Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

MEK online soldiers

Guys, this would be interesting to know that MEK has a 1,000-1,500 member online army promoting MEK's propaganda (see [1]). It's not far from imagination if they choose Wikipedia as their target. Moreover, this fact, that they have on-line soldiers, should be included in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are more sources show they are promoting propaganda:

• "The MEK's Propaganda Machine" (by National Interest)
• "The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda" (p.167)
• "Maryam Rajavi — MEK Propaganda Queen — Advertises Her Serives For Iran’s Enemies" (by huffingtonpost)
• "Facts Vs. Fiction And The MEK’s PR Campaign" (by the Lobelog)
• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq" (By RAND)
• "Q&A: what is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation?" (bt the Guardian)
• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK" (by the Guardian)

Can the above well sourced facts be a ground for removal of portions of the article? Should we remove MEK's claim since MEK has propaganda machine? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like speculation regarding Wikipedia editors? You should present such evidence at an appropriate forum - not here - and if it is based off on a hunch - it probably won't go far. Regarding the 1,000-1,500 strong twitter army that al-Monitor is reporting on responses to - [2] - it seems to be coming from - this AJ piece which says ""Overall I would say that several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members," former MEK member, Hassan Heyrani, told The Listening Post. "It was all very well organised and there were clear instructions about what needed to be done." - so - AJ is not stating this as fact but making an attributed statement. It might be worthwhile adding briefly to the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz in adding it briefly to the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1 and Icewhiz: Thanks for the insight. Do you have any suggestions for the text to be added? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How is diff? Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It was awful to be frank. You showed to be good at using "alleged" and using attribution whenever needed, but ignored the portion of the source saying "...an alleged Iranian propaganda operation...". Moreover, you made a clear synthesis by adding a completely irrelevant material to this page. What's going on? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the awfulness. However, I disagree what you removed was SYNTH as AJ itself starts with: "Last month, Google, Facebook and Twitter announced the shutdown of pages and accounts they say were linked to Iran. While the effectiveness of Iran's online disinformation networks is far from established, the Islamic Republic has now joined Russia in the popular consciousness as another government using the internet to destabilise its adversaries.[3] - the very first paragraph - so this is clearly relevant. I indeed cited this background information to Reuters (as opposed to AJ) - as Reuters is generally a better source than AJ and in this case was more in-depth - however the Reuters citation is not neccessary for the sentence of - "Following the shut down of Facebook and Twitter accounts linked to an Iranian propaganda campaign" - which is fully supported by aforementioned quote from AJ.Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant that is not a background to MEK's campaign. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

AJ seems to think that IRI and MEK's twitter/Facebook activities are related (or, rather, opposed to one another). Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Was the background a relevant info to MEK's campaign? I doubt if we should have due to SYNTH concerns.Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: How do you say "AJ seems to think" as such? @Saff V.: Thanks for the insight, neither do I. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well AJ itself starts with "Last month, Google, Facebook and Twitter announced the shutdown of pages and accounts they say were linked to Iran. While the effectiveness of Iran's online disinformation networks is far from established, the Islamic Republic has now joined Russia in the popular consciousness as another government using the internet to destabilise its adversaries." before saying "Meanwhile, a widespread campaign of social media manipulation by actors who are opposed to the government in Tehran..." - so Al Jazeera is making the connection between the two. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Following A, Al-Jazeera said B" is not a connection to resolve the SYNTH issue. I would support if that alleged Iranian campaign was against MEK or if the two had a meaningful connection. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, I have to notice that the current wording reads like the campaigns were against each other while the source doesn't say Iran campaign was against MEK.Saff V. (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Icewhiz's edits were balanced and neutral, which is a breath of fresh air here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

Stefka Bulgaria deleted my whole section from the Article. I'm discussing with he/she on his/her talk page.Forest90 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Forest90: You'd better discuss the dispute on the article talk page, so that active users editing the page see and get involved. As for the sexual abuse section, I think the mass removal was not fair. Some portions need to be altered though, but should not be removed. You can use [4], [5] and [6] for your the section. Stefka Bulgaria OWNS the article has removed another section against multiple users (see above), although there are reliable sources admitting MEK-KGB links. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, in this source, Jason Rezaeian is referring to "the few who were able to escape" from MEK as saying they were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be regarded as 'sexual abuse', but "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein. Thanks for participating in my subject. I'll try to change my passage mistake to correct one, and I will use from your guides.Forest90 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In the matter of MEK's sexual abuse, there is plethora of independent reliable sources. Take for example this recent Gaurdian article or this New York Times or this Washington Post article. As such I am voting for it to have a separate section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian work, notably, is a Long Read and it was removed by a single click of Stefka Bulgaria! The Guardian describes the long reads as: "A long read takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve. We believe our investment in the Long Read is always worth it – and we hope you do too." Admins should consider this removal I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Why using allegations from ex-MEK members in this article is a bad idea:

• The MEK has been one of the main disinformation targets of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inside and outside Iran, for the last 30 years.

• Being their main political opposition, the IRI systematically imprisons, tortures, and executes MEK members and supporters.

