Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 33

Problematic sentence in the lede
This sentence is currently in the lede:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose keeping the source, re-writing this sentence, and moving it to the body. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wait...move it to where? In face of numerous sources stressing MEK sided with Saddam (for any reasons) why are you suggesting such a suggestion? MEK's helping Saddam is a significant landmark in Iran-MEK conflicts making it lead-worthy item, thanks to dozens of the sources covering it. Is the 'financial' issue your solely problem? -- M h hossein   talk 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Some sources if you're still doubtful:
 * "The group later broke with the regime and sided with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when more than a million Iranians died"P.532
 * "...the move towards saddam hussein was allegedly an attempt by the MEK an attempt by the MEK to maneuver against the government, with the goal of acquiring arms, training facilities, and financial resources."P.67
 * "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.
 * "According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran. In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received "protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land".
 * Should be enough for now. -- M h hossein   talk 13:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The MEK collaborating with Iraq during the 1980s is already in the lede and is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the sentence about 1983 and the MEK's appeal in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Did a quick search and could not find much else either. What is your proposed rewrite? - MA Javadi (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


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


 * "According to Afshon Ostovar, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in 1983."


 * Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the involvement between MEK and Hussein is already in the lead, and the other stuff about support in Iran is controversial. You can put the Ostovar quote in the body. MA Javadi (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already provided some reliable sources talking about MEK receiving financial support from Saddam after 1980. So, receiving financial support after 1980 seems undisputable. -- M h hossein   talk 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about MEK's involvement with Saddam in the lead except "In response [to the 1986 expulsion from France), it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."
 * I'm open to a re-word, but it should mention the effect that MEK's collaboration with Iraq against Iran had on MEK's relationship to Iran. MEK's unpopularity in Iran is regularly mentioned by news sources: Reuters, Al_Jazeera, MiddleEast Eye, Newsweek - some of these sources do tie the unpopularity to MEK-Saddam ties. So this does belong in the lead. Also, the body doesn't talk about the funding so you should add that to the body.VR  talk  20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


