Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Some sources to be used

I have found some sources which can improve the article:

• "Our Men in Iran?", how the MEK members were trained by U.S.
• 'Tank girl' army accused of torture, the human rights situation in MEK camps.
• UNAMI Half Yearly Report on Human Rights - January to June 2013, a report by UN on the human rights situation of the group.

SharabSalam: Please consider improving the page using these sources if you have enough time. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another interesting one: "DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT"! --Mhhossein ^talk 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SharʿabSalam▼: Hey, did you find the chance to enter some more info into the page? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

MEK's terrorist designation "was meant to be a goodwill gesture to improve relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran"

You reverted this edit, which is backed by 7 reliable sources (I found more, but thought 7 was plenty!). Your edit summary said "There are also other sources believing they were really terrorists! why not adding them?". I provided 7 reliable sources for saying that the MEK's terrorist designation "was meant to be a goodwill gesture to improve relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran". How many sources have you found that contradict this? Ypatch (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a simple question. What was the ground for designing the group as a terrorist organization. That's why I say there are sources "believing they were really terrorists". Why should not the lead contain the facts leading into their designation? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, if you're making an argument that the sources provided here are not representative of sources discussing why the MEK was designated a terrorist group, then it is your responsibility to provide sources arguing the opposite view. @Ypatch: please explain to me how the sources used in this edit support the content that you added. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: these are how the sources used in that edit support "According to the Clinton administration and other sources, this listing was meant to be a goodwill gesture to improve relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.":

1) "One senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the People’s Moujahedeen was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami.

2) "The group was placed on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations in 1997 at a time when the Clinton administration hoped the move would facilitate opening a dialogue with Iran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami, who was seen as a moderate. The European Union put the MEK on its terrorist blacklist five years later. Critics of the decision saw it as kowtowing to Iranian demands to avoid harming important trade relations."

3) "they may be a bargaining chip in negotiations between Washington and Tehran."

4) "The Clinton administration designated the PMOI as a foreign terrorist organisation in 1997 in an attempt to achieve a diplamtic breahthrough with the Iranian government."

5) "the terrorist designation was “a gift to the mullahs’ regime"

6) "The group was classified as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (FTO) during the Clinton administration at the request of the Iranian government in a futile effort to placate the mullahs in Tehran whom Clinton believed were open to negotiations."

7) "The Clinton Administration declared the MEK a terrorist organization in 1997, partly as a carrot to the "reformist" administration of Iran's then-President Mohammad Khatami."

Ypatch (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I was hoping you would realize this in the course of describing your sources, but that explanation isn't good enough; the content you posted included a fair amount of original research bordering on source misuse. I'm not sanctioning you at the moment only because the substance of the content; the motivation of the Clinton administration; is actually attested to by some acceptable sources. But you need to realize that it's not enough to throw the sentence you want into a google search and then just cite the results. 1) This is a source within the Clinton administration; not the administration itself. This is the closest any of your sources get to saying "according to the Clinton administration", and it doesn't say that. 2) What this source says doesn't actually translate to "gesture of goodwill". In fact none of them do; "bargaining chip" would come much closer to what the sources are saying. Furthermore, this source is an opinion piece. 3) This does not in any way support the content you added, and I'm concerned you don't see that. The MEK may have been a bargaining chip in any number of ways; the article doesn't mention the terrorist designation or the Clinton administration. 4) As with 2, this does not support "gesture of goodwill". 5) This article is quoting an MEK spokesperson. It is only reliable for the quote; the quotation itself is not a reliable source of information. 6) This is also an opinion piece. 7) As with 2 and 4, this does not support "gesture of gooodwill". In sum; the "gesture of goodwill" phrasing is questionable, and the "according to the Clinton administration" is completely unsupported; you've also used 4 sources that are inappropriate in this context. Please be more careful in the future; further source misuse may be grounds for an immediate sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I think this source is saying the whole history:"The MEK's supporters say it was banned as a move by the Clinton administration to appease the Iranian government. The US state department, which decides which groups to include on the list of designated terrorist organisations, points to a long and bloody history." Do I need to present more sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's one source. To truly claim that this is representative of the source material, you should present a few more. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I will quote directly from now on. Seems that's the safest way to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks for your help. Ypatch (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: No, please don't do that. Excessive quotation is one of the many problems this page faces. A critical skill for anyone seeking to write anything substantive on Wikipedia is the ability to paraphrase something while remaining faithful to the source. If you (or anyone on this page) cannot do that, you should not be editing such a contentious topic. Quotation is used only when the words used in the source will convey meaning that would be lost with paraphrasing. That is probably true only for a tiny fraction of the quotes used here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: As per your request, I found two more sources saying why MEK was listed as a FTO. "It has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, primarily due to the assassination of six Americans in Tehran in 1970..."p.238 and "The FTO designation was prompted by PMOI attacks in Iran that sometimes kill or injure the civilians..."p.581 --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The MEK’s terrorist designation is a long and complicated discussion. The assassinations of Americans in Iran is attributed to Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar (aka the “Marxist MEK”), which is an opposition group to the (Muslim) MEK. The Country Reports issued a statement saying “A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's U.S. security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution”,; which happened during the MEK’s schism period. If you want to start a new discussion about what sources say about the MEK's terrorist listing/delisting, then we can observe all the available RSs there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Again and again! MEK is good, Peykar is bad! U.S. designated MEK and its other names (like ncr). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