• Some MEK members are kidnapped and tortured by the IRI in order to provide public testimony to demonize the MEK. Others are extorted into demonizing the MEK in exchange of saving the lives of loved ones living in Iran.

• The IRI currently runs a major disinformation campaign in the West, which also include disinformation and demonization of the MEK: “The campaign [against the MEK] involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen.”

• Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca wrote the following report for ISJ:

"In December 2009, the EP-Iran delegation invited a "former PMOI member from Camp Ashraf Iraq, Ms Batool Soltani and gave her the floor to speak out against and demonize the PMOI. At the en of the debate, MPE Geoffrey Van Orden, a senior British Conservative, criticized the event: "I am not a fan of the PMOI, but I have a nose for Government-sponsored propaganda and I regret this Delegation is becoming a tool for Tehran's misinformation.""

"During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran after she left Iraq and sent back to Ashraf "at the behest of the Quds (Jerusalem) Force - a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as an agent of the Iranian government.""

Batool Soltani is one of the interviewed ex-MEK members whose allegations are currently included in the Wiki page. Considering the aforementioned, particularly the disinformation campaign against the MEK through extorted ex-members, this article should adhere to quoting reliable analysts in reliable publications only. Note that I'm not objecting sources like the Guardian, just the parts that involves testimonies by ex-members (which has been a recurring issue also in other sections of this article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

None of what you said can be a reason for removal of well-sourced and well-attributed sentences. OF course, if there's a source saying the sexual abuse claims are part of those campaigns, you can certainly use them. But, no, we don't censor those materials because there's an alleged disinformation campaign. Testimonies by ex-members, as far as they're attributed to the ex-members, are totally OK specially since there are reliable and high quality sources like the Guardian publishing "long-read" type works. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If Guardian, New York Times or Washington post are publishing the interview material, it means they are endorsing it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that because the sexual abuse is true as to former members, we don't consider any material or section about it in the article, while it can stand based on mentioned independent sources above.Saff V. (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: would the following source be better suited to back up the statement?:

Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca reported that ::::"During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how [former MEK member] Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran… as an agent of the Iranian government."

It's better in the sense that it probably passes WP:V (as Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca seems to be associated with the ISJ NGO, and it is on their website). However I would question whether it is WP:DUE - this is ISJ's about - described as a "informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition". I would prefer to see an independent secondary source referring to what ISJ said - as opposed to using ISJ directly. Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Abrahamian's quote on "targeting only government and security"

I do not have access to Abrahamian's book. Kindly, place a link here to the claim that MEK only targets government and security folks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I just read through the page and it was nothing like it claimed to be. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The "attribution" phenomenon

Suppose a source is deemed unreliable. I do not think we are allowed to use it by simply attributing it. This is very much like bypassing Wikipedia's core policy WP:RS. It essentially defeats the whole purpose of why we distinguish reliable and non-reliable sources. I can tell you that starting this will open a new can of worms. I mean any discussion we had so far on reliability of sources could be undermined. Anyone can add pretty much any source by simply attributing it. Keep that in mind--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: I agree that we should only use reliable sources here. We already established that blogs/opinion pieces should not be used in this article. The question then is if the book "Breaking the Stalemate", written by reputable authors and published by Metis Analytics, falls in to the same category of unreliable sources. Like Icewhiz, I have not been able to find much about the publisher; does this mean the source is unreliable? On that same point, why are we keeping infoplease.com as source for death tolls? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: You seem to have missed my last comment here, so pinging you again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Weird assertion

In the lead, it asserts that Bloomfeld confirms MEK only targets security and governmental forces of IRI. I do not own the book. However, I find it very difficult to believe if Bloomfeld said so given his statements in this interview:

They [MEK} are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iranians and a campaign of bombings, assassinations, and military attacks, as well as collusion with Iraq.

As such I am asking for people who have access to the book to check on it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Having access to the book is not a concern here, given the weight of this unique POV allegedly found in the mentioned book. I'm trying to say that, even if the book actually says this, lead of such an article is not a suitable place for giving weight to the claim. I would not object adding a line to the body though, if there was such a thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran-interlink is not RS; stop using it as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just post the scan of the page from the book that supports your claim. It should not be that difficult unless of course you are wrong; just like you were wrong about Abrahamian p. 208.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you would presume I need to scan pages for you to check. Stop asking for this. Amazon, JSTOR, and your local library are some options for you to explore, this is not my job. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

