Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

More false nuclear allegations

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

RFC about the death tolls in the lead

Should the death tolls get removed from the lead? I have opened this RFC due to the older discussions (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 9#RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article?, Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body?) related to this RFC, which were all slippery. The last closure comment reads: "There is no prejudice against discussing this further since there was limited participation".--Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Removal of such a well-sourced materials needs more discussion. There are also objections by other users over removing the material ([4], [5]). Notably, I think this drive-by comment, all of a sudden appearing here!, should be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

INFOPLEASE.COM, used to back up the death tolls here, is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Says the guy who added the term, although he was objecting the source severely at the RSN!!! @El C: Can you see the double standard? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added the name/term INFOPLEASE.COM because it was missing. I objected this source at RSN (as did user:Snooganssnoogans) because is not RS for the death toll figures, as such I don't think it should be used to support data placed in the lede of a controversial article. So why are you accusing me of having a "double standard"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You changed the figure from 10,000 to 16,000 so that you can mention MEK causalities, too. It's clearly a double standard; You should not have used such a source if you thought the source was not reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In the diff you provided, I removed the Ploughshares source (which is not RS), and attributed the Qasemi source to INFOPLEASE.COM (which the author himself uses as source, using the figure of 16,000, which the author himself also uses). In other words, the closest thing we have to RS about casualties in Iran is INFOPLEASE.COM (which is not a reliable source). Then I attributed the MEK death tolls to themselves as presented in the Kenneth Katzman book. Because I don't think INFOPLEASE.COM is a reliable source, and because the MEK death tolls are attributed to info by the MEK, I opened a RfC to have this removed from the lede and left in the body as this seemed to be the WP:NPOV WP:RS thing to do. So how is that "clearly a double standard"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• No: There's no reason to remove such an important and well-sourced history of the MEK from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: I see no reason to remove such a big portion of the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: It is an important point as well as supported by plenty of RS determining obviously group's position against I.R.I. point asks to "summarize the most important points".Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes this is already in the article, and it is not supported by reliable sources, so has no place in the lead section. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So lets remove every thing in the lead which is already in the body. See MOS:LEAD. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not addressing the problem, which is that the sources to support these numbers are not reliable. Alex-h (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. In principle, I think that the death toll of the MEK/IRI is extremely interesting and would generally support lede inclusion. In practice, however, it seems this is simply not discussed by reliable sources - we are sourcing IRI deaths to "According to infoplease.com". We are sourcing MEK casulties to MEK claims. We don't have independent reliable secondary sources discuss the MEK/IRI death toll as a whole. Since this is not discussed extensively in RSes, it is WP:UNDUE for the lead (as we follow weight in RSes - which is in this case absent (perhaps since it is hard to estimate?) - and not editorial opinion (e.g. I see this as something I'd like to have in the lede - if there were sources backing this up)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Also add in the body of the text, where this occurs again, that this is an estimate. It's difficult to get accurate estimates on material like this from one source reporting, and that source on one side of the issue. I suggest retaining mention in the lede of a large number of MEC casualties in the 1981 demonstration, which seems credible, but with no numerical estimate. Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Whereas I agree that the death tolls are important information, the sources to back the data in this instance are not reliable. When we get more reliable sources, these should be included back in the lede. In the meantime, we should not put information in the lede of controversial nature that isn't backed up by anything less than reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: With all respect, the whole mess is actually created by Stefka Bulgaria himself. He added the the causalities of the MEK group at the expense of inserting the infoplease figure. He should answer why he added the source while he thought it was not reliable? Note the wording on the toll details were completely different before Stefka Bulgaria's intervention. "...more than 10,000", is supported by reliable sources (for instance doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, hold on, all I did was properly attribute the figure for the death tolls to INFOPLEASE.COM, which is what the (already included) Piazza source attributed the data to, correct? How is that creating a "whole mess"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Responded above. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I second that @Stefka Bulgaria: I searched through Piazza's peer reviewed article and nowhere did it cite infoplease.com. --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Piazza's paper cites Iran-Times.com as source, which is not RS in any shape or form, leaving only INFOPLEASE.COM, which is also not RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per Icewhiz. Also I like how Stefka is still being used as the scapegoat after 1-2 years, lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No It is an important issue to understand the nature of MEK. This make a clear difference between MEK and the other opposition of Islamic Republic.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: So far the only argument was that there is no reliable source for the death trolls. However, Piazza's paper is published in a peer reviewed journal and it clearly talks about the number of Iranian citizens killed by MEK.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Pizza paper cites Iran-Times.com as source, which is not RS, leaving INFOPLEASE.COM as the closest thing we have to confirming these figures, which also does not qualify as RS. If I'm not mistaken, there aren't any other sources confirming these figure, making them unsupported by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: The paper in the DOMES journal is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal paper and the reviewers have definitely evaluated its sources. The publisher is also academic. It has the highest standards of the RS in WP. Taha (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)::

