This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Terrorism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Iran B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Socialism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Unfortunately, I can't edit the article myself. But the section "Iran's nuclear program" abruptly stops in 2012. MEK has made more false allegations of the same nature, including for example the "Lavizan-3" claims that have been debunked publicly. Here are several sources for this.

[9] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [10] [11] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017

In the absence of active users like Pahlevun, Stefka Bulgaria has engaged in highly questionable mass changes. I've addressed some of them and found some contradictions. I've fixed the issues and will report the user at the ANI.

• Encyclopedia of Terrorism was removed here in this edit alleging it's a self-published source and hence not reliable. This is while Dr. Martin Slann is an expert author in the terrorism subject and per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
• Contents cited to Jamestown Foundation was removed on a bizarre allegation. JF is a reputable reliable source. Also, see this RSN discussion in this regard. Another general discussion regarding Think Tanks supports its usage. I've reinserted the materials supported by the Jamestown Foundation.
• It was tried to remove a section dealing with MEK's armed act against U.S. and I restored the section with a descriptive title for the sake of neutrality. Certainly, those well recorded bombings and assassinations can't be in a section titled "Relations with U.S.".
• RAND source, page 80, does not say the attack on Gen. Price is attributed to MEK, rather it says the attack is done by MEK.
• In this edit, Abrahamian's book is misinterpreted. The book says MEK "fought two street battles" against Tehran Police AND bombed 10 major american buildings. So, bombings was not part of fighting against police.
• In this edit a well sourced sentence is removed, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable."

Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should wait for his response instead of reverting and taking this to ANI, it's really not necessary. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I reported at ANI, was his behavioral issues, not a content dispute. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was reported to ANI was content. I will repeat my comment from there - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language - is a blatant misrepresentation and NPOV problem.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would not comment on things and make accusations before carefully addressing them. this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties of their own.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's super interesting Icewhiz is doing his best to make us think he has not seen this scholarly source which had been in the article prior to the disputes and I've just provided in two boards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein - Did you see my response to this at ANI ? Just in case, here it is:

According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).^[1][2][3][4]
Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that The Iran Times was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government? If I were you, I would strike the above in vain 'censorship' accusations. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Times is not RS, and no link/reference is provided to the alleged US report (all of which simply reflects on the author). Your Piazza source has a number of other fascinating statements such as:

• "This resistance is depicted as the vanguard of a popular struggle against a traitorous clique that has betrayed both ideals of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the memories of those martyred in it." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin present themselves as a liberating Islamist alternative." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine."(page 11)
• "Specifically, the MEK look toward the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."(page 11)

And many more.... Can you guess why I haven't included these in the article, despite it coming from a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other points aside, I don't actually think the Encyclopedia of Terrorism is self published. Unless I've missed something Infobase Publishing seems to be a legitimate non-vanity press publisher? Brustopher (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second round of review

• As far as I see, I have to provide another review. Edits are exposed to others, thanks to the 'Watch list' feature. So, there are some more points needing to be addressed:

• Here a well-sourced material is removed in exchange for the so-called "Establishing MEK's ideology" which is not at odd with saying MEK was advocating the violent overthrow of Iran. So, I'll restore the contents which was dubioulsy removed by Stefka. By the way, this source does not support "a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam". So, I'm removing it. In this source, P:99, it reads "Scholars generally describe PMOI ideology as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism" which is quite different from "revolutionary Islam". Also, I did not find this source supporting "modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam" rather It says (on P230) "Mojahedin, with its radical interpretation of Shiism." This shows how Stefk's edits are blatant misinterpretation of the sources and how they need to be checked.
• This is the 2nd time this content is replaced against the other editors. Consensus should be sought before repeating this edit.
• I did not have time to review this edit. There might be some misinterpretations.
• The material removed in this edit is saying "two members of the organization were found dead in Idlib" and "They fought alongside insurgents seeking to overthrow the Syrian regime." The source is already discussed at the RSN. Moreover, the material is attributed to the writer. So, don't remove the whole section before discussing it with other editors.
• In this edit, a well-sourced content was removed based on self-interpretations. It should be discussed, too. Taghi Shahram was originally a MEK member. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, this looks a lot more neutral. It's not like reading a article from the media of the Islamic Republic at all. On a serious note, you basically almost changed it back to its older version, which several users agreed that definitely wasn't neutral. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, we can't change the version into the one YOU and STEFKA prefer by doing OR. All of the sources discussed above are independent and reliable. What? "several users agreed"??? Ha? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance, Stefka's edit is much more NPOV. "don't have time to review" is perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP, but is definitely not an editing rationale or a talk page issue. MEK's ideology is clearly not "the violent overthrow of Iran" - but a more nuanced view of the world. MEK clearly supports the overthrow (violent or non-violent) of the current Iranian regime - but that is a goal that stems from its ideology - not its ideology. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that his version is mostly not verified by the sources. We can't achieve the so-called NPOV by making Original Research. You were probably hasty by saying ""don't have time to review" is perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP," since that edit by Stefka (which I did not have time to review) is left untouched. If there's a point regarding the above bullets, let us know. Genera comments certainly don't help. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we should stick to the sources. "a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam" is mildly different from "Scholars generally describe PMOI ideology as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism" - however I'm not sure I'd call this OR (Islam+revolutionary Marxism seems quite close to "revolutionary Islam" - unless one frames "revolutionary Islam" as exclusively the "Islamic Revolution" led by Khomeini - a distinctly Iranian government view. Stating "that advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran" is a NPOV issue - we should not be framing this political group through the eyes of the current government of Iran. Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "advocating the violent (or otherwise) overthrow of the IRI" is a NPOV issue and it´s not what defines the group´s ideology. The group´s ideology is what ultimately led to the conflicts with Khomeini (who the MEK accused of having hijacked the revolution). As professor Abrahamian put it, "in criticizing the regime´s politcial record, the Mojahedin moved the issue of democracy to centre stage. They argued that... the issue of democracy was of fundamental importance". (1989, p.209) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here´s another RS that Mhhossein also removed from the lede that describes the MEK´s ideology:

"The MEK in exile has advocated for a democratic, free and secular state, which has been in opposition to the Islamic regime in Iran. However, the delegitimisation of the MEK as a legitimate actor, and its terrorist classification, has not allowed politiciation to occur." (Isak Svensson, 141) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but who said the phrase "that advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran" is showing the groups ideology? Neither does "advocated for a democratic, free and secular state". However, we can combine them to have more accurate definition of what MEK advocates. As for the "revolutionary Islam"; It's never close to Islam combined with the revolutionary Marxism, I'd prefer to use "radical interpretation of Shiism" which is certainly what the source says. So, in whole, if the ideology is to be reflected in the lead, we shall use exactly what the sources say, i.e. "radical interpretation of Shiism" and "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MEK originally derive from a radical Islam ideology, which is made evident by Abrahamian’s book title “Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin”. The MeK’s ideology initially borrowed from Marxim and Islam, although they never referred to their ideology as Marxist. In fact, in 1972 there was an ideological split within the group that led to two very different groups being formed: the current (Islamic) MEK and the Marxist Peykar (this already in the artilce). Already pointed out by Svenson and Abrahamian, the MEK advocated for a democratic state, while Khomeini for a fundamentalist state. This ideological difference is what initiated the conflict that led to Khomeini banning the group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third round of review

Unfortunately, Stefka is stretching the limits of POV to its limits. Nevermind, I'll perform another review:

• Another misleading edit summary. Stefka is alleging he's "Organizing the lede chronologically", but the fact is otherwise. He's in fact removing the contents he probably dislikes. As far as I see, Stefka is doing his best to show the hands of MEK clean and to show that the group had been a peaceful and kind organization (this was seen in his past edits, too). That's why he removes the terms "political–militant organization", "advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran", "the organization has built a cult of personality" and etc. Are removing these well-sourced contents called "Organizing the lede chronologically"?
• Here, he removes the reference to Operation Mersad, an action which Stefka knows led to the hatred of many Iranian people towards MEK more than before. The edit summary is very bizarre: "The MEK has always been at conflict with the IRI, not Iran." Should we ignore what the reliable sources say? What's wrong really? Why is this well-sourced content removed?
• In this edit, Stefka uses a self-made policy according to which our own understating of the subjects is priorred over what the reliable sources say. Islamic Marxism, which is already removed by Stefka, is exactly what the sources says ("Scholars generally describe PMOI ideology as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism").
• This edit is VERY interesting!!! In the edit, he admits to use a source he was objecting severely at the RSN, i.e. infoplease.com, at the expense of citing the causalities of the MEK group. I don't know what to say. If, as he said, infoplease.com is not reliable, why is he using it now?
• In this edit, which is also interesting, Stefka tries to show that the MEK organization had not killed "Iranian civilians", which is clearly supported by the cited source.
• Here, he removes a well referenced section which was aimed at showing MEK's position towards the 'Syrian Civil War'. This is while, the cited source, is supporting MEK's involvement in Syrian war. I'll add the materials showing this.
• A bad attempt at removing the well-sourced MEK's position regarding ISIL.

