Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Cherry picking

June

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.

July

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)

August

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. "

[1]

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

[2]

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

[3]

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."[4] 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."[5] 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."[6] 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."[7] 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)

September

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

Please note that no response implies consent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:Can you report the exact quote from source belongs to this sentence:"a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"?Saff V. (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: What's missing in the current state of the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Here's a source "The majority of those killed were supporters of the People's Mujahedin of Iran although supporters of other factions were executed as well."[8] @Mhhossein: as I've stated above, I find my proposed text provides clearer insights into these events. In any case, if either of you have any further objections, please provide a proposed text that you think would constitute a fair compromise. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of your proposed text now is seen into the article, the difference is just this sentence:"Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails." Am I right? Thanks for providing a quote, "other factions" does not mean other leftist opposition groups.Saff V. (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: your proposed text now is included into the article. What are you going to do exactly?Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On August 28th, I wrote :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."[9] 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. If you have a different proposed text, then by all means provide it, if not, I'll update this proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I find your suggestion adding unnecessary POVs to the article. The current wording of the article is already describing the event. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Now we have in the article that Following operation Eternal Light, 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...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. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. Do you want to replace your suggested text with this? I believe the current material in the article about 1988 executions is more detailed. If you don't agree, we can discuss sentence by sentence.Saff V. (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The following is not included in the article:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[10] 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.

• 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."

Can you please give me a simple and precise reason why it shouldn't be? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK." is seen in the "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" section. Is this sentence referred to the 1988 execution? What do you mean by "failed invasion"? Is it referred to a specific event?Saff V. (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the revised text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[11] 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.

• 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.

Any objections? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you repeat "The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to..." 2times?! This sentence "Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails" doesn't support by source, it is mentioned in the source that on 28 July, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Rouhollah Khomeini, used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa (religious order) ordering the execution of all prisoners who remained “steadfast” in their support for the PMOI.Saff V. (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails" is supported by the source. This is my revised proposed text. Please specify if there are any specific objections for this to be included:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[12] 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.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

These two mentioned sentences are saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15, as well as actually is POV of the source, we cannot devote this amount of weight to this source or saying of volunteered.Saff V. (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What? are you saying we cannot include this because the source is Amnesty International? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually not, It should be used with the appropriate weight, your sentences is undue weight,saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15.Saff V. (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've asked Saff V. to provide a clear objection as to why my proposed text (just above) is not suitable for the article. He has complained that it's "undue weight". I find this to be an unsubstantiated answer since clearly the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is a well-established event. Would you agree? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If understand correctly, he is saying, in part, that the agency of a 15-year-old to volunteer is limited. Personally, I don't agree, but it isn't an objection that is without substance. El_C 16:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The first part of the text, ("Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails.")[13] is not attributed to a 15-year old volunteer; this is what TheGuardian says: "The survivors were tried on the spot and quickly executed; Mehrad watched as hundreds were hanged at gallows erected in the nearby town of Eslamabad. Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails. Amnesty estimates that more than 4,500 people were put to death, and some sources say the numbers were even higher."

The second part of the text has nothing to do with a 15-year-old volunteer, but it's attributed to Amnesty International. Do you still think Saff V.'s objection substantiated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Who is able to follow this thread any longer? — I am genuinely asking, because we need your help! Anyway, why not ask Saff V. what they object about that passage. Maybe you two can reach a compromise. El_C 16:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

October

@El C: This is my proposed text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."(The Guardian} 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.(Amnesty International)

This is what the Guardian article says:

• "The survivors were tried on the spot and quickly executed; Mehrad watched as hundreds were hanged at gallows erected in the nearby town of Eslamabad. Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails. Amnesty estimates that more than 4,500 people were put to death, and some sources say the numbers were even higher."

An this is what the Amnesty International source says:

• Amnesty International's research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late ulay an early September 1988, thousands of political dissdents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in iranian detention facilities across teh country ad extraudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. May of those killed were subjected to toruture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatmet or punishment in the process

I did ask Saff V. about his objection, and his response was that my proposed text is "undue weight,saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15.", but this is inacurate (per the Guardian and Amnesty sources above). Can you please weight in on wether his objection is substantiated? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, it does not appear to be substantive. El_C 16:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Are you sure the only objection in this thread is that of Saff V.? Why are pretending as if only Saff V. had made objections?--Mhhossein ^talk 20:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

See this comment; for instance. Also, you had not elaborated why you tend to insert the POV of Amnesty (which is somewhat disputed) as a fact? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You need to be clear in your objections. What exactly are you objecting here with the proposed text? (please outline your points here clearly and in some detail). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The previous paragraphs relate to Mehrdad's narration, and the paragraph belongs to this sentence - Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails begins with Mehrdad's narration. It is hard for me to believe that this sentence should not be attributed to Mehrdad.Saff V. (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

My previous comment is detailed enough. One of the objections clearly outlined, is that "you had not elaborated why you tend to insert the POV of Amnesty (which is somewhat disputed) as a fact?" --Mhhossein ^talk 16:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Ok, I'll attribute Amnesty's statement to Amnesty. Would that be ok then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please see this comment? Another point is that if the quotation to be used, is on MEK. As far as I see, it's commenting on dissidents in general. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein: We cannot go digging through diffs to find out what you actually mean. Please present any objections in a clearly and concise manner. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No digging is needed, my previous objection still stands being clear enough and don't think it needs to be repeated. Please open the link and you'll see it. I'm ready to respond further. Also probably your forgot my latest point (the text being on MEK or dissidents in general). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

1) Dissidents also include the MEK, so we can say just that, MEK and dissidents. 2) saying that something is just "POV-ish" is not a substantive objection, specially when it involves actual research by Amnesty International. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If the source don't mention the MEK, we cannot include MEK and dissidents!Saff V. (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll include the first part of this since there doesn't seem to be any substantive dispute against including that. The text that seems to be objected is the following:

"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."

@El C: Saff V.'s and Mhhossein's objection to this is that the passage (above) does not mention the MEK. However, the source is about the dissidents that were executed in 1988 by the Iranian government, which (as the source says) includes the MEK:

"This happened shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war and an armed incursion that the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran... launched into Iran from their base in Iraq. Three days later, on 28 July, Iran's Supreme Leader, Rouhollah Khomeini, used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa (religious order) ordering the execution of all prisoners who remained "steadfast" in their support for the PMOI."

Are their objections substantive / is the passage ok for inclusion? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what they have to say in light of this first. Also, users need to be responsive in detail, Mhhossein —Stefka Bulgaria is right on that count— yes, even at the possible expense of some repetition. Referring editors elsewhere because you think whatever given issue had already been addressed, is just not gonna cut it. El_C 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, the source says "dissidents" which does not necessarily mean MEK. Yes, all MEK members were dissidents but the reverse is not always right. Your inclusion is adding an unnecessary level of POV to the text. Secondly, as I told you here "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 this claim. Now you are adding a sentence with pretty much the same meaning. So, you should go by either of them. Also, "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is just a POVish phrase. I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing. El_C: Why did you ask me to repeat my words with my diffs explicitly providing my objections. It's becoming like a GAME here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you consider whatever you're responding to have become repetitious, point that out, but again, do so in detail rather than just with see this diff. The point is you need to clearly demonstrate whatever it is you're saying —you need to use your words— up to and including claims of gaming the system. El_C 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I don't find Mhhossein's objections to be substantive for the following reasons (green text = Mhhossein's objections):

1) 'the source says "dissidents" which does not necessarily mean MEK. Yes, all MEK members were dissidents but the reverse is not always right.' Not true; as I pointed out in a previous comment, the source specifically says that these dissidents include the MEK.

2) 'Your inclusion is adding an unnecessary level of POV to the text.' I am only adding what Amnesty International's research says.

3) 'You are adding a sentence with pretty much the same meaning [as] "the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."' This is also inaccurate. The quote you pointed out refers to the IRI targeting MEK sympathisers since the 1980s up until the present day, and the one discussed here provides specific details about the the 1988 executions.

4) 'I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing.' This is not a valid argument; Amnesty International meets WP:RS, and all I'm doing is including their research into the article.

El_C? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Now Mhhossein gets to respond to that — do you see how this works? At some point you'll arrive at a compromise — or, you won't and further steps in the dispute resolution process would hopefully advance the impasse. Sure, it's possible that at some point I'll evaluate an argument to be unsubstantiated, but that outcome is not particularly likely. Either way, carry on. El_C 01:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let us know that how, without original research, the text would cover MEK. Also, if you agree that the mentioned quote, i.e. ""the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK," serves to cover "IRI targeting MEK sympathisers since the 1980s up until the present day," then it certainly covers the 1988 executions. So, just stop repeating it. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've already addressed both of Mhhossein's points in my previous post, so we're going around in circles. Can you weigh in please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I should continue my work here... Apparently, I'm an "anti-Iran[ian] who support[s] a terror group like The People's Mojahedin Organization [and am] totally unreliable to be an admin" [[14]. El_C 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I would implore you not to succumb to what looks like WP:BULLYING. You've greatly helped advancing the work here, and you've definitely been very efficient in moving edits forward in this and other Iranian-related topics. These topics are in dire need of an uninvolved admin's input, and you've been one of the very few to offer a helping hand. Your work here has been very inspiring to me, so please don't give up on it. On the other hand, I think one has to question the intent behind SharabSalam's false accusations; can someone just make WP:ASPERSIONS like to an admin without any repercussions? Unbelievable... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria, I appreciate the kind words! They have apologized, though, so I am ready to move on. This thread has been going on since June, so something needs to be done to turn the tide. Remind me what the two competing versions are? Anyway, perhaps it's best to launch an RfC about these and go from there...? El_C 15:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: You just failed to address my objections. I was clear enough with saying if you agree that the mentioned quote, i.e. ""the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK," serves to cover "IRI targeting MEK sympathisers since the 1980s up until the present day," then it [also] certainly covers the 1988 executions. So, just stop repeating it. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Which material of the source says that these dissidents include the MEK?Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I already responded to both these points in my previous posts, but here they are again:

• @Mhhossein: The text I’m asking to include is the following:”The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilites across the country and extrajudically executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.” This text specifically addresses the 1988 executions, providing details of how those prisoners were managed by the IRI. The text you are arguing is the same as this is “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK”; this refers to the general practices of the IRI towards the MEK, and not how the 1988 prisoners were managed.

