Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 53

RFC on the cult summary in the article
Does the cult summary in the article need to be re-written? If it does, then how should this be done? Iraniangal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Discussion

 * Yes Fad Ariff, I agree with Seraphimblade that you should be adding references to your proposal so we know what you are citing from. By the way, thanks for adding the sections so that other editors can also comment or vote. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: The current articles, as it stands, does not currently reflect all of the material that should be considered when discussing any of the proposals below, since key comment from the subject-matter expert on the MEK, Ervand Abrhahamian, have been repeatedly unhelpfully deleted mid-discussion. Given that this RFC is ostensibly about summarizing existing content, this needs to be displayed somewhere, so here it is: "Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members.'"
 * Comment: This entire RFC is confusing, if not perverse. The original length of the stable version of this section in this article is around 257 words (326 if we include the text above) - a length not particularly in need of summarizing or shortening. And, were this even necessary, neither of the proposals made so far actually do much about it. Fad Ariff's proposal comes out at 310 words - so that's an RFC for a grand removal of 16 words, while Iraniangal777's proposal comes in at a slimmer 250 words, but Iraniangal777 keeps removing the above text, so I can only assume this is a "summary" of the original 257 words, so a grand reduction of 7 words (though it's not a real summary because the proposal is actually a total rewrite). All I see is a POV-driven mockery being made of the entire RFC process. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: The current version, as it stands (with the above text removed), has been stable for at least the past year, and is as follows: "The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being 'cultish'.'[353][354] Various sources have also described the MEK as a 'cult',[355][356] 'cult-like',[357][358] or having a 'cult of personality',[359][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a 'cult'.[360][361][362]" "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an 'ideological revolution', which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into 'near religious devotion to the Rajavis'. After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through 'false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq'. MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members." "According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for 'safekeeping', an act which would 'effectively trap' them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war.[16] During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization."
 * However, this text is already a mere fraction of what it was two years ago, which was 716 words - this apparently then went through a process of systematic chipping away at its well-attested, reliably sourced contents. So what is this RFC about? Why is community time being wasted on barely reducing an already bare-boned summary? How does it serve the project? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

2) Proposals
Proposal by Fad Ariff

My proposal is to summarise this content (which was once in the "cult of personality" section but the got moved around by Ghazaalch). Fad Ariff (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC) The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". Various sources have also described the MEK as a "cult", "cult-like", or having a "cult of personality", Ervand Abrhamian emphasizes that the MEK were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons. Other sources say that members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran, with marriages not being allowed. While other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult",  including Abbas Milani saying that the Irnaian  campaigned against delisting the MEK calling it a "dangerous cult".

According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Massoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war. During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

Fad Ariff, these two RFCs shows that there is consensus on the existing version of cult section. Why are you determined to shorten it again? You may be able to railroad your opponents into the RFCs and gather enough votes but as said here if your "oppose" side's arguments are grounded in WP:RS but the "support" sides arguments are not, then you won't be reach your goal of omitting anti-MeK contents. I want admins to read BATTLEGROUND RfCs along with the reasons given for the coming votes.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal by Iraniangal

Various sources have described the MEK as a "cult", "cult-like", or having a "cult of personality". According to Ronen Cohen, the continuous struggles against the Iranian regime’s constraints led to the MEK having characteristics of a cult of personality about its leader, Massoud Rajavi.

According to Ervand Abrahamian, during the late 1980s the MEK "revered" its leader, Massoud Rajavi, referring to him formally as the Rkabar (Guide). Abrahamian also says that during this time the MEK created a strict hierarchy within the organization, producing its own history and ideological interpretations, as well as its own slogans, ceremonies, and liturgy. It injected new meanings into old words from Islam and also coined new terms. It also started to "see the world as divided into two contradictory forces: on one side was the Mojahedin, the vanguard of the select, and those willing to accept its leadership; on the other side was Khomeini, the forces of darkness, and any one refusing to accept the Mojahedin leadership."

Other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult". The US Congress and other organizations found that since 1979, the Iranian government had made major efforts in the West to defame the MEK. John Thompson, head of Mackenzie Institute, said that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada to publish a piece on the MEK, adding that "Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

This proposal aims to provide a better version of what is currently in the article. The sources used are high-quality and taken from this talk page and those linked to past talk page discussions. I have also tried to quote authors' analysis directly rather than quoting former MEK members or other questionable publications. I dedicated a whole paragraph to Abrahamian since, according to some editors here, he’s the "foremost expert on the MEK". Still I doubt this proposal will make everyone happy (as collective agreement seems hardly possible on this page). If nothing else, this proposal aims to upgrade the current content, which isn't difficult considering this content is terribly written and organized right now. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal by Iskandar323

This section should actually be expanded from all of the reliable scholarly and journalistic produced in prior RFCs, particularly the list in this discussion, including the very clear statements by the likes of Abrahamian, who has said "By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult." From the New York Times: "The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife, Maryam." The intercept noting it: "devolved into a secretive, cult-like group that resembles a militant, Islamist version of the Church of Scientology." Trita Parsi stating: "Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)." This should not be being swept under the rug. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why

