (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I think there is a problem with this RFC. Contrary to the title of "RFC", some of the sentences are not from the speech of the former members of the group, at all. Items No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 consist of the sentences which are not considered as a quotation. It can help the enrichment of the article to express about what the former members are generally thinking concerning the group. Items such as: sectarianism, the prohibition of romantic relationships, and marriage and rape have been mentioned in valid references by many individuals. These items ought to be included according to the criterion of Weight (of these viewpoints which have also been repeated in the references). Not only the suggested sentence doesn't include any of the mentioned items, but also tries to replace the view of MEK. My recommendation is that: each item (e.g. prohibition of romantic relationships) should be discussed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ali Ahwazi: without exception, these are all allegations from former MEK members. If you're interested in including allegations from MEK members, here is a good book filled with MEK interviews, which we previously opted not to include (not even through summary) per WP:NPOV (which at the time everyone agreed was a good idea). There seems to be a bias here where some editors want allegations included from one side, but not from the other. This RfC proposes a more neutral approach, where we present a summary from both sides. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I'm looking in the sources in this discussion. "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members", "ban on romantic relationships and marriages", "sexual harassments" and reported by former members of MEK. Meanwhile, There are diverse reliable sources which are echoing the mentioned items. My speech is that: we should not condense all of them into "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses." The POV of all the sides ought to be applied with their due weight. For example, BBC is telling:  "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies" and you are able to find confession of sexual fantasies in other sources, as well. We ought not only remove them without discussing them point by point. Your recommendation is even making the situation worse than what it was in before. You're changing the former members' POV with the POV of the group itself. So, instead of that, you ought to make a balance between them. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This proposal does provide a balance of POVs from both sides: "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime." (what we currently have in the article is a disproportionate amount of text representing only one side, which is what's creating WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and NPOV problems). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of balance is it? You have condensed multiple notable subjects down to a small sentence. i.e. "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses" and instead highlighted the MEK's POV by offering a long sentence saying there's nothing but the Iranian allegation. This is some sort of POV pushing and should be stopped immediately. -- M h hossein   talk 06:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (I agree with) the same two points, as I mentioned; I mean: Firstly, the items of DUE, it means: "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members", "ban on romantic relationships and marriages", "sexual harassments" ought not to be deleted; It is better if the mentioned items to be surveyed one-by-one. Secondly, the suggested sentence is not proportionate to the valid sources -- at all. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting this edit that was recently added to the article about two courts in Germany ruling that newspapers there had published "false allegations of 'torture'" against the MEK. Also the article section Disinformation through recruited MEK members, all adds up to a verified disinformation campaign against the MEK through MEK defectors. This is why trimming all these redundant and unconfirmed allegations currently taking large portions of the article is a good idea. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just found a report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which I've just added to the article:
 * "Trimming all these redundant and unconfirmed allegations currently taking large portions of the article" is not a good idea since we are not going to act based on your original research. You say MEK is the target of a misinformation campaign so all BAD things regarding MEK should be removed. This is not a an acceptable argument. Why not considering the role of MEK's propaganda campaign in promoting falsified materials? -- M h hossein   talk 14:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


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

Lead is too long
I think the lead of this article is too long and I disagree with this edit of yours. I do have specific ideas to trim it and I'll present them below over time. I presented an idea above (thanks everyone who has offered me feedback). Another immediate suggestion is this: Replace with VR talk  13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't see what the problem was with the original wording and the original described it better. Barca (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The original wording was redundant and the new wording is shorter. My edit was purely stylistic, with no POV added or removed, so I don't understand the revert.VR talk  02:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead is too long
I think the lead of this article is too long and I disagree with this edit of yours. I do have specific ideas to trim it and I'll present them below over time. I presented an idea above (thanks everyone who has offered me feedback). Another immediate suggestion is this: Replace with VR talk  13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't see what the problem was with the original wording and the original described it better. Barca (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The original wording was redundant and the new wording is shorter. My edit was purely stylistic, with no POV added or removed, so I don't understand the revert.VR talk  02:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)