Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

RfC about statements from former members of the MEK

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 consensus of the discussion is to not include these quotes. Several contributors seem to argue that it is enough to guarantee inclusion that the quote appears in reliable sources. It is not. In the end, inclusion of material in the article is an editorial decision and other policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT, must also be considered. There was slightly more support for Rajavi's quote, but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached. SpinningSpark 16:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

---

There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:

1. "According to former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, "[l]ooking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs"
2. "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."
3. " According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."
4. "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."
5. "According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, "several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members".

Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - as nominator. None of them add any new information to the article (except superficial criticisms), and they are all WP:UNDUE (none of the things said are verified by reliable sources. The only thing available are repetitions of these quotes in other sources). Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  In a RfC there is no "nominator".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• No they should not be removed. They are all well-sourced and noteworthy content..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes These statements are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK. This maybe could be placed in a section that includes POV from former MEK members (still has major WP:NPV problems, but better than what is in the article now), but not as stand-alone statements. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what these are, random statements from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• No We can't remove them merely because they're from the former members of MEK rather the coverage of the quotes by the reliable sources should be the determining criteria. "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards", for instance, is described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. This quotation is independently used by other reliable sources such as NYT and Foreign Policy. Also, Masoud Banisadr is not simply a former MEK member, he is a scholar authoring books and articles so his views should be weighed here. As for the propaganda campaign, the full report is provided by Aljazeera and this is not again merely a claim by a former member. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The following shows the materials should not be removed solely because they're from the former members of MEK:

  "The only people who can truly understand what they’ve endured are other former MEK members."

  Source: DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: they should be removed, per the following:

1. These are not scholarly / journalistic analyses, they are allegations from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)

2. There is an ongoing "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" where "Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK.""

3. These claims don't add any new information about key events that isn't already backed by reliable sources (posed neutrally and well-researched).

4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of "reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article.

5. To the closing admin/editor: please note that the RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (mainly due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight carefully votes and what the sources are saying, but that is the only way to close these RfC's adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign. This would be very ridiculous to remove the statements by the members of the MEK who give the most natural narration of the events in the group only because MEK thinks there's allegedly a "misinformation campaign" against them. Using this argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We're not including claims by Heshmat Alavi in this article. For obvious NPOV reasons, we're also not including claims from any other current MEK member in this article. That should also apply to claims from MEK defectors (what this RfC is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Heshmat Alavi was just an example. I mean MEK's propaganda campaign should be taken care of, too. Anyway, we don't remove quotes like "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." which are independently covered by the the reliable sources. This example was described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Per Stefka Bulgaria. Factual integrity above everything else . Barca (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - If it is true that the article does not include claims from current MeK members (I have not checked), then, by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members. We either include both (current and former member claims), or neither. If we include both, I think it would open a can of worms. Excluding both POV sides solves this problem, leaving in the article the claims from more credible and neutral sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Reading some of the votes and discussions, I don't agree that reliable sources should be the determining criteria. The content itself is poor and does not clear up or give further evidence of their subject areas. Quote 1: The MEK seems to have gone through ideological phases, but describing them as "some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs" does not clear up what the MEK's beliefs were. Quote 2: Like the first quote, "MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"" does not clear up the MEK's relationship with Saddam Hussain. Quote 3: Like the previous quotes, "the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America" does not give information about the MEK's relationship with America (were they "Anti-imperialist"? or did they receive support from the US? these are better areas that can be explored). Quote 4: The quote "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" leaves more questions than answers (what was happening between Rajavi and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards? What was Rajavi's relationship with with the Kurds? we don't know, and this quote does not clear it up). Quote 5: This is the only quote I'm leaning towards keeping. "According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members" does give some kind of "data", but considering the source of this data is polemical, I would be ok with excluding this too. Idealigic (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"I don't agree that reliable sources should be the determining criteria" is against our policies and guidelines. At least, you are asking others to act based on the Original Research, as opposed to adhering to the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, your own comment citing this policy, and Vanamonde's comment reminding you of this policy. On top of that, saying that Idealigic is "asking others to act based on the Original Research" is completely false. Ypatch (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My own comment is completely right. Idealigic's comment is a mixture of OR and his own viewpoints. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - you have an odd idea of what it means to work together. It means respecting other's opinions, not discrediting them when their vote doesn't agree with yours. Little appears to have changed since that discussion: "It's very interesting to me that you have tried to discount people's opinions, the way that the vote was captured, etc. if the vote doesn't appear to be going your way... and instead devolving to complaints, deflection, and personal attacks has been disappointing. I don't think that you'd be happy unless the voting turned out differently" Ypatch (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• No: I presume, according to the recent discussion, the related sentence to the murder of Kurds with tanks is notable enough. In regards to the sentences of "Masoud Banisadr", considering that he is an author working with credible publishers, I recommend to use his sentences with "attribution" (in the article). Regarding Hassan Heyrani's sentence, I think it is better to pay heed to the context which is in the article. Aljazeera's report concerning the activity of campaign (supporter of MEK) seems to be incomplete without this sentence. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: these should not be in the article. In contentious articles, we should only include comments by people with some kind of credibility for fact checking. Allegations made by MEK members, like any other random people saying they have heard something, falls more into tabloid territory. There is a book full of allegations by MEK members which we can use to turn this Wikipedia page into their personal diary, but I don't think that is a good idea, just like including these random claims from MEK members is not a good idea. If we include these claims, we are violating the guideline that says "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." [1]. Nika2020 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that you're missing WP:DUE. Btw, they are not random people. Masoud Banisadr, for instance, has contributed to multiple high quality scholarly works. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Masoud Banisdar is a MEK defector whose' only few published works consists solely of POV against the MEK; in the words of Icewhiz:

"Looking at the three sources above - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - [34]. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship."