"Human rights record" and "Designation as cult" sections

The section "Designation as a cult" is based on the section "human rights record". The "cult-like" references about the MEK come from the allegations described in the "Human rights record" section, so I propose merging "Human rights record" and "designation as cult" into a single section: "Human rights reports and cult allegations".

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". *Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MEK's designation as a cult is of the most significant aspects of the group's history, just like how it was once considered a terrorist organization. It's Cultish nature has been studied by researchers and reported by media. Likewise, the "Human rights record" should be addressed separately. As an encyclopedic entry, the history of the group should be reflected just how the sources do. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you show RSs confirming that the MEK was ever "designated as a cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If your challenge is why the word "designation" is in the section title, we may discuss over it. Anyway, the cultish nature of the group deserves a separate section. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

How is "Human rights record" different from the "cult" allegations? Don't the "cult" allegations derive from "Human rights" allegations? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The difference between "Human rights record" and "cult" allegations are subject to discussion by reliable sources. I mean we can't assume they are the same based on our own original research. The very fact that the cult allegations have been deeply discussed by reliable sources are not something to be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Then please provide the RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section from "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you find the sources making the section not enough for that purpose? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If I thought the current section was fine as it is, I wouldn't have started this TP discussion. I asked you for RSs that justify that "Cult" allegations merit a separate section. Can you please provide them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Cult and "Human rights records" are two different things. We can't, for example, add stuff about ancient history in the economy section of articles about countries. Same thing here, we can't add content about being cult to human rights records, these are two different things, we shouldn't even have to discuss this. The cult part is discussed in many many reliable sources so it should has its own standalone section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SharʿabSalam▼, repeating that "Cult" allegations and "Human rights records" are two different things doesn't explain how they are two different things. You need RSs outlining how the "Cult" allegations are not linked to "Human rights records" (as it stands, the "Designation as cult" section reads as if it's based on the MEK's "Human rights records", this is why I suggested merging). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is basic English language stuff but okay.

• Cult: A religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people.[8]
• Human rights: The basic rights that it is generally considered all people should have, such as justice and the freedom to say what you think.[9]

