Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Section title

MA Javadi, this edit is not helpful and your edit summary takes my comment out of context. 1988-2003 was indeed the era of the Saddam Hussein regime. This is significant, because after he was toppled the MEK would be expelled from Iraq. While I agree with replacing "Saddam" with "Iraq" in the context of the Iran-Iraq war, I don't agree with your change here.VR _talk 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

1988-2003 is indeed post Iran-Iraq war, and like you said, "The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war." - MA Javadi (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct, but 1988-2003 is part of Iraq's "Saddam era", whereas post-2003 Iraq has a totally different government.VR _talk 21:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: that seems like a double standard. You yourself said that the war was "internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.", and now you're adding "Post-Saddam era" rather than "Post Iran-Iraq War" to a section tittle? We are all aware that Saddam was the leader of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, but the war was between the countries, not their leaders (as you yourself made us aware). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not add "Post-Saddam era", I added "Post-war Saddam era". The word "Saddam" is an adjective that applies not to the "war" but to the "era". In the context of Iran-Iraq war, I agree with saying "Iraqi forces" as opposed to "Saddam's forces". But in the context of Iraqi history, I think saying "Saddam era" or "Saddam regime" is appropriate (consider titles of History_of_Iraq#Under_Saddam_Hussein and Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq).VR _talk 12:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Isn't "Post Iran-Iraq war era (1988–2003)" clear? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That title would emphasize the Iran-Iraq war on a section that is ultimately not about the Iran-Iraq war, but rather about a period in which Saddam sheltered the MEK after the war.VR _talk 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

VR's section title is also factually incorrect. Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq until 2003 (not 1998). MA Javadi (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? When did I say 1998? VR _talk 18:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: The section being discussed here mostly describes the conflict between the MEK and IRI, and only mentions Saddam Hussein once! The MEK moved to Iraq in 1986, yet we don't call the previous section "Conflict with the IRI (1981-1988) Saddam era" simply because that's not what that section is about, correct? It makes no sense from a NPOV standpoint to name a section after Saddam Hussein when it's mainly about the conflicts between the IRI and the MEK . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, that section also includes the sub-section "2003 French arrests", which has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Btw, the edit summary here is meant to say "Removing unlinkable article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Steven O'hern source removed/statement from the article

@Mhhossein: You removed this edit from the article saying "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources". The source supporting this statement is "Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps" by Steven O'hern and published by Potomac Books (which seems like a valid RS). If you feel this is an "exceptional" claim, why not simply attribute it to the author (as we've done with many such claims in this article) rather than remove it completely? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the "prevailing view" that Khomeini was against armed struggle [1][2][3] your insertion seems so fringe that even attribution may give undue weight to it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See this one too. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You're using your preferred sources (including http://ensani.ir/?) to ascertain that there is a "prevailing view" that "Khomeini was against armed struggle" (something other sources such as this one, this one, this one, or this one disagree with), thus coming to your own conclusion that O'hern's claim (that "Khomeini funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s") is "fringe".

It's well established in the article that the MEK collaborated with Khomeini right until Khomeini prevented the MEK from taking part in local elections, with Khomeini even offering to "reward their organization handsomely if they attacked the Marxist groups" ("The Iranian Mojahedin", Ervand Abrahamian).

Taking all of this into account, how could Khomeini funding MEK operations against the Shah be considered "fringe"? I stand by my proposition here that this should be included with attribution, so please provide a reason why this should be omitted from the article given the points I've made here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No you're wrong. They are not my "preferred" sources and you're just failing to perceive the point. You are in fact misquoting me out of our discussion context. My sources prove Khomeini was against using armed operations against Shah, a fact your sources has nothing to do with (at least you're failing to make a connection between the sources and our discussion). So stop raising your original research on them. As for the claim saying Khomeini had offered a reward for attacking Marxist groups, why don't you say the whole story that this claim is by Khiabani. That even has nothing to do with Shah! So, for such a big deal, saying Khomeini favored and supported armed struggle against Shah, you need to prove yourself using reliable sources, not Original Research. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• 1) O'hern's quote says that "Khomeini funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s, so accusing me of original research is uncalled for.
• 2) Your claim that there was a '"prevailing view" that Khomeini was against armed struggle' is false since there are plenty of sources that say Khomeini "devised an ideology of revolutionary violence" (in other words, Khomeini was no Gandhi). This is further confirmed by the following:

• • "In December 1977 Khomeini decided to intervene. Morteza Motahhari, one of the few Khomeini activists in Iran who had managed to escape SAVAK's clutches, was instructed to set up an organizational framework that could better coordinate the various clergy-related anti-Shah opposition groups within Iran. The Society of Militant Clergy, which Motahhari founded, became the forerunner of the revolutionary committees that would eventually implement the 1979 Revolution. The Society was just the latest manifestation of the Colaition of Islamic Societies Khomeini had set up in the 1960s before his exile, and had much the same support base. ... Khomeini wrote to Motahhari, a white-turbaned scholar whom SAVAK believed was solely engaged with his academic pursuits, urging him to prepare for jihad and committing the movement to 'dethronement' of the Shah and a total boycott of 'the government of Satan'." "Khomeini's Ghost: Iran since 1979" Pan MacMillan

