Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede

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

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

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. :

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

Struan Stevenson:

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

• Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
• I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
• As for the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[1] So, the sources are not academic and neutral.

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

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

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

Looking at the three sources above - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - [2] - it also isn't on geopolitics, but rather on the ideology/religious doctrine of MEK. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship. Which leaves use with Terrornomics - which indicates that MEK will kill civilians it sees as government supporters - which is not so strong here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3]

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

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

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

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

What you are you searching for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

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

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

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

The sources you provided are not baking your position. See "the assassination of ordinary citizens" in [4]. I know it's opinion but this opinion is not alone and is backed by other reliable sources. Al-monitor is another source showing PMOI used to target civilians by making "practices of indiscriminate bombings". So I still think the statement should not be removed from the lead. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In order to include in the lede of an article that a political group targeted civilians, we need RS clearly stating that the group targeted civilians. From all the discussion in this RfC, there aren't any sources that clearly verify that the MEK targeted civilians, so adding this in the lede of the article is WP:OR. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have not really seen my original comment. Otherwise I am putting the quote here:

"Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot"

[5] The conversation has become already too lengthy. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Terrornomics is quoting Sandra Mackey here, who says "When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Mujahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them". (Mackey, 1996:306) This is a very long stretch from having in the lede of the article that the MEK targeted civilians; it's simply WP:UNDUE based on the vast amount of sources that outline the conflict was between the MEK and the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you were told not to investigate the sources further. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I think Ali Ahwazi's source is another evidence supporting MEK used to target the civilians. The sources features the quote "the assassination of ordinary citizens".--Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

An opinion piece and a paraphrase from a book that doesn't confirm the MEK targeted civilians is not enough to support such a big claim, specially when we have actual RSs saying the contrary, making the claim that the MEK targeted civilians WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Your own original research regarding the reliable sources is not going to affect anything here. Btw, it was shown that the opinion is hold by multiple sources, so it's not a simple OPINION. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"...and they celebrated their attacks against Iranian civilians as if were their enemy." [6]

"This has included killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people."[7]

"...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot".[8]

So, there are sources having same idea! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your first link is not working, your second link is by an author who's sole published work is to demonize the MEK (not a NPOV source), and the third link has been thoroughly discussed here as a paraphrase of Sandra Mackey who does not say that the MEK targeted civilians. All in all, there isn't a concrete RS that confirms the MEK targeted civilians = UNDUE claim, specially for the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Mojahedin first acted against the Revolutionary Guards and only later against the military units. The Mojahedin perceived Iran's different security agencies as a factor that depressed the people and as servants of a religious government. The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only."

As I already said, "Your own original research regarding the reliable sources is not going to affect anything here". Also see "...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot".[9]

• My analysis of OP's sources: The works by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr and Struan Stevenson (president of Friends of a Free Iran Intergroup) are shown (by Mhhossein) to be MEK sympathetic and thus are not suitable for reaching a conclusion in this RFC. The sources of Rajavi and Hiro are not applicable here; they say Rajavi promised or agreed not to attack civilians, which is not equivalent to saying MEK did not atack civilian. Abarahamian's book says MEK tried to minimize the casualities of civilians, which again does not mean they did not target civilian people. As for Ronen Cohen's source, it's used out of context. Cohen says "The Mojahedin’s targets were the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions only" within the context of MEK's military attack against Iran when the group was essentially in exile, out of Iran soil. So, it can't be used for saying MEK did not generally attacked the civilian people, too. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing "attacked" with "targeted" (this RfC is about whether the MEK "targeted" civilians, not weather civilians died as a result of the MEK attacks on the IRI). Barca (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that we are not talking about civilians being killed accidentally as a result of the MEK attacks. Here I am exactly commenting about the sources targeting civilians. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One source saying "...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot" is not enough to support that the MEK targeted civilians in the lead of the article. Barca (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources for this. I already showed there are numerous sources saying as such. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And I already replied that those are IRI-sympathetic sources, therefore not RS for this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

And what YOU think is totally different from the reality of those sources. You need to prove your position using reliable sources, in contrast to basing your arguments on your original researches. Probably I need to make a list of the occasions users told you not to rely on what YOU think. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That tone is uncalled for, we're discussing sources here. Here's also Icewhiz's comment on your sources:

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

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Where's the "IRI-sympathetic sources" allegation? I can't see how it's addressing my my recent comment. Please note that copy pasting large amount of others comment is just a way of bludgeoning the process. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I stand behind my comment. I'll also note that referring to what less talkative participants in a discussion say - is the opposite from bludgeoning. your recent comment uses the same weak sources. I commented on back in May.... Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The idea behind my recent comment was that "there are sources having same idea!"--Mhhossein ^talk 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Not strong sources, which is what we need for the lede, strong sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Then there would be no issue, some of my sources being reliable books! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Read Icewhiz's comment again. I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Cherry picking

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

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

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

• This statement is backed up by numerous sources: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and as to executions, we have:

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

Let's do one at a time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You made a loop and make me repeat my response again and again. Please change your manner!for the last time I repeat, as I illustrated to you duplicated material already, you just by using ctrl F can find duplicated material, for example, these sentences are seen in the article now: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners" or A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa orordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition orThose executed also included women and children. Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"? Does it mean torture of MEK member in prison?Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's the full quote and the source:

• "Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

Any objection to include this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You were already told. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Please add reliable sources that verify your objection, or self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure:

"The 1988 mass execution is believed to have started after the MEK forces, which had defected to Iraq and were fighting alongside Saddam Hussein against their countrymen, launched an unsuccessful military incursion against Iranian forces. "

[10]

"The reason for this new round of widespread executions was Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the Mojahedin-e Khalq."

[11]

"Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."

[12]

I will also see if I can find sources on the riots in the prison by the MEK members. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

At the first political dissidents is not referred to MEK. Secoundly the text is duplicated, we have in the article that "Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views" or"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families". Saff V. (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Mhhossein's suggestions, I propose including the following:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[13] Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

@El C: This TP discussion has been ongoing since June, could you please approve or decline if the above inclusion is a fair compromise? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Saff V.'s objection is fair enough. The material is almost duplicated elsewhere in the article; why did not you respond to his objection? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, where is this almost duplicated elsewhere in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm...see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Insertion of an unsourced challenging claim; one of the examples. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The link you sent was not helpful Where exactly in the current live article is this duplicated? (please provide the exact text). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Here you are:

"Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"

"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."

--Mhhossein ^talk 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here it is revised, and find the following to be information that expands on the existing one:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[14] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

If there are any specific objections, please present them; alternatively, I'll include this in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Same objections are applied. Please review my previous comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein is objecting the inclusion of the following text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[15] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

Arguing that it's repeated here:

"Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"

"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."

I find the text is different and serves to expand on current information, and therefore merits inclusion. What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a merger ("torture," "other leftists") might be a good compromise. El_C 20:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, great. Will merge everything into something along these lines:

• Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails."[16] A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process. The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."

The text describes the processes of the 1988 executions in more detail, and concludes with the IRI continuing to target members of the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There's an improvement here, but I'm afraid since some of the materials are still repetitious. In this discussion the sentence "The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK" was concluded to be the abstract of the sources none of which explicitly supported that. So, you should go by either of them. Also, "other torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is just a POVish. I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a proposed paragraph that you believe doesn't include repeated text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References
References

File:Letter from the People's Mujahedin of Iran to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kazemita1 seems to be inactive for a while. He might provide a source after he's back again. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C:. Hello. I just came back from a long journey. My silence does not imply consent in this case :) .--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome back. But just so you know, WP:SILENCE always implies consent, unless it is broken. El_C 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C:.Thanks. There are a few things about the letter image that should be clarified here. First of all, the existence of such a letter is not under dispute. It is mentioned with due detail in the California Archives website:

Resolution of the TsK KPSS Secretariat approving a response to a letter from M. Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin [Holy Warriors] Organization of the Iranian People, to M. Gorbachev, and to a request submitted by the organization; two copies of instructions to the Soviet Embassy in Bulgaria to be delivered in ciphered form by the Committee for State Security (KGB); extract from the minutes of the TsK KPSS Secretariat; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from R. Ulianovskii, Deputy Chief of the International Department; letter to Gorbachev from Rajavi (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian; statement with information about the collection of documents attached to the letter from Rajavi; memorandum (translated into Russian) to the TsK KPSS from F. Olfat, member of the Politburo of the Mujahedin Organization, and the original letter in Persian requesting that the TsK KPSS lend any amount of money (up to US$300,000,000) to the Mujahedin Organization; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from Olfat, (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian requesting that the supporters of the Mujahedin Organization be allowed to cross the Soviet-Iranian border and be granted a temporary asylum in the Soviet Union, 1985 December - 1986 February