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

For me also is ok to reword and move in the body since "In response [to the 1986 expulsion from France), it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." is in the lead already. As it has been said in past posts, there isn't a poll in Iran to determine the popularity of the MEK there, so the effects of MEK association with Iraq needs to be mentioned but it is better explained in detail in the body since this is a complicated statement. Barca (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I pointed out above, that MEK's unpopularity in Iran (at least in the past due to its ties with Saddam) is well documented.VR talk  23:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this can be moved to the body. Also the MEK popularity in Iran, which is just POV that is not backed by any survey or poll of any type. Ypatch (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Move it to the body. The Iraq information is already in the lead, and lead is too long anyway (and was tagged as such yesterday). The popularity is also impossible to say with any certainty, so needs explanation (in the body). Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde: in this TP discussion, I proposed rewording and moving a sentence that's currently in the lede and putting it in the body. 5 users have approved, 1 editor has partly approved, and another editor has not approved. Do I have a majority consensus here to go ahead with this edit? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MEK's receiving financial support from Saddam after 1980 seems an indisputable fact that is supported by reliable sources (see my sources in my previous comments under this topic). We don't count the comments since consensus should be make with arguments raised by the users and I invite you to take a look at the poor arguments in support of your proposal. I don't see User:Vice regent accepting such a move to the body (am I right VR?). As for the unpopularity of the group, besides the currently used sources, VR introduced some fresh sources further supporting this (Reuters, Al_Jazeera, MiddleEast Eye, Newsweek). So, as far as I see your major objection is that the year '1983' should be edited. -- M h hossein   talk 04:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Information about MEK-Iraq collaboration is already in the lede; this has been stressed by all the arguments saying this sentence should be moved to the body (including my own). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein seem to be talking about two different things. The only sentence in the lead about this would be (after the proposed removal) In response [to 1986 events], it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. That's it. There's nothing else. However, at least one source documents Saddam-MEK ties dating back to 1982. So the remaining sentence would be misleading.VR talk  14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if you actually addressed arguments than to count votes as wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. I presented several reliable sources attesting to MEK's unpopularity in Iran, but several users dismissed them out of hand because they were not polls. That sounds like a strawman argument. If reliable sources do indeed talk about MEK's unpopularity, at least in past due to their Saddam collaboration, that would belong in the lead and the body.VR talk  14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think most/all editors addressed why the sentence should be kept or removed from the lede. I'm not "counting votes"; there is undeniably a majority of editors supporting what I have proposed in this TP discussion. As far as I understand it, that's a majority consensus, so I feel it's a fair question to ask. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The arguments given aren't convincing at all: The popularity is also impossible to say with any certainty and the MEK popularity in Iran, which is just POV that is not backed by any survey or poll of any type. As you can see below, there are a tonne of reliable sources that say MEK became unpopular in Iran because of its association with Saddam.VR talk  02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are 10 sources on MEK being unpopular due to its alliance with Saddam: VR talk  02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors." Guardian
 * "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians." Reuters
 * "Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians." Newsweek
 * "The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy [Saddam Hussein]." Jason Rezaian in the Washington Post
 * "And to make up for a drop in popularity tied to its alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the group started recruiting Iranian economic migrants in the Middle East under false pretences..." MiddleEast Eye
 * "During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process." BBC News
 * "That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said." Al-Jazeera
 * "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." Business Insider
 * "...most Iranians regard the MEK as traitors aided by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war or, at best, a sadistic cult." Globe and Mail
 * "And one of the reasons they have virtually zero public support in Iran these days is that they're seen as traitors having fought on the Iraqi side in the Iran-Iraq war." Paul R. Pillar in NPR
 * It has been pointed out several times in this talk page that showing any form of support for the MEK in Iran can lead to a death sentence by the IRI, so this is a complex topic to say the least. This is why I proposed teasing it out in the body where it can be better explained, and the majority of editors in this talk page discussion agreed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything in this article is a complex topic. If we were to remove all complex topics from the lead, we would have no lead left.VR talk  10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have got accustomed with Stefka Bulgaria's Original Research throughout this TP. In this case, he has taken ONE source for dismissing a tone of sources saying something else. -- M h hossein   talk 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Different proposal
I propose removing this: and replacing it with this  My proposed version captures most of the same information more concisely.VR  talk  15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice regent: Thanks but, I think two points are being missed here. Merely saying MEK became "unpopular" afterwards is in fact downgrading MEK's military attacks being viewed as "treason by the vast majority of Iranians".
 * "Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians."Newsweek
 * "Today they are seen as traitors by much of the Iranian public." University of Chicago Pres- P. 78
 * "...turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public."NYBooks
 * "But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors."The Guardian
 * Also, MEK did in fact three major invasions to their own soil - Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars and Operation sunshine . Thank you. -- M h hossein   talk 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this I didn't mention Operation Sunshine as I'm not sure if its notable. Maybe create an article on it? Let's see what others say. Happy to change the wording further.VR  talk  22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing a clear consensus here for a large change. The only point that hasn't been substantively contested is your concern with the fragment about financial support from Saddam to the MEK in 1983. Aside from that, there seem to be a fair number of sources being provided that support the current text. Arguing that the degree of support for the MEK inside Iran isn't knowable is in fact original research. If reliable sources comment on their support within Iran, Wikipedia's article needs to reflect that. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Vanamonde. I'll gather the sources in the article about this and start a RfC; may be the best way to show what I'm trying to say here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * just one last thing about this; since the 1983 claims are undue for the lede (only one source mentions this), can I move that down to the body? (it would make the RfC I've prepared more to the point). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * there are at least two: Vanguard of the Imam and Terronomics.VR talk 10:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This source says, VR  talk  22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What we currently have in the lede:
 * is backed by a single source, and therefore WP:UNDUE for the lede. Even if there is another source saying 1982, it is still undue for the lede. This could be place in the body of the article, but not in the lede per WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a consensus yet for that either. An RfC may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder Stefka Bulgaria alleges tries to imply there are no other sources for that while at least one source is provided by me:
 * "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MEK..."P.3.
 * More sources cab be found for this infamous Saddam-MEK collaborations in 1980s. -- M h hossein   talk 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing there about 1983; which is what this discussion is about. 1980s stuff is already in the lede and in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you say which portion is specific to 1983 and does not belong to other dates? The portion saying MEK received financial support? The portion saying MEK is viewed as a traitor? Other portions? -- M h hossein   talk 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

