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 30 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.

[1] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [2] [3] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017

There are plenty of dispute areas between the users here. I have commented on some of them and gave enough details why they should/n't be/changed in the article. I'm trying to make it clear for insiders/outsiders/admins what's going on here and which user is doing what.

A) Location of the paragraph and terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK

This is already discussed and comments have arisen. I think there need to be an RFC for this (I've done it just below this discussion).

B) MEK's only targeting Islamic Republic’s government governmental and security institutions

Discussed here, here, here and here (all opened by Kazemita1) though they're not enough. This is clearly a disputed content which is kept by edit war, without building consensus.

C) Col. Leo McCloskey's comment on Batoul Soltani

This is also disputed and should not be included without having built consensus. There's already a RSN discussion over it with no certain consensus.

D) MEK's 1981 serial attacks killing dozens of Iranian officials

This is another disputed content. While Alex-h believes the content is already included in the lead, Kazemita1 thinks otherwise. This is though discussed no where in the article talk page!

E) IRI capturing and torturing MEK's members

I discussed it plenty of times here with Saff V. [4] and Forest90 [5] agreeing with that the sources are not supporting this claim and Alex-h saying the claim is "supported by reliable sources". This subject, among others, had been subject to back and forth. It's disputed and should not be included without the consensus among users. The users who intent to insert this material should carry the burden of showing how the sources support such a big deal.

F) Confessions of sexual fantasies.

There is dispute on whether to include this in the article and which section to include it in.

G) US officials confirming MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in the article lead.

The piece existed until a few days ago when MA Javadi removed it.

User:Saff V., User:Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita1, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h, User:Sa.vakilian, User:Forest90 and User:Nikoo.Amini: I'm inviting the involved users to consider discussing the above issues (and other points I've possibly missed) instead of making serial reverts. @El C and Vanamonde93: The article suffers from lack of input from neutral admins or experienced users. Please consider watching the changes and/or commenting on the disputed contents where ever needed. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please keep on discussing the above points under the related topics.

Dispute A

I have opened a RFC for this. Please take your words there, instead of here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute B

What is dispute B? El_C 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have categorized it here since there were back and forth on it. @Kazemita1: Do you have a response for El_C's question? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given MEK's behavior in massive bombing of a political party and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and having verified statements from sources confirming they target "low civil servants", it is a bit undue to use strong words such as "analysts confirm that the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions". --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context:

"Khomeini banned Rajavi and other MEK candidates from office on the basis of their refusal to support his new constitution. Le Monde’s correspondent wrote on March 29, 1980 that Rajavi would have received 'several million votes'.[...] At some point in early 1980, Khomeini issued a hand-written judicial order to execute MEK members and supporters. Regime forces ransacked every office printing or distributing the MEK journal ‘Mojahed’."

"June 20, 1981 […] Rajavi and President Bani-Sadr together had 'called upon the whole nation to take over the streets the next day to express their opposition to the [regime] ‘monopolists’ who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat.' An outpouring of people materialized the next day in cities across the country – half a million in the streets of Tehran alone."

"Faced with the prospect of being swept aside by a second revolution […] Khomieni moved to impeach Bani-Sadr, forcing the two men into hiding, and launched what Abrahamian calls (p.219) 'a reign of terror unprecedented in modern Iranian history.'”

"With MEK members and sympathizers, and other political challengers to Khomeini, being hunted and summarily executed by the cleric’s enforcers, on June 28, 1981 a bomb killed and wounded a number of senior regime clerics. According to the Reuters dispatch in the New York Times on June 30, 1981, the authorities initially blamed the 'Great Satan' (the US); Abrahamian (p.220) noted that the regime also suspected 'SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime.' The Nationalist Equality Party […] claimed credit for the attack, according to the Times story. The pro-Soviet Tudeh part was also suspected. According to the Times account, 'a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack…' 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."

"These [MEK’s] activities reflect two characteristics that do not fit the mold of counterterrorism analysis: first, the violence was targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc; and second, all these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between the MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs. [...] A terrorist group is by nature prone to gratuitous, indiscriminate violence, and is content – even eager – to harm innocents. The MEK’s record, however, suggests a different ethical calculus."^[1]

This should also be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that MEK's involvement in Hafte Tir bombing and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is disputed (one of many claims) - and in any event the first is a regime affiliated political organization and the second is military target. Civil servants are also a regime target. None of the assertions above (2 of which are clearly disputed) are convincing regarding civilian targets. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all politicians in the Hafte Tir bombing were statesmen or members of the current government. Nuclear scientists assassinated by MEK were NOT members of the military. Some of them were academics with no ties to government or the military at all. Read Assassination of Masoud Alimohammadi where it talks about his political views to see for yourself. The guy was closer to opposition than to the state. Also, as mentioned here an independent source disputing MEK's involvement in the assassination of nuclear scientists is yet to be found. As for Hafte Tir bombing there are pretty strong sources confirming MEK's involvement:

• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.

I encourage you to find similar sources that deny MEK's involvement in that bombing incident.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1 and Icewhiz: There are plenty of cases were MEK violently killed civilians only for they probable sympathy towards the government or only because their targets had been beard or wearing Chador (signs of being religious, respectively for men and women). You can see examples of MEK's child killings here and here. There are some more sources on this:

• MEK has used this interpretation of Jihad in dealing with any opposition, murdering ordinary people, including Muslims who don't agree with its violation of all the rules of Jihad explained above. This has included killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people.

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

• When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot.

  Terrornomics by Routledge

So, saying in the lead that MEK only targeted governmental targets is just giving undue weight to the claim. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any doubt that Khoemeini and the clerical regime blamed the MEK for all sorts of things, some of which have been confirmed by the MEK and some of which amount to allegations without evidence.

About Kazemita’s sources: even though they they have some issues including a few inaccuracies (such as death toll count in the June 28, 1981 IRP bombing), they all acknowledge that the MEK’s targets were Iranian officials (the part that Kazemita didn’t include in his quotes above for some reason).

About Mhhossein’s sources: The first two links are Tehran based government advocacy websites. The Terrornomics source cites Sandra Mackey’s “The Iranians” as its source for this claim, who in her book says about the 1981 bombing^[2]:

• "Converting the Islamic Republic’s loss into political rhetoric, Khomeini held the Muahedin-e Klhalq responsible… When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Muahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and Revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them.

This is not equivalent to "targeting civilians", also confirmed by the following authors:

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.^[3] :

• "...the violence was targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc; and second, all these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between the MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs."

Struan Stevenson^[4]:

• What the PMOI has never been in its history (past or present) is a terrorist organisation. The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. It has never targeted civilians, nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns agaisnt the Iranian regime. "

Ervand Abrahamian^[5]:

• The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings in order to limit civilian casualties

Ronen Cohen^[6]:

• "The Moahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions only."

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi^[7]:

• "I pledge on behalf of the Iranian resistance that if anyone from our side oversteps the red line concerning absolute prohibition of attacks on civilians and innocent individuals, either deliberately or unintentionally, he or she would be ready to stand trial in any international court and accept any ruling by the court, including the payment of compensation.”

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! Are you asking us to act based on Rajavi's "pledge"? Here's Wikipedia! Moreover:

• The portion quoted from "Terrornomics" is exactly supporting that MEK targeted civilians.
• Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
• There's a wrong link of Cohen's.
• I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
• As for the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[6] So, please come back with a an academic and neutral source! Note that I already presented two sources saying "Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" and that MEK's operations included "killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people." --Mhhossein ^talk 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I would have thought the 6 sources provided in my previous post all passed WP:RS and clearly stated that the MEK did not target civilians. Here’s one more:

• "Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran’s civilian areas. […] All the same the Mujahedin-e Khalq concentrated … calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the bombing of civilian areas by both sides.”

  ^[8]

If @El C: thinks all these are not enough, I can look for more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is in dispute that the Islamic regime is not a reliable source about their political opponents. El_C 21:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly @El C:. And we all know David Gold, Eileen Barker, NBC news, and Haarz are not in any way related to the Islamic regime and yet they all confirm MEK targeted ordinary people.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two books I provided here is related to/by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "David Gold" (Terrornomics): quotes Sandra Mackey, who does not say the MEK targeted civilians^[9]: "Converting the Islamic Republic’s loss into political rhetoric, Khomeini held the Muahedin-e Klhalq responsible… When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Mujahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and Revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them."

• "Eileen Barker": author is actually Massoud Banisadr, another former MEK member whose published works focus exclusively on attacking the MEK. His observations are far, far from neutral analysis and UNDUE. We have, nevertheless, included some of his views in the article, but they should not be the determining factor of a major claim based on lack of neutrality.

• "NBC News": is the only source that says that two "U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group". Haaertz contradicts this, saying "Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting." Because there isn't evidence, the MEK have been treated as suspects. (Haaretz just quotes NBC).

I have started a RfC below about the allegation concerning the MEK targeting civilians. About the nuclear scientists, the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists already describes the MEK as suspects, so we should do the same here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's you're respond:

• MEK has used this interpretation of Jihad in dealing with any opposition, murdering ordinary people, including Muslims who don't agree with its violation of all the rules of Jihad explained above. This has included killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people.

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

• When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot.

  Terrornomics by Routledge

• They brutally helped Saddam to murder Iranian children in their schools and they celebrated their attacks against Iranian civilians as if were their enemy.