Banisdar's quotes were initially wrongly attributed to Eileen Barker (and I suspect why that was). Which leaves the remaining quotes from other MEK members, all of which are indeed quotes from "random people". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The chapter is finally edited by Barker. Btw, Banisdr's claims are reflected by multiple sources. Instead of trying to discredit the former members as being "random" I would focus on what they said and whether they are DUE. Solely calling them former member is not a ground for removal of their statements published by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

An ex-MEK member wrote that chapter, which was included in the article as "According to Eileen Barker, "...", and you are defending that saying it was finally edited by Barker? Have the last word if you like; I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• No: If they are covered by reliable third party sources, they should not be removed.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• No: "Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles. Some of those quotes were recorded by human rights organizations. Can no victims of any crime ever be published as long as perpetrators dispute it? The readers know the sources and if any reputable articles specifically disprove the testimonies, those should be included too.Iranians (talk) 19:35, 15 May 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.

• @Spinningspark: Regarding the Rajavi's quote you said "There was slightly more support for Rajavi's quote, but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached." As I showed, three credible/reliable sources have mentioned the quote independently which shows it was DUE. Also, consensus has to be reached for the removal of this longstanding text (not for keeping it). --Mhhossein ^talk 05:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There was consensus. The above RfC was opened and formally closed. Why is The consensus of the discussion is to not include these quotes so hard to understand? Rajavi's quote might, or might not, gain consensus if discussed on its own, but that discussion needs to happen first. SpinningSpark 08:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Spinningspark: For my own information, can you say how Rajavi's quote is not fulfilling WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT? Regards, --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think you have grasped my role in closing the discussion. My role is to assess the consensus of the discussion. It is for the editors of the page and other participants in the discussion to determine what is UNDUE and NOT. SpinningSpark 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Spinningspark: Thanks for the response. I understand it completely. The question is regarding your closing comment saying "but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached"; I showed it Rajavi's quote being independently covered by three reliable sources (which shows it is DUE). Now, the question is which argument by the users was fascinating enough for removing this longstanding DUE material? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @Mhhossein: This RfC was reviewed by an experienced admin, and it concluded in consensus not to include statements. You have a tendency to make constant complaints to the closing admins in RfCs that don't go your way. You've done that here, here, and now on this RfC. There was consensus not to include these statements; WP:DROPTHESTICK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Stefka Bulgaria: The comment by the experienced admin is contradicting. The fact that you are here with a battle ground language shows you are extremely concerned about your recent RFC which aims to mass remove well sourced materials. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark's comment is not contradicting; and his closing remarks are well thought-out. Nobody is using "battle ground language", and nobody is "extremely concerned about your recent RfC". We have these RfCs to determine consensus; consensus was determined here by an experienced admin. I realize you wanted a different outcome, but that was not to be this time, and so it's time to move on. That's the last I'll say here Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources showing DUE weight

@Ypatch: Why did you removed the sources which I had to show the quotation "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" had received independent coverage by multiple reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - this was already explained in my edit summary. We already have a source by Elizabeth Rubin that says "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." Repeating the same quote in questionable sources does not give the quote DUE weight. Ypatch (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when American Progress and Foreign Policy are counted as questionable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ypatch that repeating the exact same quote in different sources doesn't make the quote more "notable"; no matter how you paint this, it is still only a an allegation from an MEK defector. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually the reverse! According to the WP:DUE the materials should be represented "in proportion to the prominence' of it in the reliable sources. If it is repeated independently by different reliable sources, then it's indicating the material is notable enough. I am going to restore those citations if you can not substantiate why those reliable sources independently covering the quote should be removed. The very fact that you object the inclusion of those citations is itself meaningful. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - as much as you're trying to make this come across as "prominent", it isn't. The current RfC about including this sentence in the article is the place to raise your points so you can try to get consensus there, like the rest of us are doing. Ypatch (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The prominence comes from the very fact that at least three high quality sources have covered that independently. @Vanamonde93: your insight please: they argued "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" should be removed on DUE grounds. I added American Progress and Foreign Policy sources besides the existing citation to show there are at lease three high quality sources independently covering the quotation which, in accordance with WP:DUE saying the materials should be represented "in proportion to the prominence' of it in the reliable sources. Ypatch removed the citations. Can you judge the discussion to see if the removal of those citations are justified? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch's objection actually was that "We already have a source by Elizabeth Rubin that says "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." What was argued was that the sources you added, Mhhossein, don't make this more WP:DUE because they are merely repeating the same quote (a quote which is currently in the article). Also, that quote is being discussed in the RfC about statements from former members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch also said the American Progress and Foreign Policy sources are questionable! I had added them to show the quote had been of the interest to at least three high quality sources. This, in accordance with WP:DUE, is an indication of the material receiving due weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is once again interrupting my communication with Vanamonde93 when I am talking about Ypatch's edits (it has become like a pattern here). --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is an utterly pointless argument; why do any of you have strong opinions on how many sources are used to substantiate this point? In general, on contentious articles, more sources are not a bad thing when due weight is being debated. I suggest you let the sources remain in. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