MEK popularity in Iran already covered in the article
Vice regent, this that you added about MEK popularity is in the article already (i.e. 'perception inside Iran') and some sources such as this one by Trita Parsi is not a good source for this article. I am reverting your edit, but if you feel I missed any important points that are not in the article already let me know and we can have a talk about it. Barca (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that. Anyway, there isn't much overlap between what I added and what's there. Most of what I added is not in the article, and certainly not in the right place. For example, it makes sense to make a mention of unpopularity due to Iran-Iraq war in the section that's on the Iran-Iraq war. Similarly, reliable sources connect drop in popularity to certain human rights violations - that's not in the section you mentioned but should be mentioned somewhere. Also, why is Trita Parsi's article in The New York Review of Books not reliable? The publication seems to have been called "scholarly" and "intellectual" at The New York Review of Books.VR talk  02:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same information in different sections is a problem that has been talked about in this talk page a lot. We are trying to present the article's information more concisely, not trying to overflow it with repetitions. Barca (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your concern with repetitions, but there's also the idea of presenting information in its proper context. I'm sure we can work out a solution that strikes a balance between both.VR talk 22:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm posting what you removed here. I think much of what you removed is not already in the article.

VR talk 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What context do you feel is missing that isn't already in the article? Barca (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The section you're referring to is nowhere near the People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran. That's the period in which support for MEK plummeted dramatically, both inside Iran and even outside Iran (in the US, for example). Also much of what I posted above is not already in the article.VR talk 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Iran clerical government and MEK supporters
Can you please explain you revert? I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the problem with the strong statement which is not supported by the reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 12:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain you revert? I think the sources support the statement that the Iranian government executes and imprisons MEK supporters. What is the problem with the sources? Barca (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained the problem with the strong statement which is not supported by the reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 12:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

but the sources do support that the "Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters." Here are some more =


 * "Iran executed a man on Sunday for links with the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI)" REUTERS


 * "The three defendants in the case, all of them in their twenties, have been accused of affiliation with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) which Iran has designated as a terrorist organization but have always denied the charges." RADIO FARDA


 * "The authorities launched a bloody purge of supporters of the MEK, also known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), and Mr Rajavi fled to Paris." BBC


 * "Thousands were executed simply for their support of the PMOI" INDEPENDENT


 * "According to Amnesty International, following the post-June 2009 election protests, the authorities arrested several people who had relatives with a past or current association with opposition groups, including the MKO. As recently as 2014, the authorities executed Gholamreza Khosravi, convicted of helping the group, on the charge of “enmity against God” in a case that was marked with serious due process violations. On May 7, the National Council of Resistance, the political wing of the MKO, published the names of 18 other “supporters” who they say have been arrested over the past few months." HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH


 * "These ongoing enforced disappearances and the continuing uncertainty concerning the fate of their lovedones and the location of their remains have caused anguish to the families.Their pain is compounded by several additional factors: the ongoing bans that they face on conducting mourning rituals and commemorations; the deliberate desecration and destruction of sites where their loved ones are believed to be buried in mass graves; the knowledge that those who ordered and carried out the executions continue to get away with their crimes; and the persistent threats, harassment, intimidation and attacks that they face for daring to demand truth and justice. These cruel practices, which have caused great suffering and harm to victims’ families for decades, including serious injury to their mental and physical health, violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The article is also full of sources saying the clerical government in Iran targets MEK supporters. What is the problem with adding this? Barca (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That the Iranian government targets and has targeted MEK members is a fact, but I see some issues with the sourcing and the wording. The sourcing issues are that many of your sources refer to events more than 10, even 30 years ago, whereas your wording is in the present tense. The lead already contains Iran's infamous execution of MEK members in 1988. With regards to wording, the MEK is a terrorist group in Iran and so the targeting of MEK members should be mentioned in that context (in fact, one of the sources you presented does just that). Assuming we can find sources for "present" targeting, might I suggest the following wording: VR talk  03:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Iranian government considering the MEK a terrorist organization is in the lead already. the Reuters artice is from 2014 and the Radio Farda artice is from 2019, so the sources confirm that the Iranian government still executes and imprisons MEK supporters. why can't we add this then? Barca (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see your sources saying MEK members are being continually targeted or lack thereof. I suggest you add something the two sides are taking actions. MEK, for instance, is accused of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and having role in the recent upheavals in Iran. -- M h hossein   talk 14:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein reverted my edit where I added in the lead sources showing that the "Iranian clerical government continuingly targets, imprisons, and executes MEK supporters." but Mhhossein seems to be refusing to acknowledge what the sources are saying. Is Mhhossein stonewalling here again? Barca (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't just add sources, did you, you added content that you didn't have consensus for. Discuss it here first, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * we have discussed it and the content I added is taken from the sources I added. Mhhossein is saying that he does't see the sources saying MEK members are continually targeted, but the sources show otherwise. If you don't want me to ping you about this anymore let me know and I will not, but refusing what is in reliable sources doesn't seem to be a good way of developing the article. Barca (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how the two sources you use are good enough for the text you added? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

