Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

RFC

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.

---

A) Move the content in “Designation as a cult” to the section “Perception”.

B) Remove “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."

Bahar1397 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support A. This content has been pigeon-holed in a way that it shouldn’t. The current title (“Designation as a cult”) and other titles that have been suggested in this talk page (such as "Characterization as a cult, or "Cult-like behavior") give the UNDUE conclusion that the MEK is a cult. “The Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a cult” is also unsettling. Critics of the MEK have perceived it to be cult-like, so let's move that to the section “Perception”.
• Support B. Because it was said to have a conflict of interest problem (and also looks like blatant libel). Bahar1397 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, another ridiculous RFC. I thought you would at least wait some months before the clear advice by El C. The discussion over A is ongoing and B is not even being discussed before, so it's baseless to start RFC over it. This sort of railroading would better be replaced by discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Bahar1397 did you even try to discuss proposal B, as per WP:RFCBEFORE? And like Mhhossein pointed out that discussion over A is happening in a section above (where I'm actually waiting for you to respond to my last comment).VR _talk 06:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

About "B", Masoud Banisadr's reliability as an author has been discussed at great lengths in this talk page: An ex-MEK member whose few publications are solely dedicated to calling the MEK a "cult" cannot be a RS for this page. The author also has a COI with the subject or the article.

About "A", Vanamonde already made it clear that a RfC was the correct step to follow.

To the closing admin/editor: Bludgeoning is usually one of the reasons most RfCs in this talk page end up in "no consensus"; thus leaving potentially problematic content unfixed in the article. A way to obtain a successful result in this RFC will require discerning substantiated arguments from bludgeoning. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose B: The book was published by Routledge and edited by professor Eileen Barker, professor of sociology at University of London. Banisadr has published on this topic in two peer-reviewed publications (this one and Cultic Studies Review). He is a WP:POVSOURCE but that doesn't make him unreliable - it only means he is to be used with attribution. Should we get more opinions on this from WP:RSN? Abrahamian writes "These dissidents accused Rajavi of not only creating the personality cult..." (The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, p 256). Terror, Love and Brainwashing (Routledge) also cites MEK defectors (including Banisadr) to show MEK's cultishness. So some mention of defectors' views would be WP:DUE.VR _talk 18:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria I'm not necessarily supporting the text as written. You will notice it is written differently in my proposed version below.VR _talk 20:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support A. Per admin's advice and other arguments made in this talk page (such as misleading section title proposals that aim to say the MEK is some kind of cult). Cult criticisms are the perception of certain critics, and that is where the content should be, in the "Perception" section of the article.
• Support B. We have a lot of neutral and reliable scholarly sources about the MEK. Choosing to use a source by an ex MEK member to put in the article that MEK members are "changing into "ant-like human beings" is disrespectful to say the least. Alex-h (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

*Support A: Section title not supported by any source, so it makes sense to put this text in another section like "Perception" since it really is about how the group is perceived by some. Support B: Agree with Alex. No reason to use a conflict of interest source when there more than enough reliable sources that we can use in this article. Bahar1397 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks Javadi. Removing my vote. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bahar1397: as the editor who opened a RFC, you don't need to vote again. Your initial proposal is enough. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support A: per WP:NOTADVOCACY - we can report objectively without overstating or amplifying. The cult claims are already summarised in the article, and like Vanamonde and Bahar say, it fits perfectly well in the section about the group's perception, so it doesn't need an unsupported title or its own section.
• Support B: Agree with the previous points about this. We have lots of reliable sources about the MEK, to use a conflicted source to say the MEK is like "ant-human beings" is unencyclopedic. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A because there is overwhelming evidence (presented in subsection below) that MEK has been described as a cult by scholarly sources. This is not a perception, but a fact.VR _talk 23:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support B There are lots of reliable sources about the MEK.Sea Ane (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A and B. About A, this is a very old discussion, and hopefully this time it will receive consensus. None of the sources provided in this talk page support "Designation as a cult" as a title, so why do we have it? There are sources that describe the MEK as a cult, and there are sources that don't, and there are sources that say cult comparisons are a result of Islamic regime disinformation campaign. We have all this in the article, so let's put it in a section where it makes sense like "Perception", as it was suggested by an uninvolved admin. About B, yes the author has a conflict of interest, and yes the statement from this author is libellous, and yes there are plenty of reliable sources we could be using instead of a COI and libellous source. Barca (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you solely have problem with the title of the section. The solution is not to fade the well-sourced content inside an irrelevant section. The B issue is never discussed before so it's not logical to take to RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose both: Firstly, case "A" is being considered in this section, and opening a RFC during a continuous discussion is not in accordance with WP: RFCBEFORE. However, I disagree with this proposal for the reasons I have stated here and no one has responded to them. In the case of B, WP: RFCBEFORE is not running, too. Has this been discussed somewhere that we now have an RFC for? Nevertheless, what Bani-Sadr has said, has been covered by many sources (1, 2 and 3). Finally, the COI does not invalidate the source. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, COI has nothing to do with the sources. Moreover, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support both: because "criticisms" are a part of "Perception" - because "Designation as a cult" (and proposed alternatives) are not supported by scholarship - and because using degrading quotes from members with obviously conflict of interest saying the MEK are like "ant-like human beings" is against WP:NPOV.