For those who are familiar with Farsi - and I am assuming that includes pretty much all editors involved in this discussion - the content of the letter shown in the image exactly matches with what is noted in the California archives website. It thus boils down to whether we can rely on sources such as Radio Koocheh or Hamneshin-e-Bahar who posted the image of the letter online. To begin with both the above mentioned sources are not accessible inside Iran. The existing Iranian government censors these websites (along with many others) because of these websites' criticisms toward itself. So there is no way one can claim the two mentioned sources have a dog in this fight. Secondly, Radiokoocheh is a US based Radio/News website founded by a journalist, named Ardavan Rouzbeh, whose work is cited by BBC here. No need to mention that Rouzbeh, himself was banned by the Iranian government from journalism activities and had to leave the country. Therefore, given that the content of the letter is a verified fact, I find it safe to rely on Radio Koochech for the image of the letter.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The source of the image is not a reliable source, despite anything else. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: When Kazemita1 makes his points clear by discussing various aspects of the issue, you can't just dismiss his thorough explanations by saying "[it] is not a reliable source, despite anything else." Please let us know why you think the source is not reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The source of the image does not meet WP:RS. That is policy. See WP:RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why? In what way? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In that http://www.hamneshinbahar.net doesn't meet WP:RS. You can take this to WP:RSN, as this IP has done, where you may get further feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why Stefka does not mention Radio Koochech as the source :), implying deep in his heart he has no problem with that. Anyways, according to the RS inquiry, they asked that either a user takes a trip to the Hoover institute or send an email asking about the authenticity of the microfilm. If Mhhossein could send that email to Hoover institute it would be great.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Peaceful(?) demonstration

The lead describes the 20 June, 1981 Iranian protests as being "peaceful" which is just POVish. There are other reliable sources saying otherwise:

• The high point in that process, as will be noted in a later analysis of the demise of Banisadr, were the bloody street riots of 20 June 1981...

  [17]

• Bani-Sadr was finally deemed politically incompetent by the majlis, the MKO organised protest demonstrations in his support, and took him into hiding. On 20 June 1981 came the worst clashes between the security forces and MKO members and supporters.

  [18]

• On June 20, 1981, the PMOI held a major anti Khomeini demonstration that turned into an armed confrontation in which the PMOI was badly defeated.

  [19]

• On June 20, 1981, the leftist MEK Islamic group started an armed campaign of assassination and bombings...

  [20]

So, using "peaceful" in the lead is just lending undue weight to a POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your sources don't say why riots turned "bloody", could it be because the "the government violently confronted the rallies"?:

• ... Khomeini added that Banisadr could remain in office as president if he apologized for his wrongdoings on television. Banisadr rejected the offer and called on his supporters to initiate “resistance against tyranny”. Subsequently, the Majles set out to review the president’s competence. At the same time, Khomeini banned all protests and threatened Banisdadr’s supporters that he would declare demonstrations in favour of the president as activities against God. As a result, political fighting intensified as the hezbollahi mobs and Revolutionary Guards attacked demonstrators who were considered counterrevolutionaries. While the Majles was discussing a motion for the impeachment of Presidbnet Banisadr, the MOjahedin organized a large demonstration in support of the president on 20 June 1981 and called for ‘revolutionary resistance’ against the regime. Labelling these demonstrations counterrevolutionary, the government violently confronted the rallies.

[21]

• Prominent clerics declared that demonstrators, irrespective of their age, would be treated as ‘enemies of God’ and as such would be executed on the spot. Hezbolahis were armed and trucked in to block off the major streets. Pasdars were orderd to shoot... On 20 June 1981, MEK organised a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,000 participants, who advanced towards parliament. Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested in the area around Tehran University

  [22]

• On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration in Tehran. Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested.

  [23]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It was brought in WP:YESPOV that A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.So without considering why sources describe the protest "bloody" or"peaceful", it is necessary to balance all viewpoints not removing one or opposite opinions. Also, I think that it is a disputed subject, is it really need to mention it in the lede section?Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for Wiki-lawyering, Stefka's sources say the protest started peacefully until the government opened fire on protesters. Barca (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and Stefka Bulgaria knows this well and as El C said, these MEK-sympathetic sources are "for our immediate purposes here, problematic". Also, since when do we interpret "revolutionary resistance" as "peaceful"? That's simple, if there's controversy over whether or not the demonstration was peaceful, then we should not have this qualification in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"Isak Svensson is Professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden, and former Director of Research at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand." Ervand Abrahamian and Dr Bayram Sinkaya are also fully qualified authors that confirm the protests were peaceful until the government suppressed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

None of what you said don't change the fact Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and hence is closely related to MEK. Also, that Bayram Sinkaya (WOW he's a doctor!) says something which is objected by other known authors, tells us there's a controversy over the quality of the protests. Why are you attempting to insert a controversial word into the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get that Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup"? Also, how is Ervand Abrahamian and Dr Bayram Sinkaya related to the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I just mistook him with Struan Stevenson, but it does not change anything since he used Abrahamian as the source for his claims. Also, Bayram Sinkaya just talks about a "revolutionary resistance" which does not mean there was a peaceful demonstration. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about a specific demonstration, not the "revolutionary resistance" as a whole, and we have RSs saying this was a peaceful demonstration. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Also we have reliable sources describing this demonstrations as "riot", "clash" and "bloody". In fact, reliable sources are inconsistent with their descriptions of this demonstration so using the "peaceful" qualifier is against NPOV. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This has already been addressed: the demonstrations, according to RSs, were peaceful until they turned bloody on account of the IRI targeting protesters. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No, some of the sources I provided say otherwise, that's why we can't use "peaceful". Do you have more things to add here? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the RS I provided earlier:

• ... Khomeini added that Banisadr could remain in office as president if he apologized for his wrongdoings on television. Banisadr rejected the offer and called on his supporters to initiate “resistance against tyranny”. Subsequently, the Majles set out to review the president’s competence. At the same time, Khomeini banned all protests and threatened Banisdadr’s supporters that he would declare demonstrations in favour of the president as activities against God. As a result, political fighting intensified as the hezbollahi mobs and Revolutionary Guards attacked demonstrators who were considered counterrevolutionaries. While the Majles was discussing a motion for the impeachment of Presidbnet Banisadr, the MOjahedin organized a large demonstration in support of the president on 20 June 1981 and called for ‘revolutionary resistance’ against the regime. Labelling these demonstrations counterrevolutionary, the government violently confronted the rallies.

[24]

• Prominent clerics declared that demonstrators, irrespective of their age, would be treated as ‘enemies of God’ and as such would be executed on the spot. Hezbolahis were armed and trucked in to block off the major streets. Pasdars were orderd to shoot... On 20 June 1981, MEK organised a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,000 participants, who advanced towards parliament. Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested in the area around Tehran University

  [25]

• On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration in Tehran. Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested.

  [26]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I was asking for a rational argument. Don't bludgeon the process by over repeating these wall of texts please. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the RSs provided, there you will find the rational argument that explains the process of these protests. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the point, you had no new thing to add. We already saw the sources saying the demonstration was peaceful and I provided sources describing the demonstrations as "riot", "clash" and "bloody". --Mhhossein ^talk 10:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, may have turned "bloody" when the IRI started targeting demonstrators, but, according to the sources, the protests were peaceful to start with. So when we say that the "MEK organized a peaceful protest", it reflects sources accurately. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You're again relying on your OWN original research, which is not supported by the reliable sources. No, "MEK organized a peaceful protest" presents a POVish selection of sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the sources more carefully. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what I'd like to ask you do. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• @EI C: The issue is being discussed since 6th of July. I've provided sources describing the 20 June, 1981 Iranian protests as being "riot", "clash" and "bloody". Stefka Bulgaria, from the other hand, has 2 sources describing the protests as being 'peaceful'. I've concluded that reliable sources are not consistent in describing the protests and we should not take sides in the lead of the article by having qualifications for the protests. Would you please assess the consensus? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops! I meant to @El C:. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. Obviously, there's a split in the scholarship (and a debate about the neutrality of some) regarding the extent to which these protests were peaceful or riotous, on the one hand. And on the other, whether Khomeini's forces treated protesters as armed combatants or themselves were engaged by "revolutionary resistance" immediately taking up armed struggle ("revolutionary" resistance" does not automatically equals armed struggle, however). Or, whether the reality is somewhere in the middle and involves facets from both scenarios. The point is that it's difficult to parse the historiography, for me at least. But you can, indeed, compromise and qualify, bringing up the split in the scholarship (like in an explanatory note). El_C 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Thanks for the response. Firstly please see this modification to my comment. I've in fact opened this topic to show there's a "split in the scholarship". Despite this inconsistency in the sources, the lead of the article is describing the demonstrations as being peaceful and I think the lead should remain neutral when describing the incident. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We have here 3 reliable sources (Ervand Abrahmian, Bayram Sinkaya, and Isak Svensson) saying that the MEK organized this as a peaceful protest, which does not contradict the other sources that say these protests turned "bloody" (RSs say that the IRI attacked protesters, which may well be interpreted as "protests turning bloody"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I told you previously to avoid making misleading comments (diffs needed?). Just few sources are talking about the demonstrations "turning" violent. Also, just 2 sources are supporting that claim (Isak Svensson is referring to Abrahamian). Most of what I provided are describing the demonstrations as being violent without saying how the became so. There's a rough consensus here that the reliable sources are not consistent with describing the event and that the "split in the scholarship" should not be ignored. That's why the lead should stay away from making judgements about the status of the events. I'm going to remove to remove the qualification "peaceful" if you fail to provide a fair objection. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The RSs provided speak for themselves, so no, there is no consensus to remove "peaceful" from the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes the sources speak for themselves and as it was shown, they're not consistent in describing the incident. Though enough sources were provided, the following clearly show the consistency better than before:

• "On June 20, 1981, the MEK openly attacked Khomeini and called for his ouster. Small units of fighters launched insurrections in sixteen cities (...)."