The paper cites Iran-Times.com as the source for the death toll data. In other words, Iran-Times.com is where the death toll figures is coming from. You are basically advocating the inclusion of important data taken from Iran-Times.com in the lede section of a controversial article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• No Given that now there is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal paper for the claim. Plus, the killings are among defining characteristics of the Mujahedin, which justifies it being in the lead section. Taha (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Piazza paper cites Iran-Times.com for the source of this data, and the Qasemi book cites INFOPLEASE.COM. If we were attributing death tolls to another Wikipedia article, such as the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014-present), we would never use INFOPLEASE.COM or Iran-Times.com as the source for death toll figures (particularly to be included in the lede section) so why should we do so here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: Would you please write your comments to the editors of the DOMES journal? If they admit that the author and academic reviewers have made a mistake, I will agree with you. My experience is that the editors of reputable academic journals are quite responsible and will get back to you very quickly. Taha (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Taha & Kazemita1: In the case you're not aware of old discussions; Stefka Bulgaria tried to dismiss Iran-times.com by accusing to be "Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media", while it was found to be "founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran-Times.com is not RS, whether founded in Washington DC or wherever, and neither is INFOPLEASE.COM. These are the two sources available for the death toll figures. We wouldn't use them as sources for death tolls in other political articles, so using them here violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: By repeating over and over that Iran-Times.com is not reliable you can't dispute the reliability of the DOMES journal paper. This is so obvious for me that I requested an intervention to end this discussion and save users' time WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran. Taha (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources is a big deal - the paper reads Finally, the US. Senate became outwardly cool towards the Mojahedin in passing an official statement attacking the MKO as a “terrorist organization,” criticizing its role in the 1979 hostage crisis and relationship with Iraq, and stating that the Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile. - attributing this to a US Senate stmt, and not making this claim itself. Furthermore, the fact we have have difficulty finding sources with estimates (contrast this with the PKK/Turkey where estimates abound) - indicates UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Icewhiz: This issue can be easily resolved. Let's send an email to the author and the editor and ask them about the sources of their claims plus more clarifications on the subject. Taha (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The author is not making any claims. He is quoting a US senate resolution (which would seem possibly to be cited to Iran Times, but that is besides the point) - with quote marks.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• No - Clearly relevant, this is an important information supported by what it seems reliable, secondary source already in our article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• comment. @User:Stefka Bulgaria @User:Icewhiz Regarding your discussion on the source used by Piazza, in Wikipedia we do not perform original research. We simply determine if the source is reliable or not which in this case we are talking about a peer reviewed academic journal. Digging into how the author came up with his findings is beyond Wikipedia. Things would be very difficult if we the editors were to do research on every claim that every source makes and dig into what reference each source uses for its claims. For example, one could ask about Ronen Cohen's claim in his article where he states that MEK only targets "security and government related" figures and not the ordinary civilians. The situation is even worse in this case because Cohen does not even cite any references for his claim! @User:El_C your input on this is policy is appreciated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Piazza is quoting a US senate resolution (in the context of a prior US congress proceeding) - he did not find anything - he quoted, placing this in quotation marks and attributing to the US senate, in the context of MEK-US relations in the 90s.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Kazemita1: In a previous TP discussion, Mhhossein said "I was reviewing the source used for the material, Abrahamian (1989) p.220, and I think the content is not sourced to a reliable source. Abrahamian has used questionable sources 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London as the source for his content making it unreliable for being used here."[6] And I quote (further) "I don't know if it's really necessary to repeat that per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.""[7]. We ended up not using Abrahamian data's because it was taken from unreliable sources. How is it different here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to closely examine the sources of our reliable sources each and every time — unless they are in conflict with other reliable sources. Even then, we should be gauging the academic consensus. Which is to say, we're meant to act more as historiographers and less as historians outright. El_C 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Icewhiz: Concurring with El_C above, your previous discussions with Mhhossein does not create a new policy. Your approach to secondary academic sources is an anti-pattern. Unless you provide a contradicting source with the same level of reliability, the reliability of the DOMES paper is unaffected. Taha (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with El_C - however in this case the article says the US senate said this (in quotation marks) - it doesn't say so itself in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Per Jzsj and Icewhiz. These are only estimates and UNDUE (and this is blamed on Stefka somehow, lol) Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Some people were seeking for an academic source providing us with a figure which can be safely used here. My quick search brought up [8] and [9], both saying MEK's armed conflict against Iran left more than 10,000 Iranian people dead. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Taha: Did you see my sources? They don't need attribution and can be used without saying "according to Senate". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Undue estimates. Filer also seems to contradict their own words here in order to accommodate a WP:POVNAMING, which makes this RfC proposal the more flawed. MA Javadi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• There are three independent reliable sources so far that mention the number of Iranian people killed by MEK:

1. Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Volume 1, By Peter Chalk, page 508. Linke available here.

2. Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East by Christian Kaunert et al

3. Piazza, J. A. (1994). The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile. Digest of Middle East Studies, 3(4), 9–43.

I thought this RfC was that Piazza was quoting an unreliable source? I read the Encyclopedia of Terrorism source and it says "The MEK vigorously criticized the move and subsequently announced the initiation of armed campaign against Tehran that by 2011 had left more than 10,000 people dead." But in the People's Mujahedin page I see that the group "put down their arms in 2003"? MA Javadi (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MA Javadi: They are not contradictory! MEK agreed to put down their arm, but made armed acts later. Just like how Iraq attacked Iran after United Nations Security Council Resolution 598.

Thanks, but which armed acts they have made since 2003? MA Javadi (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

MEK is mentioned by two US officials in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists that occurred between 2010 and 2012. But you are probably right that the number 10000 is probably based on MEK's terrorist acts prior to 2003. Nevertheless, "By 2011" includes "prior to 2003". We could certainly use meticulous editors like yourself in this article as there are many loose claims currently. Take for example the statement "MEK only targets government and security officials" for which sources never accompanied a single reference.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the NBC news source the same source described in the article as "On February 9, 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."? MA Javadi (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you are looking at a different section: "In 2012, US officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists". But like I said, that is beside the point. "By 2011" includes "prior to 2003".--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am looking at a different section, but it seems to be the same NBC article, and sorry to say but it's not beside the point. If the MEK "put down their arms in 2003", the accusations of the killing of Iranian scientists "has never been backed up with evidence", and this source say death tolls account to 2011, then this seems like a WP:UNDUE source. MA Javadi (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "evidence"? If you mean independent and reliable sources, then NBC is one of them. I quote the title of their article for your review "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News".--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"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."[10] MA Javadi (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I never recall asking you to take Larijani's words. Instead, I am inviting you to embrace what is mentioned by US officials.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We need to embrace what all sources say (not just our preferred sources). NBC source also say "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. MA Javadi (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes This is already in the article, though in my view it should be removed completely since the sources are not reliable. Particularly when we are talking about the opposition to the Iranian government. This article is already full of flawed allegations and misinformation. Let's not make it worse. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• No it is an important well sourced information that should be in the lead. I don't see any reason for whitewashing this well-sourced fact about a terrorist group.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• No keep the statistics. It's really important and also is historical.Forest90 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment saying that this is "important and historical" information is a Straw man fallacy since this is not what the discussion here is about. Rather, this discussion is about whether the sources supporting the data are reliable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, these death tolls are not "well sourced", specially for the lead of the article. For the text in the body, add that this is an estimate per Jzsj. Barca (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Barca: Please see [11] and [12] both saying MEK killed more than 10,000 Iranian people. Do think they're not reliable? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what the sources are saying:

• Encyclopedia of Terrorism: "The MeK vigorously criticized the move and subsequently announced the initiation of an armed campaign against Tehran that by 2011 had left more than 10,000 dead."