• Saff V.: If you read the report, you’ll see that the majority of these dissidents included MEK members. Here are some quotes: ”A first wave of executions, beteen late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI, both men and women. According to survivors, interrogations alays started with a fateful question: “What is your political affiliation?” Those who proudly answered that they were “Mojahedin” (the appellation of the PMOI preferred for themselves) were immediately ordered to join a line which meant they would be executed.”; ” We are aware of the massacre of the men prisoners and assumed that the Mojahedin (PMOI) women prisoners had also been executed.”; ”If the official insisted on asking them to clarify which organization, most responded using the pejorative term “monafeqin” to avoid reprisal and only a few Said they were “Mojahedin”. Etc... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's go to review your answer, you say that we have in the source :The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilites across the country and extrajudically executed. In another hand, it is mentioned in the source that A first wave of executions, beteen late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI, both men and women. So it result dissidents includes MEK! @El C: Am I wrong, if I consider this answer the example of wp:OR?

@Stefka Bulgaria,As you said “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK” is a general description about execution of MEK. Why are you going to bring more detailed info that subject into article?Saff V. (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't view it as original research and am having a difficult time following your argument why this would be so. Also, is further historical detail really a bad thing? El_C 14:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, adding very detailed information about a marriage and a divorce didn´t seem to be a problem for Saff V. et al., but adding detailed information about executions is a problem? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a matter of adding details; the disputed content is in fact an absurd repetition. Also, I would object additions on those divorce/marriage, if the article already had something in that regards. Likewise, now, I object this absurd repetition on 'IRI tortured/poisoned MEK members' since the article is already featured with a general and clear comment, i.e. “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK”. The point is that, to add this general sentence, you used the portion of Amnesty, which you to wish add, to prove “the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK”, so adding that would clearly be over repetition of an already mentioned sentence. To summarize, the article already has a sentence saying IRI tortured MEK members and the sentence, you believe, is the abstract of multiple sources, one of them being Amnesty. That said, repeating almost the same thing from a source, already used for making a similar impression, is not a good idea. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Could you please tell me if Mhhossein´s last response is substantiated? Basically, I proposed that we add details about the way the IRI handled the 1988 executions of MEK members. Mhhossein´s objection is that we already have a sentence in the article saying that the IRI executes and tortures MEK supporters. My problem with that is that we do not have detailed information about how the IRI handled MEK prisoners during the 1988 executions, which is what I´m proposing to include. Thank you for your input as always. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not my only objection (I don't understand why you repeatedly ping El_C when you have not paid attention the other party's objection). As you see in my previous comment, the article already has a sentence saying IRI tortured MEK members and the sentence, which you believe (see this rather old discussion), is the abstract of multiple sources, one of them being Amnesty. That said, repeating almost the same thing from a source, already used for making a similar impression, is not a good idea. Your position is very week; you are trying to insert the POV of Amnesty, an advocacy group which is not a suitable source for adding historical details, while we have a closely similar sentence in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with a general statement being repeated in a more specific setting. That said, this is something all of you need to figure out for yourselves as I'm not particularly inclined to close this rather lengthy thread at this time, myself. Sorry. El_C 10:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not when the POV of an advocacy group is to be used for reporting that. Moreover, Amnesty was once used to support adding that general statement which itself was an abstract of multiple sources. Seems odd to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Amnesty International can be seen as a reliable source. But feel free to bring my decision up to review at RSN. I'm happy to go with with whatever the consensus is there. El_C 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: This lenghthy thread has come down to the inclusion of these two sentences by Amnesty International. The source for these two sentences meet WP:RS, and they provide further details into how the IRI managed MEK members during the 1988 executions. I´ve asnwered all of Mhhossein´s and Saff V.´s objections here. In the Ideological revolution and women's rights discussion, you closed in favor of adding detailed material about a divorce and marriage to the article. Can you please let me know if adding detailed material about the 1988 executions would be ok? (I need your consent here as I don´t see Mhhossein´s objection as substantive, and inserting this back into the article without your consent would likely lead in me getting reported to you). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

please tell the truth, that discussion was closed because of being long-standing text!Saff V. (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If it all comes down to whether Amnesty can be used as source, then indeed, that in my view would not constitute a tenable position and, in which case, I would be inclined to decide in favour of inclusion. But not quite yet. El_C 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: You really need to consider being careful when making comments. The discussion was not closed as a result of our discussion, it was indeed a longstanding text. As for other claims, you once used the source to say how IRI behaved towards the MEK members. Can anyone pay attention to this objection? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Here's the RSN result of Amnesty International being used as a source for this. The general consensus seems to be that it's ok to be included as long as it's attributed. May I include it with attribution to AI? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Affirmative. El_C 20:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C You said "If it all comes down to whether Amnesty can be used as source", and it was not only the quality of the source, I'm asking to remove the material. My objection is not still responded. can you see my latest comment in this subsection please? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I read it, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say. El_C 06:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I am wondering how every thing simply came "down to whether Amnesty can be used as source". To summarize, we had a discussion back in May on whether or not "the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK" was explicitly supported by the sources. The discussion was ended by you saying the sources, one of them being the Amnesty piece in question, were "quite compelling". So, we once used the source as as support for making a general statement and now it is used to express a very similar thing. This seems odd, to be honest. Another important point here is the way Stefka Bulgaria is (self?)-interpreting the RSN discussion. There are users (like [15] and [16]) besides stressing on how discriminated the source is, are suggesting to use higher quality sources instead.

To be frank, I think your major "if" is just ignored here by yourself. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is considerable objection in RSN that Stefka didn't mentioned them for instance, I mean the title of the piece is "Blood-Soaked Secrets: Why Iran's Prison Massacres are Crimes Against Humanity". That indicates a pretty strong bias on the subject or If it was all done according to Iranian law, then throwing in worlds like "extrajudicially" is pretty polemical.Saff V. (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Here we go... when a decision doesn't go your way, then the complaining and mudslinging begins (not only towards me but also towards the uninvolved admin that's helping move the editing forward in this page). I took it to RSN, the majority consensus was that it was ok for inclusion if attributed, and so I attributed it. Move on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's go to review the "1988 execution of MEK prisoners" section which included new added material by Stefka:

1) Stefka added that Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails while in the section we had 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. In the sentence added by him,thousands of MEK is not support by sorce and I want to ask isn't the secound sentence more detailed and related to article and why does it need to first sentence while we have secound one?

2) Stefka added that According to Amnesty International, "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 during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." while we have had in that section

According to Ervand Abrahamian, “thus began an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history.”

Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition.

The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants.

@El C: Do you agree that the new material added by Stefka does not give new detail info to the article? @ Stefka if you sure that "the majority consensus was that it was ok for inclusion if attributed" why didn't you let us to review it before inserting material into the article?Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I feel the discussion is being bludgeoned. There was consensus at RSN for inline attribution, and that's that. El_C 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry to bother you, but i think that the User:Mhhossein's disagreement can be investigated. How many times has the material of Amnesty International (as a disputed source) been used in the matter of executions in the MEK article?

• the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK

• According to Amnesty International, "thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearances in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed following an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and executed across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. The executions were carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government.

  Saff V. (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V., we've been discussing this for a while now, even with El_C responding "I don't think there's anything wrong with a general statement being repeated in a more specific setting." You've and Mhhossein complained about this text from it being WP:OR, to Amnesty not meeting WP:RS, to it being WP:POV, etc. etc... It was decided at WP:RSN that both the statement and source were ok to be included. See WP:DEADHORSE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion! and RSN is not the correct venue for deciding whether or not something should be included in the article. RSN is only for assessing the reliability of the sources. My understanding of this comment by El_C is that the consensus at the RSN would be deterministic "If it all comes down to whether Amnesty can be used as source" (see the edit summary saying "well, if it's that simple" while it was not really that simple!) The problem is that my major objection had nothing to with the reliability (while it was a concern for me). I have explained it multiple times, including here, and am ready to do it once more if it's needed. @El_C can you elaborate on that please? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither you or Saff V. had an issue with adding detailed information about a marriage / divorce to the article, but you both have had all kinds of issues (WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS, none of which apply) with adding more detailed information about the management of the 1988 executions? All of your concerns have been addressed here already by El_C (and myself), and you are indeed bludgeoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

These objections are not substantive enough, Mhhossein — and please don't refer me to edit summaries when you can simply pipe the diff. Again, I expect to be spoonfed the evidence rather than be forced to go hunting for it. Anyway, I really don't know what you expect Stefka Bulgaria to do here anymore, and even less what you expect me to do. Amnesty is one of the most preeminent human rights organizations in the world and its view is of major import, overall, in both the mainstream and the scholarship. The matter of original research or reliability of it as a source has been settled. Moving now to the argument that the addition is simply not needed rings hollow to me, I'm sorry to say. Because of that, and due to the months and months of discussion above, I'm inclined to accept the addition as de facto longstanding text. You may seek to gain consensus for its removal through an RfC. By all means, let some outside editors determine this once and for all. But, with respect to this addition, WP:ONUS (which is not a magic bullet) will now apply in the reverse. El_C 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C I never tried GAME you (I did not even think about that). I tried to ping you less, since I believed pinging you too much will be harassing. I tried to be sincere when editing, commenting and making objections. That said, seeing my objection is described as "ringing hollow to you" is just unpleasant and disappointing. I had made a sincere objection and I still believe it is right. With that description, I have nothing more to add here. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: sorry, it does ring hollow to me. But that is not a statement that impedes your motives (what you tried to do). What I am saying is that, regardless of your intent (which I always evaluate to be in good faith — sorry if it had come across otherwise), I believe you have exhausted your arguments here and are, effectively, running on fumes now with respect to this particular dispute (the optics of which, at least, are suboptimal). That is why I have decided that the addition has gone on to fulfill the requirements set out for it after months of discussion. If you still feel it isn't needed, you have the option to contest it by building consensus against it being featured in the article, via the launching of a separate RfC. *** For that matter, you have the option of contesting my overall role here and may do so at any time. That is to say, any editor is entitled to pose the argument that my role here has outlived its usefulness — following a discussion, if there isn't consensus for me to continue, I will withdraw from the article, wishing you all best of luck. (Not saying you, yourself, implied any of this, but I still want to be crystal clear that my unique role here relies on the expressed consent of participants, not on acts by fiat.) El_C 15:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I'm consent with you, at least me. As for the current discussion, RFC is a good option, but I've already put enough time on that. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References
References

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)

El_C: I just reverted since there were no consensus and note that I did not make further edits. I did not know it would be counted as edit war or things like this! As for Saff V., he had asked for opinion by other users, which means things were not settled down. 1991 uprisings in Iraq is linked once in the lead, one in the infobox, twice in the body. I think we may reduce the mentions in the body, since lead would probably the first place the readers will encounter the title. I have more objections; MEK launched three major military operations against, not one, with the most known one being Mersad Operation. Why should not not they be mentioned in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, as I have already said, I have presented an objection (which you are repeatedly 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]

If you don't think that is a fair compromise, then propose your own text addressing these concerns. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm delayed. I'll come with my proposal.