  [27]

• "The MKO started its armed conflict against the Iranian government on June 20, 1981."

  [28]

• "On 20 June 1981, Rajavi, the leader of MEK, believing he could be Iranian Lenin and repeat Bolshevik's October revolution, asked all MEK's members and supporters to pour into streets to overthrow the government."

Among the the above sources, first one clearly talks about MEK fighters acting on 20 June 1981 and second one mentioned MEK's armed conflict at the time. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

These sources do not address the protests, and there are reliability issues. Do not change the live content without consensus first. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your revert was clearly tendentious and a misuse of the new restrictions of the article. I'm just baffled by your recent arguments; The quotes I provided directly and explicitly talk about the 20 June 1981 demonstrations and the sources are reliable enough. Taylor & Francis-2012, SAGE-2015, Abe Books-1989, Routeledge-2011, HRW. I don't need to gather all sources on the earth to convince you, since it's not what consensus building constitutes and I think your failing to substantiate your objection, as El C said, needs to be properly addressed. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I just say the the lead of the article should not take side when mentioning the 20 June 1981 protests since the sources are not consistent in describing the demonstrations. I even showed fresh sources saying it was violent and armed. While Stefka Bulgaria says the lead should describe it as 'peaceful' only because old source, Abrahamian 1992, is saying so. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Was it intended as an armed insurrection? Was it a demonstration that responded with armed struggle to excessive force? Was it a combination of these two scenarios? I, at least, am unable to tell. I agree, though, that modern historiography is more pertinent for our immediate purposes here than an older one. El_C 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

According to sources, the protest was not intended as an armed insurrection. In fact, sources specifically says the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful until Revolutionary guards cracked down on protesters (turning protests bloody, etc.), which matches the supported claim: "the MEK organized a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic Republic party". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No, this is what YOU think or what you like to see in the article, not the fact supported by the sources. El_C: That's exactly the point. This complicated issue is something to be detailed in the article dedicated to the incident or briefly in the body of this article. Certainly, where ever it's suitable, the lead of this article is not a good place for having such a judgement. For my own information, do you find such a revert in response to my edit (see the edit summary), after such an amount of discussion, collaborative needing no caution? The users should be warned against making bizarre arguments given the fact that the article is under restrictions. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Talk:20 June, 1981 Iranian protests is currently a blank page! Ordinarily, the nature of that event should be decided there and juxtaposed here. What is the longstanding text and how did it come about? El_C 19:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well - it's a short article, few editors (to be more precise - mainly written by a single editor) - I wouldn't read too much into consensus (or lack thereof) in that article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: What longstanding text are you asking for? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking in what context did "peaceful" come about? El_C 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: The WikiBlame is not working properly, or I would tell you when it was inserted into the lead (I'll give it another try tomorrow). But, why are you asking for this? The sources are already ploughed up and we saw the inconsistency among the sources. I don't know why we're keeping that word in the lead at the moment? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources used to back this up say:

• ... Khomeini added that Banisadr could remain in office as president if he apologized for his wrongdoings on television. Banisadr rejected the offer and called on his supporters to initiate “resistance against tyranny”. Subsequently, the Majles set out to review the president’s competence. At the same time, Khomeini banned all protests and threatened Banisdadr’s supporters that he would declare demonstrations in favour of the president as activities against God. As a result, political fighting intensified as the hezbollahi mobs and Revolutionary Guards attacked demonstrators who were considered counterrevolutionaries. While the Majles was discussing a motion for the impeachment of Presidbnet Banisadr, the MOjahedin organized a large demonstration in support of the president on 20 June 1981 and called for ‘revolutionary resistance’ against the regime. Labelling these demonstrations counterrevolutionary, the government violently confronted the rallies.

[29]

• Prominent clerics declared that demonstrators, irrespective of their age, would be treated as ‘enemies of God’ and as such would be executed on the spot. Hezbolahis were armed and trucked in to block off the major streets. Pasdars were orderd to shoot... On 20 June 1981, MEK organised a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,000 participants, who advanced towards parliament. Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested in the area around Tehran University

  [30] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I already told you not to bludgeon the process by repeating your wall of texts; this is the 3rd time your over repeating those sources, which shows you have nothing new to add (for your response see my 14:47, 13 July 2019 comment). El_C: Would you please respond to my previous comment, notably to why we're keeping the word "peaceful" in the lead despite the fact that the sources are not consistent in its description? I think it's quite clear that the lead of the article should be neutral with this regard. Btw, the tool still does not work properly, though I don't know what would happen if it works. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unable to clearly parse the pertinent historiography, so the status of that word as constituting longstanding text (or lack thereof) actually becomes rather key. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: But I did not ask you to "clearly parse the pertinent historiography". That's not easy, I know. You already said there was "a split in the scholarship" and that "compromise" could be a good idea. Also you noted that modern historiography should be priored for this immediate purpose. Note that at the moment we're relying on a 1992 book and I showed multiple fresh sources, some of them academic works, contesting the current status of the lead. I think it's logical, under the circumstances, for the lead to be neutral with regard to the description of the incident. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't know if I'm able to decide this by fiat. Perhaps yet another RfC can resolve this. El_C 19:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I think this not so complex to be resolved via a time consuming RFC. This topic is opened since 6th July and Stefka Bulgaria's failure to substantiate his position without adhering to his own original research should be enough for now. Building consensus is much different than trying to convince a user who repeatedly says same thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I don't disagree, and I, too, am inclined to go with the more modern historiography over an older one — yet, it still feels like too much of a content decision to make by fiat. That's why I still think revealing the edit history context to how the word "peaceful" came about is still important. El_C 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Well, I tried to find how the word peaceful was inserted, though it was time consuming. I knew Stefka Bulgaria himself had did it, but I could not tell the precise date. The disputed content was first added by Stefka Bulgaria to the body. Days later, he inserted it into the lead without using "peaceful", wikilinked the phrase and added the word "peaceful" to the lead. It was not though without back and forth, you can see the edits between them. You can see the source being an an old book. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating, Mhhossein. I see. Well, obviously it constitutes longstanding text. That having been said, relying on older historiography when newer sources exist, is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria, are you able to provide more up-to-date sources that support the "peaceful" assertion? If not, removing "peaceful" and adding an explanatory footnote that deals with the scholarly split (vis-a-vis "peaceful" and/or lack thereof), is a compromise that's worth considering. What do other editors think? El_C 10:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing. We don't really need to label the protest (and one could claim that due to the very severe IRI crackdown - it wasn't peaceful disregarding the protester's actions). I would rephrase "Along with then president Abolhassan Banisadr, the MEK organized a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic Republic party (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d'état)." to "The MEK organized a large demonstration against the Islamic Republic party and in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr". Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. Barca (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what I stated one month ago, but Stefka Bulgaria turned the discussion into a frustrating process by over repeating his non-applicable arguments. He needs to be warned against misusing the restriction of the article to avoid such "Much Ado About Nothing"s. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert of what the MEK advocates (which was backed up by RSs)

In this edit, Mhhossein reverted the MEK's ideology (which was backed by RSs), with the edit summary "highly POVish". @Mhhossein: how is including the MEK's ideals in the MEK article "highly POVish"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it's highly POVish! Why not adding the following:

• "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.
• "The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[31]
• "Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[32]
• "...(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.
• "the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"[33]
• "Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[34]
• "..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[35]

--Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument since we are not talking that, but to answer your question anyway, the reason we're not using "violent" in the lede is per this AfD. Now, could you please answer how including what the group advocates is POVish? (just repeatedly asserting that it's "POVish" doesn't explain it) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the comments carefully please. There are many other things the group advocates and we're not going to cherry pick the POV of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Like what? we already had a RfC about using the word "violent"; is there anything else you have in mind? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

See the examples in the above list. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We've had many TP discussions about these. You need to be specific. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

MEK is described as, being "Islamic extremist", being not far from Marxism, advocating "a secular Iranian regime" and etc. Why not adding them? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How the group is described, and what it advocates, are two very different things. I'd be fine with adding that the group was influenced by Marxism (this is already in the article) an that it advocates a secular Iran. We can include this in a section together with the other remaining text:

The group advocates a "democratic, tolerant and anti-fundamentalist Islam" and non-nuclear Iran with gender equality and a ban on capital punishment.