• • "Khomeini did so by inflaming hatred of the West and of Israel and directing it against the Shah and his regime.... Khomeini made extensive use of rhetoric and violence. His ideas were summarized and broken down into simple, basic, and easy-to-remember slogans, and were integrated countless times into his speeches... The violence in his teachings was the fuel driving the wheels of the revolution. Khomeini hose the Ashura rituals as favored occasionsfor the organization of waves of violence. Correspondingly, he ordered the organization of special units dedicate to damage the symbols of the government and Western culture, such as cinemas, banks, and houses of entertainment across the country, with the aim of causing unrest and the expansion of violence to the national level." "Hezbollah: The Story of the Party of God: From Revolution to Institutionalization (Middle East in Focus)", Palgrave Macmillan; 2009th Edition

• • "On 28 April, Rajavi and Khiabani had a secret one-hour meeting with Khomeini... Khiabani later reported that Khomeini had offered to reward their organization handsomely if they attacked the Marxist groups, but at the same time threated to punish them dearly if they 'stepped out of the bounds of Islam." "The Iranian Mojahedin", Ervand Abrahamian

• • "By January 1963, Khomeini's violent attacks on the Shah's land reform program and women's rights brought him nation-wide attention and he emerged as the symbol of Shia opposition to the Shah." CIA.gov

• • "Khomeini called for the shah’s immediate overthrow, and on December 11 a group of soldiers mutinied and attacked the shah’s security officers. History.com

These perhaps do not verify O'hern's claim that Khomeini "funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s", but to call O'hern's claim WP:FRINGE seems like a long stretch considering what has been confirmed by these RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your original researches should be stopped somewhere. To show this is not a fringe POV by O'hern, you need reliable sources saying something similar as Khomeini "funded armed MEK operations against the Shan during the early 1970s". That Motahhari was asked to get ready for Jihad, that "soldiers attacked shah’s security officer" and etc is not going to help with this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: your continuing WP:ASPERSIONS are not helpful to this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MEK capturing Mehran in 1988

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain you revert? [4] Are you saying the MEK did not capture Mehran in 1988? Also the version you added does not have a source. Barca (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

See my edit summary please: "read the source once again 'Iranian rebels based in Iraq said they withdrew from the town of Mehran after a three-day offensive, in which they reported capturing military hardware they estimated to be worth $2 billion.' " There's not statement of fact as you tried to pretend. As for the citation, as far as I see, there's no difference between the version before your edit and the version after my edit. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: This is what is in the AP source =

• "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."

• "Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters."

That is AP saying the NLA captured Mehran, with even one of their correspondents going to the site.

You reverted this to a version with no sources. We can attribute the part about the equipment, but I don't see why this can't be in the article, specially since your version doesn't have any sources. Thank you for your reply. Barca (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

In terms of citation my edit did not make any changes - see the version before your edit and the version after my edit. If your main concern is citation please let me know which portion needs references. Also, pay attention to my '04:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)' comment. You can't push MEK's estimation as such strong facts. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: AP is saying the NLA captured Mehran, why can't we add that to the article? Barca (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Where does AP say the city was captured by MEK? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I already posted this. This is what is in the AP source =

• "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran, which has been fought over several times and devastated by the war."

• "Jeffrey Ulbrich, an Associated Press correspondent taken to Mehran by the rebels Sunday, said it was filled with jubilant NLA fighters." Barca (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi BarcrMac. Yes I noticed them but they say MEK attacked Mehran for sure and that they crossed the border with the aim of capturing the city. However, I don't see any supporting clues showing it was indeed captured. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The AP article writes that "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran". The city was captured by the NLA. Then there is this other article by Time magazine [5] "The fanatical legions of the Ayatullah Khomeini suffered another embarrassing defeat last week, this one apparently inflicted by their countrymen. In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills. Western reporters brought to the battle scene confirmed that the rebels had captured 1,500 Iranian prisoners, as well as tanks and artillery." Will you let this information be added to the article now? Barca (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

BarcrMac: I would suggest avoid saying it was captured. Your new source say it was seized. Do they have pretty much the same meaning from military viewpoint? There would no problem if they are the same. Also the source is not the best one we can rely on. Just see how it describes the outcome as being "embarrassing". Can you find a better source? Find your sources so that we can finalize the wording. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein What is the problem with adding a Time magazine and also Associated Press source that says "the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran"? Both sources are reliable. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see my response in my previous comment? It seems to be a fact that they indeed crossed the border and attacked the city. Do your sources say the 'captured' the city? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: According to the sources,

• "In a cross-border strike from their base in Iraq, the National Liberation Army of the People's Mujahedin, a leftist Iranian dissident group, seized the border town of Mehran and drove its pro-Khomeini defenders beyond the surrounding hills." by Time Magazine

• "Iran was hit again Saturday night when Iraqi-backed Iranian rebels of the National Liberation Army crossed in the central border sector to capture Mehran" Associated Press

I would put in the article something like "In 1988 the National Liberation Army took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Do you have an issue with this? MA Javadi (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - please answer. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Mehran was indeed captured, though its not clear by who. Kaveh Farrokh writes the Iraqis used chemical weapons to capture Mehran and subsequently "handed over Mehran to the National Liberation Army of Iran".