About a recent edit by Stefka

A few days ago Stefka removed a whole section on the basis that User:Icewhiz agrees with him in doing so. While, I might accept some of the sources in that section are not strong enough, I see mainstream media and academic sources there. I therefore would love to know Icewhiz's opinion on whether the book by Stanford professor Abbas Milani, Washington post and wall street journal count as reliable source. I appreciate the input. I ask this so we can avoid future disputes.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Milani is piece in National Interest, not a book. However, it is an expert view that can be used attributed. Taheri in WSJ seems like an oped - and given Amir Taheri's record with alleged fabrication I would leave it out. WaPo is generally the best you can get in journalism, however in this case this source is WP:PRIMARYNEWS - conveying an anonymous intel estimate from the period. The removed section also contains a student (2nd lt. officer) term paper hosted on DTIC which is not a source we should be using. Of the bunch - Milani is usable as an opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool User:Icewhiz. Please, kindly state your opinion about the two journals in that piece, i.e. journal of international security and middle east studies.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Do you endorse the removal of the whole section? Vladimir Kuzichkin's memories and Halliday's points are removed, too. (Also pinging Saff V. to see his points on this). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There were serious problems in that section, however I will state that in general I am opposed to blanket reverts - if we all want to compromise here - smaller steps and detailed rationales for each bit are better. As for the two sources queried -

1. Chubin in journal of international security - the source I think is reliable, though dated - 1982 - and WP:AGE MATTERS here (we would prefer a source looking book - not a 1982 looking at the (then) current and future). It is also misrepresented. It actually reads: "There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility." while we were saying ""sufficient evidence" to assume that an alliance between Soviet and Iranian Marxists including MEK was real.". Chubin was referring to parts of MEK (not MEK as a whole) and further more says this is an assumption of a real and growing possibility - so he is warning of a possible future threat (in 1982) of an alliance between Soviets and parts of MEK.
2. International Journal of Middle East Studies - this - is a biased source IIRC, however you are attributing it to the author - Fred Halliday. A bigger issue is that it is a book review (book reviews are generally the equivelant of an op-ed in academic journals - if it is a 3-4 page review (or shorter) and titled "review" - it is generally not peer reviewed), and I think it is describing what is written in the reviewed book - Vladimir Kuzichkin, "inside the KGB: myth and reality"; Louise d'Estrange Fawcett, "Iran and the Cold War: the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946. Generally quoting the work itself is better than the review. If we are using the book review - then it needs to be "according to Halliday a book by Kuzichkin says". Or perhaps take it on faith Halliday properly summarized the book (iffy - but probably OK). I think you can include this, however you need to change the attribution

Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: in this edit, Kazemita1 added (in Wiki voice) that the MEK has ties with the KGB; however, there isn’t a single reliable source in the section that confirms this. The only source mentioning KGB is this commentary piece in the National Interest. Is this correct? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Milani should be attributed. Chubin should be removed - he is warning in 1982 of a future possible threat.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: but isn't the Milani article an op-ed? thought we had agreed to avoid op-eds altogether here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It is in the commentary section - so I'd assume it is an op-ed. Milani is, however, an expert in the field. I'm not sure what we agreed (if at all) in the past on op-eds. Note that Milani himself connects the whole thing to Saadati - "Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran.". I would say that "adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB" (in the article) was/is a very selective quotation of Milani. We also have Milani anyway in the "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati". I would say that the proposed "Ties to KGB" section is redundant with the "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" - as the sources there (ignoring Chubin who is warning in 1982 of a possible future threat - useless) - are all referring to Sa’adati.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I merged "Ties to KGB" to "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati". I removed Chubin as he is in 1982 warning of a (then) future threat. I removed Milani (who was very selectively quoted) as he was already present cited from Syracuse University Press book (where he has a page or so on the Sa’adati affair) - which is a better source than an op-ed in the National Interest. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz. I simply copy pasted your own words (and here) to the KGB section. I am surprised you removed it. --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Read what I said again. Chubin is reliable for saying Chubin thought (in 1982) there was a future threat - however this source is useless as it is a past assessment of a future (as of yet unrealized) threat. I retained Halliday. I removed Milani from National Interest as we have in the " Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" a published academic book - book page 467 - by Milani covering Sa’adati/KGB in greater detail - a much better source. Note that you misrepresented Milani in National Interest - quoting a single sentence out of context (the rest of the paragraph relating to Sa’adati). Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:you believe in the source failed in reliability, while as WP:AEIS, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources and this source is a review of the book (secondary sources). As well as if it is a biased source IIRC, is the reliability violated? Which policy say so? The neutrality would be controlled by users.Saff V. (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I answered above - book reviews in journals are generally considered to be op-eds (I'm not sure where to quote policy from - I'm sure however this has been discussed elsewhere) - book reviews are generally not peer reviewed and are the opinion of the reviewer (this is different from a journal article which would be peer reviewed). The best course of action would be to quote the reviewed book directly. I will note that in my merger edit above - I retained Halliday's quote/description of Kuzichkin - I just moved it from "Ties to KGB" to "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati". Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the URL you posted in your last edit. It is from a book the reliability of which is established. It is helpful for the "Ties to KGB" section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in the sources provided confirm that the MEK had ties with the KGB. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@IceWhiz, Saff V. and Kazemita: This book review is "refereed" (check the source info) and hence should be given more weight than non-peer reviewed sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's in the LSE wrapper (which is not a RS). It doesn't appear in the journal itself - [7]. It's quite unlikely a short book review (in the midst of a bunch of other book reviews by other authors) was peer reviewed. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about. When Cheryl Benrard's biased book can be attributed and included in the article, a book review by another can certainly be included in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: That's clearly saying the work is refereed. What do you mean by LSE wrapper so it's unreliable? IJMES is a peer-reviewed academic journal and that seems more logical to act based on the available facts (such as the journal being peer-reviewed) than assumptions. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The page you are referring to wasn't published by the journal. LSE is hosting a freebie copy of the review (which is possible in various circumstances) - and added a page of its own in the beginning - so you're reliant on whomever in LSE filled this out (a secretary, bored IT person, the author themselves, etc.) - and the refereed tick might just be there since it was in a journal (which generally is so - but usually not for book reviews). Regardless - what we really should be doing here - is citing the actual book and not a book review of the book. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to rely on what is clearly known, i.e. the fact that "IJMES is a peer-reviewed academic journal" and I still can't understand why an article from an reliable and peer-reviewed journal should not be used. Though I can understand attribution might be needed. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, please stop edit warring about the KGB allegations. There aren't any reliable sources that are connecting the two. Alex-h (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