Agreed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

my point is that, for example, how can the group be described as "Islamic extremist" while advocating "anti-fundamentalist Islam"? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So let's leave UNDUE and fringe claims aside, and just abide by what the majority of reliable sources say. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Were you serious by this, making the lead more POVish than before? Is that what "majority of reliable sources" say? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Arresting two people in relation with MEK

@Stefka Bulgaria, Why do you consider the report of Iran's court published by Radio Farda as unconfirmed allegations by unconfirmed individuals? While I made my sentence with attribution.Saff V. (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The report derives IRI sources, which as we've seen, are not reliable sources for this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you show which discussion prohibits using those sources attributed? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. Btw, if we have an "IRI" views section, then we should also have a "MEK" views section per NPOV. I'll get to work on this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What?! Stefka Bulgaria, you claim that th Radio farda is not RS. When it was asked to provide reason, you said it is better have an "IRI" views section.I cann't get your mean!Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I repeat, the report derives from IRI sources, which as we've seen, are not reliable sources for this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

and I asked you once and in the case you ignored; Where on earth did they agreed IRI sources are not reliable for IRI positions attributed? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

and I repeat... again... :We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. Btw, if we have an "IRI" views section, then we should also have a "MEK" views section per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You picked up the report of Radio Farda with this reason, unconfirmed allegations by unconfirmed individuals because you don't count it RS. O.k. first of all, convince us why are not IR sources reliable?Saff V. (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding all POVs under one section adds to the POV issue of the article, which is not suitable here. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. If we include IRI POV in this article (and we are including IRI POV in this article), it needs to be labelled as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Who said IRI POVs should be gathered under one section? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I will start a MEK POV section per NPOV, would everyone be ok with that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This will worsen the POV issue, as I explained. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there is any main objection with thisedit. Am I right? Another hand I am against MEK POV section. We can put every material into a related section of the article make balance and solve the POV issue.Saff V. (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If we don't include MEK POV, then also we should not include IRI POV per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we either include both sides of the POV, or neither. Barca (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" as well as my edit is sefenetly relaeated to this. I can not understant this section and my edit have nothing to do with MEK POV?Saff V. (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, if there is a section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK", then there should be a section titled "MEK allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran" per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

As you said above We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section and I want to add it to that section, but creating a section titled "MEK allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran" is another subject to discuss and have nothing to do with this edit.Saff V. (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C:Stefka is trying to mix two unrelated discussion with each other. Now the section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" stands on the article and every user are allowed to add to the section well-sourced material as well as I did and he reverted it but he accepted that We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. In other hand he dissused about creating a section titled "MEK allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran". My edit has nothing to do with this creation and it needs another section to argue.Can I revert my edit?Saff V. (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really following your question. El_C 13:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a dispute over whether I can insert this material or not. Stefka Bulgaria objected at the time and I think his objection was false. Can you assess the consensus please?Saff V. (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Those objections, which conflate creating a parallel section with the proposed addition, do seem to be without merit. El_C 13:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The source says "The Alborz Central Prosecutor and Revolutionary Prosecutor announced the arrests of two people in Karaj in connection with the Mojahedin Khalq Organization on Monday.", so this is a claim by the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

We can take their word for it, in this instance. Not everything the Islamic regime publishes is in question. El_C 14:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm - we can take their word that they arrested two people who allegedly confessed to be MEK (or Zionist/American/Saudi spies in other cases) - In as much as there was a verdict - we can say IRI sentenced to X. However, we can't say that the IRI's claims of organizational/national affiliation are correct. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Ideological revolution and women's rights

Hey Saff V., I removed this from the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" section:

"At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."

The reason I removed it was because it looked to me as this had nothing to do with anything here. You reverted it back in saying "it is not only taking another person's last name, but also divorcing because of MEK's organization goals". Can you please explain how "divorcing because of MEK's goals" is related to women's rights? Thank you. Barca (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It was brought that According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. My mean divorcing because of MEK's goals" is exactly "in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'". Also, the material that you were going to delete, wife-swapping and divorcing in order to facilitate this 'great revolution', completely suit with the title Ideological revolution and women's rights, which is obviously clear.Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It just comes across about a lot of text about little. Would you be fine with reducing it? Barca (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your previous reason has nothing to do with the length of text. In addition, there is no detailed info or duplicated material so reducing is not needed.Saff V. (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

My point is that if we decide to include that a divorce was made to help facilitate Women's rights, then that's all we need to say about that, there's absolutely no reason to expand on this this much. Barca (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No where in the source says the divorce was made for the sake of Women's rights (though this is not even disputed here). Also, changing the family name is also signaling the adherence of Maryam to the goal's of their organization, i.e. MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Using your own terminology, what is the "fair objection" for keeping this text to the point (only mentioning things related to the MEK and Women's rights)? Barca (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

IYO, which part of text is not connected to MEK?Saff V. (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., I think you've misunderstood Barca's question, which is how is this text above relevant to the "MEK and Women's rights"? (the section where this text is included). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

O.K. how is this text above NOT relevant to the "MEK and Women's rights"?Saff V. (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Because nowhere in it does it talk about Women's rights; it just talks about divorces and marriages. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No where? Please read the text more carefully. This part of text "This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends were considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture." is obviously connected to woman right.Saff V. (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

How is that quote connected to Women's rights? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

wife-swapping has close connection with Women's rights. Then why do you try to find a relation between text and woman's right? this divorce and marriage of Maryam Rajavi is connected to Ideological revolution and because Maryam got a divorce Abrishamchi and married Rajavi within a short period of time when they were the leaders of MEK and such marriage and divorce is taboo in Iranian culture. In addition according to this sentence,Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution', Is n't it against the women's right, divorcing for facilitating this 'great revolution'?It is the connection that you try to deny!Saff V. (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I asked Saff V. to explain how the highlighted text here, which deals mainly with marriages and divorces, is connected to Women's rights (the section where this text is currently included in the article). Saff V. replied that these divorces/marriages have "a close connection with Women's rights", arguing that MEK leaders married within a short time span (even though such things happen in many cultures and do not necessarily pertain to Women's rights, or lack thereof). Could you please advice? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, the assertion should be made more concise. The relevance to the MEK (questionable marriages/divorces, their connection to women's rights) also ought to be made more clear. Not to sound like a broken record, but again, I'm a big proponent of using explanatory notes as a means to reach compromise. El_C 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Saff V. still hasn't provided a logical argument on how this relates to women's rights. Can I go ahead an edit this in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Affirmative. El_C 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria Are you going to restore this sourced long standing text into a suitable subsection or it should be done by others? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

For this to be restored, it needs a logical argument as to why this pertains to Women's rights, or lack thereof. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Read my comment once again. I was talking about restoring this longstanding text into a suitable section. Totally removing the material only because it did not fit into Women's rights sections, was not a good move. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As this sentence confirmed ," Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'", the text is connected to "Ideological revolution".Saff V. (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: It seems to me that Stefka Bulgaria misled you by repeated stressing on "women's right" while this long standing portion is on "ideological revolution" and the section title is "Ideological revolution and women's rights". Am I allowed to restore it on this ground?Saff V. (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't misled. You took too long to respond and as a result ended up forfeiting your position. El_C 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. But I showed the portion was relevant...Saff V. (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C:: The portion in question, which is longstanding, is directly related to the MEK's "Ideological revolution" and need to be restored. since it does not have to be related to "women's right". Stefka Bulgaria needs to respond why he had been over stressing on the "women's right"? See comments [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40] where he's mentioning "women's rights"!!! The argument used for removal of the text is totally irrelevant, as you see. Can it be restored? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you took too long to respond. Are you sure you want it back in the article in the, first place? It seems longwinded and convoluted. El_C 20:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that the first place is suitable, As the text says, this divorce was done for "great revolution".So the text is related to "Ideology" section.It could be restored in Ideology/after revolution.Saff V. (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: and @Mhhossein: I suppose it is missing! Saff V. (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Before anything else, I would like to seek help from El_C to elaborate on his "longwinded and convoluted" point. How can it be resolved? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly on the how. But I get the sense that it just seems to go on for a while (with multiple parentheses), describing something that could be condensed with a much more concise summary. El_C 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I summarized it to following text

At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena.

