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.

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

PSRI Study

@Expectant of Light: Please refrain from adding the work published by PSRI. It is not scholarly and subject to WP:RS. Pahlevun (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: It is scholarly as I have said earlier. It is in fact one of the most authoritative works on the group drawing upon unique sources of information such as SAVAK documents. The PSRI has been founded by Abdollah Shahbazi a well-known historian. Two reviews have also been written in Iran about the book as far as I know. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light: How do you know it's founded by Shahbazi? I could not find such a thing on the website. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: These are some of the sources that mention this. [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was positive I posted this message here. So sorry that I missed this: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson: That discussion is in vain. There are just some users whom you pinged. There are not broad views as we have in RSN. Every source need to be addressed case by case. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is posted here as well. There is still time for others to vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No' (posting here since it seems some are questioning the other discussion). The writers behind the site are not entirely clear- it is described as an enthusiast site. Furthermore, it is based inside of Iran where freely writing about the opposition is not possible due to lack of freedom of speech. Abdollah Shahbazi, who seems to be loosely associated with this site, actually illustrates the point as he was - arrested for publishing a book about land issues (a subject not nearly as dangerous as MEK, to say the least).Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't already and would like to vote on the use of Iranian sources and PSRI, please vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources. It is perfectly acceptable to open the vote at a Wikiproject page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Munafiqin in the lead

@Pahlevun: Could you elaborate on this? Is it not a widely used term in Iran? Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the word is expressing a contentious opinion subject to words to watch (with respect to its derogatory meaning). Such words are better to be avoided unless they are used by reliable sources, in which case in-text attribution is proper. Pahlevun (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

And which sources were not reliable do you think? Moreover, "commonly called by Iranian officials" was added as "in-text attribution". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: for attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the sources as unreliable, I believe the first sentence of the lead is not a place to reflect that POV (which is covered already in the 'names' section), per WP:LABEL. That's it. Pahlevun (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Thanks for your opinion in the earlier section. Do you think "hypocrites" is really contentious given that MKO worked with the enemies of Iran and that they claimed to be Islamic only after the 1979 revolution whereas they had denounced Islam in 1976? --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion doesn't count here. The question is not that the MEK deserves to be called as such or not, the question is whether a Wikipedia article about them should mention such a label in the lead or not. Pahlevun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The truth is this label has become official and normal in Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun and Expectant of Light: Firstly, Wikipedia articles should include all major POVs in accordance to their weight. According to WP:LEAD, "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and it should be in a "style with a neutral point of view." Moreover, MOS:ALTNAME says that "alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." That said, a major POV and a common title widely used in Iran is removed from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This POV must be added to the lead. However it seems difficult to verify that this title is used by both government and people. But attributing it to the government is beyond dispute. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ALTNAME refers to using alternative names, such as alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Note that munafeqin is a name calling, rather than an alternative "name" (they never use it, and it has been solely used by the government literature in Iran) and for example, you don't mention the word 'Cuckservative' in the lead of the article Conservative. I think MOS:WTW is straight enough to state Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint., so I'm still in favor of removing it from the lead. Maybe we can ask for other opinions to resolve the issue? Pahlevun (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun, welcome back. Thanks for the comment, however I think your argument is not guideline-wise. First of all the quote from MOS:ALTNAME just says "these may include..." meaning it may include other things, too. Secondly, munafeqin is a Nickname dubbed by Iranian government (you can see it in independent reliable sources such as McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri and you can certainly find more sources for it). Moreover, "common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead" per MOS:NICKCRUFT. Many reliable sources refer to the fact that the group is referred to as munafeqin by Iranian officials and you're favoring removal of this well established fact from the lead. When it's done by proper attribution, there will be no concern over what you said. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion is resembling wikilawyering and I really hate to quote again, but if you leave the letter and stick to the spirit, MOS:NICKCRUFT that you mentioned, states:

Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical. Example: "Tricky Dick" does not appear in the lead of Richard Nixon, despite being a redirect to that article; this label by his political opponents is covered, with context, in the article body

.

Pahlevun (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That's true only when the appellation is "uncommon or disputed" and Munafiqin is certainly common and nearly undisputed in Iran (at least in governmental literature). You can't compare a label used by political opponents with the one used by a country. Thanks you anyway. Inserting "they are commonly called Munafiqin by Iranian officials has no undue weight or neutrality since it's attributed properly and there are many reliable sources supporting it. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC about Munafiqin label

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.