@El C: It's been over week since there was a response about this. Can I go ahead an insert Saff V.'s last proposed text?:

"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]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not. A week is more than enough time to wait for talk page editorial input. El_C 06:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I was on a trip and I could not comment here. '1991 nationwide uprisings' needs to get linked to its article. 1991 uprisings in Iraq is linked once in the infobox and twice in the body. I think we may reduce the mentions in the body and instead have a link in the lead, since lead would probably the first place the readers will encounter the term. Also, can anyone tell me why just one of the MEK's operations against Iran is mentioned here (MEK launched three major offensives against Iran, e.g see Operation Forty Stars? -Mhhossein ^talk 02:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just linked it. Will look into this about the operations and get back to you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I've just added Operation Forty stars in the lede as requested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

operations Aftab (Sunshine) is missing. Saff V. (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Having another look at this, I'm starting to see that the MEK's involvement in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq seems to derive from unconfirmed allegations, which the MEK denies. Can someone provide a RS that confirms the MEK took part in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq? Also, the MEK's collaboration with Saddam is still repeated in the article more than required:

• "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
• "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
• "it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
• "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
• "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
• "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
• "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
• "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"
• "...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"

Can someone justify why each of these needs inclusion? (alternatively, we should remove some). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We need a couple of RSs that confirm the MEK was involved in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq. Without this, this allegation should be removed from the lede and corrected in the body. Someone also needs to justify why the collaboration with Saddam Hussain needs to be repeated so many times in the article as shown above. Lack of reply implies consent for me to go ahead and fix this in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide RS(es) for your claim, "which the MEK denies" to collaborate in the 1991 uprisings?Saff V. (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the sources mentioned in the lead (time, parliamentary library and Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin), the following sources confirm the cooperation of the Mojahedin with Saddam in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq:

• he organosation had committed itself to armed struggle against the Iranian regime and had allowed itself to be used by Saddam in repressing the 1991 uprising and as a tool to pressurize Iran. In exchange, Saddam allowed the MEK the use of a military base in Diyala … source
• The Iraq government accuses the MEK of supporting Saddam’s regime against the people of Iraq during the March 1991 uprising source
• Iraqis for example have little interest for good or ill in the fate of the MEK the aging Iranian militant group and quasicult that split from the Iranian regime shortly after the Islamic revolution and spent the 1980s and 90s inside Iraq as favored clients of Saddam , who used them as fighters in the Iran-Iraq war and in the crushing of the 1991 uprising. source Saff V. (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You had more completely listed all the duplicates in this edit that did not result in any consequences. I have to say again that not all of them is duplicated, some referring to the collaborate of Saddam and MEK at different times (1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime, human rights abuses in the early 1990s, In 1983, Near the end of the 1980–88 war) and some belongs to the reaction of the people for this cooperation (the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem or reaction of Pahlavi).Saff V. (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lets do one at a time. How are these different from each other? (please address one by one, explaining why each is different from the next):

• "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
• "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
• "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
• "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
• "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
• "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
• "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It is better to provide a complete sentence instead of picking up a part of it as well as discuss one by one:

• 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) was founded.

• 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 suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.

• 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]. [...] If the choice is between this regime and the MEK, they will most likely say the mullahs".

• In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.

Saff V. (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I also think those portions should not be used out of context. For example, the fort sentence is on NLA's activities and the second one is on MEK's involvement in crushing the uprising in Iraq. It's not clear why, for instance, why "assisted the Republican Guard" should be removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka: You asked for a reliable source that confirms MEK collaborated with Saddam against the 1991 uprisings. I think you already know, but to refresh your memory, here it goes:

In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991

I find it hypocritical that you first object to including the above quote in the article on the basis of having already existing similar statements. And later you say the quote is not supported by the very same sentences.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. put the statement in context, but that still doesn't address the fact that the particular parts that I've outlined are unnecessarily repeated. Addressing each point raised, please explain how the parts specific to "Saddam Hussain" are not repeated in the text I've pointed out above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to pick up some sentecse from article because they contain "Saddam Hussain" word?Really? I told you multitime (1 and 2) that not all of them is duplicated, some referring to the collaborate of Saddam and MEK at different times (1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime, human rights abuses in the early 1990s, In 1983, Near the end of the 1980–88 war) and some belongs to the reaction of the people for this support (the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem or reaction of Pahlavi).Saff V. (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think you finally got it, the word "Saddam Hussain" is repeated unnecessarily throughout the article, and I'm not referring to the times where it's used to describe a specific event, but when it's used to describe the same event (ie. the Iran-Iraq war). This is why I provided a list above, and asked you to address why each individual line was different from the next. You still haven't addressed that though. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no same event,

• The first sentence belongs to the foundation of NLA (at the end of Iraq and Iran) with siding of Saddam.
• Second is the reaction of the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia to support of Saddam in the 1991 nationwide uprisings
• The third is the reaction of Pahlavi to the collaboration of Saddam and MEK in Iraq and Iran war.
• At the Forth, participate of MEK in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings is mentioned as well as it belongs to lead (the section is the summary of whole article)
• The fifth and sixth sentences are a little similar but you have to pay attention that one of them belongs to the lead which is the summary of all material of the article, as a result, they are not repeated.Saff V. (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I second that. Besides, here are a few more sources that confirm MEK's assistance to Saddam in supressing the 1991 uprisings:

• "1991: The MEK participates in suppressing the Shi'ite and Kurdish uprising", The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women, Volume 2: Extremist Groups, By Cengage Gale

• "Saddam supported the MEK for twenty years, and they repaid his loyalty in 1991 by helping suppress the Kurdish uprising.", The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End By Peter W. Galbraith

• "In 1991, the group reportedly assisted in the Iraqi Republican Guard's bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein", Terrorism Documents of International and Local Control: Volumes 90 and 91, Page 340, Howard S. Levie, Donald J. Musch, Douglas C. Lovelace, Yonah Alexander

• "The Kurds and Shiite Arabs have long reviled the MEK because Saddam Hussein used it to help put down their uprising", Historical Dictionary of the Kurds - Page 217, Michael M. Gunter

--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's do two at a time:

• "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."

• "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."

Please explain in some detail how these two statements are not repeated statements. Failure to address the specific concern will lead to the removal of one of these statements. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You sound irrelevant. I am saying MEK helped Saddam suppress Kurds (as well as Shias and Turkmen). A fact that was not stated in the article so far.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria why dont pay attention you to responses and then warn if there was any sufficient answer, you will remove! you have to wait for a consequence and paying attention to answers!As I said 4 dayes ago, they are not repeated, the first (In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein...) belongs to the lead which is the summary of all material of the article, and the secound belonges to rhe body. All of material included in the lead repeats in the body, Are you ging to remove all material from lead because they are mentioned in to body?!

@Kazemita1:I wonder if you devote another disscusion to death of Kurdish or others in another secteion. It might help us to follow disscusions sufficiently.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so we've established the MEK's collaboration with Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war in the lede and in the body. Can you then justify why it's repeated here again:

• "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) was founded."

• "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]. [...] If the choice is between this regime and the MEK, they will most likely say the mullahs"."

• "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."

Please don't say that this is to "illustrate the author's POV". We've established the MEK collaborated with Saddam already during the Iraq-Iran war, we don't need a statement from every author to confirm this over and over again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have explained you multi time, the foundation of NLA (at the end of Iraq and Iran) with siding of Saddam or reaction of Pahlavi for Saddam and MEK collaboration or attack of MEK to civilians during Iran Iraq war are not duplicated, each of them emphasises on the specific issue. @El C: It really bothers me to repat same answers for Stefka again and again because he repeats your question without paying attention to user's answer!(1, 2, 3).Saff V. (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., I understand your point that each mention of the MEK's collaboration with Saddam Hussain reflects a particular event. However, that doesn't resolve the issue that all these points can be resumed without repeating the same information so many times. Let's take the lede for example"

• "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.[55] In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris,[56][57] so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][48]

That can be resumed into the following:

• " In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris,[56][57] so it took base in Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK assisted Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings[60][61][48], a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[55]

If you have a particular objection with this, please present it in a clear and concise manner so we may discuss it properly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You just removed the Saddam name, didn't it?all these points can be resumed without repeating the same information so many times, because there is no information. Do you want to summarize the single sentences which of them belongs to unique sections.Saff V. (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Please present a clear and concise objection (if you have one). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You just remove the name of Saddam, dosnot is?I cannot understand why it is important to remove the name of Saddam?!Saff V. (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's just odd to me seeing the guy in favor of keeping the chrono order of the events is now violating his own rule for the sake of having the desired version. The current text is quite good. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: It's important to remove because it's repeated unnecessarily. @Mhhossein: I don't see you presenting a substantiated objection to this edit. @El C: sorry to keep pinging you, but Mhhossein and Saff V. just won't comprise one bit. I don't see a substantiated objection on their last responses; do you? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I do. The argument is to retain the chronological order. El_C 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, if chronological order is the issue, then this would solve it:

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War including Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. Thist was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq."

Any (clear and concise) objections with this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said befor you did not pay attention to my word! The first sentence STARTED with Saddam and MEK collaboration on 1983 but you brought at the end of sentence some operations occurred on 1988! So retaining the chronological order has been denied!@El C: Stefka started this discussion to pick up duplicated material, but I explained to him that there is no duplicated material which of them refer to specific operation or year or some of them are reaction of individuals to describe this collaboration between Saddam and MEK, I repeated it multi-times (1, 2, 3 since 22 July! Please leave a comment to stop this loop! In addition, does not Stefka's attempt to just remove the name of Saddam interpreted as tendentious?Thanks any way!Saff V. (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., it's difficult to understand you. What exactly is my proposed text missing? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka consider this sentence: "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War including Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. you wrote in 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein , while Operation Mersad and Operation Forty Stars took place on 1988!is it clear!?your summarization is not true.Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V., didn't the Iran–Iraq War continue up until 1988? My summary aims to include all the events the MEK was involved with (chronologically) in regards to its cooperation with Saddam Hussain. I've redrafted it, I don't think it can be clearer:

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, as well as in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. This was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq."