Is there any objection?Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., could you please explain how this pertains to "Women's rights" (or lack thereof)? Aren't marriages and divorces fairly common across different cultures/regions? I understand that you're trying to associate "divorcing/marrying" as a lack of "women's rights"? If that's the case, can you explain how that's the case? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, you were told multiple times in this thread that the text does not have to be related to the Women's right, with the section title also including "ideological revolution" (see my latest comment on this). El_C: Stefka Bulgari needs to respond why, despite being explained, he is over stressing on "women's rights", while this long standing text is essentially on the ideological revolution. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're asking for my opinion, then, well, at least it's shorter (so there's that), but it is still pretty obtuse. In what way does a divorce facilitates anything? What was the MEK decisionmakers' line of thinking there? Do we know? Or does it stand as some sort of a big mystery in the historiography? Anyway, it's just stated for the reader to make sense of — personally, I don't think that's good enough. El_C 13:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to find more detail as you asked. The following material is found but if you ask me except last one (attributing to Mojahed Magazine) rest of them does not provide much detail. They just confirm that "Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to pave the way for this "great revolution" Or as Abrishamchi said this marriage and that divorce help them to find ideological brightness.If you want I can summarize the following material and add to the above-shortened text.

Following the grand traditions of authoritarian parties, this divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants ...Toward the end of the long tape, Abrishamchi stands up to endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization. This ideology of the dissolution of the individual into the collective was similar to that practiced by the Islamic Republic, particularly during the war years. Abrishamchi continued: ”we must all pass through this furnace and melt away our filthy parts then we can find ideological brightness then all will become true members of the Mojahedin.

1

The proclamation also mentioned almost in passing that Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to pave the way for this "great revolution". The proclamation added that divorce rarely took place among the Mojahedin. The proclamation was signed by thirty-four members of the central committee and its politburo this was the very first time the organization had revealed the names of the top leadership...Whatever the true reasons behind the marriage the results were crystal clear. The marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.

2

When a MEK member desire to marry he or she asked permission and the MEK chose an appropriate spouse. On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution. Almost as a footnote, the MEK announcement mentioned that Azodanlu AND HER HUSBAND Mehdi Abrishamchi had divorced in order to make way for the marriage to Rajavi.

3

To understand this great revolution…is to understand and gain a deep insight into the greatness of our new leadership, meaning the leadership of Masoud and Maryam. It is to believe in them as well as to show ideological and revolutionary obedience of them…By correcting your old work habits and by criticizing your individual as well as collective shortcomings, we shall gain much awareness in confronting our enemies…Report to your commanders and superiors in a comprehensive manner your progress, its results and outcomes that you gain from promoting and strengthening this ideological revolution.

4

Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, okay. Thanks for that. That clears up a lot of questions. Now the task before us is how to present all that in a manner that is cogent and concise. El_C 19:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't mention it. ASAP I will try to provide a brief and comprehensive text.Saff V. (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I worked on the matted and the following text was made:

At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping.

The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia were equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. This divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants. As Abrishamchi said on endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.

On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution.

Mhhossein and Stefka Bulgaria any opposition?Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war

@Stefka Bulgaria: As you picked up material as to the assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war, Can you explain based on which sides you do that?Saff V. (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of the same repeated Saddam Hussein text throughout the article:

• According to the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia, MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.[62][64][186]

• Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.[404]

• A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.

• Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time [siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war]. [...]

• "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[57]"

• "so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army,[60][61] and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam."

• In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[57]

• Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action.

• "Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors" for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War.[174]

• Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem said that the MeK’s "collaboration with Saddam against Iranian people will never be wiped out from the memory of Iranian people".[60]

• MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.

Lots of repetitive text here. Will clean up accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The time is vital key so they are not duplicated. None of the above sentences include assistance in 1986.Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

They can hardly be considered as duplicates. Some are talking about MEK's helping Saddam in suppressing the uprisings in Iraq, some others about MEK's assisting Saddam to fight against Iran, some speak about creation of NLA while some others include opinions of some figures on the MEK's siding with Iraq. Though, all others which say nothing than MEK's siding with Saddam can be considered as duplicate. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

These all repeat Saddam Hussain's alliance with the MEK. We certainly don't need to mention 11 times that Saddam Hussain allied with the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I already explained why one could not say they're all duplicates. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I chek 11 items provided by Stefka. Except for the first and last item, rest of them are not duplicated, some of them is the reaction of people or organization. In my edit, I stress on the equipping of MEK BY Saddam (with protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use (but not ownership) of land) on 1986.But about 11 provided items:

1. it is true that the first and last options are the same.
2. MEK assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.
3. MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
4. A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people because of supporting Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War.
5. The reaction of Pahlavi about Mek for supporting Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War
6. In 1983, the MEK's support of Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, described as treason by the vast majority of Iranians.
7. Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and went into action.
8. In number nine the alliance between MEK and Saddam is confirmed by Iran.
9. Number 10 pointed to the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem for the alliance between MEK and Saddam.

Saff V. (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

These are all repeated statements:

• A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.

• Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time [siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war]. [...]

• "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[57]"

• "so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army,[60][61] and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam."

• In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[57]

• Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action.

• "Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors" for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War.[174]

• Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem said that the MeK’s "collaboration with Saddam against Iranian people will never be wiped out from the memory of Iranian people".[60]

They can be combined into this:

"In 1983, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War. A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War."

Or is there anything that's been left out? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Fisrt of all, "A wide range of sources state" is an example of Weasel words. Then the quote of Pahlavi and Djavad Khadem or equipping of 7,000 members of the MEK are left. Also in your text, it is Pretended that the collaboration between MEK and Sadam just refer to 1983, but in fact, it is not true.Saff V. (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How would you rephrase it then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Why should I do this? there is no need to rephrase!Saff V. (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've objected that these statements come across as repeated information:

• A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.

• Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time [siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war]. [...]

• "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[57]"

• "so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army,[60][61] and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam."

• In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[57]

• Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action.

• "Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors" for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War.[174]

• Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem said that the MeK’s "collaboration with Saddam against Iranian people will never be wiped out from the memory of Iranian people".[60]

That can be combined into this:

"In 1983, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War. A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War."

Saff V. doesn't agree that these are repeated statements, and that they should be combined into something less repetitive. What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Stefka Bulgaria's version looks like it can become a decent compromise. Saff V and Mhhossein, what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it? Not to sound like a broken record, but maybe consider explanatory notes to, at least partially, serve this purpose...? El_C 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

As the first point, In the provided text by Stefka, it is pretended the collaboration between MEK and Saddam was beginning from 1983. Is it true? Is not any collaboration BEFORE that? Secondly, the reaction of Pahlavi or Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem needs to keep. It is important people with different views how describe this collaboration. As well as equipping 7,000 members of the MEK by shows the level of this support and citing the exact number makes clear how the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein. It is not detailed INFO! Please pay attention to this sentence "MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising". Is it really duplicated?Saff V. (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., as El_C suggests (and as I mentioned earlier), what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it?? There is certainly no need to have this repeated 8 times in the article when it can be phrased in one paragraph that includes all necessary information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you make me repeat my opinion again and again. I read the opinion of you and El_C then I presented my idea. Your paraphrasing doesn't contain some vital point. WHICH POINT, please read my previous comment.Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Please provide a paragraph (as I did above) that doesn't include repeated text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but my time is limited. here I mentioned vital points you can use it in paraphrasing.Saff V. (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to make the time (a week more than suffices), or you risk forfeiting your position. El_C 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C:I really apologize, but as wp:BURDEN demands, it is the responsibility of Stefka to provide the text. As I have done already and presented my notes, I will help to get conclusion ASAP. Finally, I will do what you know is right. Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I already provided a proposed text, which you objected. Then I asked you to provide a proposed text, and you said that you have not time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with current material about MEK collaboration with Sadam and If you ask me I don't agree they are duplicated, but you agree and tried to pick them up as a repetitive texts. So why I must to provide a text while I don't see duplicated material.Saff V. (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have presented an objection, which you are failing to address. In the lede section alone, the word "Saddam" is mentioned 4 times in a single paragraph:

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[54] In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris,[55][56] so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army,[57][58] and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam.[59][60][61][47]

That seems unnecessary. I propose that we resume that into the following:

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[54] In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris,[55][56] so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad[57][58] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[59][60][61][47]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It is good but there is a problem needs to other user's opinion. You removed that MEK fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army (after expelling from Paris) and replaced it with Operation Mersad. In another hand, we have in the first sentence that Saddam and MEK collaboration belongs to 1983. So isn't it pretend that Saddam sided MEK only in 1983? My suggestion is that:

"they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces during the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[54] In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris,[55][56] so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad[57][58] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[59][60][61][47]

Saff V. (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the wording on the MEK's suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam should not have been touched. I'm against changing it; it must be clear that the uprising was against Saddam, showing what dog did MEK have in the fight. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I proposed a text, then Saff V. proposed corrections, and just like that we reached a majority consensus over this. You don't have to agree with the majority consensus, but it's a consensus nonetheless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I was busy with some off wiki issues and am partially against this change which removes some longstanding texts. I already elaborated on. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't start edit warring now, everyone! But Mhhossein, I'm not seeing much basis to your objection, which you ought to write out, anyway, not link to. El_C 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Definetly there were not any consensus with me and Stefka. Yes! he proposed a text, then I proposed corrections and I said that there is a problem needs to other user's opinion.Without waiting for others, he edit the article! Until the consensus will be achived, I revert it to longstanding version. In addition why was the NYT source removed?!Saff V. (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But Stefka Bulgaria was pretending as if the every thing was settled down! Anyway, I explained why the proposed text needs more edits. Actually:

• that MEK "fought against Iran" should not be removed, since the wording is supported by the reliable sources. Also, we have previously discussed this matter (it should be somewhere in the archive).
• 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam should stay with the wikilink (why was the wikilink removed?)