in my edit I added 4 sources:


 * Washington Examiner article from 2017 about the Iranian government torturing some MEK supporters


 * The Guardian article from 2019 about "Albanian police say they have discovered an Iranian paramilitary network that allegedly planned attacks in Albania against exiled members of an Iranian group [MEK]"


 * Book that says inside Iran, the strength of the MEK is uncertain since many of its supporters have been executed, tortured, or jailed. ["Cohen, Ronen (August 2018). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6): 1000–1014']


 * Book that says the MEK is "a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad". ["Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.]

When Mhhossein rejected these sources, I added more =


 * "Iran executed a man on Sunday for links with the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI)" REUTERS


 * "The three defendants in the case, all of them in their twenties, have been accused of affiliation with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) which Iran has designated as a terrorist organization but have always denied the charges." RADIO FARDA


 * "The authorities launched a bloody purge of supporters of the MEK, also known as the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), and Mr Rajavi fled to Paris." BBC


 * "Thousands were executed simply for their support of the PMOI" INDEPENDENT


 * "According to Amnesty International, following the post-June 2009 election protests, the authorities arrested several people who had relatives with a past or current association with opposition groups, including the MKO. As recently as 2014, the authorities executed Gholamreza Khosravi, convicted of helping the group, on the charge of “enmity against God” in a case that was marked with serious due process violations. On May 7, the National Council of Resistance, the political wing of the MKO, published the names of 18 other “supporters” who they say have been arrested over the past few months." HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH


 * "These ongoing enforced disappearances and the continuing uncertainty concerning the fate of their lovedones and the location of their remains have caused anguish to the families.Their pain is compounded by several additional factors: the ongoing bans that they face on conducting mourning rituals and commemorations; the deliberate desecration and destruction of sites where their loved ones are believed to be buried in mass graves; the knowledge that those who ordered and carried out the executions continue to get away with their crimes; and the persistent threats, harassment, intimidation and attacks that they face for daring to demand truth and justice. These cruel practices, which have caused great suffering and harm to victims’ families for decades, including serious injury to their mental and physical health, violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

That is 10 reliable sources saying that the Iranian clerical government has been continuingly targeting MEK supporters, which Mhhossein is rejecting. Barca (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Barca, not all of your sources say the same thing. Some of your sources say that Iran executed MEK prisoners in 1988, a well-known fact that is already in the lead, but don't talk about today. Secondly, I proposed a wording that I thought would present the facts you wish to present in their appropriate context. Do you agree with that wording? If not, why not?VR talk 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (Yellow).svg (discussion)
 * Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg (discussion)