This source does not make clear if the dead also include MEK members. It also makes the WP:UNDUE claim that the death tolls account to 2011 (when the MEK were disarmed in 2003 by the US).

• Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East: "In the course of the internal power struggle in the early years of the Islamic Republic, the regime and the MEK engaged in a bloody conflict, leaving more than 10,000 Iranians dead."

Like the previous source, this source does not make clear if the dead also included MEK members (who were also Iranians). Although they can be discussed in the body (along with other sources offering other estimates), neither source can reliably be used to confirm death toll data in the lede of the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Per Jzsj, the death tolls are not "well sourced", why should we give so much attention, to content that is not reliable? Sunnaz (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History-author By Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.

The source is missing page number for this claim: "MEK only targets security and government officials". I have asked people to provide page number previously. I guess I will be able to remove it if there is no response in a few days (following the footsteps of the "scapegoat").--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, what do you mean by "following the footsteps of the "scapegoat""? Alex-h (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me know when you have a page number ready.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: the pages are 15 and 28. Best wishes, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Stefka Bulgaria Forgive me for not taking your words, as you have been wrong before (Ervand Abrahamian on MEK only killing government and security forces). Please, provide scan of the corresponding pages.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: You don't have to take my words, you can take the author's words as we did with Abrahamian specifying why the MEK attacked the regime. Since you bring Abrahamian up again, he also said that "The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings in order to limit civilian casualties, which would support the claim that the MEK did not target civilians. This can also be included in the article once it can be edited again. I don't have a scanner, but your local library might. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I would normally push further and ask for the actual image. But the news on Trump's defeat against congress here, is so thrilling that I am going to let is slide.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Disputes

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. [13] and Forest90 [14] 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)

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)

Dispute B

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

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)

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)

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."

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

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)

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)

@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)

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:

• "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. :

• "...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:

• 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:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

• "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)

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."[15] 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)

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.”

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

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)

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)

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

• "David Gold" (Terrornomics): quotes Sandra Mackey, who does not say the MEK targeted civilians: "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)

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)

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

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

• @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)

• 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)

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)

 Done. El_C 20:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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. 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 and "internal mercenaries". ... 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." 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."

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

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)

• @El C: Can you see the cited sources for this edit? As I have already said, advocacy sources such as [16] and un-attributed report are used to conclude a fact. I recommend removing this disputed content. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
• "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.
• "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."
• "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.”

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

References
References

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)

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)

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)

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." (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." (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. (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. (University of California Press)

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

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)

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"
• "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.

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

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)

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).

References
References

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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."[17]"

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)

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)

RFC about order of paragraphs in lead

Should the following paragraph containing materials on the terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK terrorist and cult designation of MEK go to the end of the lead or should it be the 2nd paragraph? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The European Union, Canada and the United States formerly listed the MEK as a terrorist organization, but this designation has since been lifted, first by the Council of the European Union in 26 January 2009, by the U.S. government on 21 September 2012, and lastly by the Canadian government on 20 December 2012. The MEK is currently designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq. In June 2004, the U.S. designated the members of the MEK as ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which was expired in 2009 after full sovereignty of Iraq. Many experts various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. An investigation by the European Parliament and the US military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded, finding it "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.

References
References

Please respond by choosing Second or Last. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Second: As per MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more". The paragraph in question contains the most vital and fresh information on the group, i.e. that MEK is widely believed to be a cult and that MEK is/was designated as a terrorist organization. Moreover, per WP:BETTER, the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable." So, it would be interesting for the readers and hence need to come immediately after the first paragraph. Sending it to the end of the lead seems like giving it the least degree of importance, which does not look logical given the importance of the materials inside the paragraph. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second indeed. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The way this has been presented does not follow WP:NPOV. The MEK's terrorist and cult designation are complex and disputed, this has been discussed in this TP and on the article, but in this RfC it's presented as if this was the group's "nature". @Mhhossein: please remove "containing materials on the terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK" from the header of this RfC (and add it to your vote if you like), editors can read for themselves what the content is about without any additional guidance. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can remove "nature" (you're right in this regard), but there's no problem with the rest. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Last It would be confusing and misleading to readers to have former terrorist designation and cult allegations before first some explanation of how this happened. Alex-h (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second:terrorist designation of MEK and its delisting comes from mass killing and assassinations and actually lobbies which are clues make readers want to learn more. Saff V. (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Clinton administration reported the Los Angeles Times that 'The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami.'" "According to Lord Alex Carlile, the organization was put on the terrorist list 'solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran'."