I think it is now clear that these are two different things. You will have to explain how these things are the same or just drop the stick.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Some sort of GAME is being played here; What kind of reliable source should determine the cult allegations warrant a separate section? Actually this is a wrong question/request. The amount and depth of the reliable sources discussing the cultish nature of the group should be finally the determining criteria for whether or not WP:DUE weight is given to the subject in the article. For that purpose, there are vast amount of sources saying they are either cult or resemble a cult. I can list those sources at your request anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For the third time, please list RSs that support the section "Designation as a cult"; and explain how the information from those RSs are not linked to the MEKs "Human rights record". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For the fourth time we have already provided sources for that. Being a cult means being an unopened minded group that has extreme beliefs (after all they are bunch of terrorists) while human rights records is a completely different thing. If you have troubles understanding this basic stuff then your problem might be just WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: What happens when you ask objecting editors for RSs to back up what they're objecting, but they won't provide them (and instead they just bludgeon)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not something should be two separate sections or not is largely a matter of judgement, so long as all the content therein is verifiable and neutral. As such unless you're questioning the material itself, the matter of one-section vs two is best dealt with via an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: As a start, we need a title that matches the sources. "Designation as a cult" does not match the sources. Please provide a title that matches the sources, or I'll find a suitable title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably we can find something better than "Designation". SharabSalam: Do you have any suggestions? I will provide my suggestions after consulting the related sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein here are three suggestions with examples.

• "Classification as a cult"
• "Characterization as a cult"
• "Description as a cult"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You were asked for "a title that matches the sources", but provide only titles with no sources. I have not looked at the sources in that section, but the title should match what those sources are saying. Ypatch (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

All of those match sources. All sources describe/designate/characterize/classify this terrorist group as a cult. Also, we should avoid verbatim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SharabSalam. I would not find options better this. @all: How about "Characterization as a cult"? This is what I meant to purpose. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Which sources support MEK's "Characterization as a cult"? Please provide them (instead of repeatedly saying that they have been provided). The sources need to say the MEK has been characterized as a cult. Ypatch (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources are above!. Here is an example, MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Widely regarded as a cult [10]. Don't tell me you want the exact word charaterization in the source, the word is a summary of what sources are saying.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that says the exact word charaterization, although it is not needed and asking for it seems disruptive and time-sinking game. He described the terror inflicted upon American and Iranian citizens at the hands of the MEK and described the well documented characterization of the MEK as a cult. (emphasis is mine) [11]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that single source by an Iranian lobbying group. Here are 10 actual WP:RSs that refer to this as being "Personality cult" (or "cult of personality") instead of a "Cult":

• "...fostered his own cult of personality"

• "it developed into a cult of personality"

• " including a personality cult centered around MEK leader Maryam Rajavi"

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "given the cult personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult..."

• "Creating a personality cult"

• "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences

• "former members describe the MEK as a personality cult"

• "wrote Peter Waldman, the MKO had 'become an authoritarian personality cult'

And here are 5 more sources saying that these are coming from critics:

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

• "Described by critics as 'a cult' Middle Eastern Eye

• "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'" CBC

• "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as [having] many cult-like attributes. But for its backers, which include many politicians and, notably, members of Donald Trump’s inner circle, the MEK are tireless fighters for a free and democratic Iran who could potentially become the country’s next government. The Guardian

• " (MEK), an Iranian exile group often described by critics as a cult" The Daily Beast

Now, which one do you think is more WP:DUE? The single source by a lobbying group that you've provided, or the 15 RSs I provided? (I have a feeling you'll say your single source is more WP:DUE, but worth asking anyway). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good analysis of references. Drawing from these, something like "Cult of Personality Criticims" would be the more WP:DUE option. Ypatch (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

My proposal would be "Cult of Personality allegations" (which is what these are); but I'm of ok with Ypatch's proposal too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Two users are trying to pretend that MEK's characterization as a cult is only done by the critiques and are just some allegations which is in contrast to the reliable sources. Repeating this argument over and over does not change the reality brought to us by the reliable sources. SharabSalam's suggestion is best describing the the section. It's both neutral and brief! Just to show how cherry picked the list of the sources by Stefka Bulgaria is:

- From RAND:

"MeK leaders and supporters vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult...However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch. They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."

This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.

- A long-read from the Guardian:

"Widely regarded as a cult, the MEK was once designated as a terrorist organisation by the US and UK, but its opposition to the Iranian government has now earned it the support of powerful hawks in the Trump administration, including national security adviser John Bolton and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo."

Does it need explanations?