None of the sources given by Vice regent below support a "designation as a cult" or that the MEK is a "cult". In the lead of the article it says (neutrally) that "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult". Those who back the MEK describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there." This was the consensus of a long RFC that took into account all the sources in the article and tried to come up with a neutral compromise. In that RFC I also gave the following sources:

>"retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".

>"Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a ″cult nature”; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was “ashamed” by this statement.

>"Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".

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

So critics say that the MEK is a cult, and supporters say such criticisms are part of propaganda campaign to target liberal democracies in Iran, but the arguments here proposing that the MEK is indisputably a "cult" comes from cherry-picked sources and personal opinions. Put such criticisms of cult (and also comments from supporters) in the "Perception" section, and remove the quote from the former MEK member calling the MEK "ant-like human beings" (I don't understand how this last one is even in discussion). Nika2020 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support both: per Nika2020, who pretty much said what I was thinking. Or in policy terms, both A and B help the article become more neutral. Since personality cult comparisons are already in the article, and an uninvolved admin said that the "Designation as x is logically part of perception"[1], so that's where this content should go (not under made up titles that are not supported by sources). Also there are the sources (that were removed from the article) saying there is a propaganda campaign from its opposition to demonize the MEK as a cult:

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

  [2] by DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH

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

  [3] by Ivan Sascha Sheehan

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

  [4] by Joseph Adam Ereli

This article needs some serious cleaning up for neutrality, and this RFC helps towards that (ibid for the quote from the ex MEK member, which is a NPOV problem no matter which way you look at it). Ypatch (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to the original research by Nika2020 and Ypatch: Firstly, your comments are not justifying removal of well-sourced and longstanding text. You are all saying that the title is not representative and that "Designation as a cult" is not supported by the sources. Nearly all the support votes are relying on this original research. This is while the case is well-discussed here and we proposed an alternative renaming ('Characterization as a cult'). He described the terror inflicted upon American and Iranian citizens at the hands of the MEK and described the well documented characterization of the MEK as a cult. [5]. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a trend in this TP by the pro-MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources because allegedly there is a propaganda against MEK. This trend is well responded by Vanamonde93 here: "Weighty sources discussing the Iranian governments attempts to portray the MEK in a poor light are worthy of inclusion in the article in their own right, but the mere existence of propaganda does not obviate other sources..." --Mhhossein ^talk 08:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have never said I’m a “pro-MEK user” or that “we should ignore a lot of reliable sources”, under any circumstance. Nika2020 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