‎Intelligence and misinformation - SYNTH?

@Kazemita1: - in regards to this blanket revert - could you please outline your concerns for each paragraph you reverted? I will note that off the bat I support your removal of Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca's comments (the last paragraph in the diff) as it is not reliably sourced. However some other paragraphs you removed (e.g. the preceding one on " false testimonies against the MEK") - seem to be OK (not SYNTH, what seems to be proper sourcing). If you could outline your objection here, and/or alternatively return bits removed in the blanket revert you do not find problematical, that would further resolving this edit. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Although Kazemita1 is pinged, let me elaborate on it;

• This portion was laready used elsewhere, hence I removed it.
• This portion is suffering from SYNTH issue! What does "The Islamic Republic of Iran currently runs an alleged disinformation campaign in the West" have to do with MEK?
• The sentence "he Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap..." is severely problematic; None of the sources [8] and [9] are supporting the alleged "...into providing false testimonies against the MEK". Moreover, advocacy sources such as [10] and un-attributed claims of MEK members are used to conclude a fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I second what Mhhossein just said. From where I am standing, Stefka is editing a bit carelessly. Aside from the items that Mhhossein already mentioned, take for example, his inclusion of Washington Examiner as a source. The paper is barely out of its tabloid mode and is certainly not suitable for a sensitive article like this.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The edits provide well backed-up evidence that the IRI is working with a big disinformation campaign in the West, and that the MEK is a big part of that disinformation campaign. Then you've both removed the following The 1987 Tower Commission Report cited a letter by Manouchehr Ghorbanifar saying that one of the demands by the Iranian regime for the release of American hostages in Lebanon was an “official announcement terming the Mujahedin-e Khalq Marxist and terrorist.”, which is in no way, shape or form SYNTH. Kazemita1, if you think Washing Examiner needs to be taken to RSN, then, by all means go ahead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid the burden of proof is on you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Please respond to the points I raised and before pushing the revert button, I suggest you to search for "Manucher Ghorbanifar" and you'll see what's on. As for the IRI campaign against MEK, you're synthesizing 2 sources to reach a conclusion supported by none of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree this is Synth, and the sources do seem reliable. Alex-h (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pure disagreement does not suffice. You need to discuss your points using guidelines and policies. See WP:SYNTH for more information and read my previous comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: About your points:

• 1st point: I’ll attribute to the author and add bit more context, so that there is no confusion (let me know if I should add more here, there is more to add actually).
• 2nd point: Contextualizing that the IRI is launching disinformation campaign in the West provides just that, context to the disinformation campaign the IRI is launching against the MEK in the West.
• 3rd point: I’ll fix as requested. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being clear, but this source does not support the "known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members". This is a clear misinterpretation of the cited source. Moreover, why have you used a first hand report by an advocacy group to conclude such a challenging fact? Same is true for this opinionated piece (see the "opinion" in the right hand corner of Khamenei) which you used to conclude a fact! Moreover, "Contextualizing that the IRI is launching disinformation campaign" should not be carried out via SYNTH. None of the sources used as context, say there's such a campaign against MEK, which is not allowed as per WP:OR. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to note that the source is just an opinion!As well as amnesty does not support mentioned material, In other words, it can not be used to have a fact. Also I agree that stefeka mixed the material of that two sources which not connect to the subject,so SYNTH is true.Saff V. (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:, your mentioned sentence in the edit summary is so far from existence one in the article. Would you bring a sentence which u used it from that google book?Saff V. (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., your English is difficult to understand. All I can tell you is that both sources are reliable, and the text was taken from the sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I try to be more clear, in this edit you mentioned this sentence from Amnesty "Those who dare to seek truth and justice have faced relentless harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as torture and other ill-treatment" which is nothing to do with "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families", sentence u added to article. So I ask u to provide the sentence or material that u picked up from another source. I know both of them are RS, but SYNTH is probable.Saff V. (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"For 30 years, families of victims have been denied the right to bury their loved ones and mourn their loss. Those who dare to seek truth and justice have faced relentless harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as torture and other ill-treatment."