- "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult" by Commentary:

"The MKO is not only a creepy cult, and willing to say anything to buy support regardless of the group’s record, but an empty shell as well."

- Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge:

"The process involved in the "ideological revolution" saw MEK completing its metamorphosis into a destructive cult.

- In the previous source, Ervand Abrahamian is quoted as saying:

By mid-1987, mojahedin organization had all main attributes of a cult.

- The Cult of Rajavi by Nyt!!!

- The Cult of MEK authored by Prospect:

"Accidentally or not, though, the speakers were helping to raise the profile and legitimize the aims of a cult group that will not bring democracy to Iran and has no popular support in the country."

- Will the Presence of Iran’s MEK Threaten Albania’s Already Shaky Stability? by World Politics Review:

"A shadowy outfit committed to the overthrow of Iran’s theocratic regime, the MEK is often described as a cult and used to be classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization."

- "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult"

"Commonly called a cult by most observers, the MEK systematically abuses its members, most of whom are effectively captives of the organization, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW)."

- Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) by Council on Foreign Relations:

"Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."

- 'Women in Iran: Gender politics in the Islamic republic' by Greenwood Publishing Group:

"After summer of 1981 Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then they have turned into a cult."

- 'Iran's Political, Demographic, and Economic Vulnerabilities' by Rand Corporation:

"the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."

And again please don't simply say that source is not reliable without elaboration. Also, it's a silly request to ask for all the words of title be found in reliable sources. Moreover, SharʿabSalam's suggestion, besides being neutral and brief, is consistent with other articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm not trying to "pretend" anything. Looking at your sources, Commentary magazine link is not found, Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements is written by a MEK former member, "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult" is a book review by Trita Parsi (linked to Iran lobby), and you've included two sources by RAND (one of which doesn't say anything about a cult). Also Prospect and World politics review are questionable sources, but even if we included them, you'd only amount to 7 sources. Stefka provided 15 reliable sources (twice as many), so Stefka's proposal is a more WP:DUE option. Ypatch (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added the archive url for the commentary article. Both of the RAND sources talk about cult. It's easy to tag something with questionable, but you need to substantiate your claims for the sources. It's interesting that you strike the sources yourself and reach a conclusion yourself. We are not going to count the sources or I would include 16 sources! Stefka Bulgaria's proposal is suffering from multiple issues including POV. Scholarly works should be considered for the conclusion I suggest. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My substantiation is this: there are 15 reliable sources that support "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and there are 7 sources that support "Characterization as a cult", this is why the first choice is more WP:DUE. What is your substantiation for objecting this? Ypatch (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

They are certainly more than 7 and I am not going to list every single source supporting SharabSalam's suggestion. We don't rely on the number of the sources without considering their value. Your suggestion is clearly faulty because materials with regard to the Cultish characteristics of the MEK are not only "Criticims" or "allegations". "Characterization as a cult", from the other hand, is neutral and is not pushing any specific POV. As stated before, you can lunch an RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is my policy-based argument based on what WP:WEIGHT says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." What is your argument for keeping what a minority amount of reliable sources say over a majority amount of reliable sources? Ypatch (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

But we are not dealing with "minority views" (this is probably your own understanding of the events). A neutral title is suggested and I believe this would best describe the section. FYI, when it comes to "description" or "characterization", this would mean others have described or characterized them as being a Cult which don't create "an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said." You have not still elaborated on why "description" or "characterization" would not fit the the case here. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There are 15 reliable sources supporting "Cult of Personality Criticims or Allegations", and 7 reliable sources supporting "Characterization as a cult" (the analysis of sources is presented in this discussion). Which one do you think is the majority view, and which one do you think is the minority view? Ypatch (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Crticism" and "allegation" are not the major viewpoints. I provided at least 11 sources saying this! Btw, I suggest you to read this one, too. Also, it's much better to use 'cult' for the title since its a general term and supported by the reliable sources. Being so specific by using "cult of personality" would not be a good choice for the title and this detail is something to be dealt with in the body of the section. Moreover, as I have emphasized before, the suggestions by SharabSalam are "sufficiently precise, concise", as opposed to your suggestion which, besides being too long, is impressing a certain POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeoning aside, there is clearly more RSs that support "Cult of Personality" rather than "Characterization as a cult". For that reason, I agree with Ypatch that the first option is more WP:DUE than the second option. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