  Living in hell

@El C: Willing to take a look at it? Please note my comment on how the two major sources provided by Stefka Bulgrai (books by Bloomfield and Stevenson) are not neutral and should not be given UNDUE weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that MEK sympathetic sources are, for our immediate purposes here, problematic. El_C 18:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sympathetic sources (like the "Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Masoud Banisadr), as well as self-published sources (like the "Living in hell"), both of which Mhhossein provided above, should be avoided. We can do a deeper analysis of sources supporting the claim that the MEK did not target civilians as I don't see issues with most of the them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Living in Hell' maybe subject to negotiation but 'Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements' is edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge, so can't be simply discredited. Please note that, as per WP:ONUS "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --Mhhossein ^talk 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defending a self-published book and some writings by Massoud Banisadr (an ex-MEK member that dedicates the whole of his work to attack the MEK) won't get us far in our quest to avoid sympathetic sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stop making personal attacks. Did I ever commented on your using the sources by Bloomfield and Stevenson? While we know that both were sympathetic sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute C

McCloskey guesses! Soltani was recruited by Iran. My evaluation of this content is that McCloskey's view is a minor viewpoint that can hardly be considered as reliable enough and hence its usage for describing a BLP is not recommended. I think, this defamatory content should be kept out of the article unless there's consensus over its inclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find another RS to verify the claim about Soltani! Why do we devote space to a person who was not a key member or playing role in key event(s) belongs to MEK, So I agree with Mhhossein.Saff V. (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSN response on 4 May 2019: "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf"." Alex-h (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That's not the last say in the world, specially when only 2 users have participated the discussion (including me). See my response. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We go to RSN to get non-involved editors to comment on the reliability of the source. The source was presented at RSN properly and neutrally, and Francois Revere said it was ok for inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did not respond to my objections. That's why the source is still disputed. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your edit summary reads "McCloskey source was approved at RSN" while RSN is not for "approving edits" and that no consensus was built there. Why are you repeatedly reverting this disputed BLP content without trying to build consensus (as ONUS demands?). (notifying El_C). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: sorry to keep pinging you, but as one of the few admins that has had some involvement here, it seems suitable to ask you. Mhhossein objected this source, so I took it to RSN, where the only experienced editor to comment was user:François Robere, who responded "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf." I added the source back to the article based on this feedback, but Mhhossein continued to object/revert the inclusion. I feel like I'm missing a part of the puzzle here. Why is this allowed to happen? What could have I done on my side to make this any better? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you launch a proper RfC about this. El_C 21:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you could have done better User:Stefka Bulgaria, was to choose a middle ground rather than pushing on your own point of view. That is the only solution to avoid edit wars. Previously, I had tried that when trying to include an RSN approved content about sexual fantasy interviews in MEK camps and your camp kept reverting it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit] because the explanation does not guarantee inclusion. There should be consensus over inclusion. The onus is on those who wish to include.Saff V. (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: You proposed starting a RFC; But the RFC should be over inclusion of this disputed content attributing a defamatory content to a BLP. As I have repeated elsewhere, the ONUS for including a disputed content is on those who wish to include the content. Moreover, per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Please let me know if I'm wrong. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe take it to BLPN, or try to explain what you perceive as the outstanding BLP issues in a more concise way. Sorry, I'm just spread a bit thin lately. El_C 17:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: You're welcome and sorry for the belated response, I'm not sure if BLPN would be suitable for this case, since the board is usually for the "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." I'll do it, though, if you demand. As for the explanation, I'm asking for removal of this content since:

• The edit was introducing a libelous material into the article. I'm not repeating the content here, please see the diff.
• The source used for this defamatory content is 'International Committee In Search of Justice' which, according to its website, is "an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition". ISIJ is now "a non-profit NGO in Brussels" having members including from "other dignitaries!!!" This is certainly a questionable source, specially when it comes to BLP related contents.
• The source is citing McCloskey, a former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf, making it even more questionable.

This is while, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE demands using "high-quality secondary sources" and per this policy, "material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". No clue is provided for the defamatory content, it's just there in the source and now it is used in Wikipedia. That's why I request removing this BLP related content for now. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, sorry, but former U.S. Colonel Leo McCloskey testifying about Soltani’s connection with Iran’s Quds force (a branch of Islamic Revolutionary Guards) is considered "defamatory"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing further about it, then yes, it's a problem. But feel free to submit to BLPN — I'll go with whatever is decided there. El_C 21:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: This is the BLPN outcome, what do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems mixed. Anyway, I would err on the side of caution, unless we have decent secondary sources reporting about this testimony. El_C 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute D

Regarding Alex-h's edit, unlike what Alex-h claims in the edit summary, the lead does not talk about MEK killing prime minister, president and congress members. These were important acts of terrorism performed by MEK and are worth mentioning explicitly rather than summarizing as "MEK killed officials". Killing officials could be mistaken for killing regular soldiers, police officers or government employees. Assassinating the president and prime minister and half of the congress is a big deal and is due to be mentioned in the lead, specially when it is covered by an independent secondary source such as Guardian. This is a crucial part of MEK's history.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Stefka's post in "Dispute B".Alex-h (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments here & here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only WP:DUE confirmed events should be included in the lede of a controversial article that's already too long as it is. Disputed events can be described in the body with context and counter-arguments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet to show any independent source that denies MEK's involvement in Hafte Tir Bombing or their role in assassinating nuclear scientists.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of RSs in Hafte Tir bombing explaining this:

The Islamic Republic of Iran first blamed SAVAK and the Iraqi regime. Two days later, Ruhollah Khomeini accused the People's Mujahedin of Iran.^[10] Later a Kermanshah tribunal executed four "Iraqi agents" for the incident, and a 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. Iran's security forces blamed the United States^[11] and "internal mercenaries".^[12][13] ... According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular."^[14] According to Kenneth Katzman, "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."^[15]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute E

Saying IRI is "known" to capture and torture MEK members is a big deal. Saying some one is known for something needs a reliable source and none of the cited sources support this claim.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Can you see the cited sources for this edit? As I have already said, advocacy sources such as [7] and un-attributed report are used to conclude a fact. I recommend removing this disputed content. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the argument is about. El_C 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: Can you elaborate on that? Do you think every thing is right with that? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at this time. El_C 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: I've put much time on making this section to organize the major disputes. So, what should be done? Commencing an endless discussion with no un-involved input? who's going to help with resolving the disputes? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are dispute resolution avenues to help you gain uninvolved input into content disputes. El_C 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: There's no dispute over whether or not the material is suitable for inclusion. I say the sources even don't support such a level of assertion. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to learn what other editors think. If consensus can be shown, I'd be willing to edit the protected page to that (whichever) effect. El_C 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: They are watching our discussion and don't have to say anything, since their version is safely locked (please don't link to Wikipedia:Wrong Version). I showed multiple users saying the sources are not supporting the claim and while the policy saying "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" you're actually asking me to do the reverse. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to do anything. But, indeed, a lack of participation from those who support the other version may lead me to revert the protected page to your version. Time will tell. El_C 19:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources supporting the claim that the IRI has kidnapped and tortured MEK members. These all meet WP:RS, so not sure what the issue is here:

• "The Iranian regime, however, launched an astounding demonizing and Disinformation campaign against the MEK. Iran's agents in the Intereior Ministry kidnapped MEK members while others discuntinued the government's allocation of food rations, medicine and fuel for residents of Ashraf City contrary to all Islamic and Iraqi traiditions.^[16]
• "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.^[17]
• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."^[18]
• "The siblings were tortured in front of each other and repeatedly threatened with execution... Farzad was a nonviolent activist and supporter of the resistance group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), best known in the West for revealing details of the regime’s theretofore hidden nuclear program... "They wanted me to confess to crimes that I had not committed,” Farzad said. They wanted him to publicly renounce the PMOI (also called Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran. “They told me, ‘You come and do an interview against the PMOI, the MEK, and the NCRI,’ ” he said. “They would throw me on the ground and treat me like a football between three people. .  .  . Several times they did this to me in front of Shabnam’s eyes in order to break her.”^[19]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, came your comment after the warning. Anyway, your sources include claims by three people allegedly poisoned and tortured, an out of the ark source, i.e. Abrahamian's book, saying MEK made attacks for "imprisoning, and torturing political activists" (which should not be taken equivalent to saying Iran imprisoned, and tortured MEK members), a report by an advocacy group which, at best, can't be used un-attributed just like the report by the U.S. house of representatives saying "Iran's agents in the Intereior Ministry kidnapped MEK members". Come on, none of the above content can be used for concluding a fact like that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" with such a level of assertion. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among all the sources mentioned by Stefka, I only find Ervand's book reliable, in which there is no discussion of kidnapping MEK families. In fact, Masoud Rajavi's son was among the survivors of IRI's raid to Mousa Khiabani's safe-house, but the ended up growing up freely with his grandfather and leaving the country after all. --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to delay in response! I have to note that there is a difference between MEK's family which is our subject and political activities that have nothing to with our discussion but most of Stefka's source belongs to it. Also Congressional Record is as a reliable source for opinion (at that date), not as a reliable source for a fact OR Congressional Record is not a record of facts, it's a record of what was said. All in all above sources cannot support The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.Saff V. (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I could have sworn all these passed WP:RS and all describe torture or kidnapping of MEK members or sympathizers by the IRI. I browsed and found more:

• "The killing was ordered by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who became Supreme Leader of Iran after the revolution. It was relentless and efficient. Prisoners, including women and teenagers, were loaded onto forklift trucks and hanged from cranes and beams in groups of five or six at half-hourly intervals all day long. Others were killed by firing squad. Those not executed were subjected to torture. The victims were intellectuals, students, left-wingers, members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK), other opposition parties and ethnic and religious minorities. Many had originally been sentenced for non-violent offences such as distributing newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations or collecting funds for prisoners' families, according to a report published by Amnesty International, an NGO, in 1990."^[1] (The Economist)

• "Thousands of people suspected of belonging to the Mujahedin, and also to leftist opposition groups, were arrested and sent before the Revolutionary Courts... In order to obtain the desired confession, torture was routine."^[2] (BBC)

• "During the early morning hours of January 24, 2011, Evin prison authorities hanged Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for the crime of moharebeh because of their alleged ties to the banned Mojahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK)... During several interviews with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Kazemi's wife informed the group that interrogators had tortured her husband and kept him in solitary confinement for more than two months after his September 2009 arrest in order to force him to confess to the charges, but that he had refused to do so. Authorities failed to notify the prisoners' family members or lawyers prior to executing them.^[3] (Human Rights Watch)

• Ervand Abrahamian's Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran shows a chart of MEK and Marxist death tolls in Iranian prisons during the 1980s that says "Includes those executed by firing squad and hanging, but excludes those killed in armed confrontations and under torture.^[4] (University of California Press)

• If they were lucky, Mojahedin were arrested and put in prison. Torture and firing squad came later^[5] (Routledge)

Now that I've found these other RSs, I believe they should also be included in the article. If @El C: thinks thinks all these are not enough, I can look for more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for kidnapping and torturing MEK members may be, but their families no. The edit shown above by Mhossein (currently in the article) asserts kidnap and torture for MEK family members as well. That has to be corrected. Besides, "known" is a strong word. You guys never tolerate anything close to this no matter how many sources confirm MEK's assassination records in Iran; instead you change it to "According to ...". --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

• "documenting and investigating the crimes, including the extrajudicial executions carried out in 1988, as well as the ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims’ families... Amnesty International’s focus on one of the most heinous chapters of state violence in Iran’s recent history is further prompted by the ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about the extrajudicial execution of political dissidents in the 1980s"^[6]
• "According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these Intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution.^[7]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, found the latest content contained in the sets of sources presented directly above, quite compelling. El_C 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will start moving some of these quotes/sources into the mainspace (as far as I can see, these sources here are neither MEK nor IRI sympathetic).