 * Support proposal by Fad Ariff because it follows WP:NOTEVERYTHING, providing a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". As it is described in the guideline, new material can be added to this summary later as needed. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff: Three editors have now separately explained how this is not what WP:NOTEVERYTHING means - why are you ignoring the community and parroting cherry-picked phrases from guidelines? Who do you think is fooled by this? Ignoring all of those around you is the antithesis of the collaborative mindset needed to actually improve an encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Without the answer to the most important question, there's no answer here. What are some examples of the best references available about this subject? Similarly,, it is not possible to evaluate how good your proposal is without knowing what references you would cite to back it. If you could add references, it would then be possible to check whether your proposed text accurately and thoroughly summarizes the available sources. But without knowing that, this RfC is nearly entirely futile; we write from source material, not the air. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded. @Seraphimblade: In answer to your question, one of the very best sources available is Ervand Abrahamian, perhaps the world's pre-eminent scholar on the MEK, but for the past few weeks Fad has been working against including the assessment of this subject-matter expect on the topic, for example here, for reasons that remain unapparent. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A while ago, I gave a proposal here on this section. Fad Ariff's proposal suffers from some of the issues I describe in that discussion, including the fact that it leads with a strawman argument: the proposal implies the main reason MEK is considered a cult is because it "has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime". By contrast, scholarly sources say the main reason is that the group's ideology revolves around devotion and "worship"-like practices of its two leaders (Massoud and Maryam Rajavi). See all the scholarly sources I provided.VR talk 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal by Fad Ariff as it keeps all of the wrong sources and excludes all of the right sources. Assuming that reducing this section is even an urgent imperative (not agreed), the way to go about it would be to use the high-quality reference material we have from Abrahamian and delete/exclude most of the news outlet-fed material. Arab News, for instance, has no place alongside scholarly resources. Reducing the material from Abrahamian to the MEK being "labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons" is a waste of the source and useless. "For reasons ..." explains nothing - either the reasons need to be said, or not: stating in Wikivoice that there are reasons, but not providing those reasons, is a bizarre abstraction of the expert source material. Bad proposal for this alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support expansion of the section based on the numerous reliable sources available, as referenced in my proposal. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Retain existing (oppose Fad Ariff's proposal). To quote someone else, "these two RFCs  show... that there is consensus on the existing version of [the] cult section."  Ariff does not provide a compelling argument to decimate it, and the specific shortening proposed is problematic in several ways (which I think are well explained by Iskandar323).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Iraniangal777's proposal also since it diminishes the key subject-matter expert, Abrahamian, again - this time with some selective quotes left around, but with the word cult removed - which is a double no, since it strips the quotes from Abrahamian of all the relevant context, namely that he also explicitly describes the group as having cult-like worship of its leader. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On a side note, how is this even a summary? It contains several new quotes not even currently presently in the article, and it contain a wholly new body of information about efforts to defame the MEK by labelling it cult-like, including from a brand new source: the Mackenzie Institute. It is basically a highly tendentious total rescripting of the existing material. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Iraniangal's proposal (seems to be the best proposal so far). It uses sources by Abrahamian, Cohen, Cronin, Butcha, Tanter, etc. All decent sources that meet WP:RS and WP:NEUTRAL. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Iraniangal777s proposal. Three paragraphs paraphrased well and using reliable sources is the best that we can hope for considering the alternatives. This is a good NPOV proposal. Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Iraniangal777's for a few reasons:
 * Violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The proposal aims to balance the scholarly the view that MEK has the characteristics of a cult with the view that Iran is trying to have the MEK labelled as a cult. But this balance doesn't exist in scholarly sources, and there's a lot of sources that call MEK a cult in their own voice (some here). In fact, a RfC was closed by Vanamonde as saying "The sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor.
 * The proposal - once again - attempts to give strawman arguments. One of the major reasons MEK is considered a cult is because it lured members through false promises and then prevented them from leaving. MEK is not considered a cult because it "coined new terms" (at least not for that reason alone). But the proposal removes the major reason and replaces it with the minor reason.
 * Possible violation of WP:V, the proposal says "The US Congress...found that since 1979, the Iranian government had made major efforts in the West to defame the MEK." No page number is given for the source. And documents presented to the Congress are not the same as the Congress finding something.
 * Why are cult descriptions being qualified with "According to Ervand Abrahamian" when there are far, far more sources than just Abrahamian himself that make the same descriptions? That seems like watering down the language.VR talk 15:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Iraniangal777 & Fad Ariff's proposal. Apart from what said above, the proposals drastically reduces the numerous cult-like characteristics of the MEK that are described in scholarly sources to just one or two characteristics. For more information see my comment at "RfC follow-up" bellow. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Retain current version. There is no need to summarize this section. I'll echo the comment by : the current version had a fair consensus, and its discussion was based on plenty of sources. MarioGom (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC follow-up
taking a look at your RfC follow-up proposal, I see that it is even better than the existing version of the cult section, since even the existing version like the one by Fad Ariff has the problem you mentioned above (The proposal implies the main reason MEK is considered a cult is because it "has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime". By contrast, scholarly sources say the main reason is that the group's ideology revolves around devotion and "worship"-like practices of its two leaders (Massoud and Maryam Rajavi)) As for Iraniangal proposal, it not even a shortening proposal as Isakandar323 said above since it contains several new quotes not even currently presently in the article. So I revive your proposal here as a alternative proposal that does not have the problems mentioned above and is much shorter too. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please give specific feedback on what is good about it, what is not good about it, and how the not good part can be changed. Please do not simply "support" or "oppose" it, this is not a vote. Proposal:


 * That linked thread is compelling, thank you post adding it. Ghazaalch, did you see problems that User:Barca and User:Bahar1397 identified about VR's proposal?  . Fad Ariff (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, instead of relying on discussions by, and  (as active opponents of that discussion) who were topic banned due to their wrong doings, please make a constructive discussion with the users present here. Because Canvassing, as you know, compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose VR's proposal and Oppose Fad Ariff's proposal. Both proposals fail at WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:NEUTRAL. The current version in the article also fails at these policies. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal by Vice regent because it's a violation of WP:NPOV. It uses a mixture of dead-links, sources lacking any peer review, and testimonies from past MEK members presented in the form of objective information. It also cites a single report from RAND twice, ignoring other reports (such as this report by the Library of Congress). There are other concerns:
 * WP:V or WP:SYNTHESIS violation ? Where in the sources provided does it say that the Iranian government "exploits allegations to demonize the MEK"? (In those sources I’m reading that the Iranian government tries to pay journalists to label the MEK a "cult").
 * WP:V ? Where in page 144 of the Buchta source does it say that the author describes the MEK as a cult? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support VR’s proposal The links provided in the 's proposal are from a year ago and can be updated. Other objections above are mostly addressed by VR themselves here. Concerning Verifiability for example: "Admin Vanamonde has pointed out twice that sources that consider MEK to be a cult are more reliable and should be given more WP:WEIGHT." or concerning RAND report "an entire chapter devoted to MEK's cultishness in the RAND report", so citing it twice is not too much. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support VR's proposal (as an alternative to the also fine status quo) - VR's proposal has a slightly better balance than the current material, with a greater emphasis on the expert commentary of Abrahamian, and less emphasis on the RAND Corporation, which makes for a more suitable weighting of the sources with respect to subject-matter specialism and expertise. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose VR's proposal. Per the violations mentioned above. The proposal also puts emphasis on critics while mostly ignoring other perspectives. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: As Vanamonde said in a previous RFC, the sources that using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor., so it is not strange if the emphasis is on the negative aspects of the group.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Shortening and reorganize a paragraph in the article
 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following paragraph be shortened and move some parts to more relevant sections?

Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To avoid confusion that we faced in some past discussions, this RFC consists of 3 separate sections. Please add your comment, shortening proposal (if any), or vote in the relevant section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

1) Discussion


 * Thank you for participating. If you think my proposal needs fixes, please make a suggestion in this section or write your own proposal in the section just below. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I would suggest not opening RFCs unless you have concrete proposals. You can ask for proposals first, and then open an RFC when the different possibilities are clear. Vague and unimplementable RFC waste everyone's time. MarioGom (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First starting asking for this proposal here, then tried to implemented the edit here, and then the edit was reverted by Ghazaalch here. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In the first link given above by Fad Ariff he starts to explain why he deleted/reverted a well sourced paragraph, and he makes the impression that he wants to justify the deletion, and he makes some suggestion, in order to reach consensus. Later on he writes that he will work on moving this and other information to sections where they are more suitable. By saying this, again he makes the impression that he wants to move the reverted/deleted information to another section, but in fact, under this pretext, he wants to move an old paragraph (that he cannot revert/delete), to other sections so that he could empty the section from its contents, in order to delete the section entirely little by little. (This is the volume of the section after his edit) Because the title of this section ( Cult of personality) attracts the reader's attentions and he does not like it. So Instead of restoring the new paragraph he reverted/deleted, he jumps into a RFC to remove the old one too. And RFC is the ideal place for him and the other Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources. One of these voters, for example, is who has appeared after a year to vote in these RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, this is what I proposed that the "Cult of personality" section should include, all of which is being discussed (together with other proposals) in a RFC below (something that you also opposed). So what you are saying here about me (and others) is not true. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What I am saying has nothing to do with what you said in answer.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC) 2) Proposals

Shortening proposal by Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)




 * This content is about MEK recruitment, and so I suggest moving this content to a section like "Membership (1980s)"


 * This content is about MR starting an "ideological revolution", and so I suggest moving this content to a section like "Ideological revolution and women's rights"
 * This content is about MR starting an "ideological revolution", and so I suggest moving this content to a section like "Ideological revolution and women's rights"