and I explained how that argument goes wrong in terms of ignoring that a suggested title should be neutral, sufficiently precise and concise, among other things. Please review my previous comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, there are clearly more reliable sources that don't support your preferred version. In spite of this, you are still refusing to get the point, and refuse to accept what the majority sources are saying. Ypatch (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating your argument as if you have not heard what I told you regarding the what the guideline urges when selecting a title. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title represent what view of the majority of the sources? Ypatch (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another."MOS:AT --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The problem is that many of the sources you have presented are questionable (this one, or this one, or the one by ex MEK member Masoud Banisadr). You need more sources that are credible (as there are supporting "Cult of Personality") to be able to determine that "these criteria are in conflict". Ypatch (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not the real status of the sources. They are questionable in your viewpoint. Also I can provide plenty of sources such as The Wall Street Journal saying "Called a Terror Cult by Many, MEK Wins Friends in U.S. Because It Opposes Tehran.", or the long-read by the Guardian MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: if you can actually "provide plenty of sources", then please provide them. We will analyze them, and compare them to the sources supporting "Cult of Personality", coming to a consensus about what is more WP:DUE. Ypatch (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid. Some of them are already provided. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: We already looked at those, and counting (and even adding the questionable sources you provided), they add up to about 7 sources, whereas the other version amount to twice as many. I ask you again, based on WP:DUE, which one is the WP:DUE version? (not your personal opinion, but based on the WP:DUE policy). Ypatch (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As you are already concerned, we don't analyse the sources based on your standard!. I was not expressing my own viewpoint so far. My arguments are based on guidelines and policies. According to the reliable sources I provided,the title is justified. Moreover, you are persistently ignoring MOS:AT saying "A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Copy-editing these two sections

As I've noted in the TP discussion above, there are overlaps between the sections "Human rights record" and "Designation as cult". I still think they're interlinked enough to merge both into a single section, but before starting a RfC about this I will clean up repeated information there. I've copy-edited a bit these sections today, removing the source from the MEK defector Masoud Banisadr, as well as removing repeated information about the MEK divorcing and sending their children to foster care during their conflicts with the IRI while in Iraq. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As usual your edits need to be scrutinized. No fair objection is provided for removing reliable sources, merely reflecting the voice of former members does not make the source problematic. Here you removed some ntable information such as the Rajavi's being exempted from the "eternal divorce" order. Also, there's a large difference between having the "members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime" and "distracting them [the children] from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran". I kept the "Ant-like" life statement and attributed to Banisadr (why did you remove it?). I have left some of the changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein In your revert, you have changed text that concisely describes (through the provided RSs) why the MEK barred children in Camp Ashraf and why it required members to divorce. This is the text that you changed:

• "During their time in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, the MEK required its members to divorce and send their children to foster families in Europe and the United States in order to avoid "distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran."

This information helps to avoid repeating the "divorce" claims sprinkled all throughout the article; claims that you restored. We also had the BBC source describing this neutrally, and you've restored MEK defector claims instead:

• "According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face." "During this process, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization, an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."

• "In 1994, "self-divorce" was declared as the further phase of the 'ideological revolution'. During this process, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization and change into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."