If the issue is about making readers want to learn more, then it makes more sense to introduce the group's ideology and history first. Being the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that deferred sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government." introduces the history that led to conflict with Ayatollah Khomeini and the following terrorist listing. The terrorist listing did not happen before conflicts with the Khomeini, so presenting a controversial terrorist listing before historical background is a straw man narrative. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead includes the most important points (WP:LEADDD) not just Lord Alex Carlile's words. Also, the killing of six Americans (one reason to be a terrorist designation) have nothing to do with conflicts with the Khomeini.Saff V. (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Another Straw man fallacy, the debate is not about whether the lede should include the most important points, but the order in which information is presented. About the killing of Americans in Iran:"According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran." Other analysts support this." In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International. Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• Last, like it is now. It's a confused enough history without taking it out of order. Leave readers make their own judgment of how things have evolved. Don't make this judgment for them by prioritizing some info over the rest. Jzsj (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Imho that's what their aim seems to have been for a long time though. This has been reported to admins and whatnot, with no results. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Last per Jzsj. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Last: Leave the lead section like it is with the historical chronology of events. Nikoo.Amini (talk)

Some times the importance of the event is more important than the time of happening it, actually such as terrorist designation and delisting.Saff V. (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this was clearly categorized as a terrorist organization by disinterested third parties throughout its history. But the situation seems much more complex, as noted here Jzsj (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj: We know that the group had definitely been designated in the past, by "disinterested third parties", and we know that there are plenty of "disinterested third parties", including experts, confirming the cultish nature of MEK. What confusion do you mean exactly? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

My main point is "throughout its history". The article covers its behavior under several different political situations, and so I question whether the lede should oversimplify the situation. Jzsj (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What complexity regarding the designations do you see throughout the MEK's history? I'll be thankful if you could elaborate on that. Yes, it is largely believed by reliable sources that MEK was desisted as as result of lobbying and paying. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

E.g., the designation "terrorist organization" would not apply to its efforts to overthrow the Shah. Jzsj (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

E.g., "The Clinton administration reported the Los Angeles Times that 'The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami.'" "According to Lord Alex Carlile, the organization was put on the terrorist list 'solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran'." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You're sticking to those "according to"s and ignoring established facts such as "The US state department, which decides which groups to include on the list of designated terrorist organisations, points to a long and bloody history."[18]. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Terrorism is "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence". The US State Department definitions of terror would not likely include the bloody behavior of the US during the Vietnam war, but then whoever said that they speak as a neutral observer. Jzsj (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I was writing in response to Stefka Bulgaria's comments saying MEK was listed solely to attract the view of Iran. As for our discussion; that "terrorist organization would not apply to its efforts to overthrow the Shah" is not adding to complexity of the issue. Just report the reliable sources! nothing more, nothing less. It's a fact that they were once designated as terrorists and are still so. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj: Also, can I know why you think the materials on the cultish nature of the group should be sent to the end? Does it have complexities? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We have two designations being discussed at once here: "terrorist" and "cultish". My response as to "terrorist" is above. As to the second designation, read how "cult" is defined in Wikipedia: it's not at all a clear idea. Then to go one step further and say "cultish" is to recede more into obfuscation, and so the question arises "Why does one want to say this, and not just let the facts speak for themselves?" Jzsj (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I was expecting to receive a policy-wise argument, not an Original Research. It's almost an established fact that they're a cult. I don't say, reliable sources say:

Many experts various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Last. I think leaving this in chrono order makes sense before moving over to designations (which for this group - have flipped quite a bit around. 15 years ago (post 9/11, Iraq war) most the world designated them as terrorist - and now most of the world (Iran and Iraq being the exceptions) do not. Has anything actually changed (besides moving out of the Iraq)? The politics of the day are less important than the history). In addition, I want to make the general note that the lead is too long - per MOS:LEADLENGTH it should be a paragraph shorter - a bit of pruning/condensing (of all lede content) is needed. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second: The paragraph would be better for the readers satisfying the MOS:LEADORDER. ML ⁹¹¹ 12:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Last: The MEK's terrorist designation derived from conflicts with the IRI, so some context is needed prior to this paragraph. Presenting information without some context is deceiving (specially considering the IRI's involvement in the group's terrorist designation in the West). The MEK's history and relations with the IRI is complex and difficult as it is, and cherrypicking order of narrative violates NPOV. The lede should be presented chronologically and neutrally as events unfolded. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second: It's a vital info. Like others I concur it's attractive for the readers to know.Forest90 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Last: Chrono order (like it is now). Moving paragraphs around distorts events. Barca (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Edit request

I'm doing bot work related to US State Department URLs of which this article has a bunch that need changing/saving. Would it be possible to cut and paste the full article text at User:GreenC/testcases/test replacing the current article. Hope this can be done before the protection expires on the 27th, so I don't have to re-bot the page after live edits start up again. -- GreenC 00:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @GreenC: this page is not protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok got it in time, thanks for the ping Xaosflux -- GreenC 17:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede

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)

• 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. :

• "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:

• 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:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

• "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 :

• "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)

References
References

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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."[19] 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)

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)

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)

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 - [20] - 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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."

[21]

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Protection 3

Here we are again. This is not good. I've reverted to last version by me, but if there is material to be added that is not under contention, let me know and I'll add it directly. I'm giving ample time for participants to settle each individual addition, removal, or modification. Be methodical and comprehensive about consensus. El_C 17:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Could you please restore the following edits to mainspace, which were not under contention?:

• "Fix cite date error"
• "Robot - Speedily moving category Political organizations in France to Category:Political organizations based in France per CFDS"
• "Fix urls"
• "Expanding based on TP"
• "Expanding based on TP - human right abuses against MEK supporters"
• MOIS agents passing as ex-MEK members spreading disinformation against the MEK
• "add image"

Thanks. For the rest, we'll continue to discuss here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done the first three.  Not done the rest pending confirmation. El_C 20:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That was very sneaky Stefka; quite smart of you to mix up punctuation edit requests with disputed content related ones and pretend they are not "under contention".--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

When I added this content into the article, it was not "disputed" by anyone. Check the article's editing history. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection 3 removals

Does anyone object to the following inclusions?