Recently closed RfC
I noticed you recently this RfC Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran as "Rough consensus for summarizing the six allegations as proposed". I see about 6 in favor and 4 against (including me). To clarify my view, I'm in favor of summarizing the content but not as proposed by Stefka. It seems this edit removes most if not all references to MEK controlling sexual thoughts even though this widely covered in WP:RS (BBC news, The Guardian, New York Times, NYRB, Vice, Salon, Haarez, Foreign Policy). I don't see consensus to this.VR talk 12:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to stand by my closing. I looked at the strength of the arguments and their basis in policy to arrive at my assessment. I did fully understood your comment in the RfC. The total quantity of sources for combined individual allegations were did not make the case. Of course, you are free to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you wish to further challenge my closing. Concerning the edit by that occurred after my closing: it seems like a faithful implementation of consensus, but it's not relevant to my role as closer. Any anomalies can be sorted out by further dispute resolution, or if there is a behavior issue, it can be taken to a noticeboard or WP:AE for review. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * why do you feel total quantity of sources for combined individual allegations were did not make the case?VR talk 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to mention that it surprised me to see "rough consensus" I myself explained clearly concerning how the proposed summary isn't consistent with Neutral Point Of View; No one gave a suitable reply to my objection. Meanwhile, I mentioned that some main topics had to be kept. This closure is not suitable. @MrX: Did you just count the votes? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These RfC's seek an uninvolved and experienced editor to close a controversial discussion, which is what MrX has gracefully has done for us here. Even though the outcome was not what you wanted, a consensus has been reached in this RfC, so it's time to move on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you could elaborate on your concluding remarks where you said BarcrMac, now blocked, "adroitly rebutted" my comment. This is while he was confusing "major points" with the "proved points". He did not replied to my comment so "adroitly" seems to be far from reality. Do you think the articles should solely include proved points (as BarcrMac states)? -- M h hossein   talk 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Yes - per:
 * 1) Both sections are about the same topic. The "cult-like" allegations mainly derive from human rights allegations (such as barring children or demanding celibacy).
 * 2) Currently both these sections are a mess as they have repeated and overlapping information. Merging them would help to copy-edit it properly.
 * 3) Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read (who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes" and "on what basis").
 * 4) Per NPOV: there isn't a single source that supports the current "Designation as a cult" POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The sections are of different topics. I have completely explained here.
 * 2) Despite being asked, you have repeatedly failed to determine which portions have overlapping information.
 * 3) This should be resolved via copy editing, not whole removal.
 * 4) What does NPOV has to do with this section name? Also, you were suggested different titles. -- M h hossein   talk 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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