• I see there's a hot discussion. I did not see any of the sources say "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families." I am not experienced but think that Amnesty international is better get used carefully. We should at least use it with full attribution. In this case it does not say "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to...". I see that although this is reverted back in the article several times ([11], [12], [13], [14]). @Stefka Bulgaria: Take it easy man!Forest90 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Words to watch

@Stefka Bulgaria: I think you are putting TOO much energy in this article so that you even ignore clear points. For instance, you were, in a non-stop manner ( [15] and [16]) pushing an opinion piece into the article to conclude a fact, although I told multiple times not to do that (see my comment), among others). Now, you're again edit warring against me to use a loaded word. i.e. 'however', although WP:EDITORIAL prohibits using this. To our surprise, your edit summary reads "4) “However” is not a loaded word"!!! Is however supported by the sources used? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, I think you ignore a lot of clear points in this article, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the RSs and what they say, and this should be the focus here. Now that we've established that opinion pieces should not be used in this article, then we should focus on whatever else needs fixing. About using the word "However", the guideline you provided says "Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." So, is "however" here "implying a relationship where none exists"? Aren't both statements talking about the same thing (cult designation)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"however" is "unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." Don't use it anymore, unless if the used sources are supporting "however". --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "however" is not used properly. Where did we establish not to use "opinion peices"?Saff V. (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ties to KGB

@Stefka Bulgaria and Kazemita1: You are making many reverts on this case. I invite you to discuss it.Forest90 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @ Kazemita1 to opening related discussion in RSN, but I think that main problem is not Milani source.Saff V. (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The verdict is out and it seems like using Abbas Milani source(s) are ok. If anyone wants to ask about Chubin's source, you are more than welcome to do so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

As a side point, @Stefka Bulgaria: would deny anyone related to this article from getting involved in his WP:RSN inquiries like this one, but he did not honor his own words and started unrelated material to my inquiry. Just an observation.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been already a discussion about this already, why did you open a new one and ignored what was said on the last one? Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body?

The consensus is to move the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) to the body. The consensus is weak because of the limited participation. There is no prejudice against discussing this further since there was limited participation.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• A new RfC has started at #RFC about the death tolls in the lead. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC) This: "According to infoplease.com, more than 16,000 Iranian people have been killed by the MEK since 1979.According to the MEK, over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran."

• Yes: per User:S Marshall's previous RfC closing remarks, and because of the ambiguity from sources supporting these stats, and because the lede needs to be shortened. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Per which consensus did you make this change? It's a clear sign of edit warring by you. Respect other editors before making such edits since there's no consensus over the removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I started this thread over 2 weeks ago. You had plenty of time to add to this. Even with your protest, you're still not contributing to the debate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, also stop making this into a Battleground with baseless accusations, try focusing on saying whatever you want to say about the content instead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

2, 20 or 200 weeks does not matter since we had talked about this issue here and notably since there's a closed RFC on this which ended to "no consensus". When I have not commented on this RFC, it means that nothing had changed. Now, know that my idea is what I said before, so there's still no consensus and try to build consensus instead of edit warring. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: The proposal makes sense. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:19, 25 April 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?

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Cunard: I would not consider the last drive-by comment. "makes sense"? is that even a guideline or something? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No I hope it's not too late. But I think it is a useful information. Why removing it?Forest90 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I closed the proposal as successful since there was no explicit opposition to the proposal after over 30 days. I support the new, better advertised RfC at #RFC about the death tolls in the lead to discuss this further. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protected for 4 days

In the meantime, I expect participating editors to work hard at reaching consensus. Maybe launch a separate RfC about this? I'm not sure taking it to RSN was the right call, since unless I'm missing something, it isn't that the source is necessarily deemed unreliable per se., but rather, as Icewhiz notes above, using the book itself as a reference may be preferable to the book review about it. I think we are all in agreement that we should limit speculation to the utmost. Thoughts? El_C 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein started a RfC about the death tolls, but the current consensus as closed by User:Cunard is to "move the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) to the body.". Also, about the Milani source, as you've pointed out per Icewhiz's closing remarks, we are already using the book which is preferred than the commentary piece. We can discuss these further, perhaps open a new RfC, but as of now this is the consensus for both edits. So on that basis could you please undo Kazemita1's last two edits on the article as they don't reflect current consensus? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it's always the wrong version which is against consensus that I end up protecting. What can I do? Bad luck. Sorry, I'm not sure that RfC was closed appropriately, since there were only two participants in it. Anyway, for me to revert a fully-protected article, first I gotta see where the consensus is regarding these edits — the main reason why I drafted this section. We can have two RfCs or expand on the current one. Hopefully, the protection will be a factor in motivating discussion intensively. Please be concise in detailing your preferences. El_C 01:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. We have already explored the KGB allegations in depth:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#6th_round
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#About_a_recent_edit_by_Stefka