• "Expanding based on TP"
• "Expanding based on TP - human right abuses against MEK supporters"
• MOIS agents passing as ex-MEK members spreading disinformation against the MEK
• "add image"

If there are any particular objections, please explain in detail. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For the first three I find it undue. I mean think about it for a second. You folks could not tolerate inclusion of one sentence explaining divorce decree, separation of children from their family, and sexual fantasy confessions (all performed by MEK) in the abuse section. Yet you want to push a huge amount of text on the kidnap and torture into the article. All I have to say is that I see no fairness in this editing style.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The cultish tendencies of the MEK are comprehensively covered in this article, are they not? El_C 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact, for this being an article about the IRI's main political opposition, it sure mentions "divorce", "marriage", and "cult" plenty of times and in plenty of sections: The 'ideological revolution' and the issue of women's rights, Human rights record, Allegations of Sexual Abuse, Designation as a cult, Series, films, and documentaries by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the MEK, etc...

Yet, inclusion of a section covering the IRI's torture of MEK members seems to be a problem. These three edits were all discussed in this very same TP, and backed up by numerous RSs, so not UNDUE. So what exactly is the problem with this information besides the "I see no fairness" allegation? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I searched through the whole article at its current form and there was no mention of the "sexual fantasy confessions". Also, what gives you the right to put the word "allegation" next to the abuses that was reported by independent sources? You cannot tolerate US department of state's report on MEK being behind Hafte Tir Bombing. Or NBC's conclusion that MEK is behind assassination of Iranian scientists. I have to repeat myself that the only way out of this situation is choosing the middle ground. --Kazemita1 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The Greenwood Publishing Group seems to be a weak publication for MOIS agents passing as ex-MEK members spreading disinformation against the MEK , I asked the reliability of book for that fact in RSN! Also for "Expanding based on TP - human right abuses against MEK supporters", there are some related discussions above. It is better to follow them rather than start new ones.Saff V. (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: this is the feedback for your post at RSN:

• "That book is actually a Praeger imprint, not Greenwood (Greenwood does own Praeger, but the linked book isn't published as a Greenwood book). Both are well known academic publishers and in general books they publish would be RS. If it's an extraordinary or controversial claim it would be best attributed to the authors though. Fyddlestix
• "Absolutely yes you can use that source. Greenwood is a reliable source since it is an academic publisher, an imprint of Preager. Their website verifies this [62]. I agree with User:Fyddlestix, if the claim is controversial then just attribute the claim to the author of the book: "According to Yonah Alexander,...." or something like that. Otherwise you may use the source without attribution. Just make sure that the source itself makes that particular claim that it was a disinformation operation. Huitzilopochtli1990

@El C: are we done here? (these insertions were not disputed to begin with). Also, you asked Kazemita1 to tone it down, but they keep casting baseless aspersions against me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it's better to just assume good faith about one's intentions. Anyway, if you want that part of the edit request to be accepted, please work on getting consensus for it. El_C 18:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't seem to identify the relevant objection against these edits. Can you please advice what the standing argument against the inclusion of these edits is? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I am unable to. If one is not forthcoming, I will be granting your request. El_C 21:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Following the RSN post, @Stefka you have to attribute the statement to the author.Saff V. (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• The tone and titles are POVish which need to be toned down and neutralized before anything else. Among other things, you need to consider attributing whenever needed. You can provide a draft here so that other users can come with their comments. With current version, NO, the materials are not suitable for the inclusion. That said, I'm not objecting the image to be added. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, you didn't object when I first added this text to the article. To me, the text reads neutrally and to the point, so If you'd like the text to be modified, then you need to present a specific argument describing what exactly is "POV-ish" and "not suitable" about this information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you expect me to revert you to show my objection? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What I expect is for you to address with some clarity what the issues are, if any, with these edits (saying that they are "POVish" and "not suitable" does not address what the particular issues may be here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this objection rational falls short. El_C 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I will come with a detailed comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

When you do, please explain how the content may be considered "POVish" in relation to what the RSs are saying. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You're trying to add various topics reading "IRI....against MEK" adding to the POVish tone of the article. This is the most important issue I see here. Just Imagine how it would become if there were counter sections with their titles reading "MEK...against IRI". You've added more than enough times in the article that MOIS harrased MEK members. How many times do you think it should be repeated in the article? Let alone that you were not, let's say, careful in writing; in this edit for instance, "European Intelligence and Security services" is not commenting on MOIS enticing. Also, you've heavily based your other edit on the sources by advocacy groups. How about using higher quality sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Unlike the "sex marriage cult" allegations, the "IRI torturing MEK members" information is focused on a single section here. The text included regurgitates what the sources are saying, without exaggerating or diminishing any event.

2) About your concerns regarding MOIS (your first tangible objection here), this is what the source says:

"To enhance these capabilities, during the 1980s, Iranian MOIS operatives were trained in psychological warfare and disinformation techniques by instructors from Eastern Bloc countries using methods developed by the Soviet KGB. In Europe, the organization established intelligence networks targeting Iranian refugees, political exiles, and others affiliated with regime opposition groups. 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 back to Iran for prosecution."

3) About your objection concerning sources, these are the sources being used in that particular edit:

• Congressional Record, Government Printing Office

• Ongoing crimes against humanity in Iran, Amnesty International

• Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, I.B. Tauris

• Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran, University of California Press

• Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity, Amnesty International

• The New Iranian Leadership: Ahmadinejad, Terrorism, Nuclear Ambition, and the Middle East, Praeger