Is that better? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Pardon, have you seen the notification of pinging?Saff V. (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen it, but I was (briefly) on strike! Again, Stefka Bulgaria, the arguments made against your redrafting is that the original is doing it better, both in providing more detail and in outlining events in a more orderly chronological flow (you go from 1983 to 1991, then back to 1986). Myself, I do find it a bit jumbled, sorry. El_C 15:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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 [17], [18] and [19], 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 [20].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)

@Mhhossein: About your sources concerning Shireen Hunter: this first is not a RS, the second says "page not found", and the third is another allegation by a former MEK member (many of those in this article, but they are as reliable as allegations by current MEK members). Please provide a reliable source beyond Hunter; none of the sources you provided so far can be used to Wiki-voice this allegation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume the first source is not reliable. Find the second here. As for the third, yes, a former MEK member is saying this, but the point that there are various sources saying this. How about this one saying "“The money definitely comes from Saudis,” says Ervand Abrahamian, a professor at the City University of New York and author of the definitive academic work on the group’s history, The Iranian Mojahedin. “There is no one else who could be subsidising them with this level of finance.” Do you want more sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

1) Mintpress, an "independent watchdog, does not meet WP:RS
2) Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult, written by Trita Parsi, also does not meet WP:RS
3) “There is no one else who could be subsidising them with this level of finance.” sounds more of a guess based on eliminating possibilities than a grounded assertion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In any case, there are unnecessary headings in this section and some irrelevant and repeated text, and it's untidy to read. I propose we change to the following:

Ties to foreign and non-state actors

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. Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.

According to Ronen Cohen, Israel's foreign intelligence agency maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s. Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States. According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.

According to Ervand Abrahamian, while dealing with anti-regime clergy in 1974, the MEK became close with secular Left groups in and outside Iran. These included the confederation of Iranian Students, The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, and the People's Front for the Liberation of Oman, among others. The MEK sent five trained members into South Yemen to fight in the Dhofar Rebellion against Omani and Iranian forces.

Any objections? (if so, please provide your proposed text) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hold on! You're ignoring all the sources; Why do you think Trita Parsi is not reliable? MEK's receiving support from Saudi Arabia is not restricted to these sources:

Newsweek

After Saddam's fall, many experts have speculated that Saudi Arabia, Iran's arch rival, took over funding for the group.

National interest

Though Saudi Arabia has supported some Shia groups in the Iraq, the evolving MEK-Saudi alliance prove again that realpolitik and geopolitical concerns trump sectarian differences across the Middle East.

The american conservative

Saudi backing for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) would help explain where the group gets its money to pay its credulous American fans

--Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: First, I am not "ignoring all the sources", so please don't make baseless accusations. Second, I proposed a text that helps clean up the section. Can you please do the same so we may try to reach a compromise? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a baseless accusation, see the sources! As for your suggestion, I support the current status and subsections.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The text I proposed includes numerous RSs, so I'm not "ignoring all the sources". Second, you haven't presented an argument against my changes. For instance, on what basis do you justify keeping the subheading "After exile"? and subheading "State-sponsorship", which only consists of one sentence? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

On what basis that justifies keeping the "State sponsorship" section? Also, you still haven't addressed the "After exile" subheading. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which the material belongs to After exile or before that, All of should be included in "State sponsorship" section.Saff V. (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On September 3rd I proposed a clean up of this section. Can either of you propose your clean up of this section please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your suggestion and I explained it was not necessary to make such an edit. See my previous comment in this thread. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Over a week ago, I proposed a clean up of the "Ties to foreign actors" section, mainly involving the removal of what seem unnecessary subheadings: "After exile" (no need for this since we don' have a "Before exile" subheading anymore), "State sponsorship" (a subsection that only consists of one sentence, and be merged under section's current heading), and "Non-state actors" (which can be merged together with the section's current heading):

Ties to foreign and non-state actors

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. Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.

According to Ronen Cohen, Israel's foreign intelligence agency maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s. Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States. According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.

I then asked Mhhossein and Saff V. to provide a proposed text if they objected, but they have not. It just feels like an unwillingness on their behalf to come to a compromise. I've waited for over a week but they're not providing any alternative solutions,. What can I do here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

They are not required to provide a proposed text (if they prefer the existing one), nor are they required to compromise — though that is, of course, encouraged. What you do in the case of an impasse is pursue dispute resolution. El_C 06:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria Why do you want to change it to provided paragraph of this edit?Saff V. (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

On my part, I have shown my willingness for reaching a compromise. I have already detailed my objections in my previous comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel you have shown a willingness to address the specific concerns raised here; but rather, you simply seem to object them, so will take this to dispute resolution as El_C has suggested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria I repeat my question again, Why do you want to change it to provided paragraph of this edit?Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: If you read my previous posts, you should find detailed responses to your question. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide link?Saff V. (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've proposed here that the section Ties to foreign actors has unnecessary sub-sections that can be merged into a single section title: "Ties to foreign and non-state actors". To this, Mhhossein replied that "IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section". I find this to be an unsubstantiated response because the material currently under "State-sponsorship" only consists of one sentence that can be merged with the rest of the section, and Mhhossein is also failing to address the other subsections "After exile" and "non-state actors" (which can also be merged without any issues).

Would you agree that Mhhossein's response is unsubstantiated? If so, may I go ahead with fixing this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that WP:FALSEBALANCE can be viewed as a non-response response. El_C 14:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have another proposal. We keep the "state-sponsorship" subsection and remove the "after exile" one. This way Stfka's concern that some of the subsections have only one line is addressed. Furthermore, the following sentences in the current form of the article directly relate to "state-sponsorship" and is another reason to keep the title:

Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States.[366] According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.[171]

Moreover, one would expect "after exile" is preceded by "before exile" which currently does not exist. Therefore, to cause a minimum change in the article and cover Stefka's concerns, I say we simply remove the "after exile" subsection. I ask everyone to comment @El C:, @Saff V.:, @Mhhossein:, @Stefka Bulgaria:Kazemita1 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita, if you want to include further text, we can discuss the WP:DUE and WP:RS backing up the claims. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and make these changes based on WP:FALSEBALANCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

@Stefka Bulgaria:You seem to willfully ignore people's comment that resonates WP:Disruptive editing in mind. First of all, I did not propose to include anything. I just suggested a different way to merge sub-sections as an alternative to your proposal. Second, El_C did not agree to removing a sourced content; he responded to your merging request.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This TP discussion has been going on since august 16th; you only joined this discussion after El_C confirmed that "WP:FALSEBALANCE can be viewed as a non-response response". I also took this discussion to DRN to try and discuss this with Mhhossein there, but he refused, and failed to address the concerns here too. My other edits (mostly concerning removing repeated material) were all explained in my edit summaries. If you have any specific concerns, you may start a new TP discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Just look at your edit to which El_C responded and you know what I mean.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

One edit concerns what has been discussed in this TP, and the others are not discussed in this TP but explained in the edit summaries. Doesn't all the text in the "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section conform to its current title without any issues? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• El_C: Did you allow to make such an edit? In what terms are IR POV with regards to this Iran opposition group is considered WP:FALSEBALANCE? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• In a terms of when additions are rejected on the basis of a lack of a counter-view. Which does not preclude anyone from adding such a counter-view as sourced content. But as a basis for an objection, it's a non-starter. As for your question: it's always best to include a diff when employing terms such as "such an edit" — that way I know what you're actually talking about. Please be cognizant about making this easy for me to immediately parse. El_C 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible violation of restrictions

• El_C: Is not this edit a violation of the article's restrictions? Note that the mentioned portion was previously removed by Stefka Bulgaria on 15 August 2019 which was then reverted by me. We then engaged in discussing the issue (you can see my elaboration on my objection and Saff V.'s comment). Then, after this edit, where Stefka Bulgaria asked to consider one dispute at a time since he thought things was "getting clogged up without concerns really being addressed", we continued talking about merging the subsections and the group's exile dates, and there was no more talks on the sentences regarding the assassination of the nuclear scientists. But, in the violation of the article's restrictions, he again restored the disputed content, without trying to build consensus. In light of your previous warning to him and cases such as this which you said his change "should probably not have been made without further discussion", I ask you to address the issue. I avoided reverting and would like you to take care of his violation yourself. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I've self-reverted per your concerns. Now, can you justify why this text, which is repeated in the article, should be kept? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not how it works Stefka. "Per WP:ONUS, longstanding text is not viewed on par with new text being introduced.". You are the one who is supposed to justify newly introduced changes to the longstanding version. Which right from the start has issues. Alos, El_C stated

here what I have been telling you from the beginning. @Mhhossein: just revert the article to the longstanding version shown Kazemita1 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&oldid=917366538 here.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Admin comment please @El C: Can you please comment on this blatant violation? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever violation has become moot due to it having been self-reverted. If you disagree with an addition, please provide a substantive objection to it so that the editor introducing the edit knows what they are responding to. El_C 05:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen here the diffs show that Stefka removed sourced content from longstanding text. So it is Stefka who is supposed to justify it by providing substantive reasons. And no, he has not self-reverted all of his changes yet. So the violation still stands.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Is it the way this agreement work? we can violate, if the violation is discovered, we can then revert? He needs to be warned for this violation. Also, the violation still stands! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, within reason, self-reverting is indeed allowed upon discovery. As for substantive reasons, I thought that's what the section above is about. El_C 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefka removed the following sourced content from longstanding text:

American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran.