1988 executions removed

@Mhhossein: You reverted my edit from the article about the 1988 executions of political prisoners. In your edit summary, you wrote "the details and context of the executions are controversial". What is controversial about the details and context of the executions? Nika2020 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you pleas respond? You can't revert whatever you want and then disappear when you are asked about it. Nika2020 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your ping and will respond very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Your edit included "children" which is not supported as a fact by the sources. It should be attributed either to Montazeri or "Human right organizations" (which organization?). Moreover, according to the sources used in this page the prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK" were executed, not all the prisoners. Btw, wouldn't the already included execution part in the lead be a determining factor? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I wouldn't normally ping you, but Mhhossein's response here doesn't add up. I asked Mhhossein why he removed this from the lead:

"Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to be affiliated with the MEK, including children."

Mhhossein is saying he removed this edit because "not all the prisoners" were executed - but as you can see the information I added doesn't say "all prisoners" were executed. Mhhossein is also saying that the part "including children" needed attribution "either to Montazeri or "Human right organizations", and even though I don't agree he could have just attributed this himself instead of removing all the information. Nika2020 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see why I need to intervene; this is still a content dispute. Why don't you ask Mhhossein if he'd object to a version that didn't mention children, that used the necessary attribution, or that included a source that could be used without attribution? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: The sentence does not say "all prisoners", so that part of your objection is not valid. For the second part, it can be attributed to Montrazeri =

"Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to be affiliated with the MEK. According to Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri, the executions also included women and children."

Here are more sources just in case =

• "Human rights organizations estimate that between 4,500 and 5,000 men, women and children were killed in the summer of 1988 in prisons across Iran." Amnesty International

• "That this House notes that the audio file of Ayatollah Montrazeri, former heir to Khomeini, in 1988, reveals new evidence about the massacre of more than 30,000 political prisoners in Iran's prisons in the summer of 1988 including women and children and all political prisoners who supported the opposition movement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)"

Parliament UK

• "Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy"

The Telegraph

• ""At least order to spare women who have children... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not refelct positively and will not be mistake-free," Montazeri wrote in a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. "A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by their interrogators... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic diseases."

Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran

• "Montazeri was more sympathetic to the plight of political prisoners in revolutionary Iran, and had a bitter disagreement with Khoemini over their mass executions in 1988, which he vehemently opposed, despite the fact that his son, a veteran of the revolutionary struggle, was killed at the hands of the MEK, to which most of the executed prisoners belonged."

Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings

• "The failed MEK invasion triggered a rage wihtin Khomeini's regime. Political prisoners who continued to adhere to antiregime beliefs were pulled from their cells and executed. Several thousand prisoners, including many MEK members, were killed by the Islamic regime during a two-month period."

Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps

• "Although execution of dissidents was rife in Iran in the 1980s, the 1988 summer executions were on a different scale. Amnesty International estimates the number of people put to death in that summer alone to be about 4,500, although others talk of bigger numbers. A fatwa issued by Khomeini in 1988 ordered the execution of apostates who refused to recant. Thousands of prisoners were brought before committees and asked whether they renounced their political affiliation, if they were Muslims, whether they prayed and if they believed in the Islamic Republic. Some were also asked if they were prepared to walk through Iraqi minefields, according to the audio file. Those who gave a negative answer in questioning that lasted a few minutes were put to death. Many were buried in a piece of unmarked land in the Khavaran cemetery near Tehran. Every year, as families gather to commemorate the deaths, riot police block their way. The emergence of the audio file has revived calls for an inquiry into the executions. Over the past 28 years, survivors and families of the victims have tried to support each other. In January, an Iranian woman who lost five children and one son-in-law in executions in the 1980s – Nayereh Jalali Mohajer, known as “Mother Behkish” – died."

Guardian

• "Grand Ayatollah Hosein 'Alkli Montazeri was to be Khomeini's succesor,but Montazeri criticized certain governmnetal practices that he considered a disgrace to the revolution. Among these practices were the mass executions of at least 3,000 political prisoners, which were carried out on Khomeini's behalf in the autumn of 1988"

Who Rules Iran?

• "The so-called 'Pardoning Committee' that Khomeini had dispatched to prisons, was in fact a 'Death Committee' personally appointed by Khomeini. Before this committee a prisoner was essentially asked one question: “Are you still loyal to the MEK?” Anyone who responded short of total repentance and submission faced execution. Victims were charged with “moharebeh” or “waging war on God.” This meant resisting the mullahs’ rule. The prison assembly hall became a slaughterhouse. Prisoners were rounded up in lines of six in various groups. A noose was placed around each neck. Prison guards kicked the chairs under their feet, collectively hanging them. The bodies were transferred to mass graves in meat trucks at night. On some nights, up to 400 were executed."

Intependent

• ""In my view, the biggest crime in the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us, has been committed at your hands," stated Khomeini's one-time heir apparent to judicial authorities responsible for the decision. "They'll write your names as criminals in the history [books]." The events of 1988 represent a grim nadir in Iran's recent human rights record. Without even the formalities of a show trial, the Iranian government summarily executed thousands of political prisoners who had languished in its jails for years. The majority were supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization, better known by their Farsi-language abbreviation MEK."