Do the opposite

This section should actually be expanded from the reliable scholarly and journalistic sources produced in prior RFCs, particularly the list in this discussion, including the very clear statements by the likes of Abrahamian, who has said "By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult." From the New York Times: "The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult was Massoud's spectacular theft of his colleague's wife, Maryam." The intercept noting it: "devolved into a secretive, cult-like group that resembles a militant, Islamist version of the Church of Scientology." Trita Parsi stating: "Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)." This should not be being swept under the rug. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See the RFC below, which is about that. This RFC is about moving content to relevant sections and fixing a substandard source. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of the RFCs are aiming at emptying the section from its content, in spite of the fact that it is the shortest section in the article. So as Iskandar323 said above it should be expanded instead, to cover all cultish characteristics of the group. RAND report has dedicated a whole section (Cultic Characteristics of the MeK) to this characteristics(see page 67 to 77). So I believe we should add the following subsections to the section, which are in accordance to the sections in the RAND report:


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

Ghazaalch (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why


 * Support proposal by Fad Ariff because it shortens some wordiness and an author who seems directly conflicted with the MEK. It also moves the content about "Ideological Revolution" and "Recruitment" to more relevant sections. This helps the article be a little tidier and better organized (something that most of the active editors in this talk page seem to agree the article needs). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No concrete reason given here for disassembling the well-sourced topic of the MEK's development into a cult of personality. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't clear, I'm in favour of moving content about MEK recruitment to the section about "Membership" and the content about "ideological revolution" to the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights". The reason is that it makes sense to have MEK recruitment in a section that deals with "membership", and content about ideological revolution in a section about the group's "ideological revolution" (easy-peasy stuff). Also removing a source that "is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person" and suggesting more and better sources is basic policy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fad Ariff (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC. This should be a procedural close. You can just propose a change without opening an RFC. If there are multiple positions and consensus cannot be reached, then you can open an RFC with a concise description of options. MarioGom (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * MarioGom see my comment in "Discussion". Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is badly organized, and this is a good attempt at starting to organize it. NMasiha (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a reason of any kind, let alone a policy based one. That 'the article is untidy' does not address the relevant topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Puffing out a section with information of a different nature is simply bad editing (see WP:OOS and WP:RELEVANCE). Also like others are saying, providing context for the reader also applies in this case. NMasiha (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those links are to guidelines (both are to essays), which really just underlines the lack of policy behind this. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are provided by other editors below. Guideline or not, providing "context for the reader" is basic editing practice. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, the first part you proposed moving it to the other section is exactly providing "context for the reader", as Ali Ahwazi said bellow. Because hiring MeK's forces through "false promises of employment" (the part you want to move), made Masaud Rajavi to invent a cult in order to brainwash the forces in order to keep them in the camp. So per Writing better articles we should keep the part in the cult section. concerning the second part; Massoud Rajavi began to work towards an "ideological revolution" that required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis", the "near religious devotion to the Rajavis", is exactly the meaning of the "Cult of personality" which is the title of the cult section.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Pointless RFC, as MarioGom said, as this could have just been a normal discussion. RFCs should be reserved for intractable problems, but for what it's worth oppose proposal by Fad Ariff, because all this achieves is to strip out the parts about "near religious devotion to the Rajavis" and the entrapment - basically watering down the findings. And I would have to ask why? Good ways of cutting material are eliminating duplication, and replacing news reporting (like random trial details of assassins and spies) with the emergent secondary analysis as it appears on scholarly literature. Simply watering down secondary analysis is not a useful way of making the article more informative. Stripping out select negative material is, as Ghazaalach in particular has mentioned several times, not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support doing the opposite and re-expanding the section based on the host of reliable sources that cover the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A RFC about expanding that section with (relevant) content is taking place below this one. This RFC is about something else. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Placing content in corresponding sections is imperative for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:AGE MATTERS. There was a discussion about this prior to this RFC, so dismissing this as either "pointless" or "bad" would be inappropriate. F.A.’s proposal mostly paraphrases and organizes information, moving the content about recruits/members to the section about Membership, and the content about ideological revolution to the section about Ideological revolution. The proposal actually keeps "near religious devotion to the Rajavis", and removes a WP:NPOV-problematic claim by a Masoud Banisadr: an MEK detractor and former member, so the source is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person (the citation is also wrongly crediting "Eileen Barker" as the author when it’s actually Masoud Banisadr). Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose the pointless proposal: As I said in the above discussion, this is another try of scattering the content of an anti-MeK section by a pro-MeK user, in order to empty the section from its content, and to delete it in the end. (This is the volume of the section after his edit) Because the title of this section ( Cult of personality) attracts the reader's attentions and he does not like it. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note to whoever closes this RFC: I reported Ghazaalch for personalising disputes in this RFC and he received a warning. NMasiha (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is extremely off-topic to the discussion at hand, personalizing, and a totally irrelevant consideration for the closer. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