But this weird RFC is downgrading those reliable sources in practice. You're invited to take a look at the sources provided by VR. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein Like I said in my vote, I have looked at the sources provided by VR, and I have also looked at the arguments provided by the other editors that say those sources are already represented in the article. So associating me with "pro-MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources because allegedly there is a propaganda against MEK" seems baseless and ad hominem. Nika2020 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support both: Also per Nika2020 and Javadi. References of MEK being perceived as a cult by some are already in the article, so VRs sources below are not relevant to this RFC. This RFC entails moving how the MEK is perceived as cult by some people to the section 'Perception', and this makes sense. This RFC is also about removing a quote from an MEK member saying the MEK are like "ant-like human beings" (the type of disparaging POV pushing that does not belong in an encyclopedia). Support both per WP:NEUTRAL. Idealigic (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. You should say the references of MEK being described/characterized as a cult by some scholars are in the article. That's why perception does not apply here. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support both. Personality cult analogies and descriptors is something that we often hear about political organisations or individuals, and it is surely a type of perception. About the quote calling the MEK "ants human beings", I agree with the proposer that it's blatant libel and that there are many better sources than this one. Rondolinda (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both. The current "Designation as a cult" heading does not hold up with any source, so it fails WP:V. Interpretations that the MEK has cult-like characteristics is indeed already in the article and indeed logically part of perception, and placing that text in the "Perception" section does help the article be more neutral. Also with the quote taken from MEK defector calling the MEK "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct"; which is a prime example of the neutrality/POV pushing problem this article has. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If you really think we should remove a whole section only because "the current "Designation as a cult" heading does not hold up with any source" then you are invited, once again, to check it out – You can recall this old discussion where you folks were proposed an alternative renaming ('Characterization as a cult') per He described the terror inflicted upon American and Iranian citizens at the hands of the MEK and described the well documented characterization of the MEK as a cult. [6]. LOL! You already endorsed that old suggestion by saying " Interpretations that the MEK has cult-like characteristics"! Also, if there are some 'cult characterization' materials across the page, how about relocating them into this section, as opposed to removal of the section? Once again you are misusing the capacity of the RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support both per Stefka Bulgaria and Bahar1397. Cult-like information is already in the article. In essence, this change would make the article more WP:NPOV. Poya-P (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose both I support Wikipedia (based on reliable sources, presented by VR) against Votepedia (Voting on pushing away these sources).Ghazaalch (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• So what? this is already mentioned in the lede and body of the article. We have such sources also saying the same thing about other political personalities such as Presidency of Donald Trump or Ruhollah Khomeini; yet we don't have sections there with absurd titles such as "Designation as a cult". That's what the RfC above is about, so your argument here is the equivalent of a Straw man. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Precisely what Stefka is saying. The RFC above is about something else, and if we are going to add "Designation as a cult" to this article just because some critics of the MEK have called it a cult, then we should also do the same to other Wikipedia articles. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Then go ahead and propose it at other articles' talk pages.VR _talk 23:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@VR: Certain sources describing the MEK as cult is not what is in dispute, as some editors have already explained to you. My "A" proposal is about moving the cult descriptions to "Perception" since “Designation as a cult” and other titles that have been suggested in this talk page (such as "Characterization as a cult, or "Cult-like behavior") give the UNDUE conclusion that the MEK is a cult. "Some sources describing the MEK a cult" only means that "some sources describe it as a cult". Others sources do not describe it as a cult. So since the article already says that "some sources describe the MEK as a cult", then we need to put this within the context of other sources, and "Perception" seems to be the most logical section for this (like an uninvolved admin already said here). Bahar1397 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

and the easy response to your argument is that the contents of these scholarly reliable sources – that you already acknowledged – should not be down graded to something like "perception". There are clear arguments and characterizations by the reliable sources which should not be simply ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A. To be frank, moving it to "Perception" and to remove 'designation' would be to soften the impact of the widely reported and remarked upon fact that, frankly, the MEK has been reported by reliable sources as being a cult or cult-like organization, with cult-like aspects. To do so would be to show undue bias toward the MEK's own self-narrative that it is not a cult.
• Oppose B. The content is entirely relevant, and supported by non-biased reporting. There is reportage of allegations of cult aspects and practices by journalistic sources with no conflict of interests with MEK or the Iranian regime. In this example, take Vice News [7] , and there are other non-invested academicians and journalists reporting such. Because maintaining it in the article gives a more complete and nuanced view of the MEK as a socio-political phenomenon, it should not be deleted. KJS ml343x (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