HRW If you have anything else to add, please comment. Nika2020 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you did not read my comment carefully. Anything to be included should be neutrally depicting the story. But, as you see the pretext and the condition of the executions are controversial. As I mentioned, not all the members were executed (your edit conveys a wrong impression). Moreover, why do you think Montazeri's POV is lead-worthy? Also you failed to recognize the fact that there's some mention of MEK members being executed which adds to the issues. Suggestion? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I only suggested attributing to Montazeri because this is what you suggested [2]. What would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources? Nika2020 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually I meant to tell you this POV is not suitable for lead. I already asked you why you thought Montazeri's POV was lead-worthy? Also, how many times should it be repeated the MEK members were executed? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: this is not POV, this is something that happened and that is covered by a wide variety of reliable sources. Just saying that you don't want it in the lead is not a reason not to include it. Vanamonde: Mhhossein is saying that the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is "POV", and that for this reason should not be included in the lead. This is not content dispute, this is refusing to acknowledge MOS:LEAD and what a wide variety of reliable sources are saying. Nika2020 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you need to substantiate your objections more than you have done. If coverage of the 1988 executions is "POV", you need to demonstrate that with reference to what sources say about them. If it is not POV, then it needs to be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I think you need to read the comments (specially this one) once again. That the executed people included children the POV of Montazeri. Moreover, the lead already includes sentences on the members being executed. This is exactly a content dispute. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have read all the necessary comments. You are once again dodging the issue. This section is about whether the 1988 executions need to be added to the lead. You have objected to a very specific portion of the proposed text; ie, including "children" among the victims. If you have objections to the rest of it, you need to state those now, otherwise Nika2020 would be justified in adding the reinstating the rest of their edit (ie everything except the two words "including children". You also acknowledged above that unspecified human rights organizations make the same claim, but now are insisting that it's just Montazeri. You also state that the "the lead already includes sentences on the members being executed"; but the lead, as far as I can see, only refers to executions in 1981, not 1988; how is that relevant here? What decision is made about the content in the lead is indeed a content issue, but your conduct in that discussion is a behavioral issue. Specifically, you need to stop using a specific issue to avoid engaging with the entirety of what is being proposed. That is a form of stone-walling, and isn't acceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To me, your comment shows you have not been following the discussions very carefully. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, only the prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK" were executed. Adding this will not convey a wrong impression that all the prisoners were executed. Also, I did not insist this is just Montazeri saying that. I see covering the claim of an unspecified human rights organizations or Montazeri in the lead would be against DUE. As for the 1981 execution, I was infact trying to say anything to be added should consider this. For instance, why not mentioning in a general sentence the MEK members were executed by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your continued insistance, I have in fact read those comments. You are still misunderstanding my point, and it is concerning, to say the least. Some content was added to the lead. You removed it. Nika2020 asked you what your objections were. All the objections you have listed are to specific portions of the text, and could be addressed with a slightly modified version of what was originally posted. Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no". That being said; Nika2020, you need to engage here; I'm not doing your work for you. This is more or less the last thing I'm going to say in this discussion, unless anyone engages in sanctionable behavior. To be very clear, stone-walling on the talk page is sanctionable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Please understand that what happened in the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is not "POV", is something that many reliable sources confirm happened (I can list them if you want, but there is really no point since we already have a whole article about this). You also say the lead already includes "sentences on the members being executed", but this is not accurate since the current (passing) mention of executions in the lead talks about what happened in 1981, not 1988 (two very different events). There is no denying that the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners happened (not "POV"), and that this is an important event in the history of the MEK, so it belongs in the lead. If you have a problem with the information as I have presented it, please say what would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources. Thank you. Nika2020 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Despite your claim, I did not just say "no". I believe you have already got involved in the topic more than enough. A third party may view this comment, for instance, as coming from an involved party. Contrary to WP:ONUS, you are asking me to build consensus (which is actually the duty of Nika2020 - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.") As for "All the objections you have listed are to specific portions of the text, and could be addressed with a slightly modified version of what was originally posted". Not really, This was a matter of talk page discussion, what I am doing here. @Nika2020: WHO said the 1988 executions was just a POV which should not be included in the lead? Please note the main objections I have already raised (let me know if you need more clarifications). As for the 1981 executions, yes, they are different events and I was just suggesting to merge any further inclusion of "execution" with this one. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: merging different events into a single passing comment would be excluding information that is as DUE as anything else that is currently in the lead. Because the 1988 executions is DUE information, then please stop making this so difficult and provide your compromise about adding this in a way that "neutrally depicts" the sources. Nika2020 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there are many other DUE info which is not in the lead (such as Hafter Tir bombing). Anyway, this is not being talked about. On my part, I raised my objections in my previous comments, among them the necessity of the insertion of "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK". I welcome the draft of your modified suggestion based on our discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trying not to get involved here, but, Mhhossein: your comments to drive Vanamonde away from this talk page [3] resembles SharabSalam's previous efforts. Vanamonde is currently the only admin willing to help in this mess, so please don't start accusing them of being "involved". They have done everything right not to be involved here while continuing to break the deadlock that is this talk page, so please stop all the wiki-lawyering. Barca (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Every one knows I was of the pioneers of asking admins to stay here, and, I suggested him what I thought. You should not interpret my comments in other ways which is not meant by me. I already know how time&energy consuming watching this page is. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: then stop accusing Vanamonde of being "involved". It is quite evident they are not involved, and their input here is necessary. Barca (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: It's not an accusation, I said what I saw. Anyway, Vanamonde's edits speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein If you think the Hafte tir bombing is DUE for the lead, then I welcome you to start a talk page discussion about that. This talk page discussion is about the 1988 executions, so please don't mix things. Based on your objections, then this is what I suggest:

• "Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to remain steadfast in their support for the MEK. According to Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri and Amnesty International, the executions also included women and children."