• What happened?, The Economist

• Inside Iran’s Revolutionary Courts, BBC

• Deepening Crisis on Rights, Human Rights Watch

What exactly is the problem with these sources? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I still can't see a valid argument from any of the objecting editors here for not including these edits/sources in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The arguments may not be that strong, but they do have a kernel of validity to them. So long as the discussion is still ongoing, I am not inclined to do anything. If and/or when it concludes, I may reconsider based on said discussion. But don't count on it. What you really need is greater involvement from other participants and more outside input. Rather than, as mentioned elsewhere, me ruling on the editing disputes by fiat. El_C 17:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: could you please identify what the argument against inclusion is? (I am unable to). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I am also finding it difficult to do so. You were asked to provide higher-quality sources and have done so. Now is the other side's turn to accept or reject these as the basis for the edit, and beyond. So we await their reply. El_C 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• According to European intelligence and security services...."shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately... is already included in the article.
• "According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots," is not in the source given.
• This edit is heavily based on Amnesty and HRW. I asked to find high quality sources.
• This edit says "Hossein Sobhani "was dispatched to Europe to recruit other former MEK members" as a fact, without elaborating how this intelligence info was achieved and what the source of this finding is. The edit also gives undue weight to Shabnam and Farzad claims cited to a partisan source (the Weekly standard). Though you may try trimming it into 1 line.
• The article is already dedicating enough space to 'MOIS ran disinformation campaign against MEK', so this one is really excess and unnecessary. Remember how the 'Propaganda campaign' section was trimmed. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That seem like substantive enough reasons to me to, at the very least, continue to discuss and possibly work toward a compromise version. (Although in what way Amnesty and HRW fall short as quality sources is something I, myself, am curious to learn more about.) El_C 09:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Yes, that's fine, let's not repeat text.
2) "According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots," is in the source given[22]:

"To enhance these capabilities, during the 1980s, Iranian MOIS operatives were trained in psychological warfare and disinformation techniques by instructors from Eastern Bloc countries using methods developed by the Soviet KGB. In Europe, the organization established intelligence networks targeting Iranian refugees, political exiles, and others affiliated with regime opposition groups. 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 back to Iran for prosecution. Additionally, these network attempt to entice or coerce former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots"

3) Also curious to hear what exactly the problem is with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (both sources that were already in the article, yet nobody's complained about them before).

4A) Here you are mixing up two different sources. The first, a book by Yonah Alexander and Milton Hoenig published in Praeger says:

"In 2002, for instance, MOIS agent and former MEK member Mohammad Hossein Sobhani was dispatched to Europe by MOIS deputy chief Mohammad Reza Iravani to recruit other former MEK members to denounce the group through elaborate disinformation campaigns designed ultimately to alienate MEK supporters, among them Euroepan and U.S. lawmakers. Sobhani continues to operate in Europea with other MOIS agents, under Iravani's direction, among them Karim Haqi."

And it's being used to support this statement: "In 2002, for example, Ministry of Intelligence agent and former MEK member Mohammad Hossein Sobhani "was dispatched to Europe to recruit other former MEK members to denounce the group through elaborate disinformation campaigns designed ultimately to alienate MEK supporters. Ministry of Intelligence operatives have also been known to pose as members or former members of the MEK."

What exactly is the problem with this?

4B) The next, is an article by The Weekly Standard, that says:

"I was 23 when I was arrested, and the torture started then," Farzaed recounted. He and his sisters were held separately in solitary confinemnt for months. [...] "In each of the interrogations sessions, I was beaten. They wanted me to confess to crimes that I had not committed," Farzed 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 do an interview agaisnt the PMOI, the MEK, and the NCRI,'" he said. "They would throw me on the ground and treat me like a football between threee people... Several times they this this to me in front of Shabnam's eyes in order to break her."

And it's being used to support this statement: "In 2009, activists and MEK supporter Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh were arrested by Iranian police. According to Farzad, Iranian officers tortured him and his sister, and wanted him to confess to crimes that he had not committed: “They told me, ‘You come and do an interview against the PMOI, the MEK, and the NCRI… 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.”"

What exactly is the problem with this?

5) This is the last statement you're objecting here:

"In May 2005, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence ran a disinformation operation against the MEK by deceiving Human Rights Watch into "publishing a report detailing alleged human rights abuses committed by MEK leadership against dissident members. The report was allegedly based upon information provided to HRW by known Iranian MOIS agents who were former MEK members working for the Iranian Intelligence service.""

This section is about "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK", and this text brings specific disinformation tactics concerning deceiving HRW into publishing a report against the MEK. As an alternative option, this can be moved to the "Human Rights Record" section (where the HRW report is mentioned), but because this isn't repeated information, and it's important information backed by RSs, it needs to be in the article.

Please respond with specific objections (if any) to the above. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Good
• It's not in the source given. The "Additionally, these network attempt to entice or coerce..." belongs to a another paragraph and is not literally connected to "according to European..." coming in the previous paragraph.
• Grounding most parts of a section on advocacy groups like Amnesty and HRW is what I'm objecting.
• I'm not mixing anything, read my comment once again. Alexander's book does not elaborate how such an intelligence info was achieved. It's saying, as a fact, that Sobhani was "dispatched...to recruit other former MEK members"! The edit, also gives undue weight to some claims using a partisan source (WS). Btw, you've inserted Madadzadeh's claim alleging you had talk page consensus (your edit summary reads "per TP"). Can you say which consensus you were referring to please?
• No new tactic is introduced. See the first paragraph in "Disinformation operation against the MEK members". You see phrases like "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK", "to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK", ""an extensive campaign to convince Human Rights Watch that PMOI [MEK] is engaged in human rights abuses". So, we have already have lots of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

1)OK!

2)The source does not support the material, for example, the mentioned sentences by Stefka connected to 1980.

3)Consider 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.". the HRW report largely talks about "Huge Spike in Executions in Iran". You want to use it 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.

4 and 5) Mhhossein is right, POVISH issue is brilliant as he explained.Saff V. (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's solve these one at a time, otherwise we're just building a wall of text without getting anywhere. Lets start with HRW and Amnesty International. What is the problem with these sources? (please be specific, saying that they're "advocacy" sources repeatedly is not being specific). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

They can occasionally be used, but as I said enough times, the main problem is basing nearly a whole section on them. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The whole section is not based on them. In fact, they are attributed when used. @El C: could you please weight in? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm concerned that, as the uninvolved admin, my word may carry too much weight. But since both sides asked for my view, okay... I don't really see an issue with relying on Amnesty or HRW, as these are neither MEK nor Islamic regime sympathetic sources. If there are problems pertaining to advocacy (beyond human rights) for these entities, that's something, I myself, am unaware of. El_C 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add this back into the article then, along with the other text that was not objected. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for what? Was there consensus to restore ALL of these disputed contents? Did not you see "If there are problems pertaining to advocacy (beyond human rights) for these entities, that's something, I myself, am unaware of" or did you build consensus for all the bullets? Per WP:ONUS, you have to build consensus before inclusion of the disputed contents. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Change doi-broken-date=2018-11-06 to doi-broken-date=2019-06-02 since it is still dead (I am verifying all the 2018 ones) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 June 2019

@El C: The lead features a sentence on cult designation of MEK, supported by various high quality sources (see the sources in Designation as a cult and also this one saying "Many experts" describe them as a Cult.) The sentence in the lead is awkwardly counter balanced by a full-of-quote sentence cited to 'European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran':

An investigation by the European Parliament and the US military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded: “the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.