--Mhhossein ^talk 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you checked how many times it's already wikilinked in the article? Anyway, it seems to me that Saff V. (who was so very close to being blocked for edit warring — brazenly ignoring my warning here from a day before!) agreed to a compromise, now they go back on it? Then Mhhossein arrives with objections that involve some minor adjustments, but rather than try to integrate these, reverts the entire thing? No, this is not reflected well on either of you, Saff V. and Mhhossein. Rather than collaborate, you are effectively obstructing. I expect more constructive efforts at reaching a compromise. One which tones down all the repetition and which condenses the major points under contention in a concise and cogent manner. Please do better. El_C 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC about including the MEK's current principles

Should the MEK's current principles be included in the lede?:

The MEK currently espouses the principles of a "democratic, tolerant and anti-fundamentalist Islam" and non-nuclear Iran with gender equality and a ban on capital punishment.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• Yes: As with most Wiki articles about political parties, this one is no exception and their current principles should be included in the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. I cannot think about a single reason to oppose this change. --MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom: A single reason? The suggested sentence says the MEK is advocating "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are numerous sources saying the opposite; for example this book says MEK is "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology" and this one calls it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Maybe wording can be improved or better sources can be examined, but self-declared principles or goals are due. --MarioGom (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: It's not a matter of rewording and you already agreed to include a sentence which contradicts some reliable sources.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein I voted yes because I expect self-declared principles to be covered in the article. If the proposed sentence contradicts some reliable sources, maybe you can add an alternative proposal below? --MarioGom (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: But I doubt if "self-declared principles" are good for the NPOV status of the lead. As you know, "self-declared principles" need to get balanced by counter viewpoints which makes the lead even larger. The lead is already featured with "It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government. It was the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that differed 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". That said, more details can be added to the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• No This is a matter of opinion not fact. See for example Arron Merat, "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK," The Guardian, 9 Nov 2018. TFD (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, Wikipedia's policies don't just allow for opinions to be included in our articles, they mandate it, provided said opinions have an appropriate degree of WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources. If multiple partially or completely conflicting opinions exist, each of which has met the WP:WEIGHT test, then we cover the controversy, discussing the span of perspectives on the topic, and carefully attributing to avoid putting undue weight on something that should not appear in Wikipedia's voice. I'll have to review what the current-day sourcing says on the MEK, as a broad matter, before I forward my own opinion, but having just read the source you provide above, I'd have to say that it doesn't really support the "no" !vote you have attached it to, but rather seems to support a finding that we should be discussing the MEK's face value assertions--but not without presenting other outside perspectives as well. The source clearly approaches the topic from multiple angles to present a holistic view without giving improper emphasis to one side or another. That, as it happens, is what our policies would have us do as well. And it doesn't matter whether those perspectives are "opinions" or "facts"; indeed, outside of a small percentage of our articles in the physical sciences, logic, and mathematics, almost all of our articles on this project are sourced much more by RS providing opinions rather than pure empirical fact--to whatever extent it even exists. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• ...and this opinion is against some reliable sources. See my comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia policy does not allow us to present opinions as facts, which is what the proposal above does. TFD (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - I agree with Snow, we should be discussing the MEK's face value assertion, but presenting criticism as well. This National Interest article, for example, presents supporters and detractors perspectives: To its supporters, it is the most organized and disciplined alternative to the current clerical regime in Tehran, and the only one that is truly capable of establishing a democratic, secular Iran. To its detractors, it represents a fringe element that promotes an unpopular, unworkable vision of Iran’s future. Barca (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - As long as this quote is clearly presented as a self-representation of the group and not as Wikipedia's voice, of course it should be included. I'm sure there is plenty of space in the rest of the article to make clear that not everybody is on board with this. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• No the lead should be the summary of the most important points of the article but now the suggested text is not supported by so well-known sources. For example, "Arab news" or "Int Polciy Digest" is not enough to improve the verification of the text.Saff V. (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - per PraiseVivec, as long as it's attributed, of course it should be included. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The platform of thia political movement is clearly lead DUE. We should also include notable opposing views - e.g. IRI.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• No This is currently adding to the POV problem of the lead. The suggested sentence is against reliable sources. For example, the group is described by some reliable sources as following Islamic extremism, in contrast to what the suggested sentence say:

"..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[41]

Also, Why not adding the following:

"The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[42]

"Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[43]

"...(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.

"the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"[44]

"Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[45]

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is about the MEK's current principles. None of the sources you've provided address the MEK's current principles. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion contradicts reliable sources. See my comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Of course this should be included, this is clearly WP:DUE information. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes This appears to be inline with other 2019 sources about the MEK's platform, one of which I just added to the article. Ypatch (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• No I'm seeing in the discussions that the suggested text contradicts reliable sources. Also I agree with TFD who says these are some POVs not facts. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:DUE. The group's ideologies don't have to be facts, they just have to be covered in the press, and they are. We do include ideologies for other articles about political groups. As long as we make it clear that these are attributed to the MEK, and are not facts, I don't see why this can't be in the article Alex-h (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not include it, since as I said earlier in this discussion, the proposal is against some other reliable sources. For instance, the proposal describes the MEK as being "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are sources calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin" [46]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Your source refers to the 1970s; this RfC is about the MEK's current principles. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• No: I do not think it can be a good idea to have these opinions in the lede. Descriptions of the group by the independent sources are already included in the lede. Let us don't make the POV proble.Forest90 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

MEK support in Iran and NPOV

Saying that the MEK has no support in Iran, without also including that MEK supporters are persecuted, tortured, and executed by the Iranian regime in Iran, fails to provide a major part of why there are virtually no MEK supporters in Iran. @Saff V.:, you reverted this edit where I tried to explain this; why? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-inserting the edit based on lack of any logical counter-argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. You need to prove " this is difficult to ascertain" is supported by reliable sources. Your change is a SYNTHESIS of some sources. Don't revert please.Saff V. (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are sources backing up the claim that MEK members and supporters are persecuted by the Iranian government, and Ronen Cohen addressing the MEK's popularity in Iran in connection to the government in Iran:

• "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."

• "The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."

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

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

What is the argument against including this claim that is well backed by RSs? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources say: "...though this [MEK's damaged appeal in Iran] is difficult to ascertain as MEK supporters are targeted by the Islamic Republic". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that your objection was with my paraphrasing then? I'll use Cohen's words then. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH you should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Your change was partially ok but still needed some changes. The material needs to be attributed and the sources used should be directly support the text. Don't use excess and unrelated citations and don't violate the restriction of the article. Please draft your suggestion here before inserting it into the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria , definitely, your paraphrasing is not Cohen's words. "because of the nature of the government in Iran" does not mean "as MEK supporters are targeted by the Islamic Republic", It is combining material from multiple sources to reach the text which is not seen in any of them. I have to note that Cohen's words is just a possibility, "It can be said that...". According to which reason, we have to include a possibility into the lead, however other sources does not support it, they just support MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people because of their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War.Saff V. (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

To avoid any conflict, I propose we include it as Cohen says it, which presents both sides of the argument: ""It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran." This solves the POV issue of just presenting one side of the argument (per NPOV), and Cohen is a reliable source. What's the problem with including this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Cohen's POV being a "it can be said..." is enough for balancing the lead. See WP:UNDUE. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Without a doubt,Cohen is a reliable source but Cohen's words is just a possibility, "It can be said that..." and does not suit for lead.Saff V. (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If Cohen is without a doubt a reliable source, and the issue presented here seems to be with the part "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization", then this would be a good middle ground:

"According to sources, the MEK's presence in Iraq during the war minimized its support for the organization. According to Cohen, that claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."