---

Munafiqin ("hypocrites") is a common term used by Iranian officials in reference to MEK. Should the lead contain a sentence saying 'MEK is commonly called by Iranian officials as Munafiqin'? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it should include the sentence. The lead should be a summary of the article. This fact is supported by many independent reliable sources such as and the term is widely used by many Iranian people, officials and media. Moreover, there are sources saying that term is the group's nickname; See McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri. MOS:NICKCRUFT allows using "common nicknames" in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. This is a derogatory term that the Iranian regime uses to describe a group it outlawed. Coverage of the use of this derogatory term in English is fairly scant, and we should not give UNDUE weight to the opinions of a repressive regime and the media outlets it controls inside Iran - coverage of the term outside Iran is limited to sources explaining what the Iranian's regime-controlled media/officials mean when they say this derogatory term. We wouldn't use terminology from Pravda nicknames in the lede of various capitalist and democratic systems (we would end up with many uses of "repressive", "oppressive", "pigs", etc.). Same here. There might be scope to cover various euphemisms used by the Iranian regime in Media of Iran, Communications in Iran, Censorship in Iran, Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran - there certainly is quite a bit of such euphemism for various groups/countries.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that the comment is meant to mislead the readers. Fortunately, your loosely related comment seems pretty much contradictory (dubious?) if someone searches the term online and none of the sources I cited are Iranian or related to that. "Coverage of the use of this derogatory term in English is fairly scant"??? I provided numerous academic and reliable sources for this fact (that they are called as such by Iranian officials) and it's interesting for me you did not see them. Are McGill, WashintonPost, Memri ande etc controlled from/by Iran? Maybe... --Mhhossein ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The 3 sources you provided.... The first is an Islamic book trust publication on Imam Khomeini: Life, Thought and Legacy - in which this is a one-liner on Mek. The second Iran under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals) - says that Khomeini attacked the Mujahedin and called them Munafiqin in a one-liner. The 3rd I can't see online. It is certainly verifiable that the Iranian regime uses this derogatory term - however coverage is for the most part limited to explanations of what the Iranian regime means when it uses this non-standard term - as it is not obvious to those not familiar with the discourse and unique language constructs used by the Iranian regime to refer to various groups supposedly opposed to the Islamic revolution.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Getting even more interesting...I provided 8 sources in whole, not 3, and there are certainly more source if one searches for it. This case is very simple; Numerous reliable sources are saying A (whose POV has a significant weight with regard to B) calls B as 'CCC'. Now, why should this well-established fact (B being called as 'CCC' by A) get omitted from the lead? Munaifiqin shows Iran's view and direction towards MEK and the reader has the right to know this major point.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I referred to the 3 sources in this RFC. I added another one from the Center for Human Rights in Iran saying this is a derogatory term. There are derogatory terms for many groups, races, religions, etc. - we do not add them typically to the lede - as it is simply WP:UNDUE. Passing WP:V is not sufficient for inclusion. In this particular instance - the "Munafiqin" term is only useful if you are reading a speech or direct copy (or the Persian itself) of Iranian media - it is not used by any non-Iranian source - except when such a source is quoting an Islamic Republic source or when referring to what Islamic Republic say/use.Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Whether Iranian media are controlled or not doesn't factor in at all. We are stating what Iranian government says about the hypocrites who ended up allying themselves with the biggest imperialist powers after all throughout their existence they had claimed they were fighting against imperialism! The page content itself listing all sorts of crimes and felonies by MEK inside Iran and Europe just adds credibility to Iran's description of this vile terrorist cult. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Should we add "imperialists" or Great Satan to the lede of United States per coverage in Iranian regime controlled sources?Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we should not. The comparison is basically wrong. MEK is originated from Iran and was essentially an Iranian party later turned against Iran. Iran's view on US is not comparable with Iran's view on MEK, the latter being much more noteworthy. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No The MEK worked together with the Islamic Republic of Iran during the Iran Revolution. There then was a disagreement between both political groups, which led to the MEK being banned from running for political elections. As a result, there was a major protest throughout Iran, which led to many MEK sympathizers being imprisoned and executed. The MEK retaliated by targetting the IRI, which led to the IRI targeting the MEK. The IRI has since tried to demolish this group in any way possible, including using Iran-controlled media to discredit and smear the group. These sources using the derogatory term "hypocrites" is a reflection of this. Such sources are also curently embedded throughout the article, which need to be identified as the views of IRI-controlled media as these are not neutral sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Be realistic. Are McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri controlled by Iran? I don't think so. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stefka's comment like that of Icewhize is off-topic but its inaccuracy need pointed out. Ayatollah Khomeini always maintained a critical, reserved approach towards MEK before and after the revolution. And after their 1975 bloody ideological coup, the clerics totally severed their relations with the group. And since most of their leaders were arrested and imprisoned by SAVAK by 1978, and since Ayatollah Khomeini wanted the revolution to be non-violent, MEK could play little to no role in advance of the revolution. When some MEK leaders were released in November 1978 release of political prisoners by the Shah, the revolution was already there. Most that they contributed was guerilla combats during the last two days of the revolution which was not very significant because the army had already lost motive to continue repression and it declared neutrality immediately after facing violence. And MEK were haplessly trying to jump in the bandwagon of the Islamic revolution during this short interval by claiming that the 1975 atheist coup was only the work of a bunch of "opportunist rogue elements" in the organization and given their years of experience with propaganda they could make a lot of followings from among Iranian youth, mostly late-teenagers who knew little about the MEK's dark past! --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No: It's a derogatory term used in IRI propaganda, thus it has no place on Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In which case, "People's Mujahedeen of Iran" is also a propaganda since MEK fought against their own people in Saddam's war against Iran. So I believe we should also remove that from their name since it's been a propaganda term ever since the 1979 revolution! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really, "People's Mujahedeen of Iran" is their official name which they chose. This is not the case with "Munafiqin", which is just a derogatory term made by the IRI. Also, they didn't fight against their own people, but the regime, major difference. Let's not turn this into a political discussion btw. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! So ISIS was also not fighting Iraqis but only the Iraqi government even though they murdered thousands of Iraqi citizens during the war. Are you even serious? "Munafiqin" is also just as official in Iran as is their hypocritical name. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Comparing ISIS to Mujahedeen, great... I'm not gonna have this off-topic discussion here, write to my mail if you long for a political discussion (a mature and calm one that is). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The comparison is indeed great since they basically did the same thing. Fighting a government and murdering thousands of citizens in the process and deliberately so only to scare citizens from supporting the government they were fighting against! Likewise both organizations recruited their members from young volunteers who would basically have their brains handed to their megalomaniac top leaders! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light, your views seem to reflect IRI media, but this has no place on Wikipedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What a great argument! If that's valid, then your views also reflect MEK propaganda so they have no place here! But wait! They do provided that you respect the guidelines and have consensus for your views. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No this is not lede material. Is it an important thing to know about the organization? No, not really, especially since this is English. The information can be included under "Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK". --Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you realize the IRI views section is exactly the edit for which Stefka had no consensus and has been on ANI for? Please see the last comments above the PSRI section in the talk page. I'm reverting Stefka's recent edit as per consensus reached in that talkpage. Btw, the Munafiqin description must be used as per reasons I and Mhhossein provided. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(S)he did not belong on ANI-- it was clearly a content dispute, and if it weren't for that post I wouldn't be here. I am able to gather info and come to decisions on my own. Thanks for your suggestions though. It doesn't look like consensus is likely to agree with you on this one.--Calthinus (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(S)he did because of his repetitive reverts against consensus in the talkpage discussion above. As for this dispute, I shall not remind WP:NOTDEMOCRACY to a moderator I believe. We are not casting votes. We are discussing the dispute. Unless each side of the dispute can respond to counter arguments they can't claim they have policy-based consensus. So please go ahead and tell us why a major POV about a terrorist cult up to its neck deep in crime and fraud must not be mentioned in the lead. Thanks! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a specific word used by the IRI. Doesn't matter how much crime and fraud they've done, it's a term in Persian that is meaningless to an Anglophone audience, while explaining its meaning is not interesting to them either. Actually, if you want to talk about the crime and fraud, putting tangents about this slur is taking away from that. --Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But just as with MEK's Persian name, we consider adding the translation and context for its significance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As this discussion clearly demonstrates, it will require explanation. The lede should give space to aspects of the topic as per their importance. It will end up with too much space. Sorry. My vote is no.--Calthinus (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• No this is not lede material. It takes too much explanation to clarify the complex history of this organization so as to explain the designation in the lede section. Discussion of the designation should take its place among other controversy in the body of the article, with the space given it carefully measured. I'm not for US interference in Iran, but to call this organization hypocritical seems a gross oversimplification. Jzsj (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per Pahlevun ([17], [18]) and Icewhiz. As a side note, I concur with HistoryofIran and Stefka Bulgaria that Expectant of Light's increasingly hysterical bludgeoning of this talk page with unsourced personal commentary has gone way beyond the pale and raises serious concerns about that user's basic WP:COMPETENCE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have sources for what I say about history of MKO. Ervand Abrahamian and a Iranian study that we've been discussing. I can provide quotations but I have to use screenshots or write transcript of them since I have a screenshot copy of the first and the latter is in Persian and needs translation. But, I concede, there's no consensus for inclusion of "munafiqin" so I don't comment on this anymore. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No to inclusion in the lead (for the reasons I mentioned before). [+Yes to mentioning that in the body (Other names and History sections), because usage of the term has been subject to analyses by numerous scholarly sources and conveys a important part of MEK's perception in Iran]. Pahlevun (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per Pahlevun, inclusion in the article text should be sufficient. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No summoned by bot - SNOW - just like we wouldn't include derogatory names for ethnic groups in their ledes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: MEK is not an ethnic group. Pahlevun (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. We shouldn't include insulting terms for any group, ethnic, racial, or political. Maybe a better analogy would be to prevent people from including the insulting term for liberals "libtards" or "snowflake" in the liberalism article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