And calling the soldiers of Iran as "pro-Khomeini soldiers" is weird. The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.VR _talk 21:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

MEK was backed by Saddam forces, a point which should be added. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein adding what you think is missing instead of removing the whole information would have been the solution here. If adding that the MEK were backed by Iraq is all that we're missing, then I can add this to the article. Vice regent, I agree with your point about this being an "Iran-Iraq war" and not a "Khomeini-Saddam war", so will correct this in the lead of the article where it says "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Iraq". - MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are all in the same page with this then? @Vice regent: @Mhhossein: I will add "In 1988 the National Liberation Army and Iraqi forces took the town of Mehran driving its pro-Khomeini soldiers beyond the surrounding areas." Please answer if you have any issues with me adding this. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not. There is still the question of who captured Mehran. If you read the source you presented, it adds, Dispatches from Tehran said the three-pronged assault was carried out by Iraqi regulars supported by fighter-bombers dropping chemical bombs, but rebel commander Massoud Rajavi denied the ″hollow claims." This is in line with Kaveh Farrokh who argues the Iraqis captured Mehran using chemical weapons and only subsequently handed it over to NLA.VR _talk 18:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: You used VR's comment to reach a wrong conclusion that the lead should change, a change for which you need to gain consensus. Moreover, having done the edit, you were calling for using "pro-Khomeini soldiers" which contradicts your previous edit. I am restoring your changes to the lead back to the longstanding version. Let's go by the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: so taking into consideration the Time Magazine and Associated Press articles, what would be your chosen phrase for this information? MA Javadi (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(←) I notice that there is no mention of these events in this book on the MEK. Based on this NYT article and Farrokh's book, I'd write: "In June 1988, the National Liberation Army briefly held the Iranian town of Mehran under unclear circumstances. According to Kaveh Farrokh and Iran, Iraq captured Mehran by using chemical weapons and then handed the town over to the NLA; three days later Iran recaptured the town from the NLA. However, MEK claimed it captured the town without any Iraqi help and it withdrew from Mehran voluntarily." VR _talk 03:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: VR suggested that "The war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, not the Khomeini-Saddam war.", so MA Javadi tweaked "Saddam Hussein" to "Iraq", and then VR tweaked "Iraq" to "Iraq forces", and then Steka Bulgaria tweaked that further. You reverted the whole collaboration between these editors, something that looks like going against consensus. I also think that the war was internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war, so that would be a majority consensus approving "Iraq" over "Saddam Hussein". Can you please self-revert your edit based on the majority consensus built here? Idealigic (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Vice regent meant that portion in the lead of the article can be changed. You can ask the sources why the tend to say MEK sided with Saddam, as opposed to saying they it sided with Iraq. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is that there is no consensus for the proposed change. There is general recognition among RfC participants that the material in the section is overly repetitive, which may be acted upon in a further discussion which establishes consensus for a specific split in prominence given to the respective positions, but participants here did not address whether a significant reduction in the size of the section would leave enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (WP:UNDUE).

This replaces my former closure of this RfC, found below, which was based on incomplete information. The structure of this RfC – which relied on one specific proposed text, of which nearly 25% of the words consisted of a quote which did not appear in the cited source – was not conducive to the formation of real consensus. While this closure is functionally similar to the previous closure (general agreement to reduce repetitiveness, but pending further discussion on the balance of positions), this re-closure recognizes more flaws with the substance of this discussion.

Participants who cite DUE/UNDUE in future discussions/RfCs are strongly encouraged to reference specific sources to back their assertion that the weight of reliable sources requires a certain balance of opinions. Specific citations, along with analysis of the prominence given by reliable secondary sources to differing opinions, will likely be given substantial weight. Additionally, participants should verify the sources cited by other participants to ensure that they stand for the proposition for which they are cited.

Future discussions/RfCs should also assess the proportion of content that should be devoted to "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" viewpoints. For example, if the great majority of reliable secondary sources refer to the subject as a cult, and if consensus is to reduce the size of the cult section to one paragraph or less, it may be appropriate for the entire section to be devoted to statements that the subject is a cult. If, however, a substantial portion of reliable secondary sources support that the subject is not a cult, then the cult section should address that viewpoint with proportional prominence. (WP:UNDUE)

Questions about this closure are always welcome. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC) There is a rough consensus for the proposed change. Supporters argue that the verbosity of the section places undue weight on the description as a cult (WP:UNDUE). Opposers argue that (a) the RfC is ambiguous and/or covers too much ground, (b) too much reliably-sourced material is proposed to be removed, leaving the remaining content potentially overly abbreviated. The supporters respond that the material proposed to be removed/condensed is, by and large, redundant. This RfC does not establish that the two sentences are themselves the endgame result, or that due weight requires one sentence per side – I find only that there is consensus to reduce the verbosity and repetition in the description of the cult claims, and that the proposed replacement is an option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Shall we summarize the following:

According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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.