Barca (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

for body, it is ok maybe but for lead no, we need verifiable material for lead, it is just a guess.Saff V. (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Cohen guesses about the support the MEK receives in Iran, not about the nature of the Iranian government (the part that's actually missing in the lede). @El C: would you say that Barca's proposed middle ground is a fair compromise? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Coehn's POV is not just weighty enough to balance what numerous reliable sources say. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, seems like a fair compromise, certainly good enough for the body — though maybe hammer something out that's less reliant just on that one source for the lead. El_C 19:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The National Interest source can be used to support the inclusion in the lead. Barca (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In what terms do you think this blog is weighty enough for our purpose here? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

supposedly, if we want to use Cohen's word into the body, the mentioned sentence is not on page 23 of source The source was provided to me by requset in RX.Saff V. (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V. - it's on the first page, see here Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This quote on the National Interest sourcesupports Cohen's quote, mainly the part about the Iranian intelligence and senior Iranian officials saying the recent uprisings in Iran have included arrests of MEK activists:

"claiming that, among other things, it [MEK] fundamentally lacks support on the Iranian “street.” For its part, the MeK rejects that assertion, noting that its long track record of “resistance” would simply not be possible without extensive domestic backing. The Iranian intelligence ministry’s announcement this spring of the arrest of several hundred MeK activists, and repeated acknowledgements by senior Iranian officials of an MeK role in the uprisings of the past year-and-a-half, lends some credence to that contention. That resistance, moreover, has clearly come at an extraordinarily high price. According to MeK officials, some 120,000 of the group’s members and supporters are estimated to have died at the hands of the Iranian regime since 1979."

@El C: would the National Interest source and Cohen's source be fine to support this in the lead?:

"According to sources, the MEK's presence in Iraq during the war minimized its support for the organization. According to other sources, that claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."

Barca (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Myself, I wouldn't bother to overqualifying it with "according to sources," but that's besides the point. How is the quote supports that passage? I'm sorry, I'm not quite seeing it. There must be more sources speaking about historical levels of support, no? El_C 19:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If the sentence exists on this source, why did you refer to page 23 on that source? In addition, "according to sources" takes into account Weasel words.Saff V. (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

To complete El_C's words; I should say that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Is the following enough evidence of the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran?

• "The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."

If so, would this be enough to support Cohen's statement? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Coen's passage forms the basis for an important compromise, but can you find more in the historiography to further support their position? El_C 06:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is trying to insert the material based on his own original research; The sources on MEK's members torture make no comment on the popularity of the group so can't be taken as a basis for decision. There are multiple reliable sources saying MEK's helping Saddam with their military attacks against Iran was viewed as "treason" leading to MEK's popularity diminishing in Iran. There are probably sources linking this to MEK's killing of dozens of Iranian people. So, there should be multiple reliable sources saying otherwise. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The current version of the article describes the MEK receiving support from the public in Iran: "On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,00 participants, who advanced towards parliament" until it was outlawed by the IRI soon after (with MEK supporters were imprisoned, tortured, or executed by the IRI after 1981). This is what Cohen is referring to when he writes "That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran". What else do you think we'd need here to help support Cohen's conclusion? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

More discussion on MEK domestic support vis-a-vis the war with Iraq. Is there anything in the historiography also touching on this point? El_C 17:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've found sources that say the MEK has support of Iranians outside of Iran, but have found little else about its domestic support vis-a-vis the Iraq war that also addresses the Islamic regimes' targeting of MEK supporters in Iran. Cohen seems to be one the only author I've found making this connection, although there are plenty of RSs confirming the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran. Should this not be included? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The last comment of Stefka is absolutely SYNTH of some sources. If want to know the meaning of "the nature of the government in Iran" we have to search just in Cohen source how he supports this. In addition 1981 peaceful demonstration in Tehran, 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners and 1890 Iran Iraq war have nothing with each other unless Rs(es) illustrate a connection.Saff V. (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe launch an RfC with your proposal...? I'm feeling less confident about what to do exactly; but yes, I think the Coen content is important and should be included. El_C 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent revert by Mhhossein

@Mhhossein:

1) In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"?

2) In this edit you reverted edits that applied to the allegations made concerning nuclear scientists. Can yo please:

a) Explain exactly how these allegations are not repeated? (and then remove the material that is repeated) b) On that same edit, you also removed "According to Shireen Hunter", why? c) On that same edit, you also included "On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani." How is this "State sponsorship"?

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

1-Here I removed the subsection with my edit summary reading "the source makes no judgement". However, "based in Iraq" may be useful for reaching decision.

2-a: Let's compare every thing with the version after your removals; here, you removed the fact that MEK was, at the time of the assassinations, was designated as a terrorist organization. In this edit, you removed some unique details such as MEK "being financed, trained, and armed" by Mossad. This one talks about Washington's comment on the incident, which is not repeated elsewhere. The last edit comments on the ability of the MEK to perform terrorist attacks, should it really get removed?

2-b: That MEK was supported by Saudis is something needing attribution? I don't think so.

2-c: I did not include anything, please avoid making misleading comments on my edits. I just restored a longstanding text into the article. Also, why do you think that does not constitute "State sponsorship"? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

1) You have not answered the question. In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"?

2a) Please leave in whatever you don't think is repeated, and removed the repeated text (which is what I tried to do).

2b) Shireen Hunter is the only author I've found making this allegation, so why shouldn't this be attributed to the author?

2c) You still haven't explained how this constitutes "State sponsorship":

"On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As for the removals regarding the N scientist, I juts mentioned the portions which were unique. So, you can have your draft based on that. Communist Party was the party running the state, so MEK's letter was infact a "State sponsorship" request. Also, Shireen Hunter is NOT the only author; see [47], [48] and [49], all saying MEK is financially supported by Saudi Arabia. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

2c)It doesn't matter what was the response while Milani claimed that he found the letter in Stanford University or he mentioned the MEK request of Soviet Union for temporary asylum based report of RADIO FARDA, So they are definitely connected to "Ties to foreign actors".Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

As I checked, the following sentences are not duplicated.

• In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
• A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.
• According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel".

The first sentence pointed to how Israel support MEK for assassinations. The next one, the responsibility of MEK was denied by State Department spokesman. At Final sentence, it was pointed to the assassination just as an example to support that "MEK's capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years".Saff V. (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is getting clogged up without concerns really being addressed. So lets take one at a time:

• In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Lack of reply implies consent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it better to pay attention to our answer rather than repeat your question again and again! Did you look at our answers?!Saff V. (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway your answer is on page 193 of the source, MEK was exiled in 1986, but this support had belonged to 1985:

, For example, Iran was blamed for the 1985 assassination attempt on the life of the emir of Kuwait although there were reports that Syria or even Iraq might have been the culprit...Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states supported a number of Iranian opposition groups, including the Mujahedin-e- Khalq based in Iraq and some royalist opposition figures.

Saff V. (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Where did you get that the MEK was exiled in 1986? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It had been mentioned at plenty of sources such as [50].Saff V. (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: This one source you've provided doesn't say the MEK went into exile in 1986, it says that "it moved to Diyala and established Camp Ashraf in 1986." The MEK went into exile in 1981 when it moved to France and founded the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and from there it moved to Camp Ashraf in 1986 after the IRI requested France to expel the MEK (this is all in the current article). So the MEK was already in exile by 1985, so the subheading "Before exile" is inaccurate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What subheading are talking about? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I repeat: In this edit, you added the subheading "Before exile" using this source. Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, no reply implies consensus. On to the next point. Mhhossein, in this edit, you removed "According to Shireen Hunter" (Shireen Hunter is the only author I've found making this allegation). Why shouldn't this be attributed to the author? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for what? I don't know why you're repeatedly asking about a section which is essentially absent form the page since many days ago. Also, how many times should it be proved by sources that Shireen Hunter is NOT the only author? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As I found, MEK was in exile in 3 countries France , Iraq and Albania. Any way the main title is "State-sponsorship", whithout paying attention to categorize it into befor exile or another, the text is related to the section.Saff V. (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Ir-nla.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Insertion of an unsourced challenging claim

In this edit, Stefka Bulgaria inserts a challenging material into the article which is totally false and not supported by the source. He adds to the article that Khomeini ordered "the torture" of the prisoners! He needs to respond why did he insert it? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I think you already reverted the unsourced text. Is that right? --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, Mhhossein, you're gonna have to select section headers with greater moderation from now on. This just won't do. The entire point of assuming good faith is not only acknowledging that your opposition may have sourced something in error, but also that you, yourself, may be in error. Please reflect on that. Anyway, though I would be shocked to find out Khomeini didn't order the 1988 executions, until substantiated, that is a fair objection. Stefka Bulgaria, can you show in what way the source claims this? Please quote directly. El_C 17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember how I associated Khomeini here (there was a lot of back and forth with sources around this time about this) though this is where I may have gotten that Khomeini was associated with this:

• "Amnesty International's research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture an other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishement in the process."