RFC about the article's lead section

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 the lead section of this article resume how the organization started, its ideology, how it got into conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and what resulted from this conflict? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC) The text in question is:

1. paragraph on MEK's Ideology:

   The MEK was 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. The organization has been described as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.

2. paragraph on MEK's fall out with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

   Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government. Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.

Note I copied the proposed text from the threaded discussion below, so that the two paragraphs considered will be clearly presented in the survey question.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support paragraph 1 as the opening paragraph. It is essential to introduce the concept before getting into the ideology.

Paragraph 2 could then say: This Iranian political–militant organization[6] in exile advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.[31][32] It is classified as a violent non-state actor,[33] and it has had headquarters located in France (1981–1986; since 2003), Iraq (1986–2016) and Albania (since 2016). (Citation numbers would change, of course)

Your paragraph 2 could then be paragraph 3: Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[9][10] After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,[11] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.[12] Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.[13][14][15] (Citation numbers would change, of course)

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support both paragraphs - certainly the common underpinnings between MEK and the Islamic republic, as well as early cooperation between the two, is highly uncomfortable and suppressed by the Iranian regime which has turned MEK into one of perennial bogeyman upon which various calamities in the republic are pinned. However, this content is well sourced and highly relevant for any understanding on MEK's origin and continuing operations - this is certainly lede worthy, and should of course be expanded on in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have explained there have been no willing cooperation between the Islamic Republic and MKO since the 1979 revolution. They have been always looked with suspicion by the clerical leadership ever since their 1976 bloody atheist coup, but still given their powerful past experience with propaganda and campaigning they could blame the atheist coup on "rogue elements" and build a following among young people by citing contributions of their past Muslim martyrs before the group was hijacked in 1976 by atheists. The new government from the beginning was trying to prevent their ambitions for power but they could got themselves through. As you see it's a very detailed and complex history and organization. PSRI study that I desire to use in this page has documented these in great detail. So does Ervand Abrahamian but partly and in smaller details whose account is also more sympathetic with MKO than PSRI, despite him saying he was neutral. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if you want real consensus you have to wait until @CaroleHenson:'s initiative for dispute resolution over the sources and other disputes reach a conclusion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I will write with more details later. Pahlevun (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I have no problem with a summary of the page content in the lead but the problem is the organization has a very long and colorful history and on top of that we have different POVs. So if we want to add them the lead would become very long. Among the sources, the PSRI scholarly study must be definitely used across the article for balance if not for its genuine information. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: - the obvious answer would be yes, However, the question is exactly which formulation. I suggest you propose the specific text you are proposing for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's an obvious question, though it's currently being rejected by certain users in any form of proposed formulation. This is the specifics I would propose for now:

• MEK's Ideology:

The MEK was 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. The organization has been described as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.

• MEK's fall out with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government. Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have problem with that either provided that you also allow major facts about their criminal activities, their 1976 bloody ideological coup, their ambitious quest for power post-revolution despite their little role in the revolution to be also added to the lead. But that would also make the lead very long. So that could be a reason to keep their long, multi-phased history out of the lead entirely. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with this, then why do you keep removing it? About your suggestions, I think we should add anything that describes the organization's major characteristics and that is backed up by reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

About what? I didn't remove Abrahamian from the lead since you insisted on it. It was Pahlevun who did. But I was still concerned about its lacking context. At any rate you didn't have consensus and still don't on what to include and not to include in the lead. You kept removing PSRI narrative about their 1976 ideological coup. And you keep reverting the IRI views section and government suppression section against consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just today, you've reverted the MEK protests and executions twice. About your other comments, IRI views/sources need to be identified, as well as the suppression of the MEK. What you call "consensus" is really 3 editors ganging up against reliable sources backing up NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my revert. Your version includes two sections "Suppression by IRI" and "IRI views" for which you had lost consensus in this past talk. I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! As long as you behave like that and as long as you think when you lose consensus it is because others ganged up on you, you will fail to attract good faith of others and you will end up in ANI until you're blocked or learn to behave! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

My version included more than just that; it also included the information described above, which you've apparently removed without even reading the edits properly. Also, calling me "pretending deaf and blind!" is uncalled for. Weren't you blocked on the Persian Wiki for calling other editors names? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior for which you have faced two ANI complaint but continue despite an advise by an uninvolved editor to move by consensus. It doesn't matter what good edits your version might have included. I remember Pahlevun disagreed with some of your other changes. On a disputed page like this, you have to move step by step, not lumping together all your edits and then expecting others to dissect your good edits from bad ones. That's not how it works. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's about time someone reports Expectant for his ad hominem and aggressive behaviour on the English Wikipedia as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead! By also heed WP:BOOMERANG --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with HistoryofIran. Passive-agressive behavour / POV pushing by Expectant of Light is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead @Stefka Bulgaria and HistoryofIran: Open up an ANI and complain about my "aggressive behavior" using diffs to support your case! It is indeed mind-blowing that a disruptive editor along with someone who has contributed nothing to this page but accusing my of bias are projecting their own faults on me! Do go ahead all and open up an ANI if you think you have a good case! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This Rfc seems to me to be a waste of time. Don't we have to first resolve the "Article issues" (section below), and then decide what to leave in the lede? Correct me if I'm wrong. Jzsj (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

References

Article issues

Summary of issues

I am going to start a list here of brief summaries of the issues as a starting point and would appreciate any brief descriptions of the issues to square away:

1. Characterization of MEK, such as use of the words militant, terrorist and historical events this edit
2. Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper [19]
3. Integrated sections in keeping with chronological order of the page vs. separate sections this edit
   1. Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
   2. Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK
4. Regrouping of films/series with this edit
5. Wording of the lede, per RfC on this page.
6. Use of the Munafiqin label, per RfC on this page.
7. Use of PSRI as a source - or is that resolved?
8. Any of the other/older issues on this talk page? Other?
9. Article tags: neutrality, undue weight, weasel words.

Is this an accurate summary of the issues? –CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit based upon Expectant of Light's comment below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Add.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been heavily involved in this talk recently so I prefer sitting back and waiting for Mhhossein and Pahlevun (who is not frequently online though) to have their say since they were involved in our past consensus which clearly established one thing: the two sections you named were to remain integrated in other sections in keeping with chronological order of the page, not to stick out as two separate sections which was insisted by Stefka. You can see the relevant discussion here even though it got too long and a little convoluted since my bullet list got broken down by inserted comments. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In response:

1 - Characterization of MEK, such as use of the words militant, terrorist and historical events this edit

• The group was disarmed by the US in 2003, so it's not a "violent militant group" as it's currently being portrayed in the article: "In May 2003, the Washington agencies agreed to direct coalition forces to secure the MeK’s surrender and to disarm the group."

• That seems to be a leap, or perhaps faulty logic. See State Department release dated 2012, including the sections after explaining the delisting. There's no need to respond, I will work on this. My goal right now is just to identify the issues. I will start with this one.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• About the historical events, please refer to the the "Threaded discussion" above.