KJS ml343x: What do you think of VR's alternative proposal of adopting his source list? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I personally think that VR's source list is quite well fleshed out. It looks rather clear-cut to me, there are serious scholarly sources listed who describe the organization as a cult. For the life of me, I personally can't see why describing it so would be at all controversial. The Guardian itself, in an article here [8], pretty blatantly states at least that the MEK is "widely regarded as a cult" and the Guardian is a journalistic heavy hitter. To say the least. I think VR's source list looks quite respectable and reflects a large portion of scholarly views. KJS ml343x (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A. The current title effectively reflects the content of the subsection. Wholesale relocation of the content does not resolve anything here (though I hold the opinion that this relocation suggestion would function against the desired outcome). The content under 'Designation as a cult' call for a its own section, so let's not make other sections unnecessarily long. Also, some users say perception does not correctly represent findings arisen from the academic analysis. I agree with these sort of comments.
• Oppose B. This is not even RFC worthy. The content is well sourced. Some say the author is not neutral while we know it's not a threat to the reliability.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult

Those who support this proposal dispute whether the MEK is a cult. However, most (if not all) scholarly sources describe the MEK is a cult in their own voice. These sources don't just say "X describes MEK as a cult", rather the sources say "MEK is a cult". I have not included non-scholarly but reliable sources that also call MEK a cult.

• "During its Iraq residency, Rajavi oversaw the transformation of the organization from a political one to a cult centered on devotion to him."
• "This was cult of personality at its most extreme, comparable to that of Khomeini at the height of the Islamic Revolution; of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s; of Mao Tse-tun during the Cultural revolution; of Stalin during the second world war; and of Lenin, but only after his entombement in the Red Square. Rajavi's personality cult had two far-reaching consequences. In first place, it frightened off man former allies...In the second place, the personality cult forced a number of Mojahedin activists to leave the organization."
• "Gradually the organization transformed into a cult around the personality of their leader, Masoud Rajavi. The following statements by two lower rank leaders of theorganization reveal the essence of this cult of personality."
• "As  an objective historian, the author does not seek  to judge, but only to explain how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party. Rajavi's unlimited power over the dwindling membership, exercised by tight organization and control and by indoctrination, means that the Mojahedin sect now resembles a totalitarian dictatorship."
• "When [MEK] lost, it became the tool of Saddam Hussein until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is now little more than a Rajavi cult with little influence in Iran and even less popularity."
• "Some, notably the Sazman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq (Organization of the People's Crusaders) – better known simply as the Mojahedin – declared that the revolution had been betrayed, took up arms against the Islamic Republic, and, setting up bases outside the country, turned into a cult resembling medieval Shi'i sects."
• "Rajavi, born in Tabas in 1948, had joined the Mojahedin in 1966 and declared himself the leader of this cult by 1981."
• "From 1985, Rajavi transformed the PMOI from a mass movement into a cult with himself as its guru. Among the weird decrees, Rajavi has ordered many married members  to stop conjugal relations, and others to get divorce." "By 1985 - 86, Masoud Rajavi, the already absolute leader of the PMOI , turned the organization into a cult, where he was praised and regarded to be the equivalent of Prophets Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, Shia Imam Ali and Shia Imam Hussein."
• "To be sure, Iran International has been discredited due to its constant coverage of a rally by the MEK, a cult-like terrorist organization that espouses regime change has links to Saudi Arabia."
• "US Conservatives support a cult. Some conservatives have thrown their support behind an even stranger ally: the People's Mujahedin of Iran. But critics question that commitment [to democracy], given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi."
• "For instance, in discussing the love between Massoud Rajavi and his wife Maryam, the cult of personality duo who had run the Mojahedin since the 1980s, Cohen observes that: 'Rajavi loved not only the emo-tional bond they shared, but also the fact that she obeyed him blindly and totally. Shelater proved that she was devoted to the struggle.'"
• "All operate within a cult of personality built around the Mujahedin's long-time leader, Masoud Rajavi. While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran."
• "However, the organization encourages a cult of personality around its exiled leaders - Massoud and Maryam Rajavi - so  extreme  that  two  young  girls  burned  themselves  to  death  when  Maryam  Rajavi  was briefly  imprisoned  in  Europe  in  2003."
• "It has surrounded its leader with an intense personality cult, proclaiming that “Rajavi is Iran , and Iran is Rajavi.”
• "It has since gradually evolved into a strange mix of a radical cult centered around its leaders,the Rajavis, and opposition to the Iranian regime from 1988 onwards."