This was Icewhiz's closing remarks about this: "Read what I said again. Chubin is reliable for saying Chubin thought (in 1982) there was a future threat - however this source is useless as it is a past assessment of a future (as of yet unrealized) threat. I retained Halliday. I removed Milani from National Interest as we have in the " Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" a published academic book - book page 467 - by Milani covering Sa’adati/KGB in greater detail - a much better source." This seems perfectly fine, so what's the counter-argument to this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'm also against undue speculation. Yes, that's a fair question. El_C 02:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C:First of all, I had already excluded Chubin in my last edits, so mentioning Icewhiz's comments here is irrelevant. In my final edits I only used Abbas Milani for KGB ties. The question is whether you find Abbas Milani reliable for saying there was a tie between MEK and KGB. WP:RSN's verdict was that there is no issue with reliability and I do not think anybody has an issue with that. I specifically mentioned in my inquiry in WP:RSN, that people are concerned with the source, i.e. "Natioanl Interest", and the independent responder in WP:RSN saw the edit I was referring to and yet agreed with it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

One more point; Icewhiz is not disputing Abbas Milani. He is just saying why use "The National Interest" when we have "Eminent Persians" and why create a new subsection titled "Ties to KGB" when we describe the ties in "execution of Sa'adati". In other words, he is not disputing the existence of the tie. In my humble opinion, adding two lines of text is not undue.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing clear consensus at RSN — because, some editors have been arguing that you've misrepresented the material there. If I'm understanding correctly, they are arguing that the issue is WP:SYNTH rather than the reliability of the respective source/s. El_C 04:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Those users are the ones who revert my edits on this article(Alex-h, Icewhiz and Stefka). The whole point of WP:RSN is to have independent users who do not have a dog in the fight comment on the disputed content.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is what WP:SYNTH says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources

I literally quoted Abbas Milani on the topic of MEK having ties to KGB. It does not get any more explicit than that.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Milani in an academic book is much preferred to Milani in an oped. Furthermore, your quotation of the op-ed is very-very selective (WP:CHERRYPICKING) - the context of this sentence is important - "Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran." - Milani writes a short intro on Moscow ties - and goes on to expand with Saadati (and in the more detailed book - he does the same). In the oped - Milani isn't discussing ties other than Saadati - he is discussing Saadati. By not including this context, our text (for some very odd reason split into a KGB section and a Sa'adati section) - implies this was something other than the well-known Saadati affair. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is absolutely not cherry-picking. Milani is mentions MEK explicitly (and not Sa'adati alone) when he is talking about ties to Moscow and KGB:

After the revolution, MEK was amongst the most stalwart supporters of the clerical regime. It grew in number and stature rapidly, soon becoming the most formidable organization in the country. The MEK used its increasing power to pressure the government into increasingly radical action—from more summary trials and executions to the occupation of the American embassy. Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran. [17]

The pronoun it comes right after MEK before Sa'adati is mentioned.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It speaks of close ties with the KGB, but only refers to Sa'adati as having had any contact with them. As a user who is less than familiar with this, it is difficult to tell if what the source mentions goes beyond that Sa'adati-KGB relationship. El_C 13:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And the Sa'adati/Russia incident is already in the article, using the Milani source (the published book, not the op-ed). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In my latest edit I made sure what Milani calls "ties to KGB" is clearly defined and is limited to the three meetings with Sa'adati. There were other sources, however, for this section such as Vladimir Kuzichkin's account as well as a Washington Post piece as seen in this edit that elaborated more on the ties between KGB and MEK. I conceded to a middle ground solution by excluding them in hopes for an agreement. Apparently, that method no longer works in Wikipedia.Kazemita1 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Both those sources have also been analysed in depth in this TP showing why they were not suitable to support this (just as with the Milani op-ed). "Consensus does not need to be unanimous for something to be deemed unreliably-sourced or undue." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The only problem with your argument is that you cannot have consensus against Wikipedia core policies such as WP:RS. I encourage @El C: to start a new inquiry in the WP:RSN and ask independent contributors to comment on whether this edit satisfies reliability and/or due weight.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not gonna do that. The discussion has been split enough times. Just try to stay focused on what is being said right here. Consensus or lack thereof will determine where we go from here. El_C 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Based on the discussions, users who have been actively involved in the talk page and contributed to the page itself are divided into two camps:

• Camp #1 are pro adding a new section titled "Ties to KGB" who are (User:Kazemita1, User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V.)
• Camp #2 are against adding a separate section with the above title who are (User:Stefka Bulgaria, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h)