• Does this encompass your entire issue with historical events? Any way to summarize?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

2 - Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper [20]

• Considering the Iranian Government controls the media in Iran, and they're out to destroy the MEK, if used in the article these sources should be identified as deriving from IRI media as they are not neutral.

3 - Removal of entire sections of content this edit

• As described in first point, the MEK was disarmed in 2003, so it's not a violent militant group.

4 - Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

• There are events there that range from early massacre of the MEK prisoners in Iran to a bombing attempt last month in Paris at a MEK gathering. These have all been in the media, but keep getting removed.

5 - Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK

• As noted in the second point, because the Iranian Government controls the media in Iran, and they're out to destroy the MEK, if used in the article these sources should be identified as deriving from IRI media as they are not neutral.

6 - Regrouping of films/series with this edit

• As above.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of these comments don't make sense to me based upon the nature of the desired edits. So, I just plugged along based upon review of the diffs. Please see User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran‎. Where there are gray boxes, I have comments. And, there are other places where I still have work to do... or questions to get started. Feel free to comment there. Please sign your comments, questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to Stefka's responses

See workpage at User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran

I shall respond one by one and presently only to his first, third and fifth bullets: As for MEK being a militant organization. According to the RAND study, they’ve been disarmed in 2004. However the MEK has since formed close alliance with Neocon war-hawks who advocate overthrow of IRI and its replacement by MEK! MEK was delisted by Hilary Clinton an Iran hawk [21] in 2012, and is supported by the “bomb Iran” John Bolton [22] and Trump administration in general! They’ve been also allied with Israel and assassinated Iranian scientists on Mossad’s behalf! [23]. According to Anthony H. Cordesman, by 1999 the campaign occasionally used "terrorist violence". Given these facts and many others that I don't care to cite, they remain a militant terrorist cult! What kind of future service do you really think US hawks expect from a militant terrorist cult other than helping them in case there’s a chance for violent overthrow of IRI by war or proxy war? MEK was disarmed sure but not by Iran but by US. So in case there’s a war on Iran it is likely that they will be armed to fight against Iran. War and terror is their only job and profession! They are not a mere political group and have little support even in the Iranian diaspora to survive as a peaceful political opposition. Read People's Mujahedin of Iran#Propaganda campaign and People's Mujahedin of Iran#Fraud and money laundering to see in what great criminal lengths they have gone to buy popularity as a legitimate political group but have only failed. As for IRI’s attitude towards MEK, it has declared amnesty for MEK’s rank and file that escape the organization. This is verifiable by Iranian sources and is confirmed by the RAND corporation’s study which is not btw a very neutral source as the study has been funded by US state and defense department. Many of these defectors have formed NGOs around the world and in Iran to expose MEK’s dark inner workings. They tell stories of suffering, repression and enslavement by MEK. An example is Nejat Society. These need be mentioned in the page, although they've been only briefly mentioned already in the People's Mujahedin of Iran#Designation as a cult by some academic sources. Given all the above dark facts, I think "a terrorist cult" is the most accurate and fair description for the group. The cult designation is heavily supported by more than a dozen academic and other sources and is beyond consensus and therefore a hard fact! --Expectant of Light (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC) I am happy to come in and tackle these issues if I can work on them one-by-one. The key thing that I need help with is whether the list of issues looks complete above. I am starting this page User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Sure! I just added an issue to your draft page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC) We should avoid using the Iranian's regime labeling of this opposition group as a "terrorist cult". The US disarming of MEK in Iraq had more to do with inner post-occupation Iraqi dynamics (and trying to avoid a conflict with Iran from newly occupied Iraq which was (and is?) a big mess) - than anything intrinsic about MEK. Certainly MEK, as a group, has its issues - however it is a viable opposition group which outside state actors engage with at times.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Copying this to the first section of User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) There are over a dozen RSs that state MKO is terrorist and a cult, which only proves Iran government's view is not biased. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Copying this to the first section of User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran.

Rather than having two sets of conversations going, collapsing this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Observations

I am also starting this list:

1. There are attempts to make many sweeping changes in one edit that are known contentious edits by Stefka. This is a problem.
2. There is no explanation by Stefka on the talk page when making those edits. See WP:BRD. Starting the RfC's, though, is a very good step.
3. There are differences of opinion about historical events. Perhaps there is a way to explain the differing viewpoints and what are the prevailing opinions from the international community?
4. There is too much conversation that has become personal and veers off-point. It's better to be very specific about the requested edits and reasons for the edits.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Add to #2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In Response:

• 1 - I try to include the reasons of my edits on the summaries.

My point here is, please break down your edits so that you're not making a lot of sweeping changes at once, particularly if they are not agreed-upon edits. If you break things down to tackle things one-at-a-time, and are open to suggestions, you might have better luck. Doing it the way you're doing it right now is surely a recipe for having your edits reverted. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There are sweeping changes that include so much POV pushing by Pahlevun, Expectant of Light, and Mhhossein here that I've responded the same way (including Expectant of Light admitting above that he reverted me without actually reading what I included). Anyhow, I'll follow your advice. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2 - I tend not to bring things to the Talk page because nobody else except the same 3 reverting editors tend to take part in the debate. Now that there are others involved, hopefully we can have a more productive conversation here.