Dispute F

While, I no longer push for including the "sexual fantasy confession" in the sexual abuse section, I still think it is worth mentioning in the article. One candidate section could be the human rights abuse section. There are at least two independent sources that mention this and it makes me believe it is due for inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from independent contributors of WP:RSN confirm the reliability of the source for the assertion, although mention that it is not sexual abuse.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"sexual fantasy confession" is remarked by numerous sources and ex-members. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: This case is open since long ago and there's no comment on this. What action do you think should be taken? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute G

As far as I am concerned, when an incident is so notable that has an article in the Wikipedia, it should be due for inclusion in the lead. Secondly, it is important to include it because in a way MEK broke its promise to USA after its ceasefire in 2003. --Kazemita1 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With Confirming Kazemita1's comment, why was the well-sourced material by haaretz removed? when the claim is supported by RS, it would stand as a fact! Isn't it? Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See MA Javadi's RfC post: "A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” so it is a difficult assertion. In Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists the MEK is mentioned as suspect, not as confirmed responsible." Alex-h (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and we can say in the lead that MEK is suspected to be involved in the assassination of the Iranian scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We call the content disputed when some deny and some confirm it. Here, We have more than one independent source that confirms MEK's involvement, but no independent source is yet to be found that denies MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The third official mentioned in the NBC article is neutral, saying I neither deny nor confirm. As a matter of fact, NBC's conclusion on the matter is quite clear as the title reads Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News. If we don't find any source that denies MEK's involvement in the matter, it should be mentioned as confirmed. However, if we find a disputing source we can then use the word suspected.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MA Javadi already included this in the RfC below:

"On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."[8]"

Considering the active active disinformation campaign against the MEK, only concretely confirmed data should be included in the lede. Complex allegations can be included in the body, along with context and counter-arguments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBC and Haartz are not part of misinformation against MEK. They are independent reliable sources. I do not recall I ever appealed to Iranian officials to prove a point in any of my edits on this article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein has contested this close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the claim that the MEK targeted ordinary citizens and civilians be removed from the lede? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Per WP:UNDUE. It's well documented that there was a two-way conflict between the MEK and Iranian officials, but the claim that the MEK targeted ordinary citizens contradicts numerous sources:

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.^[1] :

• "These [MEK’s] activities reflect two characteristics that do not fit the mold of counterterrorism analysis: first, the violence was targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc; and second, all these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between the MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs. [...] A terrorist group is by nature prone to gratuitous, indiscriminate violence, and is content – even eager – to harm innocents. The MEK’s record, however, suggests a different ethical calculus."

Struan Stevenson^[2]:

• What the PMOI [MEK] has never been in its history (past or present) is a terrorist organisation. The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. It has never targeted civilians, nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the PMOI campaigns agaisnt the Iranian regime. "

Ervand Abrahamian^[3]:

• The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings in order to limit civilian casualties

Ronen Cohen^[4]:

• "The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions only."

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi^[5]:

• "I pledge on behalf of the Iranian resistance that if anyone from our side oversteps the red line concerning absolute prohibition of attacks on civilians and innocent individuals, either deliberately or unintentionally, he or she would be ready to stand trial in any international court and accept any ruling by the court, including the payment of compensation.”

Dilip Hiro^[6] :

• "Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran’s civilian areas. […] All the same the Mujahedin-e Khalq concentrated … calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the bombing of civilian areas by both sides.”

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - There is plenty of evidence to show that the MEK's targets have always been part of the Iranian state and that they went out of their way to avoid any civilian casualties. Of course, that is not the position of the Islamic Republic, which considers MEK to be a terrorist group, but that is hardly a surprise. All other sources, as the above poster made very clear, deny such claims. PraiseVivec (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Key here, I think, is basing a decision upon sources that are neither MEK nor Islamic regime sympathetic. El_C 18:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also think we should try to avoid absolute stmts. This is an organization with 40+ years of history. A single example, or even a certain period, is not indicative of the whole. A "he said, she said" (MEK / IRI) might also be a good solution (MEK claims to be anti-IRI, while IRI blames MEK for a long list of thing (summarized into something shorter).Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No: There's actually no neutral source objecting the the fact that MEK used to target ordinary people, too (I'll support this claim by reliable sources). Why the sources provided by Stefka Bulgaria are not reliable here:

• Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
• I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
• As for the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[10] So, the sources are not academic and neutral.

Here are some sources showing MEK used to attack ordinary citizens:

• MEK has used this interpretation of Jihad in dealing with any opposition, murdering ordinary people, including Muslims who don't agree with its violation of all the rules of Jihad explained above. This has included killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people.

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

• When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot.

  Terrornomics by Routledge

• They brutally helped Saddam to murder Iranian children in their schools and they celebrated their attacks against Iranian civilians as if were their enemy.

  Living in hell

So, No, there's no reason to remove such a well-sourced content. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have complained about source neutrality, and then added biased sources yourself? The only neutral source of the three you provided is Terrornomics (which does not assert that the MEK targeted civilians). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost non of your sources are not neutral, if that's a concern for you. As for the Terrornomics may be I need to quote it in another color:

"When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the three sources above - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - [11] - it also isn't on geopolitics, but rather on the ideology/religious doctrine of MEK. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship. Which leaves use with Terrornomics - which indicates that MEK will kill civilians it sees as government supporters - which is not so strong here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you're using everything to discredit my sources and have no comment on those MEK SYMPATHETIC sources by stefk bulgaria shows your not neutral here. Do you have anything to say regarding "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Advisor? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was more interested in sources stating the affirmative - as only if they are of a good quality would one have to look at refuting sources or balance sources claiming the opposite. The sources presented above are so unconvincing that I do not have to evaluate Stefka's spurces.Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The lede should be greatly shortened and consign to the history section the complexities of MEK's history. Those wanting to know what MEK is should find as concise an answer as possible in the lede, including a statement about the complexity of any answer to the question of "terrorist organization". There may need to be a brief statement on the confusion among modern approaches to Islam. Jzsj (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes In agreement with Jzsj and Icewhiz. The lead needs to be shorter and avoid absolute statements (since different things happened at different times). I would support Icewhiz's "MEK claims to be anti-IRI, while IRI blames MEK for a long list of thing - summarized into something shorter" and Jzsj's "including a statement about the complexity of any answer to the question of terrorist organization" and "brief statement on the confusion among modern approaches to Islam". Alex-h (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No per Mhhossein , Also to shorten the lead, presenting summarized statement is better than removing it, attack to iranian civilian which is supported by RS is brilliant point to introduce the nature of MEK in the lead.Saff V. (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No: per Mhhossein's analysis of the sources. The books are clearly asserting they targeted civilians. The Article lead should include a glimpse of main subject that give a neutral view point to readers.Forest90 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Forest90: why did you edit my vote?Saff V. (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:, I'm really sorry. I made a mistake when was trying to write my comment. Please, forgive me.Forest90 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your comment @Saff V.:, and I'm sorry for the mistake. I edited your comment. I taught that editing my comment, but I wasn't and changed your comment mistakenly.Forest90 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. But also avoid stating it "only targeted government targets" (without only - OK). MEK has clearly also killed innocent civilians (OTOH - so has every armed force on the planet that has been involved in conflict (so Swiss Armed Forces have perhaps avoided this in past century+)). It may have even done so purposefully at some point or other. Sources do not however support that MEK's continuing goal was to target ordinary civilians (contrast this, with, say ISIL or Al-Qaeda where we have no trouble saying that they purposefully attacked civilians). We can say that the IRI has accused it of such (perhaps next to the terrorist designation). Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is misleading. We're not discussing whether or not MEK has been continually targeting civilians. You're discussing over a non-existent challenge. The question is if MEK targeted civilians and the answer, as you said, is YES. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets say MEK attacked innocent civilians on purpose once, is it lede worthy? Twice? Thrice? 10? (I will note we have not quite established one yet) The question is whether this DUE for the lede, not only V, and to show this is due - you need to show this is a significant charachteristic of MEK.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is of course a significant characteristic of MEK. They're known for targeting  religious people and plenty of plenty examples are found in Farsi sources (let alone the En books I provided). They targeted ordinary people even in Iraq and helped Saddam to crackdown the 1991 uprisings in Iraq. There's an infamous quotation from Maryam Rajavi:

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

[12]

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No: There are multiple independent sources mentioned above backing the content and thus the content should not be removed. @User:Icewhiz: we do not perform original research in Wikipedia; we only find reliable secondary sources. --Kazemita1 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But Mhhossein's only reliable source does not say that the MEK targeted civilians, it just says civilians were shot during attacks (which is very different), and that's without mentioning the other numerous sources that say the MEK did not target civilians. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I post it again for your to note MEK did target civilians:

• MEK has used this interpretation of Jihad in dealing with any opposition, murdering ordinary people, including Muslims who don't agree with its violation of all the rules of Jihad explained above. This has included killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people.