For other old RFCs concerning cult section see here, also see this current one. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This section (cult section) has long been subject to super-trim RFCs as pointed out by the admin El C here, which only redacted longstanding, agreed-upon text to one tenth of its original size. See the RFC here)
 * Support. Alex said it best, and WP:PCR is also applicable here. The proposal moves content to sections where it’s obviously more apt. None of the opposing votes have addressed that. The opposing votes mainly protest that this RFC "super trims" the section Cult of personality, but there is an open RFC below (with several proposals) about filling that section with content that’s actually better sourced and in context. I will also make a proposal for that RFC but in the meantime, I see no reason why relocating information to sections where context is given would be a bad thing. Quite the opposite, presenting information out of context goes completely against how an encyclopedia is built. Hogo-2020 (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised this rather stupid RFC was still open - three months is more than enough for this: I'm going request a close. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The parts that Fad Ariff proposed moving them to other sections are belonged to the cult section because
 * 1) In the given source (RAND report) they are belonged to the section The MeK as a Cult (See page 38 and 39).
 * 2) Per WP:PCR we should explain the conditions during which Mek has changed from a popular group into a cult, so the context that Fad Ariff proposed moving to other section is necessary for  cult section for the sake of reader who want to know the process.

Here is the full text in the source:

The MeK as a Cult

From its earliest days, the MeK had had tight social bonds, but these began to be transformed into something more sinister during the mid-1980s after the group’s leaders and many of its members had relocated to Paris. There, Masoud Rajavi began to undertake what he called an “ideological revolution,” requiring a new regimen of activities—at first demanding increased study and devotion to the cause but soon expanding into near-religious devotion to the Rajavis (Masoud and his wife, Maryam), public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy, enforced separation from family and friends, and gender segregation. Prior to establishing an alliance with Saddam, the MeK had been a popular organization. However, once it settled in Iraq and fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people and, as a result, faced a shortfall in volunteers. Thus began a campaign of disingenuous recruiting. The MeK naturally sought out Iranian dissidents, but it also approached Iranian economic migrants in such countries as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates with false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq. Relatives of members were given free trips to visit the MeK’s camps. Most of these “recruits” were brought into Iraq illegally and then required to hand over their identity documents for “safekeeping.” Thus, they were effectively trapped. Another recruiting tactic was arranged with the assistance of Saddam’s government. Iranian prisoners from the Iran-Iraq War were offered the choice of going to MeK camps and being repatriated or remaining in Iraqi prison camps. Hundreds of prisoners went to MeK camps, where they languished. No repatriation efforts were made. For coalition forces, the MeK’s cult behavior and questionable recruiting practices are significant insofar as they affect both the daily operations at the camp and the strategic disposition options available to the group. The leadership is unlikely to cooperate with policies that would undermine its ability to exert direct control over its members. Indeed, Human Rights Watch reports that the MeK long ago instituted a complicated process to retain members who expressed a desire to leave, which included a “trial,” forced confessions of disloyalty, and even torture. Although this process has been modified since the group was consolidated at Camp Ashraf, would-be walkaways are still “debriefed” for days or even weeks while held in some form of solitary confinement, during which they are encouraged to change their minds. Conversely, the long-term indoctrination and isolation experienced by MeK members are likely to have instilled an exaggerated sense of loyalty, causing them to reject offers to separate themselves from their leaders. This would apply in particular to repatriation to Iran, where the expectation of persecution has been dramatically instilled in their minds.5

Ghazaalch (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support the proposal, per above. Fixing a citation and moving information to relevant areas that provide context is a good contribution to the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Can't we fix the citation without moving it to other sections? As I said above per Writing better articles the text is relevant and should be kept in the section. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Masoud Rajavi had to invent a sect and brainwash the forces in order to keep those forces that he had hired with deception and lies. This is considered as something that can not be understood without explaining the process of hiring those forces. As a result, I declare my opposition to the moving. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. How relevant something is largely depends on context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), so I support the proposed fixes. The section can later be thickened with one of the proposals given in the "RFC on the cult summary in the article" (pending consensus on that RFC). Poya-P (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what the the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has to do with your support form the proposal? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC follow-up
Following the "no consensus" of this RFC, would anyone object to removing the sentence "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization" from the article?