Admins need to take action against this editor and his unilateral mass edits. I'm reverting most of the edits as per the above explanations. I'm leaving the MEK's causalities, since I agree it's needed for neutrality. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein - you are basically reverting all of Stefka's edits (e.g. this blanlet reverted a whole chain of edits). You've reverted back in the "MEK and Syrian Civil War" which is sourced to a blog and is one big meh in content (random rumor two MEK persons died in undetermined circumstances in Idlib). You have also reverted back in "MEK and ISIL" which is at least sourced to a aingle NEWSORG item but also does not say much (some affilate website was somewhat supportive in 2014 when ISIL won against MEK's enemies). How about trying to compromise and being a bit more selective in reverts? Try to meet some middle ground. Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed and explained almost every single edits he made and I was selective enough by leaving the causalities. Moreover, I checked the sources before coming here. "MEK and Syrian Civil War" is cited to a reliable source, as per RSN and its known author. I'm open to removing "MEK and ISIL" section though and restoring it if there were enough well-source materials in this regard. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this removal; See this this discussion shwoing how reliable the author is. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"MEK and Syrian Civil War" - is sourced to a journalist's blog (usable if attributed, possibly also unattributed) who himself is reporting a second hand rumor (saying unnamed Syrians told Europeans) - and the rumor itself is insignifcant (two MEKs killed in Idlib, without even info on how and on what side (if any)) - this is ridiclously UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the following is the version would be a suitable version:

'MEK is the best and most peaceful organization the history have seen. Reliable sources say that they had been very democratic and moderate, but in some incidents, people hit themselves to the nice bullets of MEK kind agents and died. But, this was the problem of the people themselves, since they must have been careful about the bullets. There were some bombings which led to the death of some people, but neither were they the faults by MEK. Since, these were the faults of the people who were located in a wrong place at a wrong time. All in all, MEK had been following establishing a free and democratic state.'

That's a fair narration...!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reverting some parts of this edit, since:

- Not only RAND, but also other sources like CFR, Global Security, Washingtonpost and etc say they are militant.

- They are not merely "political opposition group", rather a "political–militant organization".

- since "The organization has built a cult of personality around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" is not some thing to be ignored.

- Groups ideology was dubiously removed.

- The link to Operation Mersad was removed from the lead.

- Designation as terrorist and the subsequent de-listing is important enough to come after the first paragraph. Chronological order is a self-made and bizarre argument.

That said, I have left some of the recently added lines. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reverting back since:

- I don't say that the MEK advocates "democratic and secular Islam", sources say this. Sources also say that these ideological differences is what then led to conflicts between the MEK and Khomeini. Khomeini banned the group, and the MEK demonstrated peacefully (Abrahamian 1989, pp. 218-19), which led to killings of MEK sympathizers. The MEK then retaliated, and the IRI retaliated back, which ultimately drove the group into exile. This is all in the sources provided and explains chronologically why things unfolded the way they did.

- As your Washington Post source outlines, they were "a onetime militant group" ("onetime" meaning they're no longer this). As the lede says, "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and put their arms down in Camp of Ashraf." (Varasteh, 2013, pp.89)

- The lede should describe major incidents; "building a cult personality around its leaders" is not a major incident, particularly since the cult assignation is already mentioned in the lede.

- I've added the groups ideology (the MEK's version, not what others presume it to be), and it's backed up by RS.

- I can't see the link to Operation Mersad you claim was removed from the lede; could you please specify which statement this pertains to?

- Designation as a terrorist / de-listing needs to be in the lede, but we first need some explanation as to why this happened considering that this isn't your average terrorist group. In fact, as outlined in the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. chart concerning "US and European diplomacy with Tehran with 'deliverables' involving the MEK", on numerous occasions the IRI requested the MEK's terrorist designation in the West, so we need to explain conflicts with the IRI first.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggested at the ANI about your not being here, is now getting clearer, since:

- Unlike what you said, the source says: "...and describing itself as belonging to "democratic and secular Islam," the group has subsequently sought to overthrow the country's current Islamic republic." There's a LARGE difference between what they describe themselves and what the reliable sources say about them.

- Besides the Washington Post, I just provided links to CFR describing the group as "...the largest militant Iranian opposition group committed to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic," or which describe it as "...the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran."

- The lead should certainly include who the cult is built around. Without mentioning the core character, the sentence would be vague.

- You've again removed the sentence on ideology: "The group's ideology is described as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism," backed by this source. Is it not interesting you removed it? It's more interesting that there's no mention of ideology in the lead.

- This is the link to Operation Mersad: "Later, the MEK took base in Iraq, took military action against Iran." Don't remove this significant point anymore.

- No, this is just your favorite version that we need some explanation at first. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram where designation as terrorist identity is mentioned in the second paragraph.

Read the above before making more reverts. One more thing, you're GAMING us by removing the aforementioned points and pretending to be fixing the chronological order. As I said, "chronological order" is a bizarre and self-made guideline. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence doesn't support by source "democractic and secular" interpretation of Islam that differed from both the old conservative Islam and the version formulated by Ayatollah Khomeini. Saff V. (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein,

- So let's include what the source says.

- As previously pointed out, Following the occupation of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces, the MEK signs a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and coalition forces and put their arms down in the Camp of Ashraf.^[1] If they are still a militant group, can you specify where their military forces/bases are held (there needs to be a military force in order for a group to be labeled as 'military')?

- We don't need two sentences in the lede for this, but I'll rephrase to include what you've requested

- It has been pointed out repeatedly that the MEK originally drew from Marxism, but then there was an ideological split within the group where some members with Marxist ideologies left the organization and began to work with the clerics close to Ayatollah Khomeini.^[2][3] Simply stating that their ideology is "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism" lacks nuance and overlooks what other RS are more eloquently saying.

- The MEK took military action against the IRI, not Iran.

- Chronological order would be:

1) What the group advocated (their ideology)

2) What drove it into conflict with the IRI

3) What came it out of that conflict (their terrorist designation)

Your current version puts point 3 first, which is not correct. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're just ignoring the reliable sources and that's some sort of edit warring:

- I (Wikipedia) don't care where their bases are. Only reliable sources matter. I already provided multiple reliable sources saying they're a militant group. So, don't revert it anymore. Btw, their "ceasefire agreement with U.S." does not show anything...We have sources at hand showing they're a militant group.

- So, you need to mention "MEK originally drew from Marxism".

- "The MEK took military action against the IRI, not Iran" is a ridiculous argument showing you're escaping a fact that MEK fought against Iran and made joint military actions with Iraqi army. Let's see the sources:

+ "MEK tried to invade Iran in the last stage of the Iran-Iraq war" Aljazeera

+ "During the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MeK, by then sheltered in camps in Iraq, fought against Iran alongside the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein" The Guardian

+ "And with the support of Saddam Hussein, the MEK launched attacks on Iran beginning in 1987, during the brutal endgame of the Iran-Iraq war, later claiming that they killed 40,000 of their countrymen during these campaigns." Foreign policy

+ "The MEK supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War" National Interest

+ "...it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88)..." CFR

+ "The group sided with Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war with Iran in the 1980s" The Reuters

+ "It is seen as collaborators with the Saddam regime during the Iran-Iraq war..." pbs

+ "During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK fought against its own country alongside the Saddam Hussein regime..." [14]

+ " and fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s" Nationalpost

+ "...the MEK fought alongside Saddam Hussein, against Iran..." [15]

+ "Many took up arms and fought against their Iranian countrymen, earning the group the unofficial nickname monafegheen, or the "hypocrites"." Washingtonpost,

- You also reverted my fully explained edits [16] & [17] which were done against source forgery.

- As I said n times, "Chronological order" is your self-made argument aimed at hiding the fact that MEK was once listed as a terrorist organization by US and EU. No, there's no such a guideline or ruling. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram and etc where designation as terrorist identity is mentioned in the second paragraph. Don't change this significant thing again.