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

• When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot.

  Terrornomics by Routledge

• They brutally helped Saddam to murder Iranian children in their schools and they celebrated their attacks against Iranian civilians as if were their enemy.

  Living in hell

--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not, in fact, established WP:V (an autobio, a former MEK member, and a source that does not quite support this.... Are not convincing) - and V is not sufficient, in particular for the lede, please see WP:DUE. If this were easy to source - we would have mainstream sources simply shouting this all over - it is clear it is not easy, and therefore DUE is an issue here too.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are you searching for?

Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot.

What kind of verification or verifaibility do you mean? @Kazemita1: At first they demanded reliable sources showing MEK used to target ordinary people, now that sources are provided, they say it's not DUE. OMG! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. per the sources in this RfC. As a side note, Mhhossein's and Kazemita1's increasingly hysterical bludgeoning of this talk page is getting beyond the pale. Barca (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closing user/admin will consider your drive-by comment and your personal attack. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I second what Barca just said, adding that Dilip Hiro, Ronen Cohen, Ervan Abrahamian, Lincoln P. Bloomfield are also all ok sources and expert authors. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Bloomfield and Stevenson were shown to be sympathetic to MEK. Also this source is saying MEK targeted civilians. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source (or the source the book is quoting) does not say that the MEK targeted civilians; but rather, it says that government supporters were shot by the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong No per Mhhossein. Many of User:Stefka Bulgaria sources are pro-MEK. For example, Stevenson is the president of "Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and "Coordinator of the Campaign for Iran Change". The former has been references heavily by MEK. His book's title is a clear indicator of his political bias: Self-Sacrifice [!!]: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin. Taha (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The evidence shows that the MEK targeted the State, not civilians. If the MEK had targeted civilians, this would be well documented, but it's not. MA Javadi (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No: The sources provided to show MEK did not attack ordinary people are at best not neutral. Also, I did not know Bloomfield is a senior advisor for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Shashank5988 (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I came from the page with a list of RfCs. Looking at the sourcing and the discussion, it appears to me that Cohen and Abrahamian are the best we have. That said, I have to say that User:Stefka Bulgaria actually made it harder to come to this conclusions by including biased sources among what appear to be unbiased ones, and also that evidence of bias in the sources I mentioned might change my mind. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Adding to my previous comment; Mujahedin-e Khalq are accused of being behind the bombing of Imam Reza shrine leading to death of at least 26 people (see Terrorism's War with America: A History, P. 90), which means they had targeted ordinary people. I also found this one saying "MEK was fairly indiscriminate about its targets of violence." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations of different accused groups (including the MEK, among others) is not evidence (WP:UNDUE speculation). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Also basing on Cohen and Abrahamian, which appears to be the best we have to determine that the MEK targeted Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions (and not civilians per se). Ypatch (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No The sources provided show they used to attack civilian. For instance "Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" is mentioned by Terrornomics. Also, Abrahamian is not supporting the claim that MEK did not target the civilians since it's only talking about MEK's alleged attempts aimed at minimizing the civilian causalities. Other sources provided by Stefka Bulgaria are shown to be pro-MEK so we'd better not to rely on them. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To include in the lede section of the article that "the MEK targeted civilians", then we need RSs saying just that. Instead, we have "countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot", which can equate to collateral damage and a number of other things. If we are to include that the MEK targeted civilians, then we should have enough RSs saying that was the case, but we don't have a single one confirming this. On the other hand, we have RSs saying that the MEK targeted the Iranian regime and avoided civilian casualties:

Ronen Cohen^[1]:

• "The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions only."

Dilip Hiro^[2] :

• "Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran’s civilian areas. […] All the same the Mujahedin-e Khalq concentrated … calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the bombing of civilian areas by both sides.”

Ervand Abrahamian^[3]:

• The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings in order to limit civilian casualties

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajavi agreement should immediately be ignored here, it's not supporting anything here. Also, "To limit civilian causalities" does not mean they did not attack civilians. "countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" clearly means MEK used to attack "ordinary citizens". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice the RSs I provided above (which do not include Rajavi's statement), they clearly say that the MEK did not target civilians. There may have been casualties of "ordinary citizens" as a result of MEK attacks on the state, but that does not equate to the MEK targeting civilians; rather, that there were civilian casualties on some MEK attacks on the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are not baking your position. See "the assassination of ordinary citizens" in [13]. I know it's opinion but this opinion is not alone and is backed by other reliable sources. Al-monitor is another source showing PMOI used to target civilians by making "practices of indiscriminate bombings". So I still think the statement should not be removed from the lead. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the MEK is historically left-wing, they have, as the article says itself, moved sharply to the right in exile, embracing free-market economics and taking a pro-Israel, pro-America line, and are roundly condemned in international left-wing circles. I think at this point their political position would be hard to articulate, I'd suggest it be removed entirely. Zellfire999 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zellfire999: Hey, that would be much better if you had supported the "move" by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no reliable source for them being left-wing, either, and no citation in the claim. Agreed with removing the designator entirely. Voyaging^talk 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. I also get the impression that the historiography would agree with you on this front. El_C 14:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@All, have you seen the recent news on a character believed to be fake and created by MEK propaganda machine? That's why I stress that we should take care when using MEK-sympathetic sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting!Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation campaign by MEK against Iranian regime

• Why does the U.S. need trolls to make its Iran case?, Washington post, June 11th, 2019

• AN IRANIAN ACTIVIST WROTE DOZENS OF ARTICLES FOR RIGHT-WING OUTLETS. BUT IS HE A REAL PERSON?, The intercept, June 9th 2019

• مجله فوربز مقالات 'کارشناس ایرانی جعلی' را حذف کرد, BBC Persian, June 11th 2019

--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1: Yeah, that deserves to be in the article. Also see:

The Suspicious Twitter Network Trolling for Regime Change in Iran

Iranians respond to MEK troll farm: #YouAreBots

--Mhhossein ^talk 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations are not confirmed and IRI-controlled media/opinion pieces are not RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Washington Post, The Intercept, Forbes, and BBC are not in any way controlled by IRI.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP violation, see:[14] [15] Alex-h (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is talking about the redirect not inclusion in the article. Moreover, the responder isn't aware of the sources other than the intercept.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1: you took this to two noticeboards, and neither said it was ok for inclusion. Please do not include back into the article unless you have some consensus to do so. Alex-h (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Kazemita1 added info that according to two noticeboards (see:[16] [17]), may be a BLP violation, so I reverted and left a message explaining why (the one above this message), but Kazemita1 then inserted the text back again. How does this work in terms of the pages’s recent edit restrictions? Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They now are given a chance to self-revert, or they face sanction. BLP violations are exempt from any restrictions, but what constitutes a BLP violation needs to be established first (at BLPN or by an admin). Please keep me updated. Personally, I have no problem with using The Intercept as a source (and it is not listed in WP:RSP), but I'm not exactly unbiased, as I do read it regularly. El_C 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if there are, indeed, other reliable sources (that are listed on WP:RSP) which confirm this addition, then you need to better substantiate your objection, in turn. The report at BLPN is one which I deem insufficient to establish a BLP violation, so that's out, for now. If you do get consensus there for that in the future, or are able to convince myself or another admin that this does, in fact, constitutes a BLP violation, then that, again, will supersedes any restriction. But now the onus is on you to better explain why that addition does not merit inclusion. El_C 17:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, Kazemita1 rolled back his edits but also rolled back other edits that were not in dispute, with the edit summary "rolling to back to pre-war condition per El_C's request on my talk page". What happens now? Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an outline, including diffs. But generally, they have to provide substantive objections, in detail. Unexplained reverts may be viewed as tendentious. El_C 20:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, Kazemita1 rolled back these edits which were not in dispute:[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted edits from both sides, not just one side, including this edit from Mhossein. All I did was essentially roll it back to an earlier time; i.e. right after the article was opened last. You can see the diff here. We are yet to hear a reason on why the story piece about Heshmat Alavi is a BLP violation.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why did you revert those unrelated edits? El_C 03:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remain bipartisan that's all. I saw you doing that whenever there was an edit-war.Kazemita1 (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but generalities won't do. Please restore any edit you removed which you do not have a substantive objection to. El_C 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. With that I am asking folks to explain why the content on Heshmat Alavi is BLP violation, given the fact that there was no redirect in my edit.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, from what I can see, the Intercept interviewed two people that claim Heshmat Alavi is a made-up journalist. Other sources that have covered this story seem to have done so based on the Intercept article, but this does not appear to have been confirmed beyond the previously mentioned. What do you think? Should we take it back to BLPN? Alex-h (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Take this Al-jazeera piece where the author interviewed several independent or anti-regime folks who believe Heshmat Alavi is fake.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Al-Jazeera piece seems to be convincing. The work is contributed by "Negar Mortazavi - consultant editor, The Independent, Maral Karimi - author, The Iranian Green Movement of 2009, Trita Parsi - founder, National Iranian American Council and Tara Sepehri Far - Iran researcher, Human Rights Watch." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Believing to be true is not the same as being true. Al-jazeera's report is drawing from the same Intercept article and not providing evidence that confirms if this Iranian activist exists or not. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting what the Al-jazeera report says about the Iran Disinformation project, and those interviewed appear to have been accused of lobbying for the Iranian government, so not the best people to ask about this topic. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of things that need attention. First of all, the so-called Heshmat Alavi, in his own website admitted that it is not his real name or picture. Therefore, the BLP issue is off the table. The second thing is that BBC, Al-Jazeera, Washington Post and etc. are all endorsing The Intercept article and that should be enough. Remember we do not perform original research. Add to the fact, that no independent source has said anything in support of Heshmat Alavi being a single person.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Alavi's website, I see that he says "I have asked myself repeatedly about the objective of The Intercept article that is full of obvious lies, and how it was a completely orchestrated effort with the Iranian regime’s troll cyber army and known Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents," which means he denies these allegations, which means this can constitute a BLP violation. Barca (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:. Since your last comment here that "the onus is on you [Alex-h] to better explain why that addition does not merit inclusion" we have a new input. The fact that the pseudo-name "Heshmat Alavi" admitted it is not his real name or photo:

No, I will never reveal my real identity or photograph. Not as long as the mullahs’ regime is in power. No activist in his/her right mind would do so. That would place all of my family, friends and myself, both inside & outside of Iran, in complete danger.