There were two other users named User:Sa.vakilian & User:Forest90 whose opinion on this matter I am not aware of.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, the version before the dispute should probably be the one up while this gets sorted. But you seem to be missing the point: in that instance, DRN might be a better way to go than RSN, because the latter has a narrow mandate which is focused on reliability, which again, I'm not sure is the case here. El_C 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C:I opened a case in WP:DRN per your recommendation. I am just curious how you determine which camp to favor. I mean how is consensus determined? Previously, folks in camp 2 used to count votes as shown in this revert.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved through persuasion of both currently-participating and outside editors who have yet to participate. It is not a vote count. El_C 07:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a relief.--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 and Sa.vakilian have not participated in this discussion, yet they've been pinged here. Why didn't Kazemita1 also ping @Nikoo.Amini:? I presume it's because Nikoo.Amini voted against Kazemita1's side on the previous RfC? Opening a new discussion elsewhere will create another mess since this has been discussed at length in this TP (several times). I asked for Kazemita1 to provide a counter-argument, and I presume Kazemita1 has? @El C:, you had a look at Kazemita's counter-argument? what do you make of it? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is in reference to what? There are a lot of arguments and counter-arguments here. El_C 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: in reference to what I wrote at the beginning of this section, about Icewhiz's closing remarks concerning this discussion: "Chubin is reliable for saying Chubin thought (in 1982) there was a future threat - however this source is useless as it is a past assessment of a future (as of yet unrealized) threat. I retained Halliday. I removed Milani from National Interest as we have in the " Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" a published academic book - book page 467 - by Milani covering Sa’adati/KGB in greater detail - a much better source." I wrote that this seems perfectly fine to me, and asked about Kazemita1's counter-argument(who then provided it). Since you're an uninvolved administrator, it would be good to know what you think about Kazemita1's counter-argument to Icewhiz's closing remarks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I already responded to that particular exchange. But I'm not familiar enough with the material to expand beyond that at this time. El_C 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First things first. I pinged Sa.vakilian and Forest90 in a discussion related to editing the article. I did not ping Nikoo.Amini because she was not involved in the article; not at least since I joined editing it recently. As for my counter-argument with that closing remark here is what I am saying. The fact that Abbas Milani said something during an interview does not make it unreliable. Abbas Milani is a scholar whose words can be used in Wikipedia even if said during an interview or what you may call an Op-Ed. And don't take my words for it. Even Icewhiz once said this. The point you are missing here is that there is enough evidence here, beyond the Sa'adati incident that deserves a separate sub-section. Now, the subsection's title could be something different like "Ties to Soviet Union" or "Interactions with Soviet Union". What I am saying in brief is that reducing these interactions to just the three meetings of MEK with KGB is simply undermining historical facts. --Kazemita1 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Every source that's available about this has been analyzed (reliable and not reliable). The two Milani sources (the oped and book) refer to the Russian connections regarding Saadati, which is already in the Wikipedia page supported by the (preferred) book reference. We can keep playing this WP:IDHT game if you like, but this is the bottom line. Alex-h (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources when we are talking about the broader level connection, i.e. the connection to Soviets (as opposed to just the KGB). Moreover, the sources discussed here that were refuted for the "ties to KGB" might well be used for "interactions with the Soviet Union". I will come up with a proposal in a day. I hope we can all wait.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been any updates about this in days, so will leave this as part of the Sa'adati incident per this lengthy TP discussion. If new sources are found, the debate can be reinitiated. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Conclusions of the BBC article

The author in this BBC article spoke to several people; some who were pro and some who were against the notorious things they say about MEK. Like the fact that people are held in MEK camps against their will. The author concludes which side he finally believes in this section:

There are many other stories. Children who never forgave their parents for abandoning them. Children who did forgive and are now joyously reunited. Divorcees who have got out of the organisation saying they still love their former spouses who are still in. In over 25 years of reporting, I have been lied to often enough but, as successive former MEK members told what they had been through, their tears seemed real enough to me.

He further refutes those famous figures who defend MEK by saying they are on MEK's payroll, or because they simply want a change in the country they are not happy with, i.e. Iran:

In the US in particular, an impressive array of public figures have spoken in defence of the MEK. There are more than 30 big names - people like Rudy Giuliani former mayor of New York, Howard Dean at one time the democratic presidential hopeful, a retired governor, a former head of the FBI. Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes. But then many other prominent MEK supporters act without payment.[...] After a month talking to people on both sides of the argument, I am left thinking this. Some supporters are paid, others see the MEK through the prism of Iran - they will just support anything that offers hope of change there. Many are well motivated but some are naive.

Based on the above, the author's conclusion is clear. I therefore kindly ask folks not to start another edit war.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not verified by the supporting sources or BBC article" "A 2005 document published by Human Rights Watch accused MEK leadership of widespread sexual harassment against men, women, and children within the organization. According to the allegations, members were forced to make taped confessions of sexual fantasies that were later used against them. " Don't add things that are not verified by sources Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CHERRYPICKING. The paragraph after the tears paragraph reads - "And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents." ... Conclusion of article - last two paragraphs - "Which is when it occurred to me - the perception people have of the MEK may say more about them than about the organisation itself. It is so difficult to pin down you can see your own reflection in it.". BBC presents both sides of the coin here (allegations against MEK and support of MEK). Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the author attributed the sexual fantasy confessions to former MEK members without disputing it anywhere in the article. So, using it the same way he mentioned it in his source shall have no problem. Second, when someone says a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked and then goes on to saying those politicians are either paid by MEK or are anti the current regime in Tehran, it is very much saying he disagrees with them.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it seems the other sentence could be changed. You are right in saying the assertion is not fully supported by the source. "A 2005 document published by Human Rights Watch accused MEK leadership of widespread sexual harassment against men, women, and children within the organization". The HRW document talks about "renunciation of sexuality" and "decreeing of divorce". To avoid dispute we can just use those explicitly mentioned in the HRW report.Kazemita1 (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresented interpretation of "sexual abbuse". The BBC article says "Former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies" and "And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents", and the "renunciateion of sexuality" by Human Rights Watch document is also not "sexual abbuse". Nikoo.Amini (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