I should emphasize that 'Friends of a Free Iran "advocates on behalf of the People's Mujahedin" [23] and is just described as "a mouthpiece for the MEK". The sentence is also copied verbatim in the body! I suggest removing this sentence from the lead since the source is highly MEK-sympathetic, hence as you said, is problematic and gives a highly UNDUE weight to a claim. Mhhossein ^talk 12:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss the NPOV here (I'd even be willing to start a new TP discussion about the "cult" allegations against the group), but Spiegel Online recently lost a lawsuit for defaming the MEK [24][25], so that's not the best source to support your claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It doesn't matter if I agree. You need to demonstrate that there is consensus for this particular removal — for all content-related changes, in general. When it comes to protected edit requests, there are no shortcuts. El_C 13:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I remember some time ago I had requested for the inclusion of "divorce decree" and "sexual fantasy confessions". The response by some editors was that the article already has included cult-like behaviors. Now, people are asking for removal of the very same content, i.e. cult-like behavior of MEK. That is classic censorship.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone asked to have the "cult" allegations removed from the article. Rather, what was pointed out is that the article mentions allegations of "cult", "divorce", "sexual censorship", and "marriage" repeatedly throughout the article (let us not forget this article is about the IRI's main political opposition, and that the MEK has been a target of a long-running disinformation campaign by the IRI). Rather than spread all over the article, there should be a section dedicated to criticisms of the organization, and that would not be censoring anything and, may even bring some much needed NPOV to the article. I'll work on a proposal about this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Do I have a wrong understanding of the policy saying "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," means objected materials should be included only if there's consensus over them? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to include — this is longstanding text. In this case, there needs to be consensus for the removal. El_C 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Long standing? It was included just sometime before the recent waves of lockings...and we know 'long standing' is not a policy or guideline. I provided a policy based argument against inclusion of the poorly sourced material in the lead while it's quite clear that Stefka Bulgaria et al. do not have to participate discussion with their desired version locked. To be frank, this strategy is just a frictional procedure. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that I didn't want to participate in discussion. In fact, I proposed it in my last comment here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment had nothing to with my objection against inclusion of poorly sourced materials into the lead. Also, Dedication of a whole section to criticisms adds to violation of NPOV. Although, you can propose it elsewhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no policy or guideline that I know of that directs admins how to interpret protected edit requests. You want to make an edit, I put the threshold of consensus before I, myself, am willing to make that edit at your behalf. Which is my prerogative. Feel free to resubmit the protected edit request for another admin to attend to, if you're not satisfied with how I answered it. I'm giving you that option. You have to demonstrate it does not represent longstanding text for me to consider doing anything. El_C 20:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I understand that you need to reassure the edit should be backed by consensus which is why I'm actively editing this talk page opening various discussion topics from time to time. The edit was inserted into the lead on 30 April 2019. Do you find it longstanding? Also, please notice that I tried to emphasize how MEK-sympathetic the cited source was. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Spiegel Online recently lost a lawsuit for publishing smearing false allegations against the MEK [26][27], so that's not an appropriate source to support your claims that this is a sympathetic source. Moreover, the People'S Mojahedin of Iran Mission Report is published by L'Harmattan, European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran, which constitutes a secondary reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the next edit (April 30) is yours — why did you allow it to stand at the time? At any rate, if it isn't very recent, I'm not inclined to remove it myself. Removing it and making sure it has consensus for inclusion should have been done at the time. I am not inclined to edit something that had the page been unprotected would likely get reverted. So, yeah, please figure out what the consensus is regarding this (maybe yet another RfC) first. El_C 11:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C: The edit slipped through my eyes and I would certainly remove the content if I had witnessed that, given the MEK-sympathetic source cited. Needless to say that it was later objected by Saff V.. I'm sure you're did not mean to, but your comment is keeping the revert opportunity reserved for Stefka Bulgaria et al. by reading "...not inclined to edit something that had the page been unprotected would likely get reverted" while presuming I won't revert. RFCs in this page has become so frustrating and complicated! --Mhhossein ^talk 07:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process is what it is, there's not much I can do about that. Nor am I, myself, able to account for things slipping through the cracks. I'm just not comfortable ruling on editing disputes by fiat — I don't think you'd be able to find an admin who is. El_C 09:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I also don't think it would be good for the lead to include a content whose sources is 'Free of a free Iran' group, which is "closely allied to the NCRI" (considered synonymous as MEK by many experts). As mentioned above, it is just described as "a mouthpiece for the MEK." Is there any objection against the removal of such a MEK-sympathetic source from the lead?Saff V. (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we can definitively view the NCRI, and by extension FoFi, as an MEK-sympathetic source. My issue, as the uninvolved admin, lies with ruling on editing disputes that go outside maintenance or possible BLP violations. While objections to the removal need, in any case, to be well thought out, I am in no rush to make a decision, especially as I remain in somewhat uncomfortable terrain. I've strutted the line between administrative intervention and content here enough to make myself feel uneasy — if there are objections to me continuing here in that capacity, I promise to seriously weigh them. El_C 09:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No objection on my side, on the contrary. You're very much appreciated here, El_C. Even though I may not fully agree with some of the verdicts, assistance from an experienced admin such as yourself has been needed in this TP for a long time, and I trust your conclusions, whichever they may be (also shoutout to Icewhiz, who has too been very helpful mediating in this TP). I just ask that we properly evaluate both sides of an argument before going ahead with a change. Thanks, and kudos for helping to untangle this big mess. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Would you please assess the consensus in this thread? I see no objection against removing those lines from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a NPOV issue if there is a "cult" allegation in the lead without a counter-argument. This is what the source I found says:

In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has been found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the US military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of intelligence (MOI).