During the years MEK was based in Iraq, it was closely associated with the intelligence service Mukhabarat (IIS)

The content was well sourced and not repeated. Moreover he merged subsections without proper justification. There were alternatives as I had mentioned earlier.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C:...and what would happen if I had not discovered his violation. I mean, be it discovered or not, he just made it knowingly and it is just reasonable to ask him not repeat this again. It is some sort of edit war amid an ongoing discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1) I didn't "made it knowingly" 2) I have addressed it below (while you still haven't, but seem mainly concerned with me receiving a warning instead) 3) In the future, you can let me know and I'll fix it (see WP:AGF). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You've complained about an edit I made, but as usual, have not addressed the edit itself. I'll make it as easy as possible for you to address it. This is what I removed:

• NBC news reported that U.S. officials under the condition of anonymity confirmed "Israel teamed with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists"

• it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel"

Because it's repeated already here:

• 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.[195][196][197] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[198][199]

• Haaretz published that Mohammad Java Larijani made the "unsubstantiated allegation" to NBC-TV News that "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never back up with evidence".[201]

• A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.[290]

• On February 9, 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence.[201]

Can you give your reasoning as to how this text is not repeated (and as such, should not be removed)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This subsection is dedicated to your violation, so please don't bludgeon it with other stuff. Instead can you say why you ignored our discussion and reverted into your desired version? Btw, you can see my explanations in the section dedicated to these assassinations. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find your substantiated objection for this edit anywhere. Could you please provide it here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka:You are appealing to Straw man fallacy in not justifying your edit. I told you that the following is not repeated anywhere in the article and yet you removed it:

American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The statement is not supported by the source (this was explained on my edit summary). Let's sort out one edit at a time, starting with the edit that Mhhossein complained about. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe have some of these items as explanatory notes, because there is indeed some repetition here. That would be a good compromise. @Stefka Bulgaria: please decide whether these bold edits really worth the trouble for you, or whether it would just be easier to make proposals on the talk page first and go from there. El_C 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In this section, Mhhossein made a complain to you saying that an edit I made was in violation of the article's restrictions. I then self-reverted per Mhhossein's comments, and asked him to address the edits themselves (which, to me, were perfectly valid edits). It's been over a week and Mhhossein hasn't addressed the edits, he's only reply was "This subsection is dedicated to your violation, so please don't bludgeon it with other stuff.". I have two questions:

1) Because Mhhossein hasn't addressed the edit, can I restore it back into the article?

2) Isn't this the same continuing behavioural pattern where instead of trying to better the article through suggestions or improvements, he reverts the whole thing and just complains/objects without a constructive way forward towards reaching consensus?

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: indeed, this article is edited actively, so if you issue objections, you need to be prepared to follow up within a reasonable time frame. Thanks. El_C 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello every body, yeah we need to be active...anyway, I agree the first portion, i.e. "NBC news reported that U.S. officials...", is truly repeated, so do it please. But I am against removing the other since that does not belong to the NBC news affair and is used in another context. Removal of the quotation leaves the Ariane M. Tabatabai's statement imbalanced and POVish. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: are you saying that this:

"it is suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel"

is not repeated here?:

"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. Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."

Is that correct? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't say you had not understand what I meant by "Removal of the quotation leaves the Ariane M. Tabatabai's statement". See the complete sentence: "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the 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."" --Mhhossein ^talk 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the statement is attributed to Ariane M. Tabatabai, then that means that it's not repeated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No, don't misquote him. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What? can you please answer the question? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Just mentioning the Tabatabai's sentence could make the article unbalanced if attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists are picked up from the rest of sentence.Saff V. (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: in this TP discussion I complained that this sentence:

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the 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."

is basically repeated here:

"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. Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."

I asked Mhhossein to present a valid objection for not removing the first sentence since this incident was already mentioned in the article, and his response was "Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words". Then Saff V. objected by saying "Just mentioning the Tabatabai's sentence could make the article unbalanced if attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists are picked up from the rest of sentence". I can't see why what Saff V. and Mhhossein are saying justifies including a repeated event in the article. Can you please weigh in? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Find a way to merge whatever isn't repeated into one overarching narrative, would be my immediate suggestion. El_C 22:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V. and @Mhhossein: can you please present a merger of this text (as instructed by El_C) that you'd be happy with? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

by the respect to Admin comment, Merger of these two separate text break the balance of each section which they are mentioned and made a new problem!Saff V. (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And the evidence of refusing to work together towards a consensus keeps piling on... The text is repeated, literally repeated. El_C suggested a merge of the text, and I give you the option to merge it as you see fit, but you won't even compromise in your own terms. @El C: if I suggest a compromise, they just refuse it, so I give them the option to suggest a compromise, and they refuse that as well. The text here is clearly repeated, and we can easily merge Tabatabai's statement together with the statement by U.S. officials since they are both saying the same thing. Doesn't this continuing refusal to compromise disrupt the editing process? (I'm not looking for these editors to receive further sanctions or warnings, just want to honestly understand why this is permitted). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion was just that — a suggestion. It was not an instruction. You have your dispute resolution requests to use as a resource, so try to get some outside input. If the balance of two sections becomes affected from a merge, as Saff V. is arguing, that is something that is worthy of further discussion. El_C 16:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editing decisions on the inclusion of text should reflect: ...the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only...etc.. Many of the opinions expressed below are little more than just that: personal opinions expressed without reference to either policies or citations. After eliminating those, the remaining opinions are approximately evenly divided and therefore no consensus has been established for making the proposed edits. (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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.[21]), 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)

• Comment Why is "because of the nature of the government in Iran." in double quotes and the quotes aren't paired? Ignoring the formatting problems, there are three sources listed. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment First, out of the two options provided, the original content was a more accurate rephrasing of the source used (see Ostovar, p. 74). I am, however, uncertain about this point because the source used did not provide evidence to support the claim regarding the view of the Iranian majority. Second, this article has already stated that MEK was banned in Iran, driven underground, with the government hunting and executing symphatizers. So indicating that we cannot be certain whether this organization lost standing or appeal in the homeland may not be accurate since Iran aggressively repressed it. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No: Per WP:UNDUE weight problem. This will lend undue weight to an idea. Cohen is not enough for this claim. DIYeditor's comment on formatting is right.Forest90 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. The first choice of wording (the one that's currently up) is evidently preferable since it offers statements of fact, trivially supported by sources. It is, as it happens, a statement of fact that Mojahedin-e Khalq's decision (and there was such a decision) to side with Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War (and they did side with Iraq) was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians (and it was viewed as such). It is also a fact, also supported by numerous sources, that this decision harmed significantly ("destroyed" is not an inaccurate term) their appeal in Iran. It is the second choice, the one being proposed in this RfC, which is actually the non-neutrally worded option. -The Gnome (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Can't help but disagree with The Gnome's vote. Unless there is an official survey in Iran about this (one that allows Iranian people to actually express themselves freely without fear of serious consequences implemented by the government), there aren't any "facts" about what Iranian people think or don't think about this. Cohen's words describe this neutrally because such survey is impossible in Iran, making his observation more accurate than what's currently on the article (what's currently in the article only portrays the IRI's POV, and not what can actually be measured as "fact"). - MA Javadi (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There does not appear to be a neutral, independent survey in Iran regarding this, and replacing it with the 2nd phrase would be more neutral (WP:NPOV). Taewangkorea (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There is no credible survey in Iran about what Iranians think. So the second sentence is neutral. Tradedia^talk 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• No: Lead is not the place for inserting the POV of an author as a fact. More high quality sources are needed, per WP:UNDUE, for making such a big claim. Besides, DIYeditor correctly questioned the sourcing here. Three citations are provided, but just one of them support the disputed quotation (which is the POV of the author, not a fact). Some users questions the survey in Iran and try to support their position in this way, while these arguments are Original Research. In summary, we go by the reliable sources according to their weight.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's is not the author's "POV", but a fact that the Iranian Government targets MEK supporters in Iran: . And it is also a fact that there is no official or accessible survey (or anything close to it) that can determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:No Original Research does not let you just use those self recognized facts to reach your desired conclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1) They are not "self-recongnized" facts, there are plenty of RSs in the article that confirm the IRI targets MEK sympathizers 2) It not my "desired conclusion", it's Cohen's conclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That's it and why are you trying to push Cohen's conclusion as a fact into the lead of the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. MEK is unwanted in Iran. An evidence of this is when they attacked their own country after the Iran-Iraq cease-fire during Operation Mersad. Long story short, they received no support from the residents and were crashed in early stages of their invasion. Iranian people don't like terrorists. If you don't believe me see photos here.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The MEK waged war on the IRI, not on Iran, so your vote is a red herring. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you want (IRI, Iran). So long as an Iranian citizen is killed during an MEK operation, MEK is considered a terrorist group. The most recent of which being targeting nuclear scientists. Kazemita1 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Recent edits by Kazemita1

@El C: Kazemita1 has recently made a number of edits to this article that come across as controversial (and are also backed by controversial sources). I've taken them to WP:RSN (here and here), where I'm getting feedback that they are indeed controversial sources. Is it ok to restore the long-standing version of the article and discuss the sources / statements here futher before including them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Without having looked into any of that: if you're confident your objection is substantive, then, yes. El_C 00:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no definite opinion for being un-usable source.Saff V. (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is why it requires further discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Further analysis of Kazemita1's edits

The following is a list of text I will remove from Kazemita1's recent edits. I'm also including my reasons. Feel free to comment.

• "According to Glenn Greenwald, the main reason behind America's delisting MEK from as a terrorist group is because MEK is "aligned against the prime enemy of the US and Israel - and working closely with those two nations." - This is an opinion piece.

• Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule. - Most of this is repeated already in the article, and the source is being debated at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The MEK’s repertoire of operations includes suicide bombings, airline hijackings, ambushes, crossborder raids, RPG attacks, and artillery and tank barrages." - Most of this is repeated already in the article, and the source is being debated at WP:RSN.

• "However, their use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties" - Source is being questioned at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• "According to Abbas Milani, "MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days." - Lacks context.

@El C: The title of the subsection is "Violence and Terrorism". The book is published by Stanford's Hoover Institution. The author is a Stanford professor. I do not find Stefka's objection substantive.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• "According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties. - Source is being debated at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran." - WP:UNDUE and no context.

• "Rajavi and the MEK supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and opposed the Afghan mujahedin struggling against it." - Source is being debated at WP:RSN.

• "Iran experts Flynt Leverett wrote: Since when did murdering unarmed civilians (and, in some instances, members of their families as well) on public streets in the middle of a heavily populated urban area (Tehran) not meet even the US government's own professed standard for terrorism""Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group". The Guardian. Associated Press. September 23, 2012.</ref>: - Source is being debated at WP:RSN.