If you have further objections, I welcome your draft. If you don't present any more substantiated objections, then I don't see a reason why this cannot be included in the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Execution of women and children is a BIG claim that requires big sources. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1, "Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri and Amnesty International, the executions also included women and children." does have big sources (Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran, Saqi Books The Economist Parliament.UK The Telegraph Amnesty International). Mhhossein: you made this revert, so your input is required. Please say if the version I proposed in my last post is ok, or, what would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources? Nika2020 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I am pinging you again because you are the one who made the revert, so your input is required. Please respond. Nika2020 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nika2020. I was busy with RF. That there are books on the Montazeri's POV does not change the very fact that it's the POV of Montazeri and I object including this POV into the lead. As for the context of the executions, which I stressed from the first day, there's a claim from the Iranian side according to the Amnesty report (and some other Farsi sources) saying those executed were involved in riots inside prisons simultaneously with the MEK's attack to the Iranian borders. I am not favoring inclusion of this POV either, but am trying to say, if this the case, the executions were not merely because of the MEK's military attack. What do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: My suggestion includes Ayatolla Montazeri's and Amnesty International's reports, so it's not just a "POV" as you say. If you object their inclusion, you need to explain why you object (saying that you don't like what they say is not enough to exclude their reports). About the executions, I have provided enough sources that explain why they happened. If you have other sources saying otherwise, you need to provide them and say what is your suggested compromise that "neutrally depicts" all the sources. Nika2020 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

When did I show my like/dislike (please avoid making further accusations). As for the POV, please see my comment -07:35, 17 May 2020- in this thread. Unspecified HR organizations and Montazeri are not really suitable sources of information for lead of this article (though they can be used in the body). That's why I say the context the details of these events are controversial. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You have warned Mhhossein twice that they are stonewalling this discussion ([4] and [5]). Since those warnings, I have asked Mhhossein 5 times to provide a compromise that neutrally depicts the sources, but they continue to evade any sort of compromise regardless of all the reliable sources supporting this information. I reaffirm that this is not a content dispute, but about Mhhossein refusing to acknowledge MOS:LEAD and what a wide variety of reliable sources are saying. Nika2020 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nika2020: You've proposed adding two sentences above. Reasoned objections have been made to the second, but not to the first; as such, you have consensus here to add the first sentence to the lead. If you want to add the second, you will have to start an RfC, as the objections here are in fact reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained mass reverts by Kazemita1

@Kazemita1: Please explain, in detail, all of the reverts you did in your last edit. [6] Barca (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy. And yes, Kazemita is also obliged to explain himself here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is like a pattern in this article; they make mass changes with an edit summary which is not covering the whole story. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Which edits in particular would you like me to explain? Nika2020 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Vanamonde, I mostly want to understand why Kazemita1 reverted content that is repeated in the article. I had created a talk page discussion about this [7], saying that there were some repetitions in that section:

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

Kazemita added back those repetitions, even though I had not received any objections in that talk page discussion. Nika2020 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things you are missing here; first "Shirazi" and "Bahonar" are two different people. Second "Bomb debris ..." is caption of a photo. Also, some of the removals are unnecessary. Third, some of these belong to different sections of the article and mentioned for different reasons. Fourth, admission of guilt should not be removed. In other words when MEK admits to an assassination, it is counted as a valuable historical fact. That is different from reports by third party sources.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Vanamonde: in this discussion, I have tried to get Kazemita to answer why in his revert [8], they added repetitions back in the article:

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

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

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

This is not a content dispute. Kazemita's revert [9] distinctly repeats Bahonar and Rajaei's assassination, and Kazemita will not provide a direct explanation of why he added these repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1, you are stonewalling here. Redundancy in any article is a problem regardless of POV. At the very least you need to explain why the duplicated material needs to exist in each section, and why it should not be combined. That goes both ways, of course; there's redundancy with respect to material that reflects negatively on the government also. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

After further consideration, I found the following two sentences in the "Assassaination" section redundant:

• "Victims of the explosion were President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad-Javad Bahonar among others."
• "MEK also assassinated[351] Mohammad-Ali Rajaei,[351] and Mohammad-Javad Bahonar."