Like said, it is a "WP:NPOV-problematic claim by a Masoud Banisadr: an MEK detractor and former member, so the source is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person". Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, what happened in this diff? Why did you replace the original reference with the source that you now want to remove on the basis of source quality? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just corrected the information in that citation with the correct author. What is "odd" about that? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that you updated the chapter information, but the book is still edited by Eileen Barker, a sociology professor that studies precisely such groups. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So the source has been vetted by a subject-matter expert as well as published by an academic publisher. That Masoud Banisadr may have bias as a former MEK member is neither here nor there with respect to NPOV. Bias sources are allowed. The MEK are bias about themselves, but we don't ignore them. It is only natural that the individuals with the most information on the MEK are former group members. NPOV means neutrality with respect to the sourcing, and here the sourcing we have is extremely well controlled academic publishing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it is ok to use controversial content from authors that have affiliation with the MEK as long as it is printed by a reliable publisher? (I don't agree with this, because like Alex-h said, "the source is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person", and there are many reliable sources available from unaffiliated authors). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We go by source quality, and as I have explained above, the source quality here is very good and there is no reason (or no reason has been provided) to simply discount it. Masoud Banisadr has been published through reliable channels. If the assertion here is one of bias, than in-text attribution, not deletion, is the guideline's solution. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:HUH?, nobody is talking about source bias. The issue, like I have said a few times already, is using an affiliated author for controversial content, which is " not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person". There are many other authors affiliated with the MEK (such as Manshour Varasteh). Would you have an objection to using him, for example, as a source in this article ? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All sources are biased. There is a reason why Wikipedia emphasises being neutral not unbiased. See WP:BIASED. What we know with respect to this particular source is that a professor edited the content, and a reliable publisher approved it. Manshour Varasteh can potentially be referenced for some things, where his material is published in reliable sources, sure - though his active membership of the NCRI could complicate this in relation to certain subjects where a clear conflict of interest may be present. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI this old RfC where the consensus for using that sentence by Masoud Banisadr was this: "The discussion of the source has established that it isn't unreliable, but neither is it on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person. As such, I would say that consensus has not been established to remove it entirely, but there aren't strong arguments for keeping the simile in the second piece of the sentence, and if there are additional sources supporting the first, they should be added.". Alex-h (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the content from the controversial source with some content from another source which is not controversial. The new content mean the same thing as the previous one but has different phrases. The second bold part of the new content means surrender of their individuality as you could see bellow.

Rajavi launched what he called an ideological revolution in 1985, which over time imbued the MEK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, and sexual control (including forced divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options.

This is the old content: During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In the days of yore, the full paragraph on this read: According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face. During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization, an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct. A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". - so both elements were in there. In any case, the list above is further supported by direct quotation in the Guardian. Ok-ish with the switch if others agree. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If we're going to put in the article that people were "forced to surrender their individuality", we need multiple high-quality sources (WP:ECREE). A think tank and a Guardian article quoting the think tank are not enough to put these types of damning allegation in the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just one wording: we have dozens of sources noting the MEK's descent into a cult-like state, so none of this stuff is remotely exceptional. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, that wasn't the text that you removed in this edit - what you removed was Ghazaalch's suggested replacement text. However, since you seemingly can't agree to the replacement, and instead just seem intent on scoffing at gold-plated sources like the Guardian, I've restored the original line from the source that sparked this discussion, since that has already survived an old RFC. I guess the discussion can continue where it left off - more constructive suggestions, rather than just notes on what people don't like, would be welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the sentence "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization", which you just restored to the article even though the consensus is that it is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person. Do you have "multiple high-quality sources" to justify having this in the article? If you do not, then this should be removed. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I added the Guardian and the RAND report as new sources for this text since as I said above the text: During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization. is a kind of summary of this text: Rajavi launched what he called an ideological revolution in 1985, which over time imbued the MEK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, and sexual control (including forced divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The RAND and Guardian do not support "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.". Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The RAND and Guardian do support "Rajavi launched what he called an ideological revolution in 1985, which over time imbued the MEK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, and sexual control (including forced divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options." which is similar to the existing text and I suggested it as a replacement. Another alternative is the following. Masoud Banisadr is quoting MeK themselves here:

If one accepts the ideology, strategy and … principles of an organisation, then he or she should accept the structure of that organisation as well. Undisciplined action by a person is a sign of giving priority to personal interest over organisational interest. While Ironic Discipline is a sign of the deep dissolution of individuality of a person within the organisation and it is a sign of his total understanding of the organisation’s ideology. (MEK 1980c: 31)


 * MEK 1980c. An Examination of the Possibilities of the Deviation of Democratic Centralism or the Difference between Scientific Doubt and Unscientific Doubt within the Organisation. MEK Publication.

Ghazaalch (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well that's fairly clear: it's in the MEK's own handout materials. I hope "the deep dissolution of individuality" is a clear enough reference for everybody. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're still using Masoud Banisadr as a source for what the MEK allegedly said then that obviously won't work. Like others said already, you need multiple high-quality sources, that are unaffiliated to the subject, and that support "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization." Either provide them, or this sentence needs to be removed for violating WP:ECREE. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff: If we have the MEK saying it themselves in their own material, I don't see how you can even begin to think WP:ECREE might apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using Masoud Banisadr as a source for an alleged MEK interpretation is no good for the same reasons everyone else has already made clear: Masoud Banisadr "is not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person". If you want to add to the article what the MEK is saying about themselves, there are many other sources we can use for this other than this source by an affiliated author. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff: My point is it's hardly an exceptional claim, since both the MEK and Banisadr (who you assert is bias against the MEK) say it, and there aren't obviously any sources countering this. So on what basis exactly do you assert that the claim (as stated by the organisation and supported by secondary sourcing) is exceptional? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Iskandar323: Again, the problem with the source is not that it's biased, it's that it comes from an affiliated author. And like others have already explained, the source it's not on par with non-affiliated authors, and you haven't provided any other sources that support Masoud Banisdar's statement. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have, the MEK's own publication - so there are both a primary and secondary source from this from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, making it far from clear that affiliation or bias even feed into this. As was pointed out in the old RFC, this publication of Banisadr is also not a one-off: his work has been published at least twice in separate peer-reviewed publications. He should be attributed in-text though. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because he is an affiliated author, I don't agree that using Massoud Banisadr's polemic statements (including what the MEK allegedly said about themselves) is a good idea, specially when we have many other good (unaffiliated) sources that can be used for the same thing. Since we don't agree, I will start a RFC. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually provided any suggestions of 'unaffiliated sources' saying the same thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