.

Am I right thinking BLP violation is off the table given this confession?Kazemita1 (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. El_C 10:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That this is not a BLP violation, it doesn't mean that there aren't any other problems with this. The Intercept article interviews Hassan Heyrani, (yet another former MEK member) who alleges that Heshmat Alavi is not a real persona and that he writes on behalf of the MEK. Alavi then admitted that he writes under an alias, but did not say that he writes on behalf of the MEK. There is, in fact, no evidence that he writes for the MEK. All we have is an unverified allegation by a former MEK member, or is there something else? Alex-h (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix your argument. There is no confession from "Heshmat Alavi" he writes on behalf of MEK. However, there are 4-5 independent reliable sources that back that assertion (BBC, The intercept, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera).Kazemita1 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to those sources? Please feel free to just refactor those onto your current comment. El_C 19:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/heshmat-alavi-fake-iran-mek
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/11/why-does-us-need-trolls-make-its-iran-case/?utm_term=.669dac8e0727
• https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/fa/contents/articles/originals/2018/09/iran-mek-twitter-troll-farm-al-jazeera-zarif-criticism-jack.html
• [https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2019/06/iran-tensions-trolls-dubious-case-heshmat-alavi-190616075641073.html
• http://www.bbc.com/persian/world-48604383

--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h, there seem to be enough reliable sources that report on the Intercept piece, so I'm not sure your objection really stands up to scrutiny. (Example:Alavi was once cited by the White House as a credible commentator on Iran but it turns out he is a fictional persona that reportedly was created by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) - a group opposed to the Iranian government and supported by Washington.) El_C 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: These sources (including Al-jazeera) are just drawing from what the Intercept wrote about Heshmat Alavi. The Intercept interviewed a former MEK member who claimed Heshmat Alavi writes for the MEK. That's the only evidence presented here, an allegation by a former member that is being repeated in other sources. Alex-h (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not really here to investigate reliable sources' findings (unless another reliable source does this) — that is original research. All we are here to do is report what these sources are saying. El_C 14:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that Human rights reports or Amnesty are tertiary sources at best, but they are usually the collective work of several volunteers writing these reports based on "he said, she said" of various political activists. So the attributed statements for these sources are needed. In the other hands, the HRW report largely talks about "Huge Spike in Executions in Iran", while it was used to cite a minor passage just about MEK Or two specific persons, That is called cherry picking and is a kind of misrepresentation of the source.

Also,I have to note that Stefka wrote a statement with significant POV issue into the article "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process". Please pay attention that material about Kazemi or Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh includes cherry picking problem and undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I find this recent revert by Saff V. to be tendentious as there was no "Cherrypicking" or "misrepresentation of the source" as the user claims; the text simply repeats what the RSs say. This is what was removed:

• This statement is backed up by numerous sources: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.^{[4][5][6][7][8]}

• This statement is attributed and backed by a reliable source: "According to European intelligence and security services (as well as MEK members), Iran's Ministry of Intelligence's networks "shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution."^[9]

• This is a well-documented incident that has its own Wiki page: 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners."In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""^[10]

• In 2011, Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so."^[11]

• This statement is attributed: "In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."^[12]

Thanks for checking.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as saying it's tendentious, but it could be better substantiated. If one argues that something falls outside of due weight, they are then obligated to show what those limits of due weight actually are, a matter which is not made entirely clear by the objection. Likewise, if someone is arguing that the facts are being cherrypicked, they are then likewise obligated to show where those pertinent facts actually lie. El_C 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: so they've reverted even though they haven't outlined where the WP:DUE and WP:CHERRY issues are. Wouldn't that qualify as an unsubstantiated revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it should be better substantiated now. El_C 03:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we should be better at expressing ourselves now that the article is under this new restriction. First of all note that the article already includes "there has also been an ongoing campaign by the Islamic Republic to demonize victims, distort facts, and repress family survivors and human rights defenders}}. This is sentence is so close to one of the given suggestions. Also, there's already a sentence saying "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" and there's another one narrating Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh's claims. Should we copy here every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports? Also the article already includes "shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution". Stefka was told about this (see Mhhossein's comment on 07:21, 8 June 2019). You have also suggested to add the repetitious "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process" without making proper attributions, which adds to the severity of the problem. Just, look at the suggested title! This is while we have 'Human rights record' for the MEK itself. Should we change it into "MEK's human rights abuses"?For cherry picking, HRW reported that not only the crime of Kazemi is being in relation with MEK, but also the two of sending images of the protests to foreign is mentioned as his another crime, while it was not brought in that paragraph.Saff V. (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t think we should include “every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports” (which, by the way, we are not), then the same applies for other aspects in the article such as the “sex allegations” against the group, correct?

Also, you could have just removed text that was repeated; everything else is properly backed and attributed and refers to this section which specifically addresses “IRI human right abuses against the MEK”. Can you specify, one by one, what is UNDUE or CHERRY about each point I raised above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would vary from case to case as well as I don't know which sex allegations exactly you mean. Anyway, please let us review disputes one by one and don't say anything about sex allegations in this discussion, they are different from each other. I addressed POV and cherry picking issues in my previous comment.Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, NyTimes and the Guardian are used for the cases mentioned in sexual abuse allegations. Needless, to say that the section is titled as allegation! Not a double standard? As for the repeated text, what would remain if we remove them? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: From Saff V.'s response, I can't see what's WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE about the points raised above; can you? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can. The argument has now been substantiated. I think it's best that every case should be evaluated according to its own merits and particularities. We should not doing a pro- vs. anti-MEK counter weighting here. El_C 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Sorry, I'm having difficulties seeing it. What's WP:CHERRY / WP:UNDUE about this first point for instance?

• The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.^{[4][5][13][14][15]}

Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that it essentially duplicates existing material. El_C 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I had also noticed it before but missed here for whatever reason. But I can't see the WP:CHERRY/WP:UNDUE for the other text that's not repeated; this for instance:

"In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""^[16]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's essentially a duplicate of the existing materials. See 'Operation Eternal Light and 1988 executions' where 3 paragraphs are dedicated to this. So, I don't think it would be suitable to include given those materials. Moreover, for your next edits, calling sth "cruel, inhuman" without making proper attributions is not a good idea, is it? Specially when the source, i.e. Amnesty, is itself criticized for " whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)  [reply]

Amnesty International and HRW are neither MEK or IRI sympathetic. Instead of creating a new section about the IRI's human right abuses against the MEK, would everyone be ok to just include (whatever is backed by RSs and isn't repeated) chronologically in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the materials are not fitting well into a time line basis. That's why I don't think it can be true for all the parts. The main sections are already showing a chrono order. Right? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I explained my mean clearly before but because of Stefka's ask, I make it clear by reviewing one by one.

• The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families., it repeated nearly 3 times in the article (Plz do ctrl F "kidnap") so giving undue weight is obvious.
• "In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." it repeated nearly 2 times in the article (Plz do ctrl F "executions") so giving undue weight is obvious, words such as cruel, inhuman needs to be attributed.
  • In 2011, Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so." there is a cherry-picking issue. Stefka wrote that Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK, while as the source says, Jafar Kazemi was executed because of sending photos of the protest for foreign people. Also this statement about Kazemi and his wife need to be attributed.

"In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families." it is duplicated and make undue weight issue.Saff V. (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have several RSs that say the IRI tortures MEK members, so this is not WP:UNDUE information, and whatever is not repeated elsewhere in the article can be included (either chronologically or in its section), correct? Please note this is about "torture" against the MEK, not executions or anything else. This is what RSs say:

• "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.^[17]

• "The killing was ordered by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who became Supreme Leader of Iran after the revolution. It was relentless and efficient. Prisoners, including women and teenagers, were loaded onto forklift trucks and hanged from cranes and beams in groups of five or six at half-hourly intervals all day long. Others were killed by firing squad. Those not executed were subjected to torture. The victims were intellectuals, students, left-wingers, members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK), other opposition parties and ethnic and religious minorities. Many had originally been sentenced for non-violent offences such as distributing newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations or collecting funds for prisoners' families, according to a report published by Amnesty International, an NGO, in 1990."^[18] (The Economist)

• "Thousands of people suspected of belonging to the Mujahedin, and also to leftist opposition groups, were arrested and sent before the Revolutionary Courts... In order to obtain the desired confession, torture was routine."^[19]

• "During the early morning hours of January 24, 2011, Evin prison authorities hanged Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for the crime of moharebeh because of their alleged ties to the banned Mojahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK)... During several interviews with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Kazemi's wife informed the group that interrogators had tortured her husband and kept him in solitary confinement for more than two months after his September 2009 arrest in order to force him to confess to the charges, but that he had refused to do so. Authorities failed to notify the prisoners' family members or lawyers prior to executing them.^[20]

• Ervand Abrahamian's Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran shows a chart of MEK and Marxist death tolls in Iranian prisons during the 1980s that says "Includes those executed by firing squad and hanging, but excludes those killed in armed confrontations and under torture.^[21] (University of California Press)

• If they were lucky, Mojahedin were arrested and put in prison. Torture and firing squad came later^[22] (Routledge)