The discussion leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, Is Stefka Bulgaria allowed to remove material while not all of used sources by Kazemita 1 were failed in RSN (here and here). For instance, some users said that meforum would be used by care or there is no agreement to reject the reliability of cia. Saff V. (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Above I have presented the reasons why I objected each edit. I also wrote that you are welcome to address these issues so that we may build consensus over their inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Until consensus is reached, longstanding text ought to be the order of the day. Sorry, but I'm not able to evaluate how substantive objection/s (and arguments overall) are at a glance because this discussion thread is too disjointed, lacks concision, and is simply not cogent enough for me to make such a determination. Please feel free to summarize the highlights of each position below this space. El_C 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can I ask you to warn Stefka not to erase too much of this stuff in one edit?! Each sentence needs a section to discuss and it is really annoying to have all the discussions in one section?Saff V. (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You want an admin to warn me for removing contentious material from a controversial article? Right... Moving on, if you want a section to be created per each edit Kazemita made, all you have to do is create a section per each edit. Below I've started with the first controversial edit, and added my response. Feel free to do the same for any other edit you'd like to discuss. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, admin Diannaa also removed all of Kazemita1's edits per copy-right vio. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I think a new restriction is needed to prevent adding or removing too much content for every user per day (for example!).It is just a suggestion which helps us to follow discussions more carefully.Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to propose additional restrictions. If there is consensus for these, they will be enforced. El_C 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #1

• "According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.

Beyond the reliability of the source (which was still under debate), User "The Four Duces" made the following observation:

The disputed edit is ""According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." That's awkward phrasing since the claim is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. It happens to be true, so mentioning the source in text is wrong. The full sentence in the source says: "The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." It seems therefore that the remarks are taken out of context. MEK has killed civilians as collateral damage. That's a fact. Different observers may find that to be acceptable or unacceptable. After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions. You need a source that explains the general opinion of their actions, which this source does not do.

Taking the source's remarks out of contexts seems like a legitimate concern.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A solution to your concern would be to include the full quote(of course after paraphrasing):

The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.

This is crucial to include in the article since we already have conflicting sources in the article debating whether MEK targets civilians or not.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with "After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions". Our serious issue as Kazemita1 mentioned is whether MEK targets civilians or not. It is allowed to include pov of Chris Zambelis from source (Jamestown Foundation) which the reliability of it was confirmed by most of users in RSN.Saff V. (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Counting the previous WP:RSN and this WP:RSN about Jamestown foundation, the majority consensus is that a better source than this is required for contentious claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that carte blanche verdicts do not count. The way it works is that you ask about ONE source for ONE edit. As a matter of fact, in your inquiry the editors specifically asked you if you are referring to Jamestown Foundation "as a whole or just one article". To which you responded "Just that one article". So I guess you already know the rules. By the way, there is an older inquiry about Jamestown Foundation as a whole that also leans heavily towards accepting it as a reliable source.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I wonder if you give your opinion about this discussion inRSN? Is it useable in the article or as Stefka claimed the better source is needed? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. As a reliable source per se., it's probably fine, but that said, it doesn't appear to be a particularly high-quality source. As for the specific usage contested here and elsewhere — well, that's what the content dispute is about. El_C 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is already discussed and we know that there's no concern when attribution is done (see WP:RSN and this this). @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you say how you found the majority consensus in this discussion "that a better source than this is required for contentious claims", even when attribution is done? I think it's actually the reverse, and most of the comments agree that the sources can, at least, be used with proper attributions. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C:. I understand you would rather see other sources that support Jamestown Foundation's argument on civilian casualties. I am wondering if the following ones do:

• "The group primarily resorted to assassination of key Iranian politicians and coordinated terrorist attacks that sometimes included civilian casualties", Compliant Rebels: Rebel Groups and International Law in World Politics By Hyeran Jo, Cambridge University Press

• "MEK carried out a number of attacks in Iran which resulted in civilian as well as military casualties", Global security: Iran, By Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee

Essentially, do you find the above in line with what Jamestown Foundation says

MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties

Kazemita1 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The quotes in your last post refer to the 1991 uprisings, which is unrelated to this discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Did you remove one of my comments from this TP? You know you can't edit other users' comments, right? Please re-insert my comment to this TP. Also, if you want to have a discussion about the MEK's tactics, then we could through a NPOV discussion (not only using your preferred choice of sourcing). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mycomments are moved to the right section and your comments are put back to where it was. I understand it if you cannot top Cambridge University Press.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of suggested sources, we can restore the edit with the attribution to Jamestown Foundation. Is there any objection?Saff V. (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed TFD's objections. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I see, his objections does not prohibit us from using the sentence in context while being attributed. By the way, can you just say why you ignored the comments by collect 1 and Blueboar 2? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said befor, It is allowed to include pov of Chris Zambelis from source (Jamestown Foundation) which the reliability of it was confirmed by most of users in RSN, why do you just emphasis on TFD's objections which solve with attribiution!Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I wonder if you leave comment for consensus assessment.Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Do I need to read all the other subsections, too? Absent these, there seems to be consensus for including the source — objection against which is not substantive enough. Unless, again, it is addressed and made substantive below. Is it? El_C 15:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, There is no need to read all the other subsections.Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #2

• "Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule."

Where this text is repeated in the article:

• "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
• "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
• "it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
• "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
• "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
• "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
• "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
• "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"
• "...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This piece from the above mentioned text is missing in the article

In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991

Kazemita1 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I still haven't heard from anyone. My concern is clear. There is no mention of MEK helping the Iraqi regime repress Kurds and Turkmen in 1991. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As it has been discussed in The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war as well as user:Stefka Bulgaria are not going to accept that Collaboration between Saddam and MEK include a lot of aspects which listed above, I agree to summarize suggested text to "In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991. and mention in the article.Saff V. (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the post below, take this to the relevant discussion about Saddam Hussain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that discussion got it’s result.Now what in the problem with inserting repression of uprising led by shia Arab, kurds and turkmens which is sourced?Saff V. (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: can I included In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991. to article while there is no opposite opinion?Saff V. (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, but your comment is needed!Saff V. (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: you're the one who authored this section, yet you're now also asking for it to be discussed elsewhere? The question above by Saff V. is about including part of a passage you, yourself, quoted here. What gives? El_C 07:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We were discussing here that the MEK's collaboration with Saddam was overly-repeated in the article, as is this quote that Saff V. is trying to include in the article (repeated here in the article):

• "In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][48]"
• " MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.[60][61]"
• " the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.[408]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not an answer to my question. Again, you authored this section. The question is about part of a passage you, yourself, quoted here, in this very subsection. So what gives? You can't launch a discussion, then at some point in time decide it should be discussed elsewhere. El_C 07:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, and won't happen again. My stance was that since we were discussing Saddam Hussain in detail in another TP discussion, then the discussion would have been better observed there. That aside, we can continue to discuss it here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless Stefka is playing the game, @El C: Are we allowed to continue the discussion here?Saff V. (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If there is no objection, consensus can be seen to be implicit per WP:SILENCE. Let's avoid characterizing other participants' editorial activity as a "game," though. El_C 13:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is my objection: this quote that Saff V. is trying to include in the article is already mentioned in the article:

• "In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][48]"
• " MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.[60][61]"
• " the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising.[408]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

None of them talk about uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, "Kurds" and "Turkmens" in 1991.Saff V. (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: can I insert In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991. to article while there is no fair objection?Saff V. (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You may not. That is a copyvio of: https://jamestown.org/program/is-irans-mujahideen-e-khalq-a-threat-to-the-islamist-regime . El_C 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #3

• According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran."

I cannot see how "brutal acts of terrorism", is undue when it comes out of a Stanford scholar who actually hates the current Iranian regime.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The MEK's terrorism and work with Saddam Hussein is already in the article. We don't need a POV statement to repeat this again. Barca (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not duplicated, which section of the article mentions to the pov of Milani about Saddam and MEK collaboration which pointe to the support of America for propaganda against the regime? @Stefka Bulgaria:would you explain why it is undue?Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The MEK's collaboration with Saddam is well-established in the article enough times. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it related to MEK's collaboration with Saddam? Honestly, it refers to propaganda sided by America!Saff V. (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It does mention Saddam Hussain, and it does seem like a POV statement. Barca (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac:You said: "The MEK's terrorism and work with Saddam Hussein is already in the article.". I might settle with Saddam's name being mentioned. But show me where MEK's terrorism is explicitly stated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's just one mention in the article which is on the IRIB's viewpoint. Milani's POV, being an independent source, should not simply be dismissed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is merely a POV statement about something that is covered in the article in much detail already. Barca (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac @Stefka Bulgaria, There is no undue weight issue or duplicated material. Saddam backing of MEK included plenty of aspect.Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collobration of Saddam and MEK? Any way your objections is not fair and couldnot convince us!Saff V. (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We already have a section in this TP discussing the trimming down of repeated material concerning Saddam Hussain's collaboration with the MEK. As discussed in that TP discussion, we can resume this collaboration without having to overtly repeat it throughout the article. Let's sort out that TP discussion first before trying to add more about Saddam's collaboration with the MEK (or simply take this there). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not bad to check them one by one. Please answer me,Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collaboration of Saddam and MEK?Saff V. (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Here we are discussing all the text related to Saddam Hussain in the article. We need to keep topics in the same section so we may compare them effectively. Please take that discussion there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war, Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collaboration of Saddam and MEK?Saff V. (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does have to do with the over-repetition of the collaboration between Saddam Hussain and the MEK throughout the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I repeat my question, (I did not ask only about the collaboration between Saddam Hussain and the MEK),Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collaboration of Saddam and MEK? Please provide the text.Saff V. (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add to the article that the US supported the MEK´s collaboration with Saddam Husain, a big big statement, then you need something better than a self-published source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Kazemita1 i wonder if you provide the source of mentioned saying of Millani?Saff V. (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement we are discussing here is actually about MEK "engaging in brutal acts of terrorism" during the Iran-Iraq war. While the collaboration with Saddam Hossein is mentioned the level of collaboration and the brutality has not. So far I have not heard any substantive objection against the inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the original text we are debating on: According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran."