VR _talk 00:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above 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.

Shedding light on the Stefka Bulgaria's Feb-Mar edits

• @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you say which of these sources support "The Swiss government named thirteen Iranian officials, with special mission stamped into their passports as participants in the assassination." Please be specific by naming the source and mentioning the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

First, please change your discussion heading. Second, I just added the source; not the content, and the source says: "The United States on Friday said it was imposing visa restrictions on 13 Iranian officials it accused of involvement in “gross violations of human rights” for a 1990 assassination of an Iranian opposition figure in Switzerland. The U.S. State Department did not name the 13, but in a statement said it was also designating a 14th Iranian, Hojatollah Khodaei Souri, who it said as director of Iran’s Evin Prison ran an institution “synonymous with torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” “The United States will continue to pressure Iran to treat its own people with dignity and respect,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said." REUTERS

• Are you sure you are only performing a "Sentence fix" here? You have also removed the "desiring to gather Iranian opposition at home and overthrow the Islamic Republic". Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. I don't know if you have been following the discussions in this talk page, but we need to remove redundancy from the article (i.e. things that are repeated, etc.). The MEK looking to overthrow the Islamic Republic is overtly covered in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Stefka, you are on very thin ice here. If you remove content, your edit summary needs to explain why. If you replace a CN tag with a source, the source needs to cover all the content, and if it does not, the content needs to be modified to reflect the source. And if other editors have made similar errors here, that's reason to communicate that to them, but it's no excuse for your edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, understood.. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 24#Misleading edit summary and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 21#Deceptive edit summary. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria why did you say this has nothing to do with MEK's ideology? It seems relevant, though I think it can be summarized.VR _talk 06:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Observers noting Israel's support of MEK" has nothing to do with the MEK's ideology; this is the typical redundant sort of allegations that is plaguing this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Idealigic: You need to revert your recent edit which is clearly a violation of the page restriction. Being totally relevant to the context of the para, the disputed content is not redundant. Before a consensus is reached you should not have moved against the page restriction. Considering this recent warning by Vanamonde93, I guess this removal is not accepted. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Your comment please. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I didn’t think I was breaking the article’s restrictions since I was reverting your edit, which I thought we were allowed to do (if I am breaking the restrictions, I will self revert). Also observers saying Israel is supporting the MEK does not seem to belong with text about the founding of the NCRI (where you put the text). Also observers saying Israel is supporting the MEK is already in the article:

• "According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this."
• "Israel's foreign intelligence agency Mossad maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s."
• "Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel."
• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials[who?], who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists."
• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Idealigic (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, Given that Mhhossein's edit was itself a revert of a previous change by Stefka, your removal was indeed a violation of the restrictions, so please self-revert. However, given that this content has been challenged, Mhhossein, you really should also provide a justification of the content on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, didn't Stefka removed this from the "Ideology" section, and Mhhossein put it back in the "History" section? Since the text was put back in a different section, does that count as a revert? (if it does, then like I said, I will self revert right away). Idealigic (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, If you really want to get into the weeds; Mhhossein's edit had the effect of a) replacing the content in the article, and b) moving it. Action (a) was essentially a revert of SB. Action (b) was effectively a new edit. So, if you want to be pedantic, you could move the content back to where Stefka removed it from, in the ideology section, and demand that Mhhossein obtain consensus for the move. Removing it altogether is not an option sans consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was mainly trying to understand what constitutes a revert. I self reverted. Mhhossein please provide justification of why the content should be where you have placed it. Idealigic (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Razavi's portion seems like being repeated, though the second part saying "Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection" is not redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Does Mhhossein's response provide a justification for their edit? I don't know how to follow this up, but if you think it has been answered I'll just let this go. Idealigic (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point none of the arguments provided are strong enough for any sort of consensus to be discernible. Feel free to discuss it further, but please stop running to me for input after every other response. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you are saying "Razavi's portion seems like being repeated", so does that mean that this can be removed for clearing redundancy in the article? How is the second part not redundant? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Likewise, I'd like to ask you stop pinging Vanamonde93 for every single issue you face here. Instead, you're advised to engage in constructive discussions over that issue. As for your question, The second part is not redundant because it's providing unique info, i.e. Israeli commentators confirming the MEK-Israel connection is not repeated anywhere in the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Do you then agree we can remove "According to Sam Razavi, observers have noted Israel's support of the MEK after their exile from Iran."? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's removable. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, done. Now about the second part:

• "According to Patrick Cockburn "Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection", although the MEK have denied any association with Israel."