As you see, the more you keep on edit warring, the more reliable sources are found against MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhossein: You're mixing fringe sources and generalizations from RS to try to put together an outline that is flawed on many levels and that overlooks what expert academics in the field have examined in better detail. I will outline these points more thoroughly below. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe source? Which of Washingtonpost, The Reuters, Aljazeera, Foreign policy, CFR, The Guardian and etc is fringe? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This NYT source clearly says that "For more than a year, prominent former American officials have been giving well-paid speeches in support of an Iranian opposition group that is fighting to reverse its 15-year-old designation by the State Department as a terrorist organization" and that "Mr. Rendell, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he had given seven or eight speeches since July calling for the M.E.K. to be taken off the terrorist list and estimated that he had been paid a total of $150,000 or $160,000." As for Hamilton, yes, the source does not say he admitted paid speech. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rendell says he was paid by "Iranian-American supporters of the M.E.K., not from the group itself" - and that he was merely paid for his appearances at a speaking venue - not for the contents of his speech. The article has a general stmt - not directed at any individual. When naming individuals - it merely specifies they received fees for speaking engagements or other contributions - but not that they were paid to support (in fact - most of the named individuals say they merely asserted their opinion). Furthermore, payments are specified to have come not quite from MEK. Note that this is rather serious BLP stuff -our text was accusing, without any basis in the source, individuals of receiving funds from a (at the time) designated terror org - which would be a crime in the US (and probably is criminal in Iran should they visit there).Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what source you are checking, but the above source certainly said Rendell "had been paid a total of $150,000 or $160,000" for his "seven or eight speeches since July". So, "he was merely paid for his appearances at a speaking venue" is not accurate. Who Rendell thought was doing the payment is another issue which you can add if you think it makes the text more neutral. I think this source is more frank by saying "Many of the American supporters, though not all, accepted fees of $15,000 to $30,000 to give speeches to the group, as well as travel expenses to attend M.E.K. rallies in Paris. Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said in March that he had been paid a total of $150,000 to $160,000." Read about Rendell here, where it says "he had a long phone call with one of the group’s representatives." --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a look: "The former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, has accepted more than $150,000 in speaking fees at events in support of the MEK's unbanning."[18]--Mhhossein ^talk 17:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid to speak at an event (the event promoting unbanning MEK) - such a speaking fee does not mean he was paid to support MEK. I am entirely sure Rendell will (and has - as have others) asserted that he was merely paid to show up, but the speech was entirely his own.... You, I, and the astute reader may not believe this, but we do not draw inferences ourselves.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how important BLP is. But the Guardian source, I already provided, is saying he admitted being paid in exchange for speaking in support of MEK. So, it was not merely showing up. Am I missing something? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing a "for" in the Guardian. The Guardian sentence has two unconnected clauses - a. He accepted speaking fees at events, and b. the events were pro-MEK. To say he was paid to support MEK is SYNTH, and to say he was paid by MEK (as opposed to pro-MEK orgs/individuals) is OR.Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the NYT piece clearly says Rendell admitted speaking "for the M.E.K. to be taken off the terrorist list". I think it's safe enough to label this long phrase as "support", given the fact that the events were aimed at removing the group from the terrorists list. That said, there would be no SYNTH concern. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can say he spoke in support. You can also say he was paid for speaking by Iranian expat groups/individuals that are supportive of MEK. What you can't say is that he was paid by MEK itself (as the funds did not come directly from them) or that he was paid for support. Most readers will connect the dots - but we can not do so ourselves.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above points. However, the sentence would be more accurate if we say, 'he was paid by who he said were groups/individuals that were supportive of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm some claims nominated in the article and make the fair decision for edits, I have collected following sources and hope to be useful:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Saff V. (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, but some of them like 9 and 7 are already used. Btw, among others, this one was really something. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Marxism is repeatedly removed from the infobox alleging that "MEK never claiming to be Islamic Marxist". Of course we don't care what MEK thinks about itself and we adhere to the reliable sources for that:

• "The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that..." [19] by Brookings Institution Press.
• "...Self-styled "Islamic-Marxists," the MEK also targeted Americans in the '70s..." [20]
• " Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, the MEK has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group." [21] by CRC Press.
• "It was a group that propounded an ideology that mixed Islamism and Marxism." [22]
• "A militant Islamic Marxist or Islamic Socialist organization..." [23] by Financial Times Press.
• "Its ideology was developed from a combination of Marxist and militant Islamic theories." [24] by Routledge

There are certainly much more sources proving that Islamic Marxism as the group's ideology. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so clear cut. While it is clear Marxism was a strong influence in the 70s and 80s, it is not clear they were Islamic-Marxist then (as not all sources use this) - and it is even less clear they espouse this view now.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, Is there any sources be in contradictory with being Islamic-Marxist nature of MEK? Saff V. (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. this which states they are "an Islamist group with some shade of Marxist tendency" and describes how those who were Marxists (and were not imprisoned in 75) split off from the organization to form Peykar. My understanding is that Iranian regime portrays MEK as Marxist (which is implicitly atheist) due to the internal Iranian regime discourse where atheism (from Marxism in this case) is heretical - however MEK itself is very much an Islamist movement (and far from atheist). Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you dismissing the above reliable sources? They are clearly saying that the MEK is/was a "Marxist/Islamist group". Why should we act based on our original research? In addition: See this source. "The group's ideology is described as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism."[25]--Mhhossein ^talk 09:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems to be broken! Saff V. (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: while the up to date sources that Mhhossein provided, are not connected to "the internal Iranian regime", it is better support your opinion by presenting the reliable source, when did follow MEK the Marxist theory or when did/does not?Saff V. (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When sources disagree, as they do here, we do not present one set of sources in our voice by reflect the range of opinions in the sources. I provided a source - [26] (link works for me) - but the citation would be - Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and the United States, Halleh Ghorashi, Nova Science Publishers, page 57. So no - this is not OR. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree? You must be kidding. At least 6 reliable sources are labeling them as "Islamic-Marxists" and I'm sure there are more sources saying the same thing. Which disagree??? Even your SINGLE source is saying their ideology was some mixture of Islam and Marxism. Having multiple sources supporting something, that thing is no longer OPINION. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very weird to see that the above Reliable Sources are not enough for some of the users whose behavior is highly questionable. However, I'm providing some more sources:

• "The People’s Mujahedin are Islamist-Marxists." [27]
• "The People's Mujahedin of Iran; an Islamic Marxist group." [28]
• "PMOI adopted an Islamic ideology mixed with certain arguments of Marxist..." By Greenwood Publishing Group
• "such as the People's Mujahedin (Abrahamian 1989), a Muslim-Marxist organization, and the ..." By Routledge
• "melded revolutionary Islam with Marxism" The Cult of Rajavi by NYTimes
• and etc...

Enough??? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of page 57 in Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and the United States is written that MEK is the Islamist group... All in all we make a decision baced of majority of sources.It is better to clear the period of time that the ideology of MEK change.Also I hope sources 1 and 2 be helpful. Saff V. (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would safely ignore that "Ways to Survive" source, when there are multiple reliable sources saying otherwise. Moreover, the group being Islamist is not in contradiction with being Islamic Marxism. Thanks for the 2 sources, but I can see that 2 is heavily used in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We may also add "Islamist" the infobox as the group's ideology, no contradiction as I said. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein, the MEK drew on Marxist ideology, but never proclaimed itself to be Marxist. The group that did proclaim to Marxist, Peykar, is a different group that split from the (Islamist) MEK. You're blurring two different groups into one:

• While the political writings by founding MEK members drew on Marx’s sociological critique of class inequality, they flatly rejected Marx’s political ideology. Members of the extremist element that broke away from the MEK in the early to mid 1970s were, by contrast, self-proclaimed Marxists. (Bloomfield 2013, pp. 20)
• The MEK has in fact never once used the terms socialist, communist, Marxist or eshteraki [communist] to describe itself”. Nor has the MEK ever had an office in a Communist country. (Abrahamian 1989, pp.2)
• PMOI representatives claim that this misrepresents the group's ideology in that Marxism an Islam are incompatible, and the PMOI has always empahsized Islam. In the mid 1970s, after the Shah's security forces had arrested many of the PMOI's leaders, the organization apparently fell under the control of militants who placed greater empahsis on Marxism rather than Islam. During that time, some PMOI member split with the organization and began to work more closely with the clerics close to Ayatolla Khomeini. (Katzman 2001, pp. 99)
• As [Massoud] Rajavi admitted years later, the organization avoided the socialist label because such a term conjured up in the public mind images of atheism, materialism, and Westernism. For exactly the same reasons, the Shah’s regime was eager to pin on the MEK the label of Islamic-Marxists and Marxists-Muslims. (Abrahamian 1989, pp. 101)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we really don't care how the group likes to be described. The multiple sources I provided talk for themselves and they certainly say MEK is an Islamic Marxist. You can add some sentences saying they did not claim to be as such. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do care what the group advocates, particularly when outlined in RS. You're also grossly overlooking a lot of other RS, which is un-academic. Here are some:

• It is not surprising that during the Shah’s reign, the PMOI was dubbed as a ‘Marxist Islamist organisation’ and after the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini labeled them as ‘monafeguin’ or ‘hypocrites’, due to their interpretation of Sharia Law. It is ironic that the name ‘Mojahedin’ is widely used by Islamist groups today, which have nothing to do with People’s Mojahedin of Iran, which is a Muslim secularist and nationalist organization.^[4]

• In 1976, the Mojahedin split into two opposing sections. A group of Moahedin denounced the path of armed struggle and the reference to Islam, and split to set up a secular guerilla organization by the name Peykar Khalgh. This split served to strengthen the Islamic identity of the original Mojahedin Khalgh Organisation, who made extensive reference to the teachings of Ali Shariati.^[5]

• Thus, for Rajavi, the mojahedin leader, “the struggle is over two kinds of Islam, one an Islam of class, which ultimately protects the exploiter; and a pure, authentic and popular Islam, which is against classes and exploitation.^[6]

• Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular; from socialist to capitalist; from pro-Iranian-revolution to anti-Iranian-revolution; from pro-Saddam to pro-American; from violent to peaceful. ^[7]

• In the Aug. 19, 1981, edition of the Washington Post, former Undersecretary of State George W. Ball stated, “Masud Rajavi … is the leader of the [Mojahedin] movement. Its intention is to replace the current backward Islamic regime with a modernized Shiite Islam drawing its egalitarian principles from Koranic sources rather than Marx.” Rather than working with moderate Iranians in opposition to the Islamist regime, successive U.S. administrations treated the regime as if it could be moderated. ^[8]