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". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. 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".

Into this?:

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

• Yes - per:

1) WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK: The article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK of redundant "cult" claims that don't add anything.

2) I had previously received consensus to for this, but it was reverted by a now-TBanned editor who failed to address any of the points raised.

3) This proposal is about not repeating "cult" claims constantly, turning the article into "According to XYZ, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to ABC, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; and according to EFG, the MEK is a cult/personality cult; etc..." There is really no need for that, hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Both WP:COATRACK and WP:REDUNDANTFORK apply to the articles not sections. You have persistently failed to say specifically which portions are redundant. There had never been consensus built for your mass removal (you could not provide a response to my objection). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: 1) the presented text is considered redundant because it all talks about the same thing (the MEK being a "cult", "cult-like", etc.); hence this RfC proposing to summarise it. 2) Here is the consensus I received for this a few weeks ago, which was reverted by a now T-banned user. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: So that's why you're puzzled; you think it's redundant since "it all talks about the same thing" (we know it's a clearly false description for redundancy or lack thereof since then the whole page is redundant as it all talks about MEK!). As for the imaginary consensus, see my next comments [6]&[7] which you failed to response. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the current version is very much WP:UNDUE. The material should be condensed to a single sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I also think that the current version is very much WP:UNDUE and should be trimmed which will make for a much better narrative. Nika2020 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes the current version is filled with unnecessary redundancy. I agree it needs editing, and the condensed sentence is a good synopsis. Idealigic (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult in the article. A sentence is enough for this. Alex-h (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to mass removal, yes to case by case investigation: Just like the previous RFCs by the OP (RFC-1, RFC-2), and despite being told, this RFC is too wide in scope and vague. It is claimed that ALL the portions of the text in question are redundant and UNDUE and should be removed. This is while the text is featured with third party and governmental reports, official statements and the statements by the authors and the scholars which are all making a major point- a point which is possessed by plenty of plenty sources (here's a list containing some of the sources). Sources like RAND have provided a specialized review of the cult characteristics of the group and sources like The New York Times, The Guardian and The Intercept have provided the meaning of MEK being a cult from a members' prospective. When being described, the sources start by saying MEK is "cult/cult-like" group, or MEK has cult-like characteristics (here's a list of them), which means the cult characteristics of the group is an untranslatable part if the MEK's history. The RFC is very silly; For instance, just imagine the OP is suggesting to remove the infamous Elizabeth Rubin's work (see how the source has been referred to across the world). I don't think this ambiguous RFC should go anywhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Alex-h pretty much said what I had in mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. The content has been discussed vastly in the talk page and the conclusion was to keep it as is.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Also agree with Alex-h here. The article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - one sentence is enough for this. - MA Javadi (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes: the current version is WP:UNDUE. Condensing it into a single sentence would be a good fix. Barca (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question: @Vanamonde93: I think the current RFC, like the previous one, is too wide in scope and covers a significant portion of the article without specifying why each part should be removed. Should the users be specific when participating this RFC? I mean should they say why portions should(n't) be removed in a specific manner or it would suffice to make general comments? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mhhossein: Actually, the proposal here is very specific. It just seeks to trim a lot of content. Justifying that removal is up to those who are arguing for it. If the case for removal isn't clearly made, then there's likely to be no consensus for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Conditional No, as it removes content that is reliably sourced and useful to the reader. But if we decide to fork out things like "history" and "ideology" from this article for the purpose of reducing its size as I proposed at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Fork_out, then obviously most sections will need to be summarized, including the "Designation as a cult" section. I also agree that the current section would benefit from some copy-editing. Its confusing to see the US gov call it a cult in one paragraph and then call it not a cult in another paragraph. The reader will want to know why this is.VR _talk 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is not about "History" or "Ideology" sections, but about the "Designation as a cult" section , which is filled with a redundant list of quotes saying the MEK is a cult (which can be condensed into one sentence). Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• 'No, many of the items which have been suggested to be deleted in here, are important sentences and DUE. The whole text cannot be considered the same, together. For instance, the following matter that: "What is the report of the government of the U.S. and the politicians of other countries concerning it", it will add useful information to the text. I don't see any specific reason to delete the view of "academics" (It is better to keep "expert and formal opinions"). The views of the former members should be maintained, too, but it ought to be noted that attribution should be done appropriately. Generally, I am against this RFC in this manner. It would be better to be determined (item-by-item) why a sentence should be deleted. Meanwhile, the sentence which has been suggested as substituting, has the problem of "Unsupported attribution" itself. i.e. this question is find in the mind that: the purpose of "certain sources" is exactly related to which sources? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, reading "Cult" repeated times in the article is not useful to the reader at all. A concise summary is all that is needed about this (unless, like Alex said, we want to turn the article into a list of people calling the MEK a cult, which we don't). Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV. Ypatch (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• NO This proposed change does not really seem to be per WP:DUE. It is actually acting against it. I see a handful of reliable sources are to be omitted. Perhaps there should be a rewording, but not at this level certainly.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Removal