 * Yes Merge makes sense since the content is connected. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No I come to this cold, and may be wrong, but the two sections seem to be about somewhat different topics: being a cult has to do with the way one's own members are treated and human rights violations should deal with how others outside the organization are treated. The suggestion about cleaning up both sections, and perhaps finding that nothing substantial is in the cult section, are other issues. But joining the two sections would seem to me to confuse matters. Jzsj (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi just to clarify, except for the part that says "Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.", the Human rights record section is about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses. Similarly, the Designation as a cult section talks about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses (the section also includes several other sources basically calling the MEK a "cult" without further explanation as to why). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The section is far way different than what you are describing. It starts by a paragraph saying WHY the group is titled as a cult and WHO has given the group this title. It's continued by WHICH reports and sources have made the same argument. Moreover, the section sheds light on WHAT Cultish activities the group is committing. Also, a thorough "explanation as to why" the group is called a cult is provided by RNAD, The Intercept and [The Guardian. We can add more info you're interested. --[[User:Mhhossein| M h hossein  ]] talk 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - the content is related. JohnThorne (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - because the content is related. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - to me the topics look to be similar enough topics that they could be merged into one. Comatmebro (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC is too general and vague: This RFC was started before and the OP was told at the time by the an admin that such an RFC with a "very wide scope" will go no where. Furthermore, I substantiated my objection towards such a merger in details and I don't think the comment should be repeated here. This RFC is too general! Regardless of whether or not the sections should be merged -which my next comment proves should not- the RFC does not say in what terms these two the sections should be merged. The goal of the OP seems to be opening random RFCs (you don't have to pay for it).-- M h hossein   talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No to merger: The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic. The following sources take the topic of MEK's cultish nature as a distinct subject. I have listed some of the sources:
 * "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum" by RAND corporation deeply discusses the cult aspect of the group under "The MeK as a Cult" (P.38). "Cultic Characteristics of the MeK" comes in the APPENDIX B, P.67. Besides, the report mentions the cultish nature of the group from time to time in other sections (just ctrl+f "cult"!).
 * "The Cult of Rajavi". This is an infamous report by the New York Times showing how the cultish nature is an important issue which needs to be studied separately.
 * "DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT". A very fresh work by The Intercept also shedding light on the cultish nature of the group.
 * "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long read by the Guardian detailing the cultish characteristics of the MEK.
 * This is not all. There are plenty of sources using the term "cult" when describing the group. I have provided a list of the sources using such a descriptive term. So, it is clear that the cultish aspect of the MEK had been of the interest to the authors and sources and it shows a section should be dedicated to the subject aimed at shedding light on in what the terms the group is portrayed as a cult. Finally, the argument that some of the materials in the two sections are duplicated is irrelevant to this discussion, since the OP first needs to determine case by case which portions are redundant. -- M h hossein   talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the above argument shows that the cultish characteristics of should be given WP:DUE weight by dedicating "a separate section" to it. -- M h hossein   talk 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There isn't a single reliable source here supporting the claim that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult" and Mhhossein knows this; yet he keeps using this argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * there are reliable sources that say the MEK is "described by the US government as a cult". Is it that you have issue with the word "designation"?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic" is a false argument since there aren't any sources saying the MEK was ever designated a cult. We do have sources that say certain people have described the MEK as a cult/cultish/cult-like, and we do have other sources dismissing those claims (such as the same source you linked), but that has nothing to do with any sort of "designation". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes: This proposal received consensus back in April, and that consensus was confirmed by an admin. All one has to do is read both sections to see they are related. Both sections describe members making claims of human right abuses, and both describe "cult" claims. The "cult" claims derive from the human right abuses claims, so yes, both sections are related. A merge also makes sense since the current title "Designation as a Cult" is propagandistic POV that isn't supported by sources. Barca (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes: Would make better sense. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - topics look very similar, they are ok to be merged. Idealigic (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Cult-like behavior has nothing to do with human rights violations. You could have a cult that may or may not violate human rights violations. If MEK happens to commit both, then let it be reflected in the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Objection by another user: Since this vague RFC had been tried before, I think we should consider the objection by the now inactive user. -- M h hossein   talk 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein: You already voted on this RfC. You can't introduce votes by Topic-banned users. I have not responded to your comments here so these RfCs wouldn't be drowned with bludgeoning, but please stop all the bludgeoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is certainly NOT bludgeoning. My comments shows the history of the discussion and it reveals how repeatedly you have started this rfc. -- M h hossein   talk 12:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , SharabSalaam has been topic-banned. This does not change the outcome of any previous discussions in which he participated, but it does mean his opinion carries no weight here. Bringing it up is not very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vanamonde. -- M h hossein   talk 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To the closing admin/editor: please note that many RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (often due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight votes carefully and read through these two sections to verify if indeed they are related, but that is the only way to close this RfC adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No; the discussion of "Designation as a cult" (the group of MEK) has been distinguished a lot by reliable sources. This is better to put the subject in a separated section. Among the sources which have been presented at this discussion, (I think) "the source of New York Times (Written by Rubin)" and "the source of Rand" are significant and determinative. These two subjects ought not to be merged together. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No ; the cult stuff really is different from "Human rights record". For example, indoctrination and demanding celibacy are not your typical human right violations but they point to cult-likeness. Those are two different categories, with little overlap.VR talk  04:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * YES ; both sections are pretty much about the same thing. Indoctrination and demanding celibacy are forms of human right abuses, all in both sections is about human right abuses or different people saying that the MEK committed human right abuses against its members. Also the title "designation as cult" is not supported by any of the sources. It is suggested in this talk page that this article is too long, and here is a good opportunity to start reducing redundancy . Ypatch (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NO Concur with users saying the two sections are different in nature - they're really intended to have different functions. Keep them both. I see there are enough content covering the designation as a cult section. -- Seyyed(t-c) 16:12, 19 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)
 * , what you proposed removes all references to MEK attempting to control its members sexual thoughts. But this is widely covered in WP:Reliable Sources: BBC news, The Guardian, New York Times, NYRB, Vice, Salon, Haarez, Foreign Policy. I agree with some need to re-word and trim, but your proposal goes too far in removing content that is very reliably sourced.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You said a re-word was needed. Do you have any specific suggestions? -- M h hossein   talk 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)