And the other excepts that Idealigic pointed to:

• "According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this."
• "Israel's foreign intelligence agency Mossad maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s."
• "Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel."
• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials[who?], who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists."
• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Some of these can clearly be merged into something like "Some sources have said there is a connection between the MEK and Israel, including providing the group with financial support or a connection through Mossad. Other sources say that there is no proof about this and that the MEK have denied such claims."

@Mhhossein: do you agree these repetitive sentences can be merged? (if you do not agree with the way I have merged them, then please provide alternate proposal). - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, some differences are noticed between the above items. Like CIA describing Israel as the perpetrator, info being given to Israel by the MEK, MEK receiving training and arm support from Israel.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Shedding light on Mhhossein's Feb-Mar edits

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain this revert you did? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, MEK's refusal to participate in the referendum should not be removed since it's a noteworthy point in history of the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: when did I remove that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, here. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: this information is repeated several times in the article:

• "The MEK was then joined by other groups that opposed the new constitution, including the People's Fedayeen and the Muslim People's Republican Party. Despite the opposition, the 3 December 1979 referendum vote approved the new constitution.[1]"
• "The MEK was joined by other groups that vehemently opposed the new constitution and refuted to participate in the refrundum to ratify it. Despite the opposition, the 3 December 1979 referendum vote approved the new constitution.[38] As a result, Khomeini subsequently refused to permit Massoud Rajavi and MEK members to run in the 1980 Iranian presidential election.[39]"
• "The Mojahedin later refused to participate in the referendum held in December to ratify the Constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts, even when Ruhollah Khomeini had called upon "all good Muslims to vote 'yes'".[38] By boycotting the referendum, the MEK argued that the new Constitution had "failed to set up proper councils, nationalize foreign holdings, guarantee equal treatment to all nationalities, give 'land to the tiller', place a ceiling on agricultural holdings and accept the concept of the classless tawhidi society". Once the Constitution had been ratified, the MEK proposed Rajavi as their presidential candidate. In launching his presidential campaign, Rajavi promised to rectify the Constitution's shortcomings.[38]

So all I did was remove one of the repetitions, and replaced it with new information. Why did you revert it? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I've said elsewhere, redundancy is a serious problem in this article, with respect to content that is both supportive and critical of the MEK. If anyone has objections to removing a specific instance of content repeated in the article, I would expect engagement with respect to how that redundancy is to be reduced. That applies to Mhhossein here, but also to others elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the point Vanamonde, you're right. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal A and Proposal B after RFC

Thank you Vanamonde for closing the RFC.

I have removed "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."" from the main-space per the closing consensus.

About the first part of that sentence, "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization", are there any other better sources supporting this?

And about Proposal A, I would like to get a dialogue started with suggestions to present the information in a more compact manner that better reflects the sources. Bahar1397 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bahar1937, if you want to better organize the cult section there is already a discussion at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC follow-up. So far there have been no good arguments against that proposal.VR _talk 15:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Vanamonde stated 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. So I don't think there is consensus to simply remove it, so lets replace the simile with something that is better sourced? Terror, Love and Brainwashing is a scholarly, in-depth account of MEK's cult practices and we can find something similar in it that would be sourced to Alexandra Stein, an unaffiliated scholar who has published in peer-reviewed publications on the topic of cults. The book repeatedly gives examples of MEK's "brainwashing" and emotional and psychological manipulation. Would that be better source?VR _talk 16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will take a look and comment there. What about ""During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization"? I am seeing that the author of the book you propose is using examples from Masoud Banisadr? What is your proposition here? Bahar1397 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: hello? Bahar1397 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I found the following in the RAND report, page 4 :

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.