That seems to be taking things on bad faith. I am not seeing a complete inability to hear what you are saying, but I am seeing some points about how to best approach things. You seem to have a tendency for force major edit changes and then get mad that people aren't agreeing with these edits. That is directly against the BRD/Consensus-building approaches to editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't get mad. What I have tried to do is engage in a civilized debate about why certain information is being excluded from the article. This can be verified above on this Talk page. What I have gotten instead (before today) is stone-walling by the same 3 editors who keep pushing an IRI-POV.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• 3 - I think we should follow reliable sources for figuring out historical events. IRI-run media is biased in this topic, so cannot be considered reliable here (so if used, we should identify them as such).
• 4 - Agreed, I try to keep off bickering and name calling, but this is not coming from me.

You can only control yourself. The more you adopt a professional tone, perhaps the more that you will receive a professional tone. If not, with a bit of time, please ask others to not make issues personal, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have asked others, and have not made this personal. In fact, it has been the opposite, where Expectant of Light has resorted to name calling. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In general, these comments are disheartening, Stefka... based on other things I've said in the past and here and other people have said to you. I underlined one part above. I am not sure how much you are listening or wanting to listen about how to be more effective editing. But, let's take things one at a time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 July 2018

The fourth paragraph needs some copy editing for grammar, capitalization, and removing WP:DUPLINKs.

From:

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. But After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to MEK's refusal to take part in constitution referendum of the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government. MEK declared armed revolt against the Islamic Republic targeting key Iranian official figures, as in bombing of Islamic Republic Party and Prime Minister's office bombing, attacking low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards and ordinary citizens who supported the new government. As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979.

to

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini's forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. But after the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to MEK's refusal to take part in a constitutional referendum for the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office in the new government. MEK declared armed revolt against the Islamic Republic and targeted key Iranian official figures, with the bombing of the Islamic Republic Party and bombing the Prime Minister's office, attacking low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government. As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979. 

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Comment - looks good to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Done Fish+Karate 12:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion and vote regarding sources

There is a discussion and voting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 August 2018

Please change this sentence in 2003 French arrests:

Police found plenty of cash in their offices, $1.38 million in $100 notes and 150,000 euros.

to this sentence, which has a better source and is reworded based upon the content of the source:

Police found $1.3 million in $100 bills in cash in their offices.

References

Thanks! –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is based upon a discussion here to see if a better source could be found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Luk ^talk 23:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Could you please add this Category to this Article [[Category:National Council of Resistance of Iran]] Déjà vu • ✉ 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @DejaVu: this page is no longer protected, you may edit it directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on article's timeline

Should this article include the following proposed timeline of historical events (which I was originally working with CaroleHenson on her work page, but she has not returned to WP in over a month)? Also feel free to add anything I may have missed: --Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical events

• 1965: MEK is formed by a small group of intellectuals (including salaried middle class students, teachers, civil servants, and other professionals).
• 1965 – 1975: MEK develops systematically an interpretation of Islam 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 disciples.
• 1975: There is an ideological split within the MEK where some members with Marxist ideologies leave the organization and began to work with the clerics close to Ayatollah Khomeini (some of these former MEK members eventually play a key role in forming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard after the Islamic revolution).
• 1979: Despite ideological differences with Ayatollah Khomeini, the MEK cooperated with the pro-Khomeini forces to topple the Shah during the Islamic Revolution. The MEK hopes that cooperation with Khomeini might bring the MEK a significant share of power after the revolution.
• 1980: The MEK pursues establishing democracy in Iran, and becomes popular among the young middle class intelligentsia. Ayatollah Khomeini refuses to allow Massoud Rajavi to run in the 1980 presidential elections because the MEK boycotted a referendum on the Islamic republic constitution.
• 1981: By early 1981, the authorities closes down Mojahedin offices, outlaws their news papers, bans their demonstrations, and issues arrest warrants for some of their leaders; in short, they had forced the organization underground.
• The MEK organizes a protest against the Khomeini’s government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.
• The MEK retaliates by carrying attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran (both political groups have been in conflict since). Because the June 1981 uprising had failed, Massound Rajavi and Banisadr fled to France and founded the NCRI.
• 1986: France, then seeking to improve relations with Iran, expells the MEK, and the organization relocates to Iraq.
• 1987: The MEK is able to set up bases in Sar Dasht on the Iraqi border and coordinate raids on regime positions in Iranian Kuderstan.
• Masoud Rajavi proclaims the formation of a “National Liberation Army of Iran” (NLA) to serve as a diverse, regular infantry force inclusive of all militant organizations which were members of the NCRI. Over Baghdad radio, the MEK invite all progressive-nationalist Iranian peoples, to participate in the toppling of the Islamic Republic.
• 1988: After an attack by the MEK on IRI targets, the Iranian Islamic state executes political prisoners, the majority of whom belonged to the MEK. Human rights organizations estimate that between 4,500 and 5,000 men, women, and children were killed. The actual figure is unknown as executions were carried out in secret. The event became known as the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners.
• 1997: the MEK are placed on the US list of terrorist organizations by the Clinton-administration in an effort to improve relations between the US and Iran after the more moderate Mohammad Khatami was elected president of the Islamic Republic in 1997. On similarly basis, the UK and EU designates the MEK a terrorist group (In an interview with the BBC Radio in 2006, the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that the UK designation of MEK was the result of demands made by the Iranian regime).
• 2002: MEK blows whistle on Iran’s clandestine nuclear program.
• 2003: Following the occupation of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces, the MEK signs a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and coalition forces and put their arms down in the Camp of Ashraf.
• 2004: US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld designates the members of the MEK as ‘protected persons’ under the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (‘Geneva Convention IV’). The MEK claims that over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• 2012: Washington Times reports (after federal court review), that U.S. officials found no evidence of the group’s involvement in terrorist activity. “The secretary of state has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the designation of the Muahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