Per L235’s concerns on my talk page I have removed a portion of this page for failing V, an action I believe to be within the intent of IAR in regards to the general sanctions on this page. I am posting here so other editors might review my edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being WP:BOLD and removing it. I had asked three times for someone to provide me a page number so I could verify the quote, so its about time.VR _talk 01:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

Stefka Bulgaria you removed an addition made by Bahar1397 regarding MEK's ideology. Can you explain why you removed it? VR _talk 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: you may have missed Vif12vf's revert last month about this, or the numerous discussions we've had about this here, but basically, the MEK's ideology is complicated and since there are RS saying different things (and at different times), we never reached a consensus for an appropriate summary for the infobox. See also here, here, here, etc.. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you VR, I was going to ask the same thing. Maybe we can start a new RfC for this? I see "Marxist" as part of MEK ideology in other articles too. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

One source to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight. Idealigic (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is regarding this edit. Perhaps that gives it undue weight for it to be mentioned in the lede. But this information can be mentioned in the main body?VR _talk 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove US from list of Allies in infobox?

The source cited for its inclusion is an article from 2018 titled "M.E.K.: The Group John Bolton Wants to Rule Iran." Bolton's ideological positions are fairly far removed from the mainstream, but at that time he was National Security Advisor, so his position on such matters were relevant, at that time; but, he was booted from his position quite a while ago, so the his position as it relates to US policy is not particularly relevant anymore. Are there any other sources that support listing the US as an ally to this group? Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the same can be said about some of the other "allies" listed in that infobox. About the U.S., maybe it's too soon to say whether it remains its "ally" or not. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting cult claims RfC

The closing statement of this RfC states very clearly that a) there is consensus for reducing the length of those claims, and b) the two-sentence alternative formulation doesn't necessarily have consensus. As such, I'm going to note that I will be taking a dim view of any edit-warring those two sentences into the article in place of all the other content; and I will also be taking a dim view of opposition to any suggestions of shortening that are not accompanied by suggestions of how the verbosity may be reduced, because there's consensus that it needs to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggested one solution to this by arguing that parts of this article should be forked out as this article is too big - a problem that goes hand in hand with the verbosity referenced above. There was some support for it here: Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_32. Concretely I propose copying all the content about the ideology of MEK (including cult claims) to Ideology of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (currently a redirect). In its place we leave a summary of MEK's ideology that we can all agree on.

When it comes to shortening some compromise will be needed. For example, I tried what I think should have been a very uncontroversial shortening of the lead and I was summarily reverted (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Lead_is_too_long).VR _talk 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Going back to this RfC, the two replacing sentences I suggested were:

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

What wording (that is NPOV) would be accepted by the opposing side? (Please note that this is a straight-forward question that requires a straight-forward answer). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you're addressing that question to me, but I'm not taking a position on that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde: the question was addressed at those who voted against this wording on the RfC; but I guess anyone can comment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I can propose something. Before I do, I want to point out that in the RfC (Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RfC_about_copy-editing_"cult"_claims_in_the_article) Stefka proposed removing certain parts of the People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_cult section and replacing it with the above. So the presumption is that anything in that section not mentioned by Stefka in the RfC is not being discussed for removal. FWIW, it would have been less confusing if Stefka had proposed summarizing the entire section. Anyway, I'll make a proposal soon-ish.VR _talk 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the page number for this claim "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"?VR _talk 09:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Previous version

According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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. 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". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq. In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. 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".

New version:

Many officials have described the MEK as a "cult", including the United States government, Foreign Ministry of France. a 2008 report by the United Kingdom's Home Office, and Samir Sumaidaie (Iraqi ambassador to the U.S.). Academics who have described the MEK as a cult include Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta,, Eli Clifton and others. Some journalists who visited MEK camps in Iraq, including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin described it as a cult. Claims that MEK is a cult have also been denied by Raymond Tanter, and the European Parliament, who has accused Iran of falsifying information.

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". Rubin argued the cult revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi.