Breaking the Stalemate

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Metis Analytics is directed by Cheryl Benard, so you're asking to use a self-published source. Worse than before, your source is never neutral. Cheryl Benard is the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, who represented MEK. I don't think having a counter argument for the lead is bad, but your suggestion is far below the sourcing standards. I don't know how long we should keep that MEK friendly source in the lead.Saff V. (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, there is a recent trend in some media publications to accuse Donald Trump (and the Republican Party) of being "unpopular" and having a "Cult personality" and a "propaganda machine" (which are carbon-copy allegations against the MEK: [28], [29], [30], [31], etc). Yet, we don't include those allegations in relevant Wiki articles (even less in the lede sections). Why should it be different with this political group? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Saff V.. Yes, the source provided by Stefka Bulgaria is not only self-published, but also MEK-sympathetic. As for Trump, YES, we would certainly add that to the lead of Donald Trump, if likewise MEK there were sources saying "many experts" believe they're a Cult! I still don't see any valid objection on your part against removing that content. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? a quick google search produced many for me: The Cult of Trump, by "One of America’s leading experts in cults", A CULT EXPERT FINDS FAMILIAR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR IN TRUMP'S GOP, Expert: Trump’s GOP Behaves Like A Religious Cult, Inside the CULT of Trump: President supporters 'like brainwashed sect members'... "an expert has sensationally claimed.", etc. etc... These are all carbon-copy allegations as the ones presented here against the MEK, yet we wouldn't include this in the GOP or Donald Trump articles (least in the lede). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Cult" is used a lot by the Iranian regime to discredit the MEK. We should either include both sides of the argument, or neither. Alex-h (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your arguments are totally irrelevant. We're not discussing whether or not Iran has labeled them as Cult, since we have various high quality and independent sources at hand calling MEK "Cult". If you want to avoid the removal of that content, you need to find a high quality and independent source having a counter view. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't include this sort of allegation in the lede (or body) of political articles such as those of Donald Trump or GOP, even though the allegations are word for word the same. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they're not the same. Comments by "experts" and known analysts are welcomed, specially when they're backed by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion has nothing to do with other articles. The reliability of source determine which material have to be kept or removed.Saff V. (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, you haven't read the link titles I provided above then, the "cult" allegations are identical as the ones presented here, and I can even look for more if that doesn't satisfy. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That you try to downgrade the comments by "many experts" and analysts, would never be satisfying. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Why Trump's article does not talk about "Cult" allegations, is just tangentially related to this discussion. You were expected to say why those materials sourced by FoFi, a known MEK-sympathetic source, should not get removed from the lead of this article, which you failed to comment on. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Now, after 8 days, we have comments from different users here, with no fair objection over removal of a challenging sentence in the lead which was sourced by FoFi, a known MEK-sympathetic source. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I have learned about the MEK cultish tendencies years before adding this article to my watchlist — and I learned this from sources which are openly hostile to the Islamic regime. For whatever that's worth (I suspect not much). El_C 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There are sources that make this claim, as there are sources making the same claims about other political figures such as Donald Trump or the Republican Party (as noted above with links), but these articles don't include those claims (least in the lede). Is there a particular reason why we'd include "cult" allegations in the lede here and not (at all) in other political articles? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We really don't care why editors of Donald Trump don't include these things, though you can go to the talk page of the mentioned article and ask your question. That stuff has nothing to do with the current discussion which is on removal such a MEK-friendly source. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea why you repeatedly compare a BLP with this article. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I'm already aware of your stance here, what I was hoping was to get El_C's feedback. Btw, the Republican Party is not a BLP. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: about the text in the lede you'd like to remove, it is also attributed to the US military. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the sourcing is problematic, not the content. I don't have anything to add here when you're ignoring input by an un-involved admin here saying the source is MEK-sympathetic. Your repeated reverts after these discussions is nothing but edit war. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Left wing?

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)

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

MEK may have created a fake author promoting its propaganda

@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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

This is a BLP violation, see:[32] [33] Alex-h (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New wave of edit war

@El C: Hi, I understand that there are various disputed issues in this article and that adds to the complexity of the things going on here. However, I'd like to let you know that Stefka Bulgaria is trying to ignite a new wave of edit war, probably with the hope you lock the article based on their desired version. See his recent reverts please. I have not done any more moves, although I believe most of the edits should be reverted back as I explained here and here. After doing numerous reverts (even 6 times in less than 24 hrs), the mentioned user is bold enough to carry out more and more. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd be locking the article again, I may use other sanctions. I haven't decided yet on the scope or severity of these. Anyway, I'm only counting 3 reverts — how did you arrive at six? But regardless, that's still a problem. Unfortunately, I don't have discretionary sanctions to work with, so my hands are rather tied. But I am considering applying 1RR and a forced bold, revert, discuss cycle or consensus required to the article, just by fiat, because I feel that the time for being purely bold has long passed. If there are objections or questions regarding such an approach, I will consider them presently. The point is: we don't really need Arbitration enforcement if participants agree on a modality that mimics DS. What do everyone say? El_C 15:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I support, and in favour of either bold, revert, discuss cycle or consensus required: whichever will prevent the article from being overwhelmed with edits that have not been determined by consensus. The problem I'm foreseeing is that consensus will also be difficult to be reached: there is a pattern of a set of editors voting one way, and another set of editors voting a different way, creating walls of text that go nowhere. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• On my part, I support any actions stopping the edit warrers and request for giving the users doing this fresh edit war. I just wonder how the user making reverts against consensus is calling for bold, revert, discuss cycle! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)