  [51]

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

  [52]

Also, see Khomeini's order of the executions. How's this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

the mentioned text says that Khomeini ordered execution not "the torture".Saff V. (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read the quotes above more carefully. They clearly say that Khomeini made the order which led to torture of MEK members, which means there was no "manipulation of sources" as Mhhossein claims, which means Mhhossein is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No where in the text says Khomeini ordered to 'torture' them. Even it does not support your recent claim, i.e. "Khomeini made the order which led to torture of MEK members". Look, you should not have gone beyond what the source said. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The quotes say that Khomeini ordered their execution through a fatwa, and many were also tortured as a result of this. That was what I tried to include in the article, and if you thought that passage needed to be edited, that would have been fine by me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What you did was a clear Original Research, which is prohibited according to the policy. You inserted a challenging material which was not supported by any reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a compromise is easy here. Just don't misattribute Amnesty vis-a-vis the torture order — only note the one about executions. El_C 13:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland

Shall we replace this (currently in the article):

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

with this?:

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, which some sources claim damaged its appeal in Iran, though this is difficult to ascertain "because of the nature of the government in Iran."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:NPOV. We need to explain both sides of the argument here. The MEK sided with Saddam Hussain in 1983, which sources say led to them losing support in Iran. Sources also say that showing any support for the MEK in Iran leads to imprisonment, torture, or execution, so it's easy to see why there is little evidence of MEK support in Iran. Ronen Cohen NPOV's this well:

"It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."

I find Cohen's quote creates a balanced argument explaining both sides of the debate, and that would be a more NPOV explanation than the one currently in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question: The RFC explanation is flawed; is the change going to be exerted in the lead or body? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In the lede, where this information is first summarised. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• No to mentioning it in the lead, yes to adding to the body: Per WP:UNDUE; this case is widely discussed in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#MEK support in Iran and NPOV and there we discussed that Cohen's POV is not weighty enough to counterbalance plenty of objecting POVs in reliable sources which say MEK's siding with Iraq and its killing tens of thousands Iranian people led to diminishing their support in Iran. When we say "some sources" say MEK's siding with Saddam had some consequences, there should be "some other sources" saying other wise in order to balance the text. But in this case, there's only one POV saying this. So, this is not suitable for lead unless there are some other reliable sources sharing similar POV as Cohen. In other words, Cohen's source can't be simply used against "some sources". Another point, which was also discussed in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#MEK support in Iran and NPOV, is that Cohen says "it can be said..." in his book which signals a degree of uncertainty on the author's part. However, Cohen's POV can be added to body in an attributed manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - in agreement that including only one side of the story in the lead of this article creates a neutrality problem. There are many sources that describe the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran, so there is not a WP:UNDUE problem for Cohen's analysis. We need to tell readers both sides of the story, and currently this is missing in the lead section. The MEK's support in Iran is difficult to determine because of the nature of the government in Iran, as Cohen says, and that needs to be included there where this is mentioned in the lead, or remove this about the MEK's popularity in Iran from the lead altogether. Alex-h (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You already said "There are many sources that describe the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran". Can you present ONE of those reliable sources making the relationship between Iranian government policy regarding the MEK supporters and the diminishing of the group's supporters inside the country? I mean can you present ANOTHER source saying "MEK's support in Iran is difficult to determine because of the nature of the government in Iran". Note that the latter is the critical point of this article. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLUESKY - The Iranian government eradicates MEK support through prison/execution, so the availability of a neutral analysis of MEK support in Iran is difficult to ascertain, as Cohen stated. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It was just a quite example of Original Research. No, there should be enough reliable sources making the connection! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Per 2017–18 Iranian protests (which Rudi Giuliani credited to the MEK.[53]), resuming the MEK does have at least some support among Iranian people post the Iran-Iraq war. Cohen describes this neutrally, without favoring neither side, so it's adequate for the lead. Barca (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• No. I am surprised people are actually discussing this. How can a nation like it when you side with their enemy at war. Tinting the existing text with words such as "some sources" is obvious POV.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Firm "no" - per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:RS and WP:VER. This appears to be yet another attempt to present the MEK as a group of angels and saints, while carefully getting rid of anything that does not fit with the personal beliefs of the party's leaders and pro-MEK lobbyists. This all is the result of a recent lobbying campaign, as attested in many newspapers and other reliable sources. For instance, search for "MEK lobby", "MEK lobby John Bolton", "MEK Obama Iran", or "MEK Trump Iran" in Google. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes because second statement contains the first while being more neutral.--Abutalub (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abutalub:,It is not neutral, because the author is not sure about "it is difficult to ascertain". Please refer to the source!Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, nothing is certain when it comes to dictatorships.--Abutalub (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Because of dictatorships, you said it is neutral.isn't it?Saff V. (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• No "this is difficult to ascertain" belongs to this sentence of the source, It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran. The author uses "can" for presenting his claim so that it is just a guess by the author who not be sure about that. Why such disputed material has to be included in the lead of article.Saff V. (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• Yes Indeed the second statement contains the first while being more neutral. The author using "can" in the first part does not affect the part that adds the NPOV about the "claim being difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran". Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So why did the author use "Can" in the first part?Saff V. (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Picking up Bloomfield and two other sources

As it was discussed here and Someguy1221 mentioned that Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., NYT and pages 219-220 from Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin authored by Abrahamian should be picked up from both articles Hafte Tir bombing and People's Mujahedin of Iran. Saff V. (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I suggested that this specific NYT article is only reliable for reporting official statements, and that I did not know if any text matched the point of view expressed on pages 219-220 of Abrahamian as that portion is not available in the free version. The Bloomfield source should not be used at all though, yes. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221:,Thanks for the comment. Can I ask you to present your opinion about this source which the only source belongs to Bloomfield in the article?Saff V. (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

POV of Kayhan

@Stefka Bulgaria: Why did you remove the published news by Kayhanof the article while I supported by RSes, Also I have the archive of Kayhan belongs to that date (October 1981) that the bus was burnt by member of MEK and could to email Anyone who wants.Saff V. (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an IRI sympathetic source. In the same way you've recently removed Bloomfield for being a MEK-sympathetic source, we should avoid IRI sympathetic sources per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Apologize to bother you, As you said before," Not everything the Islamic regime publishes is in question", It is needed to be included the Keyhan newspaper POV as one of the most reliable paper in Iran into the article for reporting fired bus.How many users have to say to him that IRI sources are verifiable to illustrate Iran's positions. I can not understand why Stefka considers it as "IRI sympathetic source", while Admin never said that Bloomfield is a MEK-sympathetic source, he just stated that this is a vanity publication.Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

See Censorship in Iran, which this source pertains to, making it an IRI-sympathetic source. If we remove MEK-sympathetic sources, as has been suggested in this Talk page, we need to remove IRI-sympathetic sources as well per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As you know Wikipedia articles are not a good source for confirming your claim. Why do you consider Keyan as an IRI-sympathetic source without seeing that report about burning bus by MEK?Saff V. (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

See Kayhan: "Hossein Shariatmadari is the editor-in-chief of Kayhan. His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader." Btw, Wiki articles tend to be backed by RSs, which is where you'll find the sources that back up Censorship in Iran, as well as the source that backs up this statement about Kayhan's editor-in-chief: [54]. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Who wrote this? Please sign your username for all comments. Anyway, beware WP:FALSEBALANCE. X-sympathetic sources can be used sometimes, depending on the context, but should generally be avoided. If they do, they should probably be qualified as x-source, known to be affiliated with... In this instance, it's better to find something that is 3rd party, or make it especially clear of the source's own affiliation. El_C 17:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It is verified by another source: "a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death in October 1981 when the Mujahidin set fire to a bus in Shiraz" but Stefka removed it.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

And also there are other ones YJC NEWS Agency, IRDC.Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, these are all IRI-affiliated sources. Is there something published about this in a non-IRI affiliated, 3rd party source? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: You're essentially wrong. Bloomfield was not removed solely because it was MEK-sympathetic. It was actually a bogus source! See this explanation once again. Besides that, I was against using that MEK-sympathetic source to reach a conclusion in the lead.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It is one of the ironies of modern history! when a firing occurred at Shiraz, It is absolutely obvious IR news agency reported it. Do you expect that I find it in news agencies not associated with Iran? Also, could you explain how this source connected to IRI? It is another one to support the fireSaff V. (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of source

Saff V. - why did you remove this source from the article? Barca (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As WP:V demands, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it", While the added material by you was not verifiable. I searched it but couldn't find it in Other RSes.Saff V. (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? What I added was verified by the source itself. "This widespread endorsement of regime change prompted Khamenei to acknowledge the organizational role of the MEK and the “resistance units” operating throughout Iranian society." - this is in the source, so it's verified, no? Barca (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I searched it but couldn't find it in Other RSes. In other words, just this source published it, so it is not verifiable.Saff V. (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)