VR _talk 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are still including a detailed list of those who have called the MEK a cult, something which ignores the majority of votes in that RFC. The RFC asked for reducing this to a couple of sentences, and you've reduced it to a couple of paragraphs. I think the two original suggested sentences were OK (since, as Kevin said, those are also an option), and if VR wants to change the verbosity within those two sentences then we start to have something, but what VR is suggesting here does not reflect the majority consensus in that RFC by a long shot. MA Javadi (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

One of the issues in the RfC was the redundancy and my proposal gets rid of that entirely.VR _talk 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal reflecting the RfC consensus

I think this would be a middle ground proposal that considers Vice regent's proposal and the RfC consensus:

Sources such as the U.S. government and certain academics and journalists have described it as having cult-like characteristics. This includes devotion to Maryam and Masoud Rajavi. Other sources have referred to some of these allegations as “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence".

Idealigic (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's hardly "middle ground" and I would disagree because this proposal is inaccurate - its not only the US government, but also officials from UK, France and Iraq that have made the allegation. It also gives WP:FALSEBALANCE as way more reliable sources call the MEK a cult than those who deny it. Finally, it doesn't tell us why those who call the MEK a cult do so. Which is what the second paragraph does in my proposal.VR _talk 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I find Idealigic's proposition to be a good middle ground. There were several votes in that RFC in support of summarising all the list of people ever calling the MEK a cult into one sentence. VR's attempt to still include a detailed account of people calling the MEK a cult is not respecting the RFCs consensus. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Idealigic's proposal. @L235: thank you for closing this RfC; could you please help us conclude it? Do we have consensus for Idealigic's suggestion? Alex-h (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alex-h, you are hardly going to have consensus after just three users have weighed in. Let's allow for more time for the others to comment, please. Vice regent, you're coming dangerously close to stone-walling. Any proposal needs to still reflect the RfC closure, meaning that it needs to accomplish approximately the same amount of shortening. Objecting to the two-sentence proposal and offering a two-paragraph proposal isn't going to fly. If you don't like this one, offer an alternative of comparable length, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: What do you mean by "the same amount of shortening"? Given the fact that that the original text is 5 paragraphs I find Vice regent's comment fairly criticizing the proposed text. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: There was consensus for drastically condensing that content. Vice Regent's proposal does not conform to that consensus, and his criticism above is in effect relitigating the RfC, intentionally or otherwise. If you object to that text, please offer an alternative that is of comparable length. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• About VR's suggestion, different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims; hence the proposal in this RfC to synthesise all these claims into one or two sentences. I stand by my original proposal, or if that doesn't have consensus, then Idealigic's proposal. If any of the opposing editors propose something of similar length, then that could also be an option. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If your problem is solely with "government officials", it can be resolved via rewording. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus says: "the proposed replacement is an option that has consensus. (In other words, further discussions about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences may be appropriate.)" If you have a suggestion about the specific wording of the two replacement sentences, then please propose something. Proposing instead two paragraphs, as VR has done, completely ignores many of the votes in that RfC (five of which agreed that one sentence was enough for this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If what I proposed does not get consensus, I'm also ok to go with Stefka's two sentences. Idealigic (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going to propose another version this time closer in length to Stefka's original proposal, as Vanamonde has indicated. Before I do that, can someone please provide the page number for "the European Parliament's report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? I've asked that twice now. I want to know the context this was said in.VR _talk 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: You need to elaborate on "different government officials have both attested and dismissed the cult claims". What do you mean by that? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Like Idealigic, I'm also fine with Stefka's original sentences if Idealigic's doesn't get consensus. Alex-h (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h can you provide the page number of the reference that says “falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence"? VR _talk 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, I have not read the book, but had a glance at the introduction where it writes "We at the European Parliament decided to conduct a full investigation into the alleged human rights violations by the PMOI contained in the HRW report. We found the allegations contained in the HRW report unfounded and devoid of any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was procedurally flawed and substantive inaccurate. Moreover, in the course of our study we became aware of an elaborate and complex misinformation campaign by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security against the PMOI", if that helps? Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

But is that related specifically to the claim of "cult"? If not, it may belong in a different section. Also, it seems that the book reflects the views of its authors who happen to European MEPs but not necessarily the Parliament as a whole. In that case, "the European Parliament's report" would be a bit misleading and I'd prefer to either name the MEPs or say "a report by some European MEPs".VR _talk 16:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, Idealigic, and Alex-h: Following a note by Mhhossein on my talk page, I made an effort to determine whether the proposed text contains a misquote. I have spent the last 30 minutes trying to verify the quote "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". I obtained an electronic copy of the People's Mojahedin of Iran : mission report and searched through it for the quote. In fact, I searched for the words "falsified", "information", and "traceable" individually and could not verify this quote or anything close to it. Furthermore, neither a Google search nor a Google Scholar search for the quote "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence" turned up any material that did not originate from Wikipedia. I am now deeply troubled and I am worried that the RfC I closed, above, was invalid to begin with. Where did this quote originate? What page number of the cited reference does it appear on? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that Stefka Bulgaria was the one to originally introduce the quote, so hopefully they can show us where the quote is from. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevin: I don't have access to the book at this time, but I believe the original quote is "A delegation of the European Parliament and the US military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of intelligence (MOIS)", included in "Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition" by Cheryl Benard, Austin Long, Angel Rabasa, containing the footnote "Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005.". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The page would be needed to see what are the "claims" that are being referred to.VR _talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link (it's on page 118), and it reads:

"In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has bben found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the U.S. military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (“MOI”)."[Footnote: "See Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005."]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevin The article also includes this source/statement (I don't have access to the book):

• 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".