We now have the divorce claims repeated throughout the article once again (with the repeats you added failing WP:NPOV). Why have you done this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Before you change the article to your version, the article contained "the MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime" which "concisely describes (through the provided RSs) why the MEK barred children in Camp Ashraf". Is Country Reports on Terrorism a former member of MEK? As for the "ant-like human beings", I removed the duplicated material now.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein In your revert, you removed "divorce" from the edit I made (even though it's NPOV and supported by the BBC source). Why did you do that? Also, the text you inserted ("According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face.") does not have a source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not insert anything. I kept the article against the changes which was not correct. As for the "divorce", can you elaborate on that? do you intend to mention "divorce" more than this? For the ref issue, it was added here and the diff can be used to trace how the main ref was removed. I have made more changes. The ideological revolution part is moved to the section dedicated to it and the cult part is elaborated in its section. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein if you insert text back into the article, it should be because that text is properly supported by the sources and not because it's "the long-standing version". Can you please explain how the source you added supports that these claims came from the "Country Reports on Terrorism? You still have not explained why you removed the BBC quote and re-inserted Massoud Banisadr's quote instead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have already proved how problematic your so-called copy edits had been. I am not going to repeat why the BBC quote was removed (you can find my reply here). As for the Guardian source, it was already in the body before I edit the article. However, I found that the initial citation was added here. I explained why the BBC quote was removed. This is you who should say why the Banisadr's quote, which was supported by a reliable source, was removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Where in Masoud Banisadr's source does it say "According to Country Reports on Terrorism"? Also please stop adding this reference from ex MEK member Masoud Banisadr in the article (which you keep on describing as "Eileen Baker" being the author. Eileen Baker did not write this!). Ypatch (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's supported by the other source (P. 326) coming at the end of the paragraph. As for this source, the chapter is contributed by Banisadr, the editor is 'Eileen Barker' and the publisher is 'Routledge'. What's wrong with it? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What's wrong with it is that you wrote that Eileen Barker is the author of what you added to the article, but she is not the author! the author is actually an ex-MEK member! @Vanamonde93: You previously warned me for "bordering on source misuse." Is this a similar case here? Ypatch (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 was right when he warned you against "bordering on source misuse". Should I repeat again? "the chapter is contributed by Banisadr, the editor is 'Eileen Barker' and the publisher is 'Routledge'". This Routledge source is not going to be removed only because you don't like Masoud Banisadr or since he is an ex-member. That said you could simply edit the citation template to imply who is who. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not a sanctionable offence, but you do need to be more careful about that, Mhhossein. There's several ways to cite edited volumes that make the distinction between authors and editors. Template:Cite encycloepedia is the one I prefer. Please make sure to use that, or equivalent. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

RfC Merging “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” into a single section

[This RfC has been withdrawn]. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Should “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” sections be merged into a single section (I've numbered each paragraph to help the discussion): Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights record and allegations

1) Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice accused the MEK of committing human rights abuses in the early 1990s against the Shia uprising, an accusation the MEK denies. Other sources have accused the MEK of human right abuses and displaying cult-like characteristics such as ideology indoctrination and ideological cleansings.

2) Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics within the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization. Such allegations include authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, sexual assault, and limited exit options.

3) During their time in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, the MEK required its members to divorce and send their children to foster families in Europe and the United States in order to avoid "distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran"; a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cult-like".

4) In 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report describing human rights violations committed by the group against its members. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed, with Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca saying that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.