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

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

Do you agree? If not, please make your suggestion of how the text should read Nika2020 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I was talking about:

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

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

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

Kazemita1 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1: Most of what you suggest is ok with me, but why you are not including "Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible." Keshmiri, an MEK member who was thought to have died in the explosion, "was accorded a martyr's funeral" and was "buried alongside Rajai and Bahonar."? This is depicted by the sources. You also have not explained yet why you added back those repetitions in the article instead of just adding what you are now suggesting. Nika2020 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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

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

@Kazemita1: you have not answered. Can you please give an explanation why you added back those repetitions in the article? Nika2020 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither have you answered Vanamonde's question. So, may I suggest we get back to the civil discussion we had a few lines above?Kazemita1 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Vanamonde told me that if I had "I had made any edits that were reverted, that I still want to reinstate, I need to explain them here and obtain consensus".[10] I have explained the edits I want to reinstate, but you have not explained why you added those repetitions back in the article. Since it was you who reverted (not me), you need to explain it. Please explain why you added those repetitions back in the article. Nika2020 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess I have to quote Vanamonde here:

"all of you, including Nika2020, need to explain your edits here. You do need consensus to make any changes beyond the obvious ones. Reducing redundancy does not usually require extended discussion, but you've done more than reduce redundancy."

Let me know when you are ready to get back to constructive discussion. As a quick reminder, I came up with a proposal that removed two redundant sentences. You had responded that you agree with most of my proposal. I guess given the 7 day silence period I can safely assume consensus is reached.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In this talk page discussion Kazemita1 still has not explained why he added repetitions back in the article [11]. I have explained why I removed those repetitions [12], and Kazemita1 has explained what he thinks should be in the article instead of those repetitions, but he never explained why he added those repetitions back in the article. Can editors just revert things like that without giving any sort of explanation? Nika2020 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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

RFC about inclusion of the content from The Intercept source

Should the following content from The Intercept 2020 report be included in the "Designation as cult" section of the article?

"According to the Intercept 2020 report, the testimonies of the MEK's former member imply that MEK is "a brutal organization" holding "thousands in a state of physical and psychological slavery" for decades."

Please say if you have suggestions for modifying the content to be included. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: This is a fresh and unique report we need to you use. Actually, nowhere in the article the testimonies of the MEK members are being evaluated by a third party! So why should we miss this fresh report by a credible source like The Intercept? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No: For many reasons, but mainly per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. These obviously controversial labels. Human rights record content are already occupying a large part of the article, and doesn't need more contentious POV (than what it already has). Barca (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No- We already have so many allegations from "former members" in the article, and "imply" is equal to a hypothesis, not fact. This article needs facts, not hypothesis. Nika2020 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Intercept is a reliable and neutral source and the sentence is well quoted such that the "hypothesis/fact" issue no longer applies.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• No: Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Also per the (similar) recently-closed RfC about adding testimonies from former MEK members to the article; to summarise some of the points raised in that RfC (which also apply here): random superficial criticisms about the MEK from defectors lack factual integrity and is not encyclopedic material. Also per the closer's remarks on that RfC: "Several contributors seem to argue that it is enough to guarantee inclusion that the quote appears in reliable sources. It is not." Additionally, since we don't include testimonies from current members to avoid WP:NPOV issues, the same should apply about adding testimonies from former members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, trying to insert in the article that a political group is ""a brutal organization" holding "thousands in a state of physical and psychological slavery" for decades."" is taking POV pushing to a whole new level. Filling the article with all this POV is distorting it, and that's a bad thing, not a good thing. Alex-h (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• No Name-calling which adds nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: MEK is a closed group. By removing statements from former MEK member we will be excluding a vast amount of our knowledge from this group. It is no incident that most main-stream media outlets use these testimonies in their articles on MEK. I believe we can trust Intercept on this matter given that the independence of the source and the subject.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - All the "no" votes have pretty much said it. This is just name-calling and POV pushing that adds nothing. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein's removal of content

@Mhhossein: please explain your edit where you removed:

• "After the Iran regime had executed 2,500 MEK members, the group counter-attacked against Friday-prayer leaders, revolutionary court judges and members of the IRGC. Ebrahimzadeh (MEK fighter who on July 1982 killed 13 IRGC and Ayatollah Saddugi) wrote “I am willing to die to help hasten the coming of the classless society; to keep alive our revolutionary tradition; and to avenge our colleagues murdered by this bloodthirsty, reactionary regime”.

• "According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK saw Iran's security agencies as servants of a religious government and a cause for Iran population's state of unhappiness. The MEK first fought against the Revolutionary Guards and later against military units, and its targets were "the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only." The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them."

Barca (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, please check the edit once again. After my edit, for instance, "After the Iran regime had executed 2,500 MEK members, the group counter-attacked against Friday-prayer leaders, revolutionary court judges and members of the IRGC" is still in the page. As for the quotation, I don't think it is even worthy of mentioning in the page. It's not DUE, probably you can include the content in his own page. َ"According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK saw Iran's security agencies as servants of a religious government and a cause for Iran population's state of unhappiness. The MEK first fought against the Revolutionary Guards and later against military units" is in the page after my edit. "Its targets were "the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only" was removed because the page already has "Struan Stevenson and other analysts have stated that MEK targets included only the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: In the quote you removed (" Ebrahimzadeh (MEK fighter who on July 1982 killed 13 IRGC and Ayatollah Saddugi) wrote “I am willing to die to help hasten the coming of the classless society; to keep alive our revolutionary tradition; and to avenge our colleagues murdered by this bloodthirsty, reactionary regime”.) the MEK fighter is saying the purpose of why the attacks happened. Why are you saying this "it's not DUE"? Barca (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of why the attacks happens is already mentioned in the article. The full quote from Ebrahimzadeh's promotional comments is not really having due weight per your suggestion. The prominence of the Ebrahimzadeh's comment is currently not really as much justifying it's inclusion in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Why do you think it's ok to have the claims of former MEK members (who have done nothing historically significant [13]), while it's not ok to have the claims of MEK members who have actually participated in historically significant events? Barca (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Because, -and I quote- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarcMac: Your comparison is essentially wrong since I tried to prove the former member's quote was DUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: None of those quotes from former MEK members were DUE. For that reason I also won't insist in having this other quote by an MEK member in the article (although it actually provides insight into why a protagonist in a historical event did what they did, which is not the case with the other quotes). Barca (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members

Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

• "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."
• "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."
• "In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) As well as this:

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

Into this?:

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

References
References

• Yes:

  1) Per WP:UNDUE: random claims by random people who have defected the MEK lack any sort of fact-checking, and fact-checking is needed in a controversial article such as this one where there is a misinformation issue.

  2) Per WP:NOT and NPOV: we are not including claims by current members, so we should not include detailed allegations by former members either.

  3) Per the recently closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

1) As I already showed, probably you can't just remove materials major points reported by multiple reliable sources since they are truly DUE.

2) You can add DUE material per NPOV.

3) Just like the mysterious IP!!! you are probably "misreading" the SpinningSpark's closure. The outcome of the previous "has little bearing on other quotes in the article or any future quotes". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, for the same reasons as in the last RfC about this. These allegations are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK, and we don't include random accusations from the public in encyclopedia articles. A short mention of what each side said is more than plenty, although I would also be ok with removing that too. Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Don't remove. MEK is a closed group. By not including the information from former members we would have no way to know this group. It is no incident that so many articles about MEK in main-stream media include quotes from former members. I think we can trust Guardian, Intercept, BBC and Washington Post on this matter.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per factual integrity, which is completely missing in these contentious allegations. Nika2020 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As Iranians said, ""Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles.". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a straw man response. No matter how you frame it, these allegations were made by MEK defectors; hence this RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong No: WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The mentioned quotes are now having due weight since they are major points being covered by the high quality reliable sources.

A.

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."

It's a fact that former members have alleged the group has cult-like characteristics and should not be removed. There are plenty of reliable sources for this (P.106, The Intercept and Business insider). Needless to say that the cult-like behavior of the group is extensively reported by the third parties, too. So, the quote is now receiving DUE weight. Same argument can be used for the quote by Banisadr - author and researcher -, i.e. "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct." This is another way of describing the group's cult like behavior.

B.

"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."

The ban on romantic relationships inside the group is another statement covered by the reliable sources multiple reliable and credible sources (The NYTimes, The Guardian). It is also supported by third party sources P.89, so the fact that former members talk about ban on romantic relationships is a DUE major view point. Same goes to the sexual fantasies confessions. According to the BBC, "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies".

C.

"Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused".

If it was solely Batoul Soltani, Zahra Moini and Fereshteh Hedayati speaking of the sexual abuse inside the group, I would support removal of the content. But "former MEK members who have escaped the group also report sexual abuse and forced marriages during their captivity" and "over 400 female members of the group had sexual relations with him".

D.

"MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."

Hmm...nothing new. But again the confession of sexual thoughts/fantasies is stated here.

E.

"In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[290][290] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign."

So far, BBC, The Intercept, The Guardain and the New Yourk Times have stated the testimonies of the former members regrading the sessions of sexual thoughts confession. So, this is truly DUE to mention in the article the former members had been forced to confess sexual to commanders. "Brainwashing" of the members is also reported in The Guardian, Vice and The Intercept so this is not a minor view! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Mhhossein's argument is essentially inaccurate. Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [14], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then these other quotes should follow the same rule. Also this RfC does not propose to remove the quotes, but to summarise them, and that is a fair compromise considering the controversies surrounding them. Barca (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Side conversation regarding Legobot

@Stefka Bulgaria: what is your brief and neutral statement? At around 3,750 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC) @Redrose64: This RfC is meant to be a follow-up to this recent RfC, where it is proposed that several allegations in the article need to be removed or summarised. Would it be easier that I create several shorter RfCs instead? (the RfCs here tend to be difficult to close, so trying to make things as practical as possible for everyone). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Whether it is a follow-on or not is immaterial; nor is the number of topics to be covered. The problem is the total quantity of characters following the {{rfc|hist|pol|reli|soc|rfcid=BE7ED5B}} until and including the next timestamp (05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)). Legobot simply isn't finding that timestamp before giving up and assuming that there is no RfC statement at all. You need to reduce that length, either by cutting it down considerably or by inserting a similar timestamp part-way through. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I've tried to insert two more timestamps part-way through. Hopefully it'll work this time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC) It's had this effect, which is a great improvement. But you only needed to add one timestamp (Legobot doesn't care about anything after that point), and it should have been approriate to the time that the RfC was started. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Rajavi's quotation regarding killing of the Kurds be included in the article?