There are also other sources that say similar things:

• "Ever since coming to power, Iran’s clerical leaders have claimed that the MEK is a cult that lacks meaningful support inside Iran." IntPolicyDigest
• "The People's Mujahedin is a resistance group that has been fighting for regime change in Iran for decades, despite the Iranian government trying to dismiss the group as a "cult."" Fox News
• "Accused misdeeds aside, the group is also frequently referred to as a cult whose members suffer cruel deprivations and human rights abuses. Their devoted support of NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi and her husband, Massoud Rajavi is, accordingly, indicative of an absence of free will. Every one of the foregoing assertions and charcterizations about the NCRI and MEK is false or deceptively misleading. Only their endless repetition by the Tehran regime's propaganda and intelligence services has caused many in the West to assume they are true. Corroborating evidence is non-existent, fabricated or distorted in ways that for years went critically unexamined in the U.S. and elsewhere." The Ayatollahs and the MEK - Iran's Crumbling Influence Operations; University of Baltimore
• I've come across others; I can look for them if needed...

One only needs to read through the article's sections "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" or "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" to get a glimpse of what the clerical regime in Iran have been trying to do to discredit/oppress the MEK. These sections were the basis for starting that RfC you closed, and the reasoning was that adding a collection of quotes all repeating that "the MEK is a cult" is basically turning the article into an attack platform against a legitimate political group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Stefka, the sources may not be saying what you want them to say. The Tater quote doesn't say the cult allegation is false, only that it is exploited by Iran. Same thing with Fox news (which is a controversial source) and Adam Ereli. Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. is indeed saying the cult allegations are either false or misleading.VR _talk 21:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And we know that Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book is not reliable for this page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book may or may not be at the same calibre as other sources (such as mcclatchydc.com for instance), but we have a link from the University of Baltimore website saying that "Ambassador Lincoln J. Bloomfield Jr. has published a new monograph,  The Ayatollahs and the MEK–Iran's Crumbling Influence Operation , through the University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs.", so this looks to be a publication by a U.S. ambassador released by University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs.  In any case, here are more quotes:

• "Mr Kinglsey goes on to infer that some people regard the MEK as “a duplicitous terrorist cult”, notwithstanding the fact that the highest courts in America, the UK and the EU unanimously agreed to remove the MEK from their respective terrorist lists many years ago, after finding that they had been blacklisted erroneously based on similar “duplicitous terrorist cult” allegations by the fascist Iranian regime." source by Struan Stevenson. 
• "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.” source by Ivan Sascha Sheehan
• "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." source by Majid Rafizadeh
• "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." source by J. Adam Ereli

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source by the United States Congress and United States House of Representatives titled "Camp Ashraf : Iraqi obligations and State Department accountability", that reads:

"Derogatory descriptions of the MEK/PMOI including describing the bonds of commitment between its leaders and members as "cult"-like, are widespread. On this point the author offers two observations. 

The first related to the number of MEK/PMOI imprisoned, assassinated and executed at the hands of the ruling regime in Tehran, particularly in 1980-81 after MEK broke ranks with Ayatollah Khomeini regarding the shape of Iranian politics after the Shah's overthrow, and both side clashed violently. Estimates of MEK/PMOI supporters, including casual and suspected supporters, killed at the hands of the Iranian government exceed 100,000, and the mullahs have since targeted MEK figures in exile abroad. This conflict has bred deep and enduring enmity. 

The second observation concerns the prevalence of sophisticated, unattributed information operations in the West generated by the Iranian government, mentioned in the cover memorandum.  ... This inquiry has found that the Iranian government has since 1979 gone to extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI and its leaders in Europe, Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. ... Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) has for years conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI. This has occurred as Iran's diplomatic efforts (noted above) have explicitly sought to pressure the US and other governments to isolate the MEK as a terrorist group." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: What are you going to prove? That they are not a Cult and this is Iranian government calling them as such? If yes, are you backing your position by Kinglsey's POV along with Stevenson's book - we discussed that the latter source was MEK sympathetic (see [8]) - the alleged comments by a think tank head and the US congress report (so what's this source is saying?) Were Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin - the journalists who visited the MEK camp in Iraq and said MEK had cult-like characteristics- all recruited by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither trying to prove that the MEK are or are not a cult; I've made my position clear that my proposal was about reducing a lengthy list of quotes all derogatorily calling the MEK a "cult". Why? because having a section (misleadingly) titled "Designation as a cult" and adding a long indiscriminate list of "cult" quotes there comes across as an attack effort against the main political opposition to the clerics in Iran.

Also, you're failing to acknowledge many of the sources I've provided, including the United States Congress source just above.