• One of the many allegations levied against the MEK has been that it is an “Islamic-Marxist” organization, purportedly combining Marxist philosophy with its proclaimed Islamic ideology. The MEK was founded in 1965 as a Muslim organization. Like most Iranians, its founders sought a secular republic and the establishment of a democracy in Iran. MEK has never endeavored towards an ideological government, be it Islamic or otherwise. ^[9]

• The origins of the “Islamic-Marxist” label date back to the early 1970s, when the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, sought to erode the organization’s growing popularity among young Iranians. The Iranian scholar Afshin Matin-Asgari described it as “an ingenious polemical label” used by the Shah’s regime to discredit its enemies.^[10]

• A modern secular organization.^[11]

• By subjecting the materialistic doctrines of Oparin and a host of other orthodox Marxist thinkers to a philosophical critique, the MEK hoped to challenge the vigorous presence of Marxism within Iranian intellectual circles. The group remained skeptical of Marxism’s philosophical postulates and rejected the latter’s cardinal doctrine of historical materialism. It held firm to the beliefs in the existence of God, revelation, the afterlife, the spirit, salvation, destiny, and the people’s commitment to these intangible principles.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

• After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Shah’s downfall, PMOI/MEK pursued its objective of establishing democracy in secular Iran, and became very popular among the young middle class intelligentsia under the leadership of Massoud Raavi. Shortly afterwards, they became the target of the establishment because of their opposition towards the new constitution of Islamic Republic, which was based on Khomeini’s doctrine of Velayat-e-faqih (jurisprudence).^[12]

These are just some; there are more. Since Katzman is a well-respected academic, I propose we use his description:

an Iranian political group based on Islamic and Socialist ideology and advocated "overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership."^[13]
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ideology entry in the infobox has become an edit-warring target, and since it seems that this group has/had many conflicting ideologies according to different sources (e.g. being both "Islamic" and "secular Islam") - I've removed the ideology entry from the infobox all together - it is simply too complicated and contested to summarize in bullet form. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of an editor; I've only done a few edits over the course of years, but I do follow global politics quite closely, and this article garnered my attention. It seems Stefka has gotten the victory overall despite his weak arguments and sources, as what had originally been on the article that was against Stefka's position has been removed. From what I see, Stefka's sources are exclusively: 1) documenting what the MEK claims they represent (not what they actually do represent, so therefore irrelevant) 2) Stating what the Shah claimed, which is irrelevant 3) A claim taken from a Huffington Post article written by a pro-MEK fanatic 4) Claims that actually support the case that it is Marxist, like that it is secular, egalitarian, and pro-democracy. Marxism is all about the common people rising up against the authorities, and is a very demophilic ideology 5) The Katzman quote, which doesn't refute the fact that it is Marxist 6) British and American unacademic sources, from politicians and government funded BBC, which tend to be pro-MEK due to the fact that Britain and America oppose the current Iranian government.

Also VERY noteworthy is the fact that America's neoconservatives like John Bolton are rabidly pro-MEK, and neoconservatism has very Marxist origins. I find it very interesting that this user called Stefka Bulgaria is being so persistent at this time in trying to make changes, coinciding perfectly with a step up in anti-Iranian sentiment in America. Very suspicious. The whole internet is getting tighter and tighter as far as restricting viewpoints. Coincides also with a mass deletion of Facebook profiles due to the Atlantic Council partnership. Everything works in tandem nowadays, all news outlets, social media, Wikipedia moving toward parroting the exact same viewpoint across the board. Very scary and fascist. Cah5896 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Returning to Icewhiz's version per his conclusion that this is just too complicated to summarize with a bullet point. Additionally, a distinction needs to be made between the Muslim MEK (what this article is about), and the Marxist splinter group Peykar. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table in this part doesn't have column and row data. In other words, the typical table has a column and a row of data but this information in the tabla is not categorized. I try to give it better categorization but I couldn't succeed. I was wondering if anyone would give it try? Saff V. (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: You can see how everything happened here. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MEK's classification as a "violent non-state actor" was removed in this edit. It's clearly classified as such in this reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this edit, other two reliable sources is seen.All in all it is amazing to remove material with inline citation without any explanation.Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not explaining these edits in more detail; was just a response at Mhhossein´s unexplained removal of other sourced material, but will explain all my edits in detail from now on. For the "violent non-state actor", the source gives a passing mention of the MEK without providing any evidence or details as to why it is mentioned in the first place. On the other hand, we have numerous RS confirming that the MEK was disarmed in 2003 and that it hasn´t been involved in any armed conflict since. Describing it as a "violent non-state actor" on the article´s first paragraph suggests that the group is currently involved in armed conflict, which is both innacurate and misleading (this also applies to describing the group as "advocating the violent overthrow of the IRI", as oppose to Katzman´s more neutral ""overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership." quote):

• in 2003, following the occupation of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces, the MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and put their arms down in Camp of Ashraf.^[1]

• Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular;... from violent to peaceful.^[2]

• The United States military disarmed the group after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, assuming responsibility for security at Camp Ashraf.^[3]

• In May 2003, in an effort both to assure the Iranian regime that the United States was not looking for supporting groups that seek to topple the Iranian regime and also to pacify the Iranian regime from meddling in Iraq, the White House asked the Pentagon to disarm the MEK. Major General Ray Odierno later told the journalists "It is not a surrender. It is an agreement to disarm and consolidate".^[4]

• Shortly after the [Iraq] invasion, coalition forces accepted a cease-fire from the MeK, disarmed the group, and consolidated its members at one of the MeK’s camps.^[5]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful when commenting on editors. As far I see, user:Mhhossein explained his edits on the talk page. For example, the edit was expounded by him. Anyway this source was published in 2016 but listed MeK as "violent non-state actor", So disarming of MEK in 2003 has been considered. It is challenging to nominate it in the first paragraph, while being violent non-state actor is not opinion and illustrate the nature of MEK briefly.Saff V. (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gross misrepresentation of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism study which lists MEK, one, in appendix A as one of a long list of organizations considered for 1998 - 2012 - the period of the study. It is probably fairly clear that MEK was a non-state actor up until 2003 (the beginning of the study). It is far from clear (due to their current lack of active military forces with actual control turf) they are now. The cited study does not even make clear which years are included or excluded. Per the cited PDF - The extract contains 203 VNSAs that conducted 10 or more attacks or killed 25 or more people in battle between 1998 and 2012 .... The list of organizations may be found in Appendix A. The data is organized as an unbalanced panel – that is, organizations may enter the sample after the first year and/or depart the sample before the last year.. So no - this source actually tells us nothing at all about their 2012 designation - let alone their 2016 designation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the so many sources I provided and the comments I made, it was a clear dishonest claim to say I had not explained my revisions. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is not it better to shorten the Assassinations part material and moved them to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran? Saff V. (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support shortening the Assassinations section based on that there already is a List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., are you taking care of this or should I? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do with this section exactly? While in splitting, we have to cut a section from the original article and then move them to the new one, You only picked up a vast amount of material without moving them to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, Stefke, your doing is equal to removing material with RS, such as clear violation.@Mhhossein: and @Icewhiz:, your opinion is needed. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem exactly? In general I support shortening individual incidents in this article (assassinations, bombings, shootings, and also political events) - keeping only the really major ones here, and splitting the crud out to a timeline article. Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the problem is that Stefka Bulgaria did not shorten the material, rather he removed them completely. This is censoring MEK's history.--Mhhossein ^talk 16:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add the more significant incidents into the article as prose, if they are missing from the current prose ? Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most significant incidents are described throughout the article, if any are missing feel free to add them as prose (described in some detail). As it has been pointed out, there's already a separate page for the list. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria:, such as shameful bahavior, you missed the material, you nominated to another article in your edit summery without moving material, you removed well sourced material from article ecxactly then you say to me "feel free to add them as prose". I have to say that removing well sourced material is example of POV and Vandalism. REVERT all edits as to missed material!Saff V. (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: The "shameful behavior" statement is uncalled for, just tell me what the issue is and I'll try my best to help. I'll have a careful look at the MEK assassination list to see what has been missed. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 3 edits (1, 2, 3) actually missed material into here. Until all of them be transferred to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran by me, based on splitting, don't remove them. I do shorten the article, you gave a try and it is my turn!Saff V. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria's edit was not honest. He removed all the assassinations and said that it was based on the consensus, while there was no consensus at all. I'm against complete removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPA please. Stick to discussing content, not conduct, and in this case it seems everyone involved here agrees that significant incidents should be in the prose. If you think some of the removed list items should be in the prose - do so. Likewise for entries missing on the list article.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria:, I am tring to save missed material on List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran while you are removing them again!Plz respect to WP:RVREASONS.There is no unsorced material and any doubt to find another one, so insted of removing, attach ^{[citation needed]}.Saff V. (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: Please read my edit summaries: "This was supported by Christian Science Monitor, which is not RS. If another source is found to support then include)". If there's another edit you'd like to discuss, please take it to the appropriate article's Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: There's no Personal attack. Btw, I think you've got a wrong definition of PA. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reliable sources verifying the fact the MEK is still advocating the "violent" overthrow of the current government in Iran:

• "Maryam Rajavi has acted as the deputy commander of the National Liberation Army ... and even today she believes in changing the system in Iran by violence." Routledge, 2008.
• "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.
• "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian government." Scarecrow Press, 2010.
• "The group advocates the violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran." International Policy Digest, 2018.
• "It advocates resistance and the violent overthrow of the Ayatollah regime..."The Jerusalem Post, 2018.
• "...The MEK sided with the Iraqi government, hoping to achieve their goal of a violent overthrow of the post-Revolution Iranian government. Global Security
• "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.
• "...organized by an exiled opposition group that calls for the regime's violent overthrow..." AbcNews, 2018.
• "...a militant group of Iranian exiles that agitates for the violent overthrow..." Opinion piece by The Week, 2018
• "...the MEK is advocating the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime." Opinion piece by JPOST, 2018.