@Stefka. The source has been used in the article as a reliable one. Please, let me know your objection against it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There are already several sections in the article describing the MEK's "terrorism". This one doesn't add any new event, cause, or the like, it just presents a POV ("brutal"), and we are trying to keep things here WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. As a matter of fact, I went ahead and re-read the WP:NPOV. However, in this case MEK's brutality during its cooperation with Saddam is not contested by any source. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I tried to address all concerns mentioned by Stefka and Barca such as repetitive material by trimming the original text. I also explained to Stefka that the current proposed text is not being contended by any other sources and thus coming from a neutral scholar cannot be titled as POV. After more than a week of silence and not hearing anything from them I went ahead and submitted the new text. Stefka reverted my edit here saying the material is repetitive and POV. I tried finding similar content in the article and could not. Do you find his objection substantive?--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The MEK's work with Saddam Hussain, as well as its acts of "terrorism in its early days", as well as the US's support of the MEK, are covered in the article in detail, neutrally, and by reliable sources. This quote Kazemita1 is suggesting to include is nothing more than a sweeping POV statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I said nothing of MEK's work with Saddam in the new edit. The text I am proposing is about the impact of US's support for the MEK; not the support itself.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, then, about "the impact of US support for the MEK", there is a section in the article ("View on the United States") that provides factual accounts of the US's support for the MEK (and doesn't include sweeping POV statements from either side of the fence). About the MEK's "brutal acts of terrorism" (quote from in the statement you're trying to include), there's a current section in the article called "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" that explains factual accounts through reliable sources (and, again, doesn't include sweeping POV statements from either side of the fence). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As you said the existing section is about "View on the United States" and not about "the impact of US's support of MEK". Anyways, it seems to me that you are more concerned with Abbas Milani's choice of words. While, my preference is honoring a scholar's exact wording I can compromise to a less criticizing tone.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing factual in that (POV) statement that isn't already covered in the section (in a NPOV manner). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:Your help is needed. Stefka is not honoring WP:Silence nor does he seem to agree to a compromise. (This is the edit we are discussing)Kazemita1 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My help is needed a lot lately! Anyway, SILENCE has to do with consensus being implied due to the absence of objections. Clearly, there is an objection here, so SILENCE no longer applies. I suggest you figure out what is or isn't being repeated and how to phrase that passage in manner whose neutrality is acceptable to both of you. El_C 14:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel you :). The problem I am facing is that nothing about the following statement is repetitive in the article and it is from an academically published book. Stefka failed to show me one example of similarity:

According to Abbas Milani MEK's brutal acts in its early days "made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran". Kazemita1 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, what is it exactly that you're trying to include with this quote? In other words, according to you, what is this quote about? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"I mean what I say and I say what I mean". I am trying to include what is shown above in bold.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Allegation of Pentagon using MEK prisoners as spies

I recently removed this statement from the article:

• "American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran.

I removed it because the allegation is not only WP:UNDUE, but it also not supported by the source, which says: "Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners".

Hearsay of what pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to do is not equivalent to "planning to utilize MEK members as informants". Saying the Pentagon is planing to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Sa.vakilian:: If you could kindly replace "planning" with "hoping" in the above mentioned piece in the article you will be doing us all a favor.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone address these concerns before editing the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for the constant pinging, but this is another case where editors have reverted stuff back into the article without a substantive justification for their edits. Are these ok to revert back if nobody addresses them in over a week? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, again, a week with no response can be interpreted as WP:SILENCE. El_C 16:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I had asked the editor to make the necessary change to address both mine and Stefka's concern some time ago (link). But apparently the user was too busy to make the change. So I did it for him just now. I understand Stefka's frustration though (which lead him to completely remove the piece instead of making that small fix).--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: As shown here, I asked you if I could revert an edit that hadn't been addressed in this TP discussion, and you said that I could based on WP:SILENCE; but now Kazemita1 has reverted the edit back into the article.

You already warned Kazemita multiple times to not edit war in this article. In his last block you said: "You don't get to decide —and act upon— on your own that an objection isn't substantive. You need to ask for clarification and get confirmation about that from an admin who is willing to enforce the general sanctions applied to the article. You have made too many missteps already when it comes to that article. As a result, you are now restricted from making any edits to the People's Mujahedin of Iran‎ (not including the article talk page) for 2 weeks. Please keep in mind that a response to the next violation will be much more severe."

Reverting an edit back that had been approved by an admin here seems like another violation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, SILENCE is broken once there is an objection, which I presume is outlined in their comment above. El_C 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: As you can see in this TP discussion, I presented an objection and Kazemita didn't respond to it. He just reverted the revert without asking anyone. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

They're saying that you failed to respond to their objections. I'm not really able to immediately tell what's what. What is the longstanding text with regards to that Newsweek passage. El_C 20:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry, but can't see what their objection is here, can you? Kazemita only suggested that we change "plan" with "hope", which does not address the point I made here about "Saying the Pentagon is planing to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Stefka. May I suggest that we avoid WP:Wikilawyering and stick to civil discussion? Here is the course of events:

1. On September 28th, you removed the content under discussion in a series of "bold" edits without proper discussion on the talk page. Your only explanation was the edit summary that read as follows:

"Not verified (Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners))"

2. On September 30th, you finally decided to explain your edit. Your concluding remarks were as follows:

Hearsay of what pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to do is not equivalent to "planning to utilize MEK members as informants"

3. On October 1st, a Good Samaritan rolled the article back to a previous long-standing version (link).

4. On October 1st, I asked the "Good Samaritan", aka User:Sa.Vakilian, to address the concern mentioned by you by replacing "planning" with "hoping". You did not express any objection to my proposal. But the user did not address my proposal either.

5. On October 7th, i.e. less than a week from my proposal you reverted Sa.Vakilian's edit. Still, you did not express any objection to my proposal.

6. It was only then that I implemented my proposal. My proposal was addressing your concern that intelligence planners had hoped in using MEK members (and not yet "planned"). No one had shown any objection to my proposal prior to my edit and quite frankly there was nothing to object since it was literally based on the text of the source. Kazemita1 (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, Why didn't you change "hope" to "plan" rather than picking up the whole of material?!Saff V. (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing "hope" to "plan" does not solve the issue. Nobody has yet addressed the point I have made, so I will repeat it: Hearsay that Pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification/sources, and this is unverified hearsay, which has no place in an encylopedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

While according to wp:RSP, "There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable for news", I seek your concerns in the RSN.Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I second that. Newsweek has been a reliable source for this article. Besides, MEK spying on IRI is not new. As stated in this article, MEK informants were the ones who allegedly leaked Iran's nuclear program:

In 2002, the MEK was a source for claims about Iran’s clandestine nuclear program

Kazemita1 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not about Newsweek being a reliable source, it's about including hearsay about something that someone is allegedly "hoping" to do. This is not encyclopedic content. That is objection with this. Please address that objection. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You NEED to clearly say with policy/guideline backs your claim. The source is reliable but you say the material is "not encyclopedic"! In what terms? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems you have new concerns. Essentially, you are saying now that US official's statement on "Pentagon hoping to use MEK as spies" is not a strong enough assertion for the content to be used in a Wiki article. First of all, what you hear from US officials and read in a reliable source normally is not categorized as hearsay. You may see Wikipedia's definition of hearsay here. Besides, in this case the very same source provided enough evidence for the claim:

some of its intelligence has already proved very accurate. (It was the MEK last year that revealed Iran's secret nuclear facilities at Natanz.)

In other words Newsweek has enough reasons to believe what US officials are saying about Pentagon's plans (or hopes whichever you prefer).Kazemita1 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My concerns here have always been that hearsay about what someone allegedly "hopes" to do is not encyclopedic content, specially when you're talking about accusations of the Pentagon using "Iranian spies". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Either way, WP:Hearsay points to reliability on which we do not have any dispute.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1, which policy says that ‘’hearsay’’ equals ‘’reliable’’? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

comment: I think the deleting act which done bu @selfkaBulgaria was wrong, the Wikipedia is not a place for personal feeling about article or a peace of them, the user reasons for deletion is not strong.Forest90 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka, I was not able to find any policy on hearsay; only an essay which read as follows:

Hearsay is often claimed when an articles content is disputed due to WP:VERIFY issues, or when proper sources are not cited. Wikipedia relies on its practice of providing verifiable sources as much as possible, to keep the content neutral and accurate.

Kazemita1 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, an "essay" is not policy, which means it doesn't justify the inclusion. Please present a valid explanation about why hearsay about allegations concerning the US Government hoping to use "Iranian spies" belongs in an encyclopedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No response for over a week. Removing this controversial text based on my points raised above which have been met with WP:SILENCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit of mine was done after a week of silence from your side since my comment on Oct. 21st and yet you reverted it. So, I am guessing this is not how WP:SILENCE works. Besides according to El_C when there is objection, WP:SILENCE does not apply. Anyways, you have failed to point to any policy why the long-standing text should be changed. You talked about hearsay and I told you that the only thing found in Wiki about it is an essay which equates hearsay with unreliability. and because the source currently in use is reliable your objection against it has no merit. Since then I have not heard anything meaningful from you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit by Ypatch

@Ypatch: would you provide the text from Time which support added sentence (These are charges that the MEK has denied). I didn't find any related material to verify in the source!Saff V. (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"At the same time, it's a win-win for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who gets to burnish his tough-guy credentials ahead of national elections early next year as well as please his allies, the ayatullahs. There's little love in Iraq for the MEK, which was welcomed by Saddam Hussein in the mid-'80s, when he was at war with Iran, and supplied with a training camp and armaments. The group is accused of repaying its benefactor by helping quash Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions — charges the MEK has denied." Ypatch (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamian 1982

Does anybody know which book is referred to in the article by that name?--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be this one as well as this tool can be useful.Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Saff V. I went ahead and checked. It appears some of the material that is attributed to the 1982 book written by Abrahamian is actually from the 1989 book, i.e. Radical Islam. For example the following piece is indeed in the pages 233-234 of the 1989 book:

In 1982, historian Ervand Abrahamian wrote that "the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions"

I will go ahead and fix the wrong attribution.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Ok. I found another piece that is from 1989 book and is wrongly attributed to the 1982 one:

Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. 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.