For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article despite this being already overtly covered in the article ([9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], etc...) even going as far as trying to add "Cult of Rajavi" to the group's "Other names" section.

I find that trying continuously to add derogatory quotes in a contentious political article is problematic for a number of reasons; yet, you have persistently done this here. We have many sources calling the Trump administration a "cult" ([18], [19], [20], etc.), but that has never been considered a viewpoint to merit inclusion there (least merit its own section). However, the same has not been applied here, not even to the point of reducing verbosity (despite receiving a majority vote in that RfC to do so). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They are neither "derogatory" nor "attacks". Your previous comments are persistently trying to imply that the BAD things regarding MEK are attacks coming from an Iranian campaign. What do you say about those scholars and journalists, did they have links to Iran? Taking the independent reliable sources into account shows something else. I am talking about those reliable sources that your RFC aimed to remove. Those quotes are not "derogatory", rather they are how the reliable sources portray the group's internal incidents. The RFC you referred to togther with the one that was overturned as a result of the AN discussion, are exactly showing this approach of going ahead by such RFCs - which are not backed by guidelines - no longer works. You need to cover the things as it is - which means major POVs should be included based on their due weight. Just look at the level of condensation you were suggesting! (Do I need to emphasize that the Google results for "the cult of Rajvi" is clearly showing the title is widely used across the sources when referring to MEK.) --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources say they are "derogatory descriptions", and you keep trying to fill the article with them. Also the sources in the section about the disinformation campaign against the MEK (which I've just updated) speak for themselves. Filling the article with a vast amount of derogatory descriptions (as well as with other sources denouncing them) isn't good for the article; hence my proposal to reduce the verbosity, but once again we have not been able to advance the editing process here (despite having received majority vote to do so in that RfC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop Original Research. There are many other sources that don't call these "derogatory". I know at least three journalists who have visited the MEK'c camps and believe they are Cult. So, should we sya they are cult? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding the RfC closure

I received the following question on my talk page, and I hope my answer there will be helpful here:

Hi Kevin,

About the RfC you re-closed on the MEK talk page, I don't quite understand your re-closing comments.

We currently have several paragraphs in the article consisting of a list of people basically calling the MEK a cult in a section title that misleadingly says "Designation as a cult" (when there isn't a single source to support that the MEK was ever designated a cult).

There was a majority vote in that RfC that agreed we didn't need to have this long list of people calling the MEK a cult, the majority basically saying that a couple of lines was enough.

I thought your initial suggestion of coming to an agreement about the final wording was a good idea since we could look at the sources and determine proportion according to sources, etc. So I don't understand why this was overturned to "no consensus"?

Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Thanks for reaching out. You are correct that, on the substance, my close did not interpret consensus all that differently. My new closure says that if participants reach a consensus about the appropriate distribution and length of the section, consistent with UNDUE, then that should be implemented, and that there is general agreement to reduce in length if possible – which is not all that different from my original closure.

1. The appropriate length of a section is, for the most part, an editorial decision (unless the new section length would make the section so disproportionately larger or smaller than other sections compared with their significance, counted by reliable secondary sources, that it is UNDUE). Therefore, it is essentially controlled by a rough consensus of people, counted for the most part numerically.
2. However, WP:UNDUE requires that appropriate weight be given to viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. I write about this quite extensively in my third and fourth paragraphs, but to summarize: if the vast majority of reliable secondary sources call MEK a cult, and the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to e.g. three sentences, then all three sentences should probably describe sources calling MEK a cult. However, if the size of the section is e.g. 15 sentences, it may be OK to spend one or two of them discussing reliable secondary sources which call MEK not a cult. Similarly, if the split of sources is closer to 70%/30%, then if the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to three sentences, perhaps two of those sentences should describe sources that call MEK a cult and one should describe sources that call MEK not a cult.
3. This is why I was so alarmed in this case. In the article as it stood before the RfC, the most prominent "not a cult" sentence was a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded). A sentence relying on this misquote was 20 of the 37 words (54%) of the RfC-proposed text, and Idealigic's post-RfC proposal offers it similar prominence (19/45 words, 42%).
4. That alone is enough to render the RfC effectively invalid. The broader issues that this represents, of course, is that you're going to need much better sourcing overall than you've presented if you want to call the cult allegations "false" or "falsified information" (very few of them outright say it). Instead of trying to insert information saying that MEK is not a cult or has improperly been considered a cult, you may be better off (though I'm not familiar with the sources) by inserting information supported by reliable secondary sources: (a) specifically refuting particular elements (e.g. "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like"); or (b) discussing sources regarding how the government of Iran has attempted to cause others to believe MEK is a cult. However, be careful not to juxtapose those sentences with "is a cult" claims in a way that implies that sentences supporting (a) or (b) are also arguing that MEK is not a cult, unless the reliable secondary sources specifically state that MEK is not a cult.

Hope this provides a good overview of my thinking, but I wrote this while rushed so please let me know if you have further questions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References
References