The above sources are from diverse variety of reliable sources and credible publishers. This well-established fact is not in contradiction with other sources like the so-called "well-respected academic" Katzman. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overthrow implies in and of itself violent. There is no need to scare quote this, or stress this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Violent overthrow" is backed by reliable sources. So, there's no concern regarding SYNTH. Overthrow can be either soft or violent. So, yes we need to stress that. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly MEK doesn't oppose "soft" overthrow if that is possible. They are advocating for overthrow of the regime - by any means (soft or violent). Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we ignore the sources saying their advocating "violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran"? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of RS that dismiss scare-quoting the statement:

• " an exiled opposition group that backs the overthrow of the Islamic Republic." BBC
• "an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government." RAND
• " the Mujahedin Khalq organization, which seeks to overthrow the Iranian government" LA Times
• "the group has subsequently sought to overthrow the country's current Islamic republic." France24
• "with the principal objective to overthrow the existing Iranian regime." CBC
• " The group’s aim is to the overthrow the current regime in Iran." NY Times
• "the group in its ambition to overthrow the regime in Iran" Newsweek
• exiled PMOI advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime" Dailystar
• who seek the overthrow of Iran’s clerical leadership established by the 1979 Islamic revolution" Reuters
• the MEK seeks to overthrow Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and construct a new “economic and social order based on freedom” that eliminates both sharia law and nuclear weapons." The Observer

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources does are not in contradiction with those of mines. Yours say they advocate the overthrow, mine verify the avocation for the overthrow and and describe it more accurately. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As multiple sources do not use violent, there is no need for us to add this rather obious qualifier.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and multiple high quality sources do use. It's not obvious as I said, there are some soft ways of overthrow which is far different from that of MEK's. That's why we need to determine MEK's exact approach. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been outlined that the MEK was disarmed in 2003 and has not been involved in any military conflict since. Katzman, a respected academic in the field, resumes it eloquently and neutrally. No need to scare quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katzman, Katzman, Katzman, Katzman, Katzman...He's not the best author in the world. There are at least 10 reliable and high quality sources supporting their "violent" approach. Btw, their ceasefire agreement with the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with this case. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first quote at the top of the page is by Seyed Hossein Mousavian (described merely as Routledge). Mousavian at the time was an Iranian regime diplomat (he was ambassador to Germany, and then a variety of roles in Iran + negotiatioh team). Using Mousavian for the POV of anything other than the regime's POV is an issue. The book has a forward and endorsement by Rafsanjani who endorses the study and its accuracy. Certainly represents what Iranian diplomats represent MEK to be,but not much beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that Routledge is a credible and reliable publisher and there are multiple other sources saying the same thing, you're doing your last efforts...good luck. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a reliable source for Iranian views on relations with Europe - but hardly a neutral source for framing MEK.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and more efforts at ignoring the sources I provided. That's meaningful, isn't it?--Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When it was considered as violent overthrow in RS (1 and 2), why it was not nominated in the article?Saff V. (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Appeals Court brief on July 16, 2010 cited the MEK´s petition arguing that more than a decade earlier, in 2001, it had ceased military operations against the Iranian regime, disbanded military units and renounced violence, and had turned its weapons to US forces in Iraq in 2003."^[1] The BBC also confirms the group transitioned to become a peaceful organization. Overlooking this and trying to brand the group "Violent" based on the previous armed struggle it had with the IRI is misleading. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See No Original Research. You're trying to object this well-established fact just based on your own analysis. At the moment, there are numerous reliable sources saying they're advocating a violent overthrow. Some of the sources are as new as 2018, and almost all of them are independent from Iranian government. So, try to respect what the reliable sources say and stop making more edit wars. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is nor OR to state circumstances have changed since the camp closures in Iraq.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008, we have this sentence "Maryam Rajavi has acted as the deputy commander of the National Liberation Army ... and even today she believes in changing the system in Iran by violence" nominated in Routledge.All in all if MEK's approach have been changed in 2003, why we face with Violent overthrow in the published sources after 2003? Saff V. (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's not OR to say "state circumstances have changed", if there's a reliable source. But, it does not mean those numerous Reliable Sources saying MEK is advocating the "violent" overthrow of the current government are not correct, only because some other sources say "circumstances have changed". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Saff V.: You've restored the disputed wording saying in your edit summary "Per RFC" - which RfC? Please provide a link. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a small mistake to write edit summary, Sorry! But this is undeniable which was mentioned in the article formly and is supported by valid sources. Any way, we have to wait for the RFC result.Saff V. (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Mhhossein's edit summaries directed towards me are starting to border ad hominem. Making statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth" for including a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery" for quoting from RS are uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not ad hominem. I'm commenting on your edits, not you. My edit summaries were accurate and quite right. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is such as unbalanced one. According to RS (1 2), Ramzi Yousef (with MEK aid) was responsible for 1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion, while you try to emphasize to this part of the analysis that Iran government was accused. Saff V. (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ABC Clio and Rockcenter.msnbc are not RS. Please read WP:RS (you´ve also just included a blog as a source in the article). I provided 3 RS to back up this claim (Palgrave Macmillan, Forbes, and NBCNEWS). Do not remove just because you don´t like the statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may use Heshmat Alavi's stories in your blog, but certainly not here. Same is true for Shahin Gobadi's fringe claims. Oh, 'Palgrave Macmillan' is really "something". Come back with a reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree better sources are needed here. The book is written by a NCRI figure (did not see the contents, but the authorship here gives me pause). We treat Forbes contributors with suspicion - part of Forbes is a blog by contributors. NBC is useless - it is a response by NCRI. We can say NCRI have claimed this - but not much else with these sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If there´s consensus that we can include this as a claim made by the NCRI (according to the NCRI...), then I´ll include it that way. Objections? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to lend undue weight to such a fringe claim? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein, so according to you, even as a NCRI quote this would be invalid? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not talk about validity, just stressed undue weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to claim MEK claims are undue on MEK's page. Yes, we can definitely include the attributed claim.Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I did not say that "MEK claims are undue on MEK's page", while it can be... --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How much valuable is this, opinion of interior minister Abdullah Nouri that is reported by NCRI? Saff V. (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This third hand reporting supported by such sources, is really good for nothing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria:, why do you emphasize to keep such as invaluable sentence, "According to the NCRI, in a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image"?Saff V. (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While at this edit you emphasized that the communique was peaceful, I faced with this article and peace has been used for one time, just in Tariq Aziz's description! Is the communique really peaceful? Saff V. (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That edit has various issues such as WP:QUOTE FARM, WP:UNDUE, WP:SCAREQUOTES and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: hmm right... this is the same Piazza source you defended at ANI. @Saff V.: I'll include it as reference to help support the statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about reliability? I don't think so. Finding new sources does not resolve the above issues. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks more ballanced. Saff V. (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: About to this edit, Why is the site of Maryam Rajavi considered as a spam link that you referred it to wp:RS?Saff V. (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and personal websites are not RS, particularly in controversial articles such as this one. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create this guideline, i.e. "Blogs and personal websites are not RS"? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS is policy.Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's it exactly mentioned that "Blogs and personal websites are not RS"? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, as you said "Blogs and personal websites are not RS" is not found in this policy. There's a "largely" which can't be generalized. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right... just considering WP:SPS and the controversial aspect of this article, starting to quote from blogs and personal websites would simply be a silly thing to do! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Largely not" = NOT, unless there are some exceptional circumstances. We generally do not use self published sources - the exceptions are rather few and far between. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, ...", But the blog was applied to publish Maryam Rajavi's opinion (from her own blog). So it is allowed because of this guidelines. Saff V. (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"These guidelines" states that so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Additionally, if we start to use Rajavi's blogs about her views on the IRI, this will create more problems than solve them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above bullets are true here. Additionally, we're not going to base the article on the questioned sources, because of the last bullet. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right... starting with the first bullet point, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;: see exceptional claims require sources where extra caution includes challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an exceptional claim. Do you know about Marayam Rajavi more than she does about herself? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional: unusual; not typical. If you can't find other sources where she has made similar claims, then this is an unusual/not typical claim = exceptional claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying she is lying about what she thinks? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use Rajavi's blog we should not lend UNDUE emphasis on a Syria snippet which received little attention, Futhermore if we to use such a primary source - we should use it to reflect the full range of MEK's stmts regarding the Iranian regime and other issues.Icewhiz (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think, it was possible to "reflect the full range of MEK's stmts regarding the Iranian regime".( Really do you want me to add another opinion of MEK, becuse I nominated the de- facto leader statement just about one issue?) In other word I want to publish her opinion about Syria. There isn't any undue weight, it is just her opinion and the most trustable source is her blog.Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert; There are plenty of reliable sources saying MEK did the bombing and Stefka Bulgaria is removing it only because there's ONE source saying PROBABLY there were other parties accused. I was reviewing the source used for the material, Abrahamian (1989) p.220, and I think the content is not sourced to a reliable source. Abrahamian has used questionable sources 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London as the source for his content making it unreliable for being used here. Removing such a well sourced content (that MEK did the bombing) from the article just for the sake of one questionable source is exactly giving undue weight to the unreliable source. I think we'd better having the material sourced to Abrahamian off the page until reliable sources are found for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above issue about the source is very correct, why should be omitted the participating of MEK in Haft-e-Tir bombing from the lead because of a (questionable) source.In addition, I have to say that the added material is not with good faith. For example, Abrahamian wrote about Mahdi Tafari that “Another tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same deed but did not mention any internal or external link”! In other words, the Abrahamian said there is no source for accusing Mehdi Tafari in Haft-e-Tir bombing. I believe that the NPOV was violated in this edit.Saff V. (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BURDEN, Stefka Bulgaria should demonstrate the verifiability by seeking a reliable source or evaluating the reliability of this source in RSN and up to that time I'm against keeping the material.Saff V. (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reliability issue is much annoying...--Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V.: I've removed the material cited the disputed source, but Stefka Bulgaria edit warred and reverted. Are you OK with the source? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two yes vote as well as two no vote, so the source can be considered as disputed statement and actually Source.Saff V. (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck at RSN. Abrahamian, an academic published by a university press, will pass there without a doubt. RSes may conflict - when they do - the solution is to present all (major) views in RSes - not to throw out what one doesn't like. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: Yes, RSN the board where the source should be addressed. But, this is the onus of the one who seeks to use the source to prove it's reliable and hence satisfies the WP:verifiablity. I don't know if it's really necessary to repeat that per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Mhhossein ^talk 10:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini blamed the MEK for this. Other outlets blamed other groups. As Abrahamian notes, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular," which is what I've inserted in the article. Sources:

• The Khomeini regime also charged the group with responsibility for bombing at the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party and the Prime Minister’s office in the summer of 1981. The bombings killed many IRP leaders and the latter bombing killed then President Ali Rajai and Prime Minister avad Bahonar. However, there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP.^[1]

• On June 28, 1981 a bomb killed and wounded a number of senior regime clerics, among them Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Hossein Beheshti, gathered at their party conference in Tehran... According to the Reuters dispatch in the New York Times, on June 30, 1981, the authorities initially blamed the “Great Satan” (US); Abrahamian (p.220) noted that the regime also suspected “SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime.” The Nationalist Equality Party, an Iranian resistance group in Turkey, claimed credit for the attack, according to the Times story. The pro-Soviet Tudeh party was also suspected. Within days, the regime shifted its story and blamed the MEK. Throughout its 30 years of underground armed resistance the MEK habitually issued communiqués taking credit for its actions against the regime, yet it never claimed responsibility for the June 28, 1981 bombing. The Tudeh party, the Turkey-based Nationalist Equality Party, and Forghan were all opposition groups repressed by the clerical regime who were capable of such an action^[2]

• On 28 June the IRP headquarters was blown up, killing Beheshti and some seventy of his close supporters. Immediately after the event, the authorities blamed SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime. Two days later, Khomeini pointed his finger at the Mojahedin... Some years later, a tribunal in Kermanshah quietly executed four ‘Iraqi agents’ for the deed. Another tribunal in Tehran also quietly executed a certain Mehdi Tafari for the same deed but did not mention any internal or external links. Shaykh Tehrani, revealed after fleeing to Baghdad that the regime knew that a Mr Kolahi had planted the bomb but had been unable to uncover his organizational affiliations. Finally, the head of military intelligence informed the press in April 1985 that the bombing had been the work not of the Mojahedin but of royalist army officers.^[3]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting that you can ignore the many reliable scholarly sources saying MEK did the bombing and that instead you tend to adhere to SPECULATIONs and unreliable sources. First sentence says MEK was accused by Khomeini. This is not in contradiction with many other reliable sources saying MEK did the bombing. It adds that there were SPECULATIONS the bombing was carried out by IRP leaders themselves. The author says it's a SPECULATION. Second and third sources are Abrahamian's, with the serious issues mentioned above. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most serious issue is that you consider the talk page discussions meritless and keep reverting without trying to build consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is much to be regretted that you didn't pay attention to points which are nominated here. We said that Abrahamian's source is questionable but you introduced it again as RS.Why did you revert, While you nominated sources that emphasize on accussing MEK and add sentence about Mahdi Tafari as I said it was not supported by Abrahamian's source.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely seems sources disagree on who was responsible for this. Since there is a disagreement (as well as conflicting claims at different times by the Iranian regime) - we should simply document the conflict claims, possibly attributed back to who is making them. We definitely should not choose to present a single narrative here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If I find any other narratives from RS about this I'll include them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told, you need to address the reliability of the Abrahamian source you're using for the content in question. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ervand Abrahamian is an expert in the subject area, and his book has been published by Yale University Press - a university press. So - a mainstream academic in a mainstream academic venue..... Pretty hard to challenge this RS wise - and Abrahamian is used throughout the article. Challenging Abrahamian on the basis of not liking his citations (and, one must note, that MEK's magazine is a fairly good source for MEK's words) - is a very weak argument. If you wish to challenge this - take it to RSN - it won't go far there - academic experts in university presses are generally presumed to be top-notch sources. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment shows you have not followed the comments carefully. The main issue is not "on the basis of not liking his citations" rather it's questionable because of using sources like 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London. MEK's magazine is good for their words? OK attribution is needed. I know Ervand Abrahamian well. There's no absolute reliability. We can't say all parts of a source is reliable or a source is always reliable. No, this portion of the source is clearly questionable and per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Mhhossein ^talk 16:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed - and not liking the citations of a Yale University Press book is a very weak arguement.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not liking" is a very baseless self-interpretation. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All talk and no action. why is not being reviewed the disscussion in RSN. Plz consider Abrahamian's source is not the matter, the main issue is sources that he used for the claim in his book.Saff V. (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a statement backed up by infoplease.com in the article's lede but suddenly a statement backed up by an expert scholar published in a University press is a questionable source? If you think the Abrahamian statement is not RS, then you can take "action" by taking it to WP:RSN. I have no question in mind that it is reliable, so I won't be taking it there any time soon. Besides, there are two other reliable sources (Kenneth Katzman and Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.) supporting this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before and based on BURDEN,You are resposible for verifiability of material that you added!Saff V. (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Abrahamian source has been used throughout this article multiple times for years now. As I said before, there are also two other sources supporting this statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages of sources?!Saff V. (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is undeniable by such sources that MEK commited Haft-e-Tir bombing!Saff V. (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With sources (mentioned above) are against text of Abrahamian as to Haft-e-Tir bombing, I am going to describe problem once more.Abrahamian's source is valied, but fact is that sentences used by Stefka is sourced by not reliable source in Abrahamian refrence.In other word Abrahamian used 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London for his claim in that book.All in all I ask Stefka to check this issue in RSN based on BURDEN.Saff V. (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this to RSN if you really want to - @Saff V.: - but I think you will end up no where. A scholar may cite PRIMARY sources - and they do so all the time (e.g. in WWII war history - primary reports, orders, etc. - including Nazi German war orders - are cited by historians regularly). As opposed to us editors, who are not supposed to interpret such PRIMARY evidence, this is exactly the job description of scholars - and citing a SECONDARY source (such as Abrahamian) making such an interpretation is exactly what we are supposed to do. There has been no serious challenge here to Abrahamian's reliability as a source. What I do suggest, however, is that if you have a second (or more) academic source disagreeing with Abrahamian - that you add text sourced to that source along side of text sourced from Abrahamian - to reflect the different scholarly opinions here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Thanks for your helpful suggestion, But there is a difficulty. According to some RS, MEK committed the bombing so as to material should be written in Assassinations section. It is not perfection nominating the same material into sections (Assassinations and Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK). what is the solution?Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is disagreement between RSes - then if we include it - e.g. the assassinations section or the lede - then were need to note the disagreement - e.g. According to X MEK bombed Y, however according to Z the bombing was carried out by W. One can also prefix the whole thing with "MEK's involvement in the Y bombing is disputed:". In general - being disputed reduces DUEness (e.g. for the lede) - with the exception to the rule being that if the dispute itself is notable (as opposed to the event), then that may increase weight. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the response is not clear to me. Consider, right now, the material about 7Tir bombing has been written in the Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK section, but due to other RS, the event is appropriate with Assassinations section. We can not point to an event in two sections of the article, it causes NPOV.I suggest to write about 7tir bombing and death of Beheshti in Assassinations and move against material from Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK to Assassinations.Saff V. (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to inclusion in the assassinations section, however the text should make clear that others have been accused as well and that MEK's involvement is disputed (e.g. by Abrahamian). Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think other views should be included as long as they're supported by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reveals that there is not any against opinion to inclusion in the assassinations section. I will move all of the narration to that section.Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources are telling us that Ruhollah Khomeini accused the MEK of this incident, and we know from other reliable sources that there were also other suspects, then why aren't we including this in the " Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? Any feedback? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to most of RS, I disagree to move that material to the Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK, as well as I am going to suggest to merge these two sections "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" into "Assassination of MEK members outside Iran".Saff V. (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS tells us that the Islamic Republic of Iran waged a disinformation campaign against the MEK. RS tells us that all broadcasting from Iranian soil is controlled by the state and reflects official ideology. RS tells us that since 1981 until present day, declaring any support for the MEK in Iran will result in imprisonment or execution on the basis that they are "waging war on God and are condemned to execution". About the Hafte Tir bombings, RS tells us that two days after the incident, it was Ruhollah Khomeini who accused the MEK of this incident.^[1] Based on RS, and a previous consensus that, concerning political topics, IRI-controlled media should be used to reflect IRI views, then IRI allegations against the MEK need to be attributed as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things reliable sources say. The above comment is just a cherry picked portion of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see this edit. After that comment from Icewhiz we have argued about a lot but u just did base on one opinion and ignore others. Yes, RS tells us that two days after the incident, it was Ruhollah Khomeini who accused the MEK of this incident, but in the following, we have at that RS which MEK never denied their role!All in all these material "A few years later, a Kermanshah tribunal executed four accused "Iraqi agents". Another tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. In 1985, the head of military intelligence informed the press that this had been the work of royalist army officers" are so disputed and I don't have any solution other than asking in RSN or supporting by another source.Saff V. (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for Haft-e-Tir bombing is clearly in dispute. I suggest you hammer out a formulation that presents all views - not just one.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Took this to RSN - lets try to move forward past this issue. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged the article to see the details of the MEK toll. However, on the second thought I think the former version was better since not only was it shorter, but also these details imbalances the lead and we need to cover the details of the other side, being Iranian people, which makes the lead even larger. So, they can simply be covered in the body but not accompanied by POV words such as "massacre".--Mhhossein ^talk 15:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You requested more information, and this was provided:

• "In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated that “In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of [MEK] members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners massacred in the single year of 1998."^[1] You decided you didn't like the information and removed it. This is a factual report by a reliable source, so removing this constitutes disruptive editing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is "a factual report by a reliable source, so removing this constitutes disruptive editing." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not it does not for the reasons I've outlined below. You still haven't addressed your removal of this information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you continue to remove this stating in your edit summary that this is a "POV". Why do you consider this a "POV"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my '15:58, 12 November 2018' comment. Don't push those details into the lead, while you can have them in the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you continue to avoid addressing my question, so I'll put it in bullet form:

1) Why do you consider the following: " In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated that “In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of [MEK] members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners massacred in the single year of 1998."^[1]" a POV?

2) Why don't you think that "According to the MEK, over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran.^[2]" is a better and more official report than the British Parliamentary Committee report cited above?

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could get the answer by reviewing my first comment in this section: "these details imbalances the lead and we need to cover the details of the other side, being Iranian people...". I did not say which one was better, just less details in the lead. You can take British Parliamentary Committee report to the body, which I think did somedays ago.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you continue to avoid responding simple/direct questions, so let's start with one at a time: Why do you think that the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom report is POV? Because it "imbalances the lede" since it provides details about when the assassinations took place? (which is information your requested specifically) Why/how is this POV? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment on this. Your case is a real WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT one. Yes, 'imbalances the lead=inserts POV issue'. I've explained regarding my request.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right... "Yes, it's a POV" is not an explanation of why/how it is a POV. I'll reinsert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the he British Parliamentary Committee in lead makes POV issue but in body not.Saff V. (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the "British Parliamentary Committee in lead" does not create any POV issues, but in an effort to work with you, I'll remove the reference to the British Parliamentary Committee and keep the rest simply because it's a better reference than the previous "According to the MEK..." quote. If this all feels like it's too long, we should move both tolls to the "Overview" section like I've now suggested several times. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stefka Bulgaria! As a summary of most important contents of article it is essential to mention the Toll briefly and avoid to pointed to details in lead.Saff V. (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein changed it again :-(

I really don't want to edit war anymore, and want us to work together on this. I removed the "British Parliamentary Committee" as requested so that it's shorter. What's the problem now? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the patience :| He reverted because of details such as year, it doesn't need to mention in lead.Saff V. (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, adding the year makes it more accurate, and therefore more encyclopaedic; but I'll remove it so we can continue to work together on this. Thanks Saff V. for working with me here, I appreciate it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is better that I explain my mean asto "details". Althought You are right, some information make the sentense more accurate, is it neccessary that material in detail be written in lead? of course not!Also detail means year, event such as 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, even supporters. Finally I consider this version more briefly than this one, X people were killed and Y people were prisoned by Z instead of X people were killed by Z and Y prisoners were killed (again) by Z (again).Am I clear?Saff V. (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in order to move forward, can you please make the update yourself using the better (British Parliament) source? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: Can you work with me on this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, But why do we need extera soure now? The current sources are reliable.Saff V. (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: first you say that " British Parliamentary Committee in lead makes POV issue", so I removed this; then you say that "He reverted because of details such as year, it doesn't need to mention in lead", so I removed this too; then, after you reverted me, I asked you to do it as you best see fit, and now you respond that "it doesn't matter". Do you want to work with me on this or not? The British Parliament is a better source as it's independent, unlike the current "According to the MEK...". Please change it, or I will. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, Thank u to make it clear! I will give it try.Saff V. (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria:, Please do not confuse the issues.we discussed the sentence above and you asked me to do it as I best see fit. It must be balanced the casualties of both parties and other reason that I presented above. Another problem is the source that u mentioned. I think the first issue is most important. We have now some source for the sentence. Saff V. (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: you wrote " British Parliamentary Committee in lead makes POV issue", so I removed this; then you wrote that "He reverted because of details such as year, it doesn't need to mention in lead", so I removed this too; then, after you reverted me, I asked you to do it as you best see fit, and then responded that "it doesn't matter". When I pointed this out to you, you said "I will give it a try", but you did not give it atry, and then when I balanced the quote, you reverted it again. I have tried by all means to work together with you here, but you've constantly been unwilling to compromise, despite repeatedly saying that you would. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you read my comments! Don't accuse me, while you are extremely emphasizing on your own opinions!I repeat again, There is two issue in this edit. The main issue is being balanced the casualties of both parties, you violated the balance in your edit and made the POV issue.First of all, this issue has to remove, but you don't accept while you let me do it as I best see fit.Please don't mix issues together as well as don't get your own way.Saff V. (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Americans

Note: This sub-section was splited by me after Stefka Bulgaria replied to my comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right... so we're moving to a different discussion now. As with the Hafte Tir bombing discussion, there are numerous narratives for the killings of Americans as outlined in the article's body:

• "In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International."^[3] "Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK."^[4] "Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK."^[5][6]

• "In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assasinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued on April 2006 stated that "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah´s US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran."^[7] "Other analysts support this, including director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, claiming that "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience."^[8][9]

• "The MEK also blames a Marxist splinter Peykar for these Americans killed in Iran. While in prison, after learning of these events, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book referring to Peykar as "pseudo-leftists opportunists" whose military operations had killed US citizens in a bid to "challenge" and outmaneuver the "genuine" MEK."^[10]

Trying to include only a single narrative while dismissing others from reliable sources is uncyclopaedic and constitutes a NPOV violation, the same with your removal of the "British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom report" (pointed out above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already saying Peykar was accused, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This took place during the Schism period, when Peykar had taken over the group, so it is not a separate event (and mostly included IRI targets, which you've removed for some reason). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. since "because of the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s and an attempted attack against the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992". Hence, we need to have section dedicated to them. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are also different narrative as to why the MEK was first designated a terrorist organization:

• "The department under Secretary Madeleine Albright formally designated PMOI’MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) on 8th October 1997. Highlighting the political motivations of the move, the very next day a senior Clinton administration official told the Los Angeles Times, “The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami.^[11][12][13]

• The Tower Commission Report "cited a letter by an Iranian go-between, Manoucherhr Ghorbanifar, to his U.S. counterpart saying that one of the nine demands of the Iranian regime from the U.S. was the ‘[insurance] of an official announcement terming the Mojaheding-e-Khalq (MEK) as Marxist and terrorist.’ When the deal with Tehran fell through, the Department of State reversed course and began to formally meet with the MEK, even at the height of the organization’s armed resistance against the clerical regime."^[14]

• "The MEK’s terrorist designation in the UK and EU was also heavily grounded in similar political and economic considerations. In an interview with the BBC Radio in 2006, the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that the UK designation of MEK was the result of demands made by the Iranian regime."^[15]