5) 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”. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Mainly because there is way too much redundancy in these two sections that needs summarising and copy-editing. See TP discussion "Merging “Designation as a cult” and “Human rights record” into a single section": the article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK of redundant "cult" claims. Currently there is repeated and overlapping information about who/why referred to the MEK as a "cult". In my proposal here, I summarise the main points in these sections, cleaning up repeated and similar information. As some editors have suggested, this proposal can be used as a starting point to clean up those sections. This would then make it easier to add any new or missing information as we continue to build the article. I also propose removing some sources to avoid WP:OVERKILL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Stefka Bulgaria: I want to repeat the advice I gave on my talk page. A very specific proposal with a very wide scope is less likely to gain consensus than a series of proposal addressing the various parts of the issues you bring up. There is nothing stopping you from continuing this RfC, but please bear this in mind. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde; I seem to have misinterpreted the advice you gave me on your talk page. I though you were saying that I should number each proposed paragraph (which represents a summary of major points). My idea behind this RfC was to have others comment on whether these major points were properly summarised, while fomenting feedback on possible expansions/modifications. I'm tempted to remove this RfC and start several other ones instead (divided into small parts). The thing about that is that there is so much redundant text in the article about "cult" allegations that this would need to be divided into numerous RfCs, probably taking months to resolve (if they actually get any consensus). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you misinterpreted me. The worst thing that could happen with this formulation is a big waste of time, so I can't stop you, but I would still recommend withdrawing this and reframing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, based on the comments you have made in this talk page, youe clearly WP:INVOLVED in this discussion. You can't use your admin tools in this topic or that would be reported and considered as admin abuse and you would basically end up losing your adminship.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I am not involved here. I have given procedural advice, not expressed preference for an outcome. I have pointed out that complex and specific proposals are less likely to get consensus; this has nothing to do with what version of the article I prefer (and indeed I have no such preference in this case, beyond a broad preference for a well-written, policy-compliant article, which this is not, and which absolutely none of you really seem to be interested in). If you think that makes me involved, please take this to AN or ARBCOM. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This tactic by SharabSalam looks familiar... That last one led to El_C walking away from continuing to help is this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If you review the dispute there between me and El_C you would know that I have apologized for that and it wasn't even related to this article but to him closing a admin noticeboard against an editor who convassed during a RfC. I am saying that Vanamonde93 is acting like the authority here and he is always against Mhhossein. He shouldn't act like that. He shouldn't patronize other editors. If this admin used admin tools in this article, I will report it to the WP:AE and I will list all the posts where this admin has interpreted policies and guidelines differently from Mhhossein.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I am acting here in an admin capacity; I've made that clear several times. I've used my tools here before (such as with the block of Saff V., and the formal warnings to several parties). I intend to use my tools again if it becomes necessary. If you think that is inappropriate, AN or ARBCOM are the places to go. Making vague threats isn't appropriate, and certainly does not enable you to ignore any advice I give. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Negative, no apology was extended for the latest attack, and at any rate, there are limits to how many times I'm willing to accpet apologies for continued attacks. Vanamonde93 is uninvolved, that is my assessment. Claims to the contrary should be reported at the appropriate forum — this is not the place for that. Saying that their action will be considered as admin abuse and you would basically end up losing your adminship, in my experience, seems highly unlikely. I, certainly, will argue strongly against such a report which advances that position, not to mention proposes an outcome as severe as that. El_C 18:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, @El C:, SharʿabSalam threatening admins with reporting them for misusing their administrative tools (see also attacks on @BD2412:, [12] [13]) when things are not going his way seems like a method for manipulation, and something that should be reported at ANI. Would any of you mind if I report this? Barca (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to initiate a discussion at any time, but this belongs in the category of behavioral problems that ANI is very bad at solving. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think documentation exists for sanctions — whether these are presented cogently in a report is another matter. Anyway, I'm lenient, so I haven't enforced any yet. At the very least, the lines are being skirted, which requires self-correction. El_C 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt I will be able to present this cogently, but I can try. Maybe I'm seeing this from a different viewpoint, but I think it's very wrong to try to scare admins away through threats (admins who have put time and effort to understand the situation) just because the decisions are not tilting their way.

@El C:, this user already succeeded in taking you away from continuing your valued help in this article, and is now trying to do the same thing to @Vanamonde93:. From my viewpoint, this is hurtful to our Wikipedia. Barca (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It was when only Saff. V and me were asking El_C to return to the article. It is interesting to know the absence was not important for other users. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the above being true, they both have made appeals for me to return. Now Vanamonde has taken over my prior role. Which everyone should feel lucky for. Because there could be no read-in admin and no serious enforcement of IRAN POL. Enforcement born of disputes that ANI generally would have a hard time digesting, thereby (eventually) erring on the side of harsh remedies. I wouldn't venture to speak for Vanamonde, but at some point they themselves might want to take a break from this article. I am not committing to return if they do. But I do hope someone, some admin, takes on that task. Because this article is in desperate need of it. These allowances —basically having a dedicated admin for the article— are not usual, though, as I'm sure everyone here is aware. Vanamonde should be thanked for his volunteer efforts. I know when I was being thanked, by both sides, it really meant a lot. El_C 13:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein: Are you suggesting that El_C's absence in this article was important for you but not for me? What are you trying to accomplish with these never-ending bad faith comments? First, You don't know me or what it's important or unimportant for me, so don't make these comments, and second, if you agree that SharabSalam should not have made those comments to El_C, then you should support someone trying to stop this from continuing to happen. Barca (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:BarcrMac: You should first explain yourself about what you are trying to accomplish with this type of bad faith comments and then criticize others.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Oppose this salad proposal. We don't merge two completely different things with eachother.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Heshmat Alavi