The outcome of the previous RFC and the subsequent post-closure discussions made me start an RFC regarding inclusion the following quote:

Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Should it be included in the article? Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Per WP:DUE. It is interesting to know the quote is portrayed by Center for American Progress as being "infamous". Furthermore, it is covered independently by three reliable sources Foreign Policy, Center for American Progress and The New York Times with dozens of other reliable sources, like RAND report, The Intercept, Salon, The Guardian using the quote when portraying the group's collaboration with Saddam. This shows the quote is not only DUE but also adds to the encyclopedic value of the article. Why should not such an important and infamous quote be used in the page? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. As mentioned by the user concluding the previous RfC, this statement could stay in the article. It has enough coverage thru independent reliable sources and MEK's treatment of the Kurds begs more attention in the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• No: It was determined in the last RfC that this claim is an allegation from an MEK defector, and therefore not suitable for the article. Here are my reasons not to include this (again):

1. This is not coming from a scholarly / journalistic analyses, but it's rather an allegation from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)

2. There is an ongoing "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" where "Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK.""

3. These claims don't add any new information about key events that isn't already backed by reliable sources (posed neutrally and well-researched).

4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of "reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. Mhhossein is not presenting this neutrally. The full quote is "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." so this is coming from yet another former MEK member making allegations, so it is not WP:DUE. On the contrary, these are unverified allegations by people that have vested interests on this topic, and therefore could be just making it up. Factual integrity above everything else. Nika2020 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably you need to read the quote once again. "former Mujahedeen members" (not solely one members!). Also, the source describes the quote as being "infamous" adding to its weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. For what Nika2020's explanation is saying. If it's not coming from a reliable source, then it should not be in this article. "Former Mujahedeen members remember" are not reliable sources, and Mhhossein not including that part of the quote gives me even less faith in this proposal. Idealigic (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• No This statement is from people that have left the MEK, they are not from "noteworthy" sources. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what this is, a random statement from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No: These are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [15], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then this other quote should follow the same rule. Barca (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References
References

RfC about Merging "Human rights record" and "Designation as a cult" sections into a single section

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

• Yes - per:

1) Both sections are about the same topic. The "cult-like" allegations mainly derive from human rights allegations (such as barring children or demanding celibacy).

2) Currently both these sections are a mess as they have repeated and overlapping information. Merging them would help to copy-edit it properly.

3) Both these sections link into eachother, so it would make for a clearer read (who has described the MEK as having a cult-like attributes" and "on what basis").

4) Per NPOV: there isn't a single source that supports the current "Designation as a cult" POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

1) The sections are of different topics. I have completely explained here.

2) Despite being asked, you have repeatedly failed to determine which portions have overlapping information.

3) This should be resolved via copy editing, not whole removal.

4) What does NPOV has to do with this section name? Also, you were suggested different titles. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• Yes Merge makes sense since the content is connected. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No I come to this cold, and may be wrong, but the two sections seem to be about somewhat different topics: being a cult has to do with the way one's own members are treated and human rights violations should deal with how others outside the organization are treated. The suggestion about cleaning up both sections, and perhaps finding that nothing substantial is in the cult section, are other issues. But joining the two sections would seem to me to confuse matters. Jzsj (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jzsj: just to clarify, except for the part that says "Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.", the Human rights record section is about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses. Similarly, the Designation as a cult section talks about testimonies from MEK members making claims of human right abuses (the section also includes several other sources basically calling the MEK a "cult" without further explanation as to why). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The section is far way different than what you are describing. It starts by a paragraph saying WHY the group is titled as a cult and WHO has given the group this title. It's continued by WHICH reports and sources have made the same argument. Moreover, the section sheds light on WHAT Cultish activities the group is committing. Also, a thorough "explanation as to why" the group is called a cult is provided by RNAD, The Intercept and [The Guardian. We can add more info you're interested. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - the content is related. JohnThorne (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - because the content is related. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - to me the topics look to be similar enough topics that they could be merged into one. Comatmebro (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• The RFC is too general and vague: This RFC was started before and the OP was told at the time by the an admin that such an RFC with a "very wide scope" will go no where. Furthermore, I substantiated my objection towards such a merger in details and I don't think the comment should be repeated here. This RFC is too general! Regardless of whether or not the sections should be merged -which my next comment proves should not- the RFC does not say in what terms these two the sections should be merged. The goal of the OP seems to be opening random RFCs (you don't have to pay for it).--Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• No to merger: The records of the reliable sources shows the "Designation as a cult" have been deeply covered as a separate topic. The following sources take the topic of MEK's cultish nature as a distinct subject. I have listed some of the sources:

• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum" by RAND corporation deeply discusses the cult aspect of the group under "The MeK as a Cult" (P.38). "Cultic Characteristics of the MeK" comes in the APPENDIX B, P.67. Besides, the report mentions the cultish nature of the group from time to time in other sections (just ctrl+f "cult"!).
• "The Cult of Rajavi". This is an infamous report by the New York Times showing how the cultish nature is an important issue which needs to be studied separately.
• "DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT". A very fresh work by The Intercept also shedding light on the cultish nature of the group.
• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long read by the Guardian detailing the cultish characteristics of the MEK.

This is not all. There are plenty of sources using the term "cult" when describing the group. I have provided a list of the sources using such a descriptive term. So, it is clear that the cultish aspect of the MEK had been of the interest to the authors and sources and it shows a section should be dedicated to the subject aimed at shedding light on in what the terms the group is portrayed as a cult. Finally, the argument that some of the materials in the two sections are duplicated is irrelevant to this discussion, since the OP first needs to determine case by case which portions are redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, the above argument shows that the cultish characteristics of should be given WP:DUE weight by dedicating "a separate section" to it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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 imaging 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)

References
References