If there are problems with any of these, please be specific. They are not WP:UNDUE, meet WP:RS, and as far as I can see are not repeated outlining torture against the MEK by the IRI in the article. They can also be attributed, so that's also not the issue here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing to do with how many RSes support the material, I am sure there are undue issues, It is better to remind your word: "There is no need to have 5 different subsections here. This refers to my previous comment about trying too hard to magnify trivial information into significant events.... The section does not need further repeated statements by the same authors.There seems to be a lot of hostility between the MEK and the IRI, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tabloid platform for amplifying this. The article needs to focus primarily on major historical / political events, as any Wikipedia article about a political party. Following your given reasons, duplicate material that some of them were repeated more than 2 times should be removed from the article.Saff V. (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we only include text that isn't already in the article. From what I can see, the text above is not repeated text already in the article. I'm also fine with not creating further subsections. Are we all ok with this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka how do you think about the following sentences? Aren't they repeated or same? Still, do you think these sentences The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families...."In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." have to be kept into the article?

in the following, I collect duplicated material for the above sentences from the article:

1. The MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists".
2. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih".
3. The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.
4. In August 1992, a MEK member was kidnapped and brought to Iran.

and as to executions, we have:

1. In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members.
2. In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners".
3. The executions ordered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government. Saff V. (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do one at a time:

• "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.^[23]

Where is this repeated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that sentences like... In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners" ...or... In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members ...as well as... A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa are enough to devoted space to 1988 executions and there is no need to detailed description?Saff V. (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does provide a more detailed description, which can be merged with "A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa". Should I come up with a proposed merge of sources/statements? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see the merged material here?Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How's this?: "A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa" A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: in case you missed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is duplicated material. The exact number of executed people is on the article right now...In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners.Saff V. (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I suggest we replace the excerpt you provided with this:

"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."

In this instance, nothing is repeated and the info is better presented/more accurate. Can we please agree? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what are the differences? Are you going to stress at the time of the event, late July and mid-August? The important key points of your suggested text now can be seen in the article. Saff V. (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents; These executions were carried out when MEK had launched armed attacks against Iran and some of the members of MEK in prison were supporting this armed development by making riots. So anything you are going to add, should include such a context, without which the text would be imbalanced. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) What is the problem with adding the dates of the events? 2) This is presented within the 1988 conflict with Iran, so that's not an issue. Any clear objection why this shouldn't be on the mainspace? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to adding just the time (late July and mid-August), it makes the article more accurate. I extremely believe that we have to avoid adding duplicated material.Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think we should add repeated material. Please tell me what's repeated here:

"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."

Please be specific. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of WP:RS show that this group has barely any support inside Iran and has only risen to prominense in the West in recent years due to massive lobbying (incl. $$$$). How come this verifiable fact is not reflected in the lede and body of the article?

• "The MEK, which still seeks the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, has marginal support inside Iran, however." -- Juneau, Thomas (2015). Squandered Opportunity: Neoclassical Realism and Iranian Foreign Policy. Stanford University Press. p. 124
• "Most observers of Iranian politics say the MeK has minimal support in Iran and is widely hated for its use of violence and close links to Israeli intelligence." -- Arron Merat and Julian Borger (30 June 2018). "Rudy Giuliani calls for Iran regime change at rally linked to extreme group". The Guardian.

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon: Hi, can you put your suggestion here? I mean, how should the lead include this do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Something like:

"The MEK is considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.[33][34][35] However, it has barely any support inside Iran,<INSERT REFERENCES> was listed as a terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada and the United States until around 2010, and has only recently risen to prominence in the West since the 2000s due to major lobbying campaigns.<INSERT REFERENCES>

IMO, reading this article as an uninvolved editor, there's a hidden message underneath. And that message is to make you think that this group actually enjoys major support inside Iran and represents quasi-innocent angels who were given a bad name only due to unjust actions by others. Yet the reliable sources completely contradict this. The fact that the group was known as a terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada and the United States until 2009/2012 is a major point that should be given more prominence in the lede per WP:DUE. The current status/activities of the party (as its not defunct) are much more relevant than its detailed 1960s/1970s/1980s activities. IMO, its current/recent status should be explained first, followed by its history since inception.

Currently, its post-2000 status is only mentioned at the bottom of the lede, and almost 3,5 alineas are dedicated to a fraction of its 1960s/1970s/1980s activities. Interestingly, not even the fact that the MEK killed numerous people in the Pahlavi era is mentioned.[30] "Armed conflict" is weaselish as far as this article is concerned, given that the group continued its "armed conflict" for many years after 1979. Suggestion:

The organization engaged in armed conflict with the Pahlavi dynasty in the 1970s,[31] killing Iranians and foreigners (incl. US citizens) in the process and contributed to the overthrow of the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. It subsequently pursued the establishment of a democracy in Iran, particularly gaining support from Iran's middle class intelligentsia.[37][38][39][40

Some lay-out play has to be initiated as far as the lede is concerned. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public support of the MEK in Iran is problematic since that can lead to incarceration, torture, and/or execution. The MEK's terrorist designation is also problematic as there are also plenty of RSs saying that “The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami".^[1][2][3][4] Also the group went through a Schism period between 1971 up to the Iranian revolution where a Marxist splinter faction used the same name; this has sometimes created confusion between the Islamic MEK (this page) and the Marxist MEK (Peykar), even though they're two completely different groups. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I concur with you and I opened an RFC in this regard, however there was self-made 'chrono' arguments repeatedly used by some users which, to my surprise, Cinderella157 has found to be a "compelling argument". That said, I'm still OK with having a lay-out play. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm in agreement with Cinderella157, they closed that RfC properly, so discarding what other editors and sources are saying is not OK. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Chrono' order is a self-made and bizarre argument, not a "compelling" one! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that arranging events as they unfolded, rather than according to personal preference, is definitely compelling, but you don't have to agree. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: In this edit, you seem to have removed that the NLA was active from 1987 to 2003. What sources confirm that the NLA has been active beyond the ceasefire agreement? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you mean this one where I just elaborated my point by saying "Ceasefire agreement does not mean they're not armed no longer." In fact, there should be a source confirming they were not active beyond the agreement. For instance, see Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and search for "MEK". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman response since whether they are "armed" is not in discussion here. You removed that the NLA was active from 1987 to 2003, so please provide some RSs that verify the NLA is still active, otherwise please self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, "whether they are "armed" is not in discussion here" and I'll revert if you provide a reliable source saying MEK had armed activities only between 1987 - 2003 and they did no armed activities afterwards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my posts again. We're discussing the NLAs period of activity. Are you saying the NLA has still been active beyond 2003? If so, you need to provide some RSs that confirm this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"US. military leaders in Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with the MKO in April 2003 that allowed it to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces."[31]. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Mhhossein added in the article that the NLA (the MEK's military wing) has been active since the MEK's 2003 ceasefire agreement. However, the only source Mhhossein has provided to back up that statement is the one he included above, which doesn't mention the NLA but says that the MEK were allowed to keep weapons after the ceasefire agreement. I find that this is problematic because allowing the MEK to keep weapons is not the same as the NLA continuing to be active. Could you please weight in? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: well, you are free to revert that edit — then it would be up to Mhhossein to establish the required consensus for it. That's how this works. Slow but (hopefully) steady. El_C 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, think I'm starting to get the hang of this, slow but steady... thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Please note that I just restored the long standing version of the article which was recently changed by the IP without building consensus. So, it's up to Stefka Bulgaria to build a consensus for changing the long standing version. The only source Stefka Bulgaria relies on is the sources saying the made a ceasfeire agreement in Iraq which it does not mean they were no longer active. For example, MEK is among the suspects of the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MEK (along with other groups) is suspected of being behind the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, but that's not confirmed and does not mention the NLA anywhere. It's quite simple, if the NLA has been active beyond 2003, then there should be RSs supporting this, but there aren't. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the other version can be up in the meantime, if it is, in fact, the longstanding version. But regardless of which version is up in the interim, indeed, there needs to be supporting evidence that the NLA remains active (in some capacity, at least). Key word is substantiate. El_C 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already restored the longstanding version. Stefka Bulgaria's comment was not, let's say, accurate when he said I had inserted something in the box while I had just restored the longstanding version. Anyway, do you think MEK's agreement with U.S. is an indication of the group becoming inactive? I don't think so. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about the MEK as a whole, though, we're talking about the status of its military wing, which, speaking for myself, I have no idea about. Again, both sides should work on substantiating. El_C 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your advice on substantiating and I'm pretty much ready to accept the sources saying NLA was inactive after 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Mhhossein added in the article] that the NLA was been active since 2003, but has not provided any evidence to back this up. Is this correct? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. Can you please be accurate when talking about others' edits? After this comment, which was misleading, you're now saying I have "added in the article that the NLA was been active since 2003," which is not true! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, you need to provide a reference saying that the NLA has been active beyond 2003. Do you have a reference? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The branch had been active since 1987 and there's no reliable source saying it got inactive at a certain point. So, you need to find a reliable source saying the group was inactive after 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: The MEK signed a ceasefire agreement in 2003; plenty of sources covering this:

• In April 2003, US forces signed a cease-fire agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the MEK.Israeli National News

• The MEK/NLA subsequently signed a cease fire letter on April 15, 2003. The Guardian

• In the aftermath of the war in Iraq and on or around 15 April 2003, Coalition forces signed an agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the PMOI in Iraq. The Economist