References

--Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment It seems like there's a lot of tense inconsistencies, sometimes even within the same entry, such as the 1979 bullet Despite ideological differences with Ayatollah Khomeini, the MEK cooperated with the pro-Khomeini forces to topple the Shah during the Islamic Revolution. The MEK hopes that cooperation with Khomeini might bring the MEK a significant share of power after the revolution. Presumably we should consistently use past tense? Rosguill^talk 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of clarity, we should consistently use past tense. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Why should it? Most articles dont contain timelines. What about this one would necessitate one. I'm somewhat confused. Brustopher (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment How would this be integrated in the article in relation to the current text which describes most of them (there might some omissions - that should be rectified) in the article in a more verbose fashion? I agree the events in the timeline above are important for the MEK article, however it is unclear to me who this is proposed to be integrated into the article (it seems to me that you are presenting an outline on how to write the history section - however it seems to be an outline of the final text).Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment The data can be tabulated in a briefer manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

commnet - To clarify, I don't propose we literally include this timeline; the above serves only as an innitial reference to start organizing events. The current article's subsections jump from recent events, to past events, back to later events, and so on. Part of the reson why the article is a mess is that there isn't a chronological order that outlines events as they unfolded, which leads to making sweeping statements wihtout proper context. My proposal here is to start organizing things chronologially, as we do in other articles (keeping the existing format). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree that Wiki policy/guidelines is to prefer text over timelines. If the article isn't clear and chronological, then adding a timeline is like writing an alternate article. Jzsj (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Next time, think carefully before making an RfC. You should be writing in prose. The "history" section of this article is already chronological. I can only suspect that you're pushing a POV. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes need to be checked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Second round of review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third round of review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Groups ideology was dubiously removed.

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

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

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

• I'm reverting back since:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein,

- So let's include what the source says.

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

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

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

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

- Chronological order would be:

1) What the group advocated (their ideology)

2) What drove it into conflict with the IRI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ "During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK fought against its own country alongside the Saddam Hussein regime..." [24]

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

+ "...the MEK fought alongside Saddam Hussein, against Iran..." [25]

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

- You also reverted my fully explained edits [26] & [27] which were done against source forgery.

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

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

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

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

Hamilton and Rendell

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

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

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

Give it a look: "The former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, has accepted more than $150,000 in speaking fees at events in support of the MEK's unbanning."[28]--Mhhossein ^talk 17:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

collection of sources

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

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

Marxism as ideology

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

• "The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that..." [29] by Brookings Institution Press.
• "...Self-styled "Islamic-Marxists," the MEK also targeted Americans in the '70s..." [30]
• " Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, the MEK has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group." [31] by CRC Press.
• "It was a group that propounded an ideology that mixed Islamism and Marxism." [32]
• "A militant Islamic Marxist or Islamic Socialist organization..." [33] by Financial Times Press.
• "Its ideology was developed from a combination of Marxist and militant Islamic theories." [34] by Routledge

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

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

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

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

Why are you dismissing the above reliable sources? They are clearly saying that the MEK is/was a "Marxist/Islamist group". Why should we act based on our original research? In addition: See this source. "The group's ideology is described as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism."[35]--Mhhossein ^talk 09:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

When sources disagree, as they do here, we do not present one set of sources in our voice by reflect the range of opinions in the sources. I provided a source - [36] (link works for me) - but the citation would be - Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and the United States, Halleh Ghorashi, Nova Science Publishers, page 57. So no - this is not OR. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• "The People’s Mujahedin are Islamist-Marxists." [37]
• "The People's Mujahedin of Iran; an Islamic Marxist group." [38]
• "PMOI adopted an Islamic ideology mixed with certain arguments of Marxist..." By Greenwood Publishing Group
• "such as the People's Mujahedin (Abrahamian 1989), a Muslim-Marxist organization, and the ..." By Routledge
• "melded revolutionary Islam with Marxism" The Cult of Rajavi by NYTimes
• and etc...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A modern secular organization.

• By subjecting the materialistic doctrines of Oparin and a host of other orthodox Marxist thinkers to a philosophical critique, the MEK hoped to challenge the vigorous presence of Marxism within Iranian intellectual circles. The group remained skeptical of Marxism’s philosophical postulates and rejected the latter’s cardinal doctrine of historical materialism. It held firm to the beliefs in the existence of God, revelation, the afterlife, the spirit, salvation, destiny, and the people’s commitment to these intangible principles.

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Designation as a terrorist organization

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

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

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

Classification as "violent non-state actor"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Assassinations

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

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

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

"Violent" overthrow of Iranian government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets Keep It Friendly...

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

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

1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: Should the word 'violent' get removed from the lead?