About the killing of American’s allegation, as explained throughout the article, there’s a dispute that these were attributed to Peykar. If that’s not clear enough, here’s Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.’s report:

• “Background on the Mujahedin,” forwarded under Memorandum from W. Tapley Bennet, Jr. Assistant Secretatry of State for Legislative Affaris, to Rep. Lee Hamilon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe an the Middle East, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives, December 14 1984. Note that this memo also described the divisions within the MEK that culminated when “a dedicated Marxist Faction … broke away in 1975 and murdered several Mujahedin leaders who preferred to emphasize the Islamic content, as opposed to the Marxist orientation, of the organization…” As noted, the 2005 Country Reports attributed the killing of American advisors in Iran to this breakaway Marxist faction, and contemporaneous media reporting confirmed it as well.^[16]

• "The killings of Americans in Iran in the early-to-mi 1970s were the work not of people associated with the MEK, but rather their rivals among dissident elements opposing the Shah. Start with an egregious error in the Department of State’s Country Reports, repeated in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 editions. Of the period after Khomeini took poser in 1979, it says: “The MEK’s ideology… was at odds with the post-revolutionary government, and its original leadership was soon executed by the Khomeini regime.” That the US Government has, for three years at least, been operating under the belief that the MEK’s “original leadership” was alive throughout the 1970s, and put to death by Khomeini’s regime after the 1979 revolution rather than by the Shah’s regime in early 1972, is more than a typo or minor slip. It is a fundamental factual blunde."

• "By the time the killing of Americans in Iran began in 1973 – indeed, more than a year before – many members of the original MEK including all of the founding MEK leadership had been executed or killed by the Shah’s security forces, and Massoud Rajavi was in prison where he would remain until January 1979... The identities of the assassins of American military advisors and contractors in Tehran are known. The Washington Post story on May 11, 1976 reported (p.A9) that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed by firing squad. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh, told a Westerner allowed to see him shortly before his execution that… he personally killed col. Lewis Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner after stopping their … car in 1975.” A UPI story dated November 16, 1976, carried the following day in the Post, reported that the Tehran police had shot and killed Bahram Aram, “the man who masterminded the August slayings” of three Americans working for Rockwell International... Despite the availability of this information, a 1994 Department of State report on the MEK prepared for Congress erred in purpoting to name MEK perpetrators of three of the six killings of Americans that took place from 1973-76. It incorrectly stated that MEK member Reza Reza’i had been arrested and executed for the 1973 murder of Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins. In fact, Rezai had been arrested in 1971 with other leading MEK members, and escaped from prison; government security forces killed him in 1973 in a standoff in Tehran. This same report names “Rahman Vahid Afrakhteh” as the killer of the other two US military officers."

• "Even though the murderers of the Americans were known to US security agencies dating back to the mid-1970s, when the Western press reported that nine members of the breakaway Marxist faction had been caught and executed after having confessed to the killings, the 2006 Country Reports, issued in April 2007, made a curious assertion not included before or since: 'Despite US efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group’s role in these illegal acts.'"

• "The real assassins of Americans in Iran, including Vaid Afrakhteh and Bahram Aram, were part of a faction that emerged from the remnants of the MEK following the execution and imprisonment of many leading MEK members in 1972, and ultimately split away entirely (and violently) in 1975. This group adopted a more secular, extremist and doctrinaire leftist identity; they were not committed to Islam as a defining interest. Known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (for “Marxist-Leninist”) and later as the “Iranian People’s Strugglers for the Working Class (Peykar)”, the group had ties to George Habash and the PFLP. The MEK split, which originated in 1972 and became widely apparent by 1975, was real. On May 7, 1975, Sharif-Vaqefi was killed in an operation planned by the leaders of the Marxist splinter group, including both Havid Afrahteh and Bahram Aram, as well as Tagui Shahram."^[17]

These events all took place during the Schism period, where this information is contextualized chronologically. Creating a separate “Assassinations and bombings against the U.S.” is misleading as it tries to convey there was an “anti-American campaign” by the MEK (something Mhhossein has pushed in the past), when there wasn’t one; also violates WP:CFORK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either we do chrono, or we do by type - not a mix. The more important events should be in the chrono. If any of these killing were relevant or cited as relevant when the US designatd MEK as a FTO - then we can mention that briefly next to the designation event. No need for separate "American killing" section. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, they were designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. since "because of the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s and an attempted attack against the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992". Hence, we need to have section dedicated to them. Assassinations section without those targeting Americans is just flawed. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein, you are ignoring the provided RS concerning the MEK terrorist listing by the US and Europe, Peykar's take over the organization during the 1970s, and Bloomfield's report stating that the MEK were not even involved in this. This information needs to be included, but it also needs to be contextualized, providing the sequence of events and different viewpoints as they unfolded, and that's what the Schism section does. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the materials I inserted were backed by reliable and scholarly sources. Include Bloomfield's report somewhere besides other stuff, but we'll not censor MEK's history only because of Bloomfield's report, since there are multiple reliable sources against it. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, Assassinations were committed about American by MEK is a brilliant subject (as sources say 1,2,3 and 4 and etc), so it is necessary to devote one section or subsection to assassinations as to American. Also these sentences "Between 1973 and 1975, the Marxist-Leninist MEK increased their armed operations in Iran. In 1973 they engaged in two street battles with Tehran police. On 19 April 1974..." was removed by Stefka Bulgaria, there are two violations, at first, the edit summary has no connection with removing sentences and then why does he remove the well-sourced material?Saff V. (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Between 1973 and 1975, the Marxist-Leninist MEK increased their armed operations in Iran. In 1973 they engaged in two street battles with Tehran police. On 19 April 1974..." is currently in the article. 2) I agree we should not censor anything here, though information needs to be presented in context, backed by RS, and all narratives need to be included. 3) Creating a separate section for this is WP:CONTENTFORKING, pushes a false POV (that American's were particularly targeted by the MEK, when that was not the case), and breaks the article's chronological outline. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MEK killed more Iranians, Iraqis, and possibly several other nationalities that Americans. Having a focused section on Americans (specifically!), killed in Iran by MEK, is clearly POVish and UNDUE - American blood isn't redder than other blood.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MEK clearly targeted American people and interests in a certain period of its terror acts, the sources show it. As for the other nationalities, they can have their separate sections if there are reliable sources covering them. So, making a well sourced section is not UNDUE, nor it's POVish, rather removing it is a clear censoring of MEK's history. No one have prohibited making sections for the assassination of the Iraqis, for example, if there are sources for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been removed or "censored". Rather, information is organised chronologically in accordance to the article's historical outline and contextualised as events unfolded backed by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the article should be written by cherry picked contents of the sources? You were told this by other users, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT wont make RS go away. In response to your message, I'm not cherry picking anything. Add whatever you want as long as it follows the article's chronological order, it isn't UNDUE-ish or POV-ish, and it's backed up by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, It is a censore certainly to nominate the American assassinations in the subsection (history/Schism), while it is supported by RS. I don't beleive that American blood isn't redder than other blood, as to any nationality killed by MEK , all of them are more appropriate to be adressed in assassinations part as well as it is nothing to do with giving undue weight. We have a section about MEK assassinations in the article, but the material about American assassinations was written in history part that I consider it as undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The assassinations are explained chronologically in the History section and there's already a List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran article; nothing has been censored and we haven't violated WP:CONTENTFORKING. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to play the "chronological" scenario in the lead, too, but I should tell you that this is just a self made argument by you which we don't have to act based on. Moreover, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject." So, don't use it as an argument to avoid that well-sourced section.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non free content#Text is a guideline prohibiting "extensive quotation of copyrighted text". Don't restore them unless they're reworded properly. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an "extensive quotation of copyrighted text" issue in the lede, but if this is an issue for you, then I'll restore the one that you've removed (which was admitted to be included based on RfC consensus) and reword the remaining two quotes. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to show it's my issue. It's an issue which Wikipedia takes seriously. I have to report your violation. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation, as what Diannaa said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - you restored this text to the lede. While I agree that casualty estimates (on all relevant sides - MEK, Iranian regime, civilian bystanders killed in the conflict between the two) are important, it is also important we use sources with some gravitas. Our current estimate is attributed to infoplease.com (which does not look like a RS nor a source with any gravitas) and MEK itself. Are there any published 3rd party estimates we could use ? Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: I'm not a fan of using that, however see this interesting edit where Stefka Bulgaria admits to use a source he was objecting severely at the RSN, at the expense of citing the causalities of the MEK group. I don't know what to say. If, as he said, infoplease.com is not reliable, why was he using it? the answer is clear. Anyway, the source itself is a 3rd party Springer book. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if the source itself (didn't look!) is attributing this to infoplease.com - then we need to do so too. However - constructively - can we find a better and more current (e.g. not from 1994 - I assume casualties have gone up over the last 28 years) source ? Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's just a footnote and nothing in the text. We know that "a scholar may cite PRIMARY sources". --Mhhossein ^talk 08:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Abrahamian, this is specifically attributed to infoplease.com, so that's our source of information, and what we should be citing here. We do need stronger sources than this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Protesting for Iran (6604931151).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mujahedin Khalq Gathering in Paris June 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd black people in PMOI rally.jpg