Since the 2003 ceasefire agreement, there haven't been any recorded incidents involving the NLA. As such, if you make a claim that the NLA has been active after 2003, then it's on you to provide such evidence. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that "mutual" agreement between MEK and U.S. Note that the agreement "allowed it [MEK] to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces."[32] In fact, they agreed not to make operations against U.S. and it does not mean they were completely inactive since then. There are some cases where MEK carried out operations, for example see Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists were MEK is of the main suspects according to analysts and experts. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of tanks? — where do they keep them? Anyway maybe you two can compromise with a label of inactive but a note about suspected activities past that date. Just a thought. El_C 16:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: If Mhhossein can find a source that says the NLA is suspected of any activity, then by all means let's come up with a middle-ground. Mhhossein is not, however, putting forth such a source (the suspicions about of nuclear scientists does not mention the NLA). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you have the floor. El_C 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EI C for the suggestion, however we still need sources saying NLA has got inactive. I checked MEK's official website and found some more interesting clues supporting my position. For instance, this link speaks of NLA's summon letter being distributed across Iran amid the previous presidential election or this one talking about the history of NLA. The latter does not say in any ponint NLA was inactive and emphasizes that NLA has passed multiple steps in its history. Also I'd like to say that Stefka Bulgaria's assertion on using an emblodened 'NLA' just baffles me. Despite what he tries to pretend, NLA is not something different from MEK. See this source for example: "In the Matter of the Designation of the Mujahadin-e Khalq...Also Known as the National Liberation Army of Iran, Also Known as NLA, Also Known as People's Mujahadin Organization of Iran..." The MEK members still use this title indiscriminatedly when refering to their group ([33]). --Mhhossein ^talk 11:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, there may have been a cease fire, but do you have evidence that the NLA actually (officially) suspended operations? — actual mentions to that effect beyond your own original research that speak as to its overall lack of activity passed a certain date? Mhhossein, on the same token, do you have actual evidence of (overt, covert) activity that goes beyond suspicions? Again, a compromise that includes exactly what we do have to show in this regard, might be the best way to resolve all this. El_C 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, there is no evidence of the NLA taking part in any operation beyond 2003, just like there isn't evidence of other things that the NLA did not do. It's confusing to me to have to provide evidence of things that have not happened. Also, the NLA is not the MEK, but the military wing of the MEK. The NLA has been active from 1987 to 2003, and thus we have sources that confirm its activities during this period. If there are sources that confirm the NLA has taken part in any event after the 2003 ceasefire agreement, then we should certainly include this in the article; however, there aren't any. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had already said above we're not talking about the MEK as a whole, though, we're talking about the status of its military wing, so that was unnecessary. I am up to speed. Anyway, if you have sources that NLA disbanded or suspended operations then you should provide these. If not, then that probably would have to be qualified. El_C 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: That MEK's official website talks about the NLA's activtiy in recent years is a good indication of the branch being still active. Please search Persian: ارتش آزادی بخش ملی ایران. I made some examples, but see this one which talks about a 2013 report by NLA on a murder case. What more do we need here? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Here are sources that confirm the MEK were disarmed in 2003 by the US:

• The MEK/NLA subsequently signed a cease fire letter on April 15, 2003. Heavy weapons and all light arms were confiscated from the MEK, and the membership of the MEK in Iraq was consolidated from several MEK camps to the main camp at Ashraf.

  [34]

• In May 2003, the Washington agencies agreed to direct coalition forces to secure the MEK’s surrender and to disarm the group. Again, the coalition officers who negotiated with the MEK leadership were dissuaded from carrying out this instruction. Rather than insisting upon the MEK’s surrender, they accepted a cease-fire agreement under which the MEK would be disarmed and its (at the time) 3,800 members would be consolidated and detained through assigned residence (rather than internment) at the MEK’s largest facility, Camp Ashraf.

  [35]

• Until the American invasion of Iraq last year, the People’s Mujahedeen maintained armed camps near the Iranian border… The American bombing raids on the camps represented the most aggressive approach by the United States in the handling of the group. It was followed by a gentler approach, including prolonged case-fire negotiations and a cordial relationship between the group and the American military police unites that have guarded the camp, preventing members from leaving except under American military escort.

  [36]

• Eventually, the NLA was consolidated into Camp Ashraf… and oversight of the NLA was assigned to the U.S. military. A cease-fire agreement was signed between the U.S. military and the NLA… All NLA members signed letters renouncing terrorism.

  [37]

• On April 2003, members of the U.S. Special Operations Forces signed a ceasefire agreement with MEK leaders. Subsequently, Department of Defense issued guidance through CENTCOM to forces on the ground to effect a MEK surrender. Following a series of negotiations with MEK leaders, the several thousand MEK members were separated from their well-maintained heavy weapons and brought under coalition control at Camp Ashraf in Diyala province. […] After the security agreement took effect on January 1, 2009, U.S. forces handed control over the outer perimeter around Camp Ashraf to the ISF.

  [38]

• Aside from the National Liberation Army’s attacks into Iran toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War, and occasional NLA cross-border incursions since, the MEK’s attacks on Iran have amounted to little more than harassment.

  [39]

There are more available if needed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating the old comments. The question is not whether they had agreements or not. There might be millions of sources saying they had ceasefire with the U.S. So what? My sources from the official website of MEK explicitly talk about the NLA's activities. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm providing sources that say the NLA was disarmed by the US in 2003, which is I believe what El_C asked for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, so did the MEK follow through on that agreement? Was the NLA disarmed in the end? El_C 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: According to the sources, the MEK was disarmed in 2003. Here is another source by the LA Times (currently being discussed in another TP section):

"Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

^[1]

Since it was disarmed, there haven't been any reports/sources of the NLA breaking their agreement with the US, or taking up arms in any other incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for us. We have to go with the sources say, until other sources establish this to the contrary. If after the 2003 agreement with the US to disarm, the NLA still participated in other (covert, armed-encounters) operations, even if on behalf of US allies, this needs to be established by the available sources. Was the NLA actually dissolved, also? El_C 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: RSs say that the NLA was disarmed in 2003 by the US, and then there's nothing else about the NLA from 2003 onwards. My suggestion would be to reflect what RSs say: "Founded in 1987 - disarmed in 2003" (or something along those lines). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: The details of the ceasefire is also given in this reliable source which says MEK was "allowed it to keep all its weapons". As for the NLA being dissolved, I already provided links to the MEK's official website talking about NLA's recent reports. So, the sources say they are not dissolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The fact remains that sources say the NLA/MEK was disarmed in 2003, with no other RSs saying the group has broken the agreement or that the NLA has been involved in any other event since. This source may also be of interest:

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam, occupying US forces disarmed the residents of Camp Ashraf and signed a formal agreement that promised them the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlines the rules for protecting civilians in times of war.

[40]

There have since been numerous violent attacks by Iran and Iranian proxies to MEK refugee camps,[41][42] which led to the US relocating MEK members to Albania. There isn't any mention of the NLA (or any type of armed resistance) during these violent attacks against the MEK (or any other event after 2003 for that matter). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the NLA was active under Saddam - and was tolerated and promoted as an armed force (including heavy arms) by Saddam. Following their 2003 disarmament (see - [43] - they had the strength of an armored division circa 2003) - they no longer exist as an actual regular force (in terms of actual men/women and material). Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but your understanding is just against the facts found in the MEK's official website, as I showed earlier in this section. They still talk about recent reports by NLA! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And is MEK a RS? The source you pointed out mentions some report from Camp Ashraf (since closed moved to Camp Liberty, since closed move to Albania). MEK might still refer to NLA. There might still be people with NLA ranks (just as Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran might style himself as something, as may people associated with various defunct groups). However - NLA as a bona fida armed force (with tanks, artillery, APCs, etc.) - ceased to exist in 2003. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEK's official webpage can be used in this case; My source talks about a 2013 report by NLA on a murder case. Also please note that the 2003 ceasefire agreement "allowed it [MEK] to keep all its weapons"[44]. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm..... Not per my understanding or RSes. They may have been allowed to keep weapons in some interim ceasefire (in April 2003 per your source - however they were subsequently disarmed (I think in May 2003) - and your cited sources explicitly says "renounced the agreement a few weeks later"). Sources such as - mcclatchy in 2003, NYT in 2012, a 2009 RAND paper, a 2016 House of commons library briefing, Guardian in 2012 (which goes as far as saying "forcibly disarmed by the US army in Iraq") - all state they were disarmed. They used to have an armored division+ in Iraq - this simply doesn't exist anymore (heck - MEK as a visible group in Iraq doesn't exist following the final Albania move). Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I think that there has to be evidence of some sort of armed encounters in order to render the NLA with active status. Who here agrees with that as a standard? El_C 20:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do - for inclusion - but it is too high to exclude. AFAIK during the last decade of their existence (93-03) - they were mainly or even only in camp (with a division worth of tanks) - they were an active force, just not engaged in major conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the sources we addressed so far say they were disarmed in 2003 and we should not go beyond these sources by saying they were inactive. Hence I suggest to mention in the infobox that they were disarmed in 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that there has to be evidence of some sort of armed encounter in order to render the NLA with active status. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: based on this TP discussion, I edited that the NLA had been active until 2003, but Mhhossein reverted this saying that there is no consensus for this. Is this correct? Thank you Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining concern is the MEK's official page pointing to NLA official activities such as the 2013 report I mentioned in my earlier comments. When you say NLA is inactive, it gives the impression that there's no longer such a thing as NLA, which is against the clues available in their official page. That said, I'm not of course against pointing in the infobox that NLA was disarmed in 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll add in the infobox that it was disarmed in 2003. About the NLA being mentioned on the MEK's website: 1) I don't speak Farsi, but using Google translate it appears that the reference you're talking about refers to a statement by a MEK committee that also included previous NLA's Security Committee members, correct? 2) Is the MEK website a reliable source for this Wiki page? If so, that opens up a whole new door of information we can include in this Wiki page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK with mentioning somewhere in the infobox that the NLA was disarmed by the U.S. Also, the source I provided speaks of a NLA report issued recently. Did I suggest using the webpage to add info into this article? I just meant to reassure the info added in the infobox is the most accurate thing we know. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys do you think "Fund raising" is an appropriate title for the section mostly dealing with illegal activities of MEK such as money laundering? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obvious paradox. How about illegal Fundraising? Saff V. (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are various different cases there, not all illegal, so "Fund raising" is fine. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section is mostly dealing with the illegal fund laundering networks of MEK so the title needs to change. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section also includes lots of hearsay from Netjang Society and other unverified sources. Let's keep it NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any fair objections against changing the title into something showing their illegal activities as per reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, this section includes lots of hearsay say from Netjang society and other similar unreliable sources. Using quotes such as "According to four anonymous Iranians claiming to be ex-MEK members" and presenting it in Wiki voice as verified info is WP:OR: , and there's quite of bit of this here (as well as throughout the article as a whole). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is inserted under 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' section while there are numerous non-Iranian sources saying MEK did the bombing (such as those mentioned by Kazemita1), among the sources are a report by the U.S. Department of State. I think it should be relocated to a more suitable section such as 'Assassinations'. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, there are plethora of independent evidence besides US Department of State declaration that you mentioned above that find MEK responsible for this bombing:

• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1:So this is not just an allegation by Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Hafte Tir bombing. There are different suspects, including "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] Barca (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you mentioned is under construction(Wikipedia is not a reliable source :) ). That said, I think it should be easy to find out which opinions on this matter are fringe and which ones are prevalent based on the sources we will be finding in the days to come. So far I have found the following independent reliable sources backing the idea that MEK committed the bombing:

• The Guardian: In 1981, in a series of attacks, it killed 74 senior officials, including 27 MPs
• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.
• US Department of State: "In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier's office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials."