Hi everybody, I edited the Heshmat Alavi content a little. I think it could be made more to the point by removing the media outlets Alavi wrote for (don't think this is necessary. Barca (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Your edit summary reads "Making the point, and counterpoint, more clear" but I wonder how removing "Since the article's publication, Twitter has suspended the "Heshmat Alavi" account, and the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website" can be counted as making things " more clear"? Also, you have changed the neutral wording in "The blog post admitted for the first time that Heshmat Alavin was not a real account and that a pseudonym was used instead" into the POVish combination "The post said that Alavi would never reveal his real identity or photograph as "long as the mullahs’ regime is in power since that would place himself and his family in danger". The latter is pushing the MEK's agenda (and I am removing this new inclusion because of this) while the former is just reflecting the voice of the source (why was it removed?). Moreover, you have removed a reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Heshmat Alavi's Twitter account [14] looks to be active, this is why I removed that it was suspended. You have put back in the article that it was suspended [15], can you correct that please, or at least say why we should leave it as "suspended"? In your edit you also removed Heshmat Alavi's response to the Intercept article ("The post said that Alavi would never reveal his real identity or photograph as "long as the mullahs’ regime is in power since that would place himself and his family in danger.") So, you left in the accusations made against Alavi, but removed Alavi's response to the accusations saying that "is pushing the MEK's agenda"? Is Alavi not entitled to have his own defense in the article?Barca (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That the 'account' is active NOW, is not in contradiction with the fact that it was suspended once. As for including the so-called Alavi's response why not adding the neutral wording by the source itself, as opposed to your suggestion adding to the POV issue of the article? Do you see any issues with "The blog post admitted for the first time that Heshmat Alavi was not a real account and that a pseudonym was used instead" You know, the Intercept was very careful with attributing the response to the "blog" not "Heshmat Alavi". Also you did not respond how your edit summary complies with removal of "the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website" can be counted as making things". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Let's do one point at a time. Why do you consider Alavi's own response to the Intercept article not valid? Barca (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it counts as self-published. Of course, if it was Alavi's own Wiki article, that would be a different story, but that is not the case here.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is Alavi's own response to the Intercept article, it does not need peer review. If we are including the Intercept accusations against Alavi, then we should also include Alavi's own response to those accusations. Selecting your preferred parts of incidents and omitting others is not neutral editing. Barca (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. Everyone denies accusations made against them. Those denials can be given weight if they are covered by reliable sources, but otherwise it's usually a bad idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, the source even does not say the account is that of Alavi. Am I right? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If Alavi's response was published in the Intercept then it would be valid for the article? [16] @Mhhossein: and @Kazemita1:? Barca (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just published; they need to be endorsed. The Intercept article is doing the exact opposite.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: previously you said we cannot add this because "it counts as self-published", so I find Alavi's response published in the Intercept (the same source that published the accusations), but now you are saying it still cannot be included because the Intercept needs to endorse it? endorse what? Barca (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandermonde explained the matter to you, but for some reason you seem to require further instructions. When we say a content is covered by reliable sources, it means the sources endorse the content, or at least stay neutral about its correctness. In this case however, the Intercept article is calling Heshmat Alavi a fake character and is debunking his claims/responses.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: the response on to the accusations on Alavi's website is published on the Intercept [17]. Is that ok for inclusion? Barca (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @BarcrMac: It's better, but not necessarily good enough. That's something you will have to establish consensus for; you've moved from "obviously inadequate" to "matter of judgement". I can't decide that for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)