After reading the sexual abuse article in Wikipedia I am no longer pushing for inclusion of the piece in the sexual abuse sub-section. I therefore, neutralized the text and moved it to human rights abuse section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is good that you read the article, now you need to also read the sections where you include information. "Human Rights" section already talk about the HRW information. Also "describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies" is controversial claim for human rights abuse. Please start a discussion here if you want to include controversial things. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Self-sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin by Stevenson

I got a hold of this book today. To begin with how biased this book is, the author dedicates the book to Maryam Rajavi and other "brothers & sisters" in MEK:

This book is dedicated to Maryam Rajavi and countless other sisters and brothers of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran with whom I have had the privilege to work and campaign. Their self-sacrifice and the self-sacrifice of the PMOI over decades has been an inspiration.

That aside, the book is simply a series of interviews with MEK members. As a result, the book is at best a primary source (and not even a reliable one). It therefore cannot serve as a source for the following assertion in this Wiki article:

"Other analysts state that MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions"

I am uploading the table of contents here for your review.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Book written by Scottish politician Struan Stevenson and published by Birlinn. So far, what's been included from this book has come from the author and not those interviewed (though you don't seem to mind those former MEK members interviewed in the Guardian article? ) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you do us all a favor and post the scan of the corresponding page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, WP:RSN came up with this verdict. As such I am going to remove it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: An un-involved user has supported your suggestion to attribute the claim to the author, i.e. Struan Stevenson, but you have pushed another version into the lead. Was it a mistake? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the connection

Please pay attention to this edit, what are the connection among MEK, Hafte tir bombing and executions teenage girls? I think that the source doesn't say IRGC and hezbollahis reaction and executions of teenage girls are related to Hafte tir bombing. Am I right? Saff V. (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Hey @Sa.vakilian: a user is persistently edit warring to send the paragraph on MEK being designated as terrorist organization to the end of the lead. He's grounding his POVish changes on your edits. In the case you don't know, I should add that this change was discussed and I provided enough explanation why it was not consistent with the trend of other articles (see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 6 and search for "Boko Haram" in the text). That's why I'm asking you to restore this version while keeping your recent additions. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I rearranged the lead based on the aforementioned discussion. However, I do not think it is a POV change. I mean both of the orders are neutral. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Seyyed for the intervention. But it certainly matters whether or not the terrorism designation is in 2nd or last paragraph (that's why he was trying to send it to the end of the lead). In this case, the state is in second paragraph as is in multiple similar articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian:, I agree with your reasoning concerning the article's lede, which presents the information chronologically, and I also agree it's not a POV change, so I will restore it based on that merit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let's revert it to the former order and solve the problem on the talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's solve the disagreement. This is Mhhossein's claim why the terrorist designation should be placed towards the top of the lede section:

"See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram where designation as terrorist identity is mentioned in the second paragraph"

One of the differences between those articles and the MEK article, is that the MEK forms part of the "Organizations formerly designated as terrorist" category.

Here is a list of Organizations formerly designated as terrorist (the category the MEK belongs to), where the terrorist designation is not even mentioned in the lede section:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Nepal_(Maoist_Centre)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Alliance
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_African_National_Union
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAPO
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Congress_of_Democrats
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Co-operative_Party

Also, considering there are plenty of RSs that describe in detail that “The inclusion of [the terrorist designation of] the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami." this would make it a controversial terrorist designation, which gives reason to either place it towards the bottom or remove it from the lede altogether (as the other examples above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been any updates about this in days, so will will go ahead with the edit per evidence presented in my previous comment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

No the group is currently designated as terrorist by at least two countries. Moreover, whether or not the designation had been a "goodwill gesture", has absolutely nothing to with this discussion. You're making some sort of original research. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you seem to be making the original research about why this should be in the top. You also said we should follow examples from other Wikipedia articles about this, and we are. Stop bending policies to make the article how you want it to read. Alex-h (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"The group is currently designated as terrorist by at least two countries", where's the OR? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comparing MEK article with others is not the idea of ideas at the moment because of various condition. Designating as a terrorist organization and delisting (by financial lobbies) is important enough to mention in the second paragraph, which belongs to the nature of the group and some changing.Saff V. (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the designation and history between the MEK and Iran/Iraq are also controversial, this is all in the article. Before you compared the MEK to "Boko Haram", and when Stefka showed that this was not a similar case, then you continue to argue this should be on the top by which policy? That is OR. Do not try to bend policies like you seem to have done in the Death Tolls RfC where you first complained about using unreliable sources and then voted in favor of using them. Alex-h (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree this seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING. MA Javadi (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)