The second bold part simply means surrender of their individuality, which we can replace with the existing phrase, if RAND report is a better reference.Ghazaalch (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

VR Can I replace the sentence that Bahar1397 says is less reliable with the above mentioned sentence from RAND report? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's a good temporary solution. But I would still prefer some unified consensus over MEK's personality cult.VR _talk 03:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RAND looks like it's a think tank that lacks peer-review. Idealigic (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The size of each section

Robert McClenon : I do not think that the size of the Lede is the main problem in this article, as there are featured articles ( such as [9][10][11]) with even longer Ledes; so as VR pointed out here the sections that need most trimming should be discussed here first.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• The article's lede being too long is a long-standing problem in this article; said by all sides in this talk page:

"I think the lead of this article is too long"

"I want to make the general note that the lead is too long"

" lead is too long anyway"

The article as a whole being too long is a long-standing problem in this article:

"First, the article is way too long. 50kb of prose is a good target; 60-70kb is not a disaster; 106kb is indicative of a serious need for pruning and/or spinning off subsidiary articles"

"the article is way too long".

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is not a problem. I am saying it is not the main problem. The main problem is that how to do it, and where to start, which VR's idea could be of help. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We do it through consensus building, but you should self-revert the tag since you are also acknowledging that the lede being too long is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am acknowledging many things, including the fact that you don't like the sentence in the Lede and think the tag might help you to get rid of it, however my main acknowledgment is that if we are doing something, it should be based on some criteria. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Human Rights Record

Some editors have suggested that we remove redundancy in the Human rights records. I would like to get this proposal started. If there are significant disagreements, we can start a new RFC. If we can come to a compromise, then we won't need a RFC.

I think the following redundancy can be better edited:

• "In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports[by whom?] of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members. In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981."

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

• "The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[439] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK. In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations. Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities."

• "Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report."

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

• "Hyeran Jo, in her work examining humanitarian violations of rebel groups to international law, states that the MEK has not accepted International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits to its detention centers.[443] According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK controlled their people most importantly by "abuse of women". According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp. Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings"."

• "Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured". Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[303] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"

• "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."

• "In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members."

I think this can be a decent summary:

• "In 2004, Amnesty International said it received reports from MEK defectors of human rights violations. In 2018, Amnesty International presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents. In 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the MEK had committed human rights violations against its members. The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs , who published a counter-report in September 2005 saying that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK. Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". Other MEK defectors have also 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. In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.""

- MA Javadi (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this section has a lot of redundant text; and agree with MA Javadi's proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I told Stefka Bulgaria–who used to propose such super trimmings in the past– you need to specify, by details, which portions are redundant and why they are so. This proposal, in this form, is going to remove a lot of longstanding text, without explaining why. Please, explain why every single portion needs to be removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: the portions I did not include are redundant because they don't add any significant new information, they only repeat what is already in that section. Is there any portion that I proposed removing that you think should be kept? MA Javadi (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: I suggest you take another look at the amount of longstanding content you wish to remove. If you think this super-trimming should be processed, then you need something more than they "are redundant because they don't add any significant new information". Actually, the onus of building consensus is on YOU. I see some of the removed content are not redundant and would better stay. Moreover, your proposal can be described as POVish and disingenous. It's conveying the false impression that the human rights reports are not true and they are dubious/fabricated. Among other things, you have removed phrases like "carried out by the MEK against its own members", "despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981", "severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed", "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses" and etc. These are not all, but some of the evidences showing your proposal is not applicable. Going through the archived discussions show Stefka Bulgaria tried to do a similar removal. To reach a compromise, I suggest you a case by case strategy. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - This is my reply to your points:

• "carried out by the MEK against its own members". Ok, if you want, then let us keep this.

• "despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981". This is covered in better detail in other parts of the article (see for example "Assassinations", or "Operations Shining sun, Forty Stars, and Mersad", or Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988))

• "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses". The section already covers that the MEK is being accused of human right abuses.

• "severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed". These are allegations from phone interview of alleged former members, with the MEK denying this.