since you closed the previous RFC saying "It will be easier to gain consensus if you start with one narrow question at a time", would a RFC with the following question be good for a RFC?

"Should the following sentence be removed from the article: 'During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization'"?

Thank you, Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps request the closure of the outstanding RFC before dragging the community into another much-ado-about-nothing RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fine question for an RFC Andre🚐 18:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, since you still think the sentence "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization" comes from an affiliated author, I replaced it with a similar sentence from ''Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1845192709.''

Here are some quotations from the book:

Ghazaalch (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * … all members were in reality forced to obey Rajavi. (page 8)
 * When Rajavi set his ideological revolution ….[m]embers were required to sacrifice their lives in the name of the organization’s goals and become “living martyrs” until the revolution was complete…Rajavi did not distinguish between veterans and new members in terms of status, but promoted individuals according to their blind obedience… (page 32)
 * Once the ideological revolution began, Rajavi required organization members to accept and obey a discipline that would enable him to control them……each member, no matter what rank, was required to write a daily report about his or her daily activities and thoughts …Rajavi threatened to expose the reports to the world’s media, as well as to other members and friends of any person who voluntarily resigned from the organization. …The information recorded in the reports could also be used to apply emotional blackmail to members who were not obedient or who demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the organization. (page 33)
 * Organization members were forced to believe that keeping in touch with family members could corrupt them, since those family members were simple people who could not understand the significance of the “revolutionary struggle”. (page 34)
 * Ghazaalch, the new content you added to the article is about the group’s own ideological teachings (it’s indicated in the title of the section where the content is found, "Ideological Teaching Methods Within the Organization"). I read the chapter and Cohen says many things about this (as do other authors), and what you added lacks any form of context (which the author himself includes in that chapter). I will pick a more neutral content by him (and Abrahamian), and add it to the Ideology and ideological revolution section. Speaking of which, there are also other cherrypicked lines with no context in the ideology section. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, we cannot talk about the Cult of Rajavi without mentioning his ideology, as we read in RAND report: “Rajavi instituted what he termed an “ideological revolution” in 1985, which, over time, imbued the MeK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options.9” So why can't we replace Banisadr's text with the text I proposed from RAND report? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We’ve already discussed why RAND is not a good replacement. The RAND does not support "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization." (the point of this discussion). Also like another editor said, a think tank (RAND) is not good enough as a source to these kinds of allegations. Everyone seems to agree that the source is "not on par with scholarly material from an unaffiliated person", yet his content is still in the article. It’s time for a RFC. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How is whether the source supports the previous text relevant when someone is suggesting replacing the text entirely? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