There are some sources saying MEK is advocating overthrow of Iranian government.On the other hand, there are some updated sources saying they're advocating "violent overthrow" of the current government in Iran. Should the word 'violent' get removed from the lead? Saff V. (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, When it has been considered by Reliable and updated sources (1 and 2) as Violent overthrow that illustrates the nature of MEK briefly, why we don't use it?Saff V. (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Your RfC is misleading. First, as was pointed out by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., "The Appeals Court brief on July 16, 2010 cited the MEK´s petition arguing that more than a decade earlier, in 2001, it had ceased military operations against the Iranian regime, disbanded military units and renounced violence, and had turned its weapons to US forces in Iraq in 2003." Sites like the BBC also confirms the group transitioned to become a peaceful organization. Trying to brand the group "Violent" on the article´s first paragraph based on the armed struggle it had with the IRI before 2001 is simply unacademic as it grossly overlooks many important facts. The article´s first paragraph currently uses a description by Dr. Kenneth Katzman (an expert in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Persian Gulf Affairs) that describes the MEK as "based on Islamic and Socialist ideology and advocates "overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership." This is a perfectly neutral assessment, and there is no need to scare-quote the statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

No Original Research...In fact, No Original Research! You're mixing various sources to reach a conclusion which is supported by no reliable sources and even there are sources against it. That simply shows you're engaging OR. Can you tell the author of those reliable sources that their works are "simply unacademic as [they] grossly overlook many important facts"? There's no quote or scare-quote.., we can safely use it as per the many sources supporting it. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are RS describing the MEK´s "peaceful pursuit". Just as we should not use "Peaceful" for the sake of neutrality, we should also not use "Violent":

• "But the group contended it swore off violence more than a decade ago and now only seeks a peaceful overthrow of Iran's theocratic government." SE Asia Regional Centre for Counter Terrorism

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

• "He said he believes "their pursuit now is peaceful."US News

• "It says it is now focused on solely peaceful means of opposition, and has an array of prominent political supporters, including former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.”Irish Examiner

• "The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government,” Washington Post

• "Mr. Rohrabacher said the group seeks “a secular, peaceful, and democratic government.”NY Times

• “The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government..” Reuters

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. While the Iranian regime stresses "violent" aspects of this organization, sources outsjde of regime control are quite mixed. Furthermore overthrow of a government usually implies violence in any event, making the violent qualifier superfluous. Overthrow is succinct and encyclopedic.Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Overthrow can be either soft or violent and there are enough reliable sources saying they're advocating the second one. Sources are not mixed, there is no single source in contradiction with the 'violent overthrow'. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Many sources do not use violent, and such usage would not preclude soft. In any event "soft" revolutions are few and far between and usually only occur when the regime sees defeat as inevitable and has the foresight not to shoot the protestors. This usually does not occur.Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Many sources don't say many other things neither. That does not mean we should omit the materials covered by some reliable sources which are not covered by others. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of the well sourced facts and materials. Exclusion of this well sourced word is some sort of ... --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. I object its removal, despite the efforts by some users to avoid this well sourced fact. There's a concrete consensus that MEK is following the overthrow of the current government in Iran. However, there are multiple independent, high quality and reliable sources saying it in a more accurate manner:

- "Maryam Rajavi has acted as the deputy commander of the National Liberation Army ... and even today she believes in changing the system in Iran by violence." Routledge, 2008.

- "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.

- "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian government." Scarecrow Press, 2010.

- "The group advocates the violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran." International Policy Digest, 2018.

- "It advocates resistance and the violent overthrow of the Ayatollah regime..."The Jerusalem Post, 2018.

- "...The MEK sided with the Iraqi government, hoping to achieve their goal of a violent overthrow of the post-Revolution Iranian government. Global Security

- "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.

- "...organized by an exiled opposition group that calls for the regime's violent overthrow'..." AbcNews, 2018.

- "...a militant group of Iranian exiles that agitates for the violent overthrow..." Opinion piece by The Week, 2018

- "...the MEK is advocating the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime." Opinion piece by JPOST, 2018.

As it's seen, some of the mentioned sources are updated and belong to 2018. That some sources don't use 'violent' does not mean we should exclude it, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Per Icewhiz. Adding "Violent" to "overthrow" pushes a POV. It has been pointed out in this TP that there are numerous RS that don´t use this denomination, and for the sake of fixing some of the article´s neutrality problems, neither should we. Kenneth Katzman´s description currently being used in the lede (" an Iranian political group based on Islamic and Socialist ideology and advocated overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership.") is perfectly neutral and nuanced. No need to scare quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no scare quote, but a unanimous agreement in various sources over the violence nature of the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Per Icewhiz, who is pretty spot on with his comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – From reading the discussion and sources, the current lead paragraph quote is fine as is. --Alex-h (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As you know, an unexplained 'vote' is rarely valued in the final assessment.Saff V. (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an unexplained vote though. Even if he simply said 'per Icewhiz' then it would be enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:As far as I see, no reason based on wikipedia's policy or guidlines has been provided for removal of the term. Saff V. (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes as udue weight for the lead, which, after all, is intended to summarise the body of the article. The significant fact which this references is the group's desire to remove the government of the day: that is implicit in "overthrow", and needs no adjectivizing. If there is no doubt that they did indeed advocate a violent overthrow, that should be part of the expanded deatil contained witin the article body. Of course, if it wasn't mentioned in the article body, then it certainly shouldn't be in the lead... ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129: Your 'YES' is because "violent" was not in the body? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this really peaceful

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

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

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

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

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

Spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"These guidelines" states that so long as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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