I am trying to summarise content and reduce redundancy that is both supportive and critical of the MEK, specially removing allegations from both the MEK and MEK defectors. If you don't agree, then explain what you would propose instead. Filibustering so that the section remains the same is not good. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite what you say, your proposal is suffering from POV issue. See my previous comment please. I did never say these were the only items making your proposal problematic. For instance, "Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981" contains two POVs that are meant to balance each other. You are proposing to remove one and leave the one in favor of MEK. Moreover, the third item should not be removed. The report by the Martin Kobler being the UN special envoy to Iraq at the time has in fact merit of inclusion. Lastly, parts of the "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps" should not be removed on the grounds that it's a phone interview or like. How about making proper attributions? It is also interesting that you have totally removed Jason Rezaian's remarks. No, this is not a correct approach. You can't selectively remove anti-MEK items. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - What would be a good compromise for you then? - MA Javadi (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - Do you intend to give a response for a compromise? MA Javadi (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. How about acting in a step by step manner. We can determine which portions are redundant, but one by one. We can also have classifications to facilitate the process. For instance, the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals. -Mhhossein ^talk 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - I have already explained which parts I think are redundant and why. Since you have not agreed, can you then say which parts you think are redundant and why? (no stone walling please). MA Javadi (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not finding your explanations justifying removal of that huge amount texts. Please help me navigate that so-called explanation. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you asked me to take things case by case. I replied to to your case by case. What is your response about this please? MA Javadi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were given a due response at the time. For the points you raised:

"despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981" (I explained how removal of this goes against WP:NPOV).

"In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses" (Is there any other sentences directly accusing the leader(s) of human right abuses?)

Moreover, I told you why the mentioned portions of "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps" should not be removed completely. To go ahead towards a compromise, I suggest you list the identical or redundant portions in a classified manner (I am not asking to copy/paste all of the section here). For instance, I already asked you to show the portions which are similar to the Kobler's report. I suggest to move step by step since this would make the work simpler. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I proposed one way of improving the section, but you didn't accept my proposal by saying I should take this step by step. So I then tried taking this step by step, but you also refused my proposal saying some specific parts of information remain missing. There is no question that this section has redundancy. Since I have already tried to solve this in all ways that I can but you keep refusing my proposals, then how would you solve the redundancy problem in that section? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not "keep refusing your proposals". You did not actually follow a step by step approach. In contrast, you failed to respond to my latest comments. For instance you did not say why "you were proposing to remove one and leave the one in favor of MEK". To show my good faith I suggested to categorize the section into two parts; "the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals. I have also gone through your proposed change and explained how it's not a suitable change. Can you please specifically explain which portions are redundant and why? I am really willing to see your explanations. That will boost the consensus building process. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I already said, step by step, some portions that are redundant in this section, and you rejected my step by step saying they are not redundant. So if you don't think any portions are redundant in "Human Rights Record", just say it instead of asking me for step by steps that you will just continue to reject. And if you think some portions in "Human Rights Record" are redundant, then just say which, so we can work on fixing it (which is what I have been trying to do here since early March). - MA Javadi (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I said "your proposal is suffering from POV issue." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This text is out of place and no well sourced: In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981. The report doesn't say that MEK is peaceful, but rather the MEK members imprisoned by Iran were peaceful. This also looks like redundant as it already covered in People's Mujahedin of Iran#1988_execution of MEK prisoners.VR _talk 18:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: @Vice regent: Ok but can we remove redundant POV from both sides? or do you intend to leave in the redundant POV that is critical of the MEK and remove the rest? I am ok to compromise, but you first need to offer a compromise. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the redundancies should be remove. But the problem is that those redundancies should be identified. Till now, you have rejected my proposals and that's really boring. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What proposal did you make? where is your proposal to reduce redundancy in this section? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the case you have failed to notice my suggestions for reaching a compromise:

"How about acting in a step by step manner. We can determine which portions are redundant, but one by one. We can also have classifications to facilitate the process. For instance, the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals."

"To go ahead towards a compromise, I suggest you list the identical or redundant portions in a classified manner (I am not asking to copy/paste all of the section here). For instance, I already asked you to show the portions which are similar to the Kobler's report."

"Can you please specifically explain which portions are redundant and why? I am really willing to see your explanations."

Look, if you think this super-trimming should be processed, then you need something more than they "are redundant". I could show some of the materials are not redundant. For the sake of compromise, can you determine one redundant portion at a time? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, if you are looking for improvement, please answer the following questions: Which portions are redundant/duplicate? Why (how)? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)