1988 execution of MEK prisoners
The 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners has its own dedicated page, linked to as the main page for the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners section on this page. The material on the page was, however, until today, rather lacking. I have now copied across the better sourced material from this page on the 1988 executions of members of the MEK to the relevant People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran section on the page, paving the way for the material to be reduced and summarized here - an easy thing to cut since we now have a main page for it that retains the information in full. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and condensed the material in this section as proposed following the copying of the contents to the main article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're going to condense that section, I think we should leave in the recorded atrocities that the Iranian government did against the political prisoners, otherwise we'd be downplaying those crimes against humanity. I've gone ahead and condensed the material that way. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing a short sentence about the reason why the executions happened, and restoring long quotations from this or that writer is not a good way of condensing the text. I am trying to make it a little better. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I just took a crack at it too. I kept the reasons of what led to the executions. I also kept Ayatollah Montazeri's testimony since it provides a lot of the behind-the-scenes information. Also kept the details human right abuses and demonization of victims (why would anyone want to remove that?). Iraniangal777 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can all agree on the question of length here (given the availability of all of the information on a page dedicated to the event). I've tweaked the opening sentence again, since this has somehow ended up not in Wikivoice. I also restored an Amnesty quote. The impartial analysis of specialist third-party human rights bodies is a bit more balanced and encyclopedic than the quote from Basmenji, which I removed, since it relates to the executions at large, not just the MEK. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems we all can agree that the section can be condensed, the question is what should be removed and what should be kept. I'm not in favor of removing the recorded atrocities that the Iranian government did against the political prisoners, so I have rescued some of the article's original version. Please do not remove the restored original content without consensus. This is the condensing I am in favor of: . Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an extended version of the quote that provides a direct link to the MEK, it has no place in this article. This section should not a WP:COATRACK of related material about the 1988 executions - any material that remains needs to be directly linked to the MEK. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Montazeri's quote saying "at least order to spare women who have children"? The book page where that quote is found links the Mojahedin, Khomeini's fatwa, and the executions of prisoners to Montazeri's quote . Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff: So after three other editors worked on this, clearly all agreeing on shortening it, and you also said that you agreed on shortening it, could you please explain to us all how exactly that squares with your restoring of most of the material, bringing it back to not much less than its original length? This is notably material that all has a place on another article now, and the apparent sudden disinterest in making this particular body of content shorter sits alongside what I can only describe as your marked enthusiasm about removing material (often when it is the only copy of it anywhere) from other page sections. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323: see my comment from a couple of days ago when I explained that and also gave a proposal to condense that section. Also I don't know why you're singling me out here since all of the editors here, including you, restored paragraphs from the original version. Removing the recorded atrocities that the Iranian government did against the political prisoners is not a way to condense that section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff: I'm asking you because you restored 2,800 bytes - almost all of the material. And it's not about "giving your proposal" and asking people to take it or leave it; it's about collegiate or collaborative editing. "My way or the highway" is not a Wikipedia policy, and restoring material back to the original again and again until people accept the one and only version you want, or raising an RFC to try to force the one and only version you want, is not that. This page is also not about "atrocities that the Iranian government did": it's not about the Iranian government or its activities at all. This article is meant to be a concise, encyclopedic entry on the MEK. All of this material is now on another dedicated page. Why do we need it duplicated here? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323: I did not say the things you are saying about me, so please do not engage in aspersions. I have built on what others did in that section but there is some content removal I don’t agree with, and there is other content removal that you don’t seem to agree with. The central theme of the section "1988 execution of MEK prisoners" is the atrocities that the Iranian government did against the political prisoners. We know this because it’s what the sources talk about (the same ones are trying to remove). I think removing that content would be downplaying the regime's atrocities, and have offered an alternative way to make the section more concise, but you don’t agree with that version either. We can disagree, but please don't make things up about me (I did not say "take it or leave it" or "my way or the highway", and none of the RFCs I opened were to "try to force the one and only version you want"). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323: these are the sources about Operation Mersad in the original version: Why do you think these sources should be removed from the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323: I think it is important that the first paragraph addresses why the killings happened, for this reason, I have restored the content from the stable version, "In order to eliminate potential political oppositions, the Islamic Republic started "coordinated extrajudicial killings" in Iran""(removing the quotation marks as you suggested ). This sentence is well sourced and explains why the killings happened, and is also part of the original version, so you do not have consensus to remove it from the article. If you would like to put it in another part of that section, try instead explaining where and why, but please don't remove it anymore. Let's try to keep each paragraph about the same content. I also restored "women" (your revert) because I don’t think it’s an "odd emphasis", but instead an accurate description. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'coordinated' quote has no place at the front of the section in Wikivoice. In the earlier version of the text it appeared in the fourth paragraph. Moreover, more of the statement is a direct quotation than was originally bracketed by quotations marks. I hadn't realised that it is a quote from Amnesty International, but given this, it needs in-text attribution like the other Amnesty International text, which is what I have gone ahead and merged it with in the second paragraph. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "The reason for the new round of widespread executions was Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the Mojahedin-e Khalq."
 * "Right after the ceasefire went into effect, the MKO forces attacked Iran from Iraq in an operation they called Amaliyat-e Forough-e Javidaan [Operation Eternal Light], but referred to as Amaliyat-e Mersaad [Operations Trap] by the IRGC. The MKO forces were defeated easily and had heavy losses -- at least 1700 according to the MKO, and many more according to other sources. Evidence indicates that before the ceasefire went into effect and the MKO attacks began, the Islamic Republic was already thinking about eliminating most, if not all, the political prisoners. Ayatollah Khomeini had ordered the formation of a secret commission to look into executing the MKO prisoners, as well as secular leftists, and had secretly authorized their execution. The former were classified as the mohaarebs [those who fight against God], while the secular leftists were considered as mortads [those not believing in God]."


 * I haven't removed them and I have no reason to think they should be removed, so I don't quite understand the question. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, you are removing an important element about why the Islamic Republic started the extrajudicial killings from the paragraph that explains why the killings happened. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it - it's an Amnesty quote that I actually expanded and merged with the other Amnesty material. You are just decontextualising it and placing it at the front of the section, where it never was in the earlier stable version (it was in the fourth paragraph, and not properly attributed). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, you don't have consensus for merging that content with other Amnesty material because it changes the meaning of the content (that content explains why the executions happened). The first paragraph in that section is used for explaining why the executions happened, so if you want this content moved down to the fourth paragraph, you first need to explain why. I will add more sources to this content so that you're at ease about the attribution and validity of its claims. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The content started in the fourth paragraph - I moved it to the second. In this edit, you have simply duplicated the Amnesty material again without adding anything new (and removed a source). You haven't raised any issues with the other changes to the first paragraph. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)