--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there have been trials, executions, and plenty of accused, including Iranian officials (who also blamed the MEK). In so many words, lots of suspects:

• “A Kermanshah tribunal executed four "Iraqi agents" for the incident, and a tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. Iran's security forces blamed the United States and "internal mercenaries".^[2][3]

• "According to a Reuters dispatch in the New York Times on June 30, 1981, "the authorities initially blamed the 'Great Satan' (the US)." Ervand Abrahamian noted that the Islamic Republic "also suspected 'SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime." According to The Times, the Nationalist Equality Party claimed credit for the attack. The pro-Soviet Tudeh part was also suspected. According to The Times "a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack". Within days, the regime changed story and blamed the MEK."^[4]

• "According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular."^[5]

• “According to The Times, the Nationalist Equality Party claimed credit for the attack, and that "a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack."^[6]

• "According to Kenneth Katzman, "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]Barca (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those old sources should not be given much weight as per WP:AGE MATTERS, since they don't cover the recent findings and developments. Almost all of the recent sources put the finger towards MEK. There are always some minor viewpoints which should be given the due weight. The sources you suggested are either old or minor. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right... so we shouldn't use records of people accused, tried, and executed over this incident (also groups claiming responsibility) because the sources are old? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful not to say "use" though you interpreted it as such. Those old sources should not be given much when making decision, though they can be mentioned according to their weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources describe the sequence of events, including the IRI eventually putting blame on the MEK (which is far from being "evidence", specially considering the major disinformation campaign by the IRI against this group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're tryring to pretend that only IRI sources are saying MEK did the bombing. NO, there are plenty of fresh academic sources also saying MEK did it. So, your argument is not applicable here. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WEIGHT issue, as the policy demand, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...or Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. If we ignore Abrahamian and his work, is there any author who beleveis that IRP leaders were in charge of bombing? How about Forqan group, is not a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority? this report of guardian and RAND Corporation support that MEK is responsible for bombing.Saff V. (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just like everything else in this article, there are different sources saying different things. We just include what the RS say, as events unfolded, and aim for a NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask for the last time; Do you have any fair objection against having recent academic sources as a base for deciding whether or not Haft-e Tir Bombing was carried out MEK? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not change what previous sources have said about this incident including who the IRI blamed, who claimed responsibility, and who was executed on account of this event. In conjunction, what can be confirmed for certain is that the IRI blamed the MEK for this incident, but that many others were also suspected, including IRP leaders (see Barca's sources above) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, that MEK did the bombing is not merely an allegation by Iran! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As sources outline above, it was an allegation by Iran, as it there were other allegations made (including against the US and the IRI), none of which were ever verified through evidence, with other groups claiming responsibility and several people being taken to court and executed because of this incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is simple; Should we ignore the numerous fresh academic sources saying MEK was the perpetrator? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should not ignore any of the sources, specially those that confirm executions and groups claiming responsibility for this incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why we should not say it's just an Iranian allegation. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RSs say that this was an allegation by the IRI, so that's difficult to dismiss. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we already in a Viscious circle? There are plenty of fresh and academic sources (see some of them) saying MEK did the bombing and you're showing some old sources saying Iran alleged the MEK to be the perpetrator. I'm saying we should not give the readers the impression that it was only an Iranian allegation (because it's clearly against what those academic sources say). @El C: Would you please assess the consensus here? should the Haft-e Tir bombing fall under 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' section to make the readers think it's merely an allegation by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point. The overarching description should follow that. El_C 17:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, agreed, lets use all available sources to construct the narrative, with newer sources as focal point. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1: In this edit, you reverted the following back into the article with the edit summary "It is related to MEK, in that it shows the impact of its propaganda campaign":

"Media outlets that have published the writings of "Heshmat Alavi" include Forbes, The Diplomat, The Hill, The Daily Caller, The Federalist and the English edition of Al Arabiya's website. One article of "Alavi" published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran.^[1] Since the article's publication, Twitter has suspended the "Heshmat Alavi" account, and the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website.^[1] A website purported to be a personal blog of "Heshmat Alavi" published a post with counterclaims."

However, this text refers specifically to Heshmat Alavi, and not the MEK (even if Alavi ran a "propaganda campaign", the text you presented here is not linked to the MEK in any way). Could you please explain or self-revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, Heshmat Alavi is a creation by MEK. What do you mean by "the text you presented here is not linked to the MEK in any way"? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it might be useful that the washington post reported that On Sunday, the Intercept published an investigation into Heshmat Alavi,a rabid supporter of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a controversial Iranian opposition group.Saff V. (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources saying that Heshmat Alavi is a "creation of the MEK", then we should include that in the article, along with anything else that's in relation to the MEK. The quote mentioned above, however, is not related to the MEK, so it has no place in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly all the sources on Alavi mention MEK is being behind. Anything directly related to the MEK's creation may be added, as long as the wp:size allows. I can show sources if you like. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the MEK, so anything in relation to the MEK should be included. Where Alavi published is not related to the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, MEK's creation had been promoting MEK's propaganda! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What MEK propaganda was published in the outlets mentioned above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Massoud Rajavi was instead of Heshmat Alavi, is not an article published by him related to MEK? In other hand, Please pay attention to these sources, he is a fictional persona that reportedly was created by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) by by aljazeera and other sources like, farsnews, presstv. Saff V. (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but can't understand what you're trying to say. Can you please answer my question? What MEK propaganda was published in the outlets mentioned above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done here? If nobody answers my question, I'll presume we're in accordance that no MEK propaganda was published on the named outlets. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One article of "Alavi" published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran.So It is clear Alavi as a creation by MEK was going to encourage Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran. It is MEK propaganda!Saff V. (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a logical question. It's quite clear that MEK's creation promotes MEK's propaganda, which is anything against Iran. So what? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is a simple one: What "MEK propaganda" was published in the outlets mentioned above? @El C: if opposing camps refuse to answer simple/direct questions, what happens then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if SaffV provided such an answer — is that not the case? El_C 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: sorry, but I can't seem to see it. How is an article published on Forbes that doesn't mention the MEK related to the MEK? What about the other news outlets mentioned here? how are they linked/related to the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was settled already. Anyway, what matters is what reliable sources say. It is not our role to investigate these sources further. El_C 17:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that these sentences PMOI relations with the clerics worsened throughout 1980 and 1981. Ayatollah Khomeine refused to allow MASUD Rajavi to run in January 1980 presidential elections because the PMOI had boycotted a referendum on the Islamic republican constitution. On June 20, 1981, the POMI held a major anti-khomeini demonstration that turned into an armed confrontation in which the PMOI was badly defeated from this source support this sentence ...This created conflicts with Ayatollah Khomeini... from lede section. This refers to this sentense: After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,which led to Khomeini preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.

By the truth, I don't agree.In addition, another cited source doesn't support the material.Saff V. (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have in lede section because Khomeini didn't let Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members run an office in the new government, the conflicts were created between MEK and Khomeini. I think the source doesn't support it when I read the source. Boycotting a referendum by MEK or running demonstration against Khomeini is important to point that is not mentioned in lede following making the conflict. Am I clear right now?Saff V. (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, about this image of a letter (which you've included back into the article), if you click on it, the source says it's from: http://www.hamneshinbahar.net/article.php?text_id=312.html

This does not qualify as WP:RS. Why did you include this back into the article? Barca (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file is found elsewher and I don't think hamneshinbar is the ultimate source. According to this the letters are kept in the archive of Standford University. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to radiokoocheh.info? That is also not a reliable source, and the Commons file links to hamneshinbahar.net, which is not a reliable source. Barca (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein? Can you please reply to my comments? Barca (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one who originally put it in the article, I take the liberty to answer on his behalf. You may read about the letter here in the California Archives. Just search for the figure instruction using CTRL+F and you shall find them.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is being discussed here in the source of the image. This image, which is currently in the MEK article, links to Hmaneshinbahar.net, which is not a reliable source. Barca (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone respond here please? The source for this image does not seem to be a reliable source. Barca (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I asked other editors involved here about the reliability of a source being used for an image, but editors have stopped responding me. According to restrictions, can I go ahead and remove the image based on it failing WP:RS? Barca (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no response implies consent. El_C 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving conversation from here to this TP:

Read the sources you're trying to include: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982 (it's in the URL, blog). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should carefully read this Stefka. From WP:RSOPINION:

A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confirming that The National Interest piece counts as a reliable source. You may take it to RSN to triple check, but it would probably be a waste of your time. El_C 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]