I will go ahead and fix the wrong attribution.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary

@El C: pardon to bother you! Is this edit fixing grammar, while quashing Kurdish has not mentioned in the previous sentence or is fixing grammar picking up the "According to Time"?Saff V. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it certainly does more than just fixing the grammar (which, indeed, needed fixing). Again, Stefka Bulgaria, you need to do better when it comes to your edit summaries. Don't shy away from explaining exactly what you're doing. Also, does anyone know what is up with that cn at the end? Who added that? Is Time an inadequate source? El_C 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That Cn was from Saff V. I´ll explain my edit summaries more in detail from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I inserted, Denying the aid of Saddam for quashing Kurdish or Shia uprising is the claim need to more RSes.Isn't it?Saff V. (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would that single reliable source not be enough? El_C 16:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• El_C you attribute it to shyness, thank you, but please see the following:
  • Edit 1 with the explanation mentioned here.
  • Edit 2 with the explanation mentioned here (per which TP???)
  • Edit 3 with the explanation mentioned here (per which TP???)
  • You just mentioned something similar (I think)

--Mhhossein ^talk 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not attribute it to "shyness" — I said "don't shy away from." At any case, the expectation is that they are to do better from now on. El_C 16:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, "don't shy away from" does not necessarily mean that. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry, I missed your Question! I believe in Only Time (one source) is not enough to deny the collaboration between Saddam and MEK while there is plenty of sources which supports the collaboration. Am I clear? In addition I am going to ask, Has Stefke allowed to remove CN tag which I inserted it when I have not answered your question up that time?Saff V. (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, that is a reliable source. You cannot ask for a citation when one already exists! If you find a source that disputes what is being attributed, that's another matter. But there is no rule requiring multiple sources, and I deem such a request to be redundant. El_C 17:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Considering your latest comment on this matter, I think we have another misleading edit summary by Stefka Bulgaria here. In the edit, he's allegedly removing Sajjadpour's credential while he is in fact removing Sajjadpour's well-sourced and well attributed description of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree — that is indeed misleading. Presumably, a key part of the removal is the description of the MEK by the subject, as opposed to their credentials. El_C 17:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Thanks but he should stop somewhere this pattern of using misleading edit summaries. Should there be cautions or warnings? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In his quest to get my warned/sanctioned, it seems Mhhossein forgot to mention that I did include the full quote in my next edit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Indeed you did. Maybe, like me though, they just were unaware of that. El_C 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I had not seen that. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I am not in quest to get you sanctioned, though it is not that hard due to the tough warnings you have recently received. I just meant to stop your misleading edit summaries. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You've received more tough warnings than myself, so thanks for the advice but by all means be mindful of your own editing (including checking one of my edits and not the next, as you've done here) before going ahead looking at others. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what does "There is already a section about this" mean in this edit as edit summary which was left by Stefka,If he was going to remove duplicated material, this sentence the wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud’s face was not and I moved it to appropriate section.Saff V. (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That that nonrepetitive passage (wedding rings-related adventruism) was also removed is, indeed, worth reflecting on. In the future, whenever removing material due to repetition, it would therefore be prudent to address any nonrepetitive text that may fall victim to the removal as collateral damage. El_C 13:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Material

@Stefka Bulgaria: You picked up According to Arron Merat, Iraqi human rights tribunal has accused MEK leaders for their role in participating the uprisings. from the article, because it is repeated and we already have "In July 2010, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, including Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, for crimes against humanity committed while suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[187] ") in article. But how are you sure that "the accusation of Iraqi human rights tribunal" which was mentioned in the removed sentence belongs to July 2010?

Guardian Wrote that In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north. According to the New York Times, Maryam Rajavi told her fighters: “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian revolutionary guards.” The MEK vehemently denies it participated in Saddam’s campaigns to put down the Shia and Kurdish rebellions, but an Iraqi human rights tribunal has indicted MEK leaders for their role in suppressing the uprisings.Saff V. (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to an Iraqi tribunal accusing the MEK of participating in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, then yes, it looks like both quotes are referring to the same event. If you can show how Arron Merat's quote refers to a different event, then by all means provide the relevant source/text that shows this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Un balanced contrast

Does "many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France" have the same weight as "some conservative American politicians"? Absolutely not. Hence we can not make a strong contrast between them with "Although". On another hand, Using "Although" is not supported by NYT source which it has mentioned the contrast (without using Although) only between "many Iranians" (not many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France) and "some conservative American politicians". As a result, I reverted this edit.Saff V. (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "Scorned by many Iranians as a cult and for its long alliance with Saddam Hussein, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative for Iran’s future."

This is what I added to the article: "Although many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative to Iran.

The source is valid, and all that's been included is what the New York Times says. If you're objection is that the New York Times doesn't use the word "although", then I'll use the phrase they use, "scorned by". Also, I'm adding this source and this source, which support the NY TIMES claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You have changed the longstanding version of the article. I opened a talk page discussion here and objected your change. But you again inserted them and violated the restrictions. You are violating original research. The contrast between the opinion of the experts and the American politicians is not supported by the source. You must make a self revert now. No consensus was built and you added again.@El C: your comment is needed.Saff V. (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

[T]he group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative to Iran — again, we have part of a quote that is presented (almost in full) as original prose without quotation marks. It's a copyvio and therefore cannot stay in place. El_C 18:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for the response, I wonder if you let me revert the current version to the long-standing version which there is no consequences for the current one. In addition, I have to say, it is not the first time that he violated copyright, e.g, @Winged Blades of Godric: recently warned him for this edit.Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to address the close paraphrasing that still remained with original prose. @Saff V.: please let me know if that edit is good with you. El_C 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That MEK is considered an alternative by some is already in the lead (It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government.....It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group).

Non long-standing material is controversial and should not be included in the article until the conclusion is reached. For example,Where did this contrast shown by STILL come from? and so on.Saff V. (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: if you disagree that this deserves mentioning (I asked Mhhossein the same question below) — specifically, mention in the lead about conservative American politicians support for the MEK, then you are free to remove it and restore the longstanding text. It does surprise me somewhat, if I were perfectly honest, but that is of no consequence. El_C 23:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: I think we are GAMEd again. Please see the following:

• Stefka Bulgaria's edit
• Saff V.'s objection and his opening a TP topic
• Stefka Bulgaria's violation of the page restrictions and resisting a self revert request.

I don't know why this clear breach of the rules we agreed upon, which is not unprecedented, is ignored here but can you please restore to the longstanding version so that we can talk about the details to be included? Also see this closely related topic. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: that addition is that copyrights violation, but I overlooked those revisions, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have now revdeleted them. *** But the notion that some conservative American politicians hold this view is still something you deem to be a fact worth mentioning, right? *** As for Stefka Bulgaria, I agree that this is suboptimal and that they would probably be sanctioned already if, as mentioned in my Survey discussion, I wasn't feeling such a lack of confidence lately. But thanks for helping (and for your kind words) on that front, as well. I will address your comments there momentarily. El_C 23:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: How exactly am I "Gaming" here? As far as I can see, I added a Reliable source to the article, Saff V. complained that I had added "although" to the paraphrasing (which the quote itself didn't say), so I added "scorned by" (the exact word that the quote used), which leads me of getting accused of copy-vio. I get the copy-vio issue, and it won't happen again, but my point is that all I did was add reliable source to the article, and tried to adhere to the quote as much as possible so there wouldn't be any objections, and then I get accused of Gaming. Can you please explain? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the GAME part, but think Mhhossein is saying that you partially reverted without getting consensus on the article talk page first (which would be a violation of the restriction) — that any proposals for a compromise should have been brought here instead of being boldly applied in a manner that essentially constitutes a revert. El_C 05:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I addressed the concerns raised, the first was Saff V. saying that the source did not say "although", and then when I added what the source actually said ("scorned by"), I get accused of copy-vio and Gaming. In a different TP discussion, it took over 3 months to add a Amnesty International quote into the article which perfectly met all requirements for inclusion (as did this one), and I'm the one accused here of "Gaming". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In any case, you live and you learn; so I won't bold edit anymore (even if the added text meets all requirements and addresses all concerns raised here). If we want to keep things fair, though, then other editors should not be allowed to bold-edit either, and there's been a lot of that going on lately in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're missing my point. It wasn't merely a bold edit, it was a partial revert, which perhaps represents a bold compromise. But it wasn't merely a bold new addition, per se. El_C 05:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: but didn't I address the concerns raised (to the letter)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. What exactly are you referring to? Maybe add the diffs, as well. El_C 05:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for attention, It is better to pick up some conservative American politicians and change the article to longstanding version, then continue the discussion on inserting again into the article or not.Saff V. (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I revert the current version to this long-standing version?Saff V. (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am in favor of reverting the recent additions to the lead so that we can discuss things on the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you can edit it as you see fit — I see you already removed it, so this is moot. But again, I'm a bit surprised. The contrast of having the US govt. deem the MEK as a cult, while at the same time have such high-profile (mostly but not only) conservative figures speak on its behalf — what issue do you take with that contrast being mentioned in the lead? Neither of you really explained. Should I even be allowed to ask that question is something that I'm going to raise in the Survey section. El_C 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I think WP:EDITORIALIZING is explaining it well. There should not be a synthetic contrast or there would be the violation of OR. Are there any sources clearly demonstrating "the contrast of having the US govt. deem the MEK as a cult, while at the same time have such high-profile (mostly but not only) conservative figures speak on its behalf"? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. But the contrast need not be expressed as such. These are simply two facts —two facets— that, together, relate to the somewhat inconsistent American approach the MEK. We can express it as a contrast here, on the article talk page (where we have some leeway with respect to original research), but in the lead itself, we can divide the two into separate components. Which the body is already doing, anyway. Let the readers draw their own conclusion. Are we not therefore failing to inform our readership by limiting ourselves to just one of these facets in the lead? What do you think? El_C 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite what Mhhossein mentioned, there is seen verification issues. From BBC SOURCE, It (Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group is the saying of Ex-MEK member Eduard Termado. I don't think it would be reliable. From cnsnews, authors don't support by it, unless we are going to refer to Title of the news (A Viable Democratic Alternative to the Iranian Regime)!amazing!Saff V. (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so. It is said in wikivoice BBCvoice and isn't attributed to any one person in particular. El_C 03:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Got your point, a good step forward. I'm against "limiting ourselves to just one of these facets in the lead."--Mhhossein ^talk 08:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I repeat again that 'authors' is not supported by cnsnews, unless we are going to refer to Title of the news (A Viable Democratic Alternative to the Iranian Regime)!Saff V. (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Saff V.. sure, if authors is not attributed to anything at all, it can be removed. Mhhossein, I'm glad. Indeed, this is a step forward. I realize I haven't taken a side on content disputes that much when it comes to this article, but on this point, I do think it's important to show the inconsistency of American approach toward the MEK. Again, just so we're perfectly clear, as far as this particular dispute is concerned, I am just a regular editor and my aforementioned view ought to hold no special deciding weight whatsoever. There seems to be unanimous consensus so far among participants in the Survey section (which I still consider unresolved) for me to continue to enforce the article restrictions intensively, but it obviously would not extend to this (Contrast) dispute. Sorry for the length of this note! El_C 16:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "synthetic contrast" or original research in that addition. The source makes this comparison between "cult" and support by "American politicians" ("Scorned by many Iranians as a cult and for its long alliance with Saddam Hussein, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative for Iran’s future."). @El C: - what's the exact problem with including this in the lead section? Barca (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, so I'm not sure you're asking the right person. I'm just looking for a compromise everyone can live with. El_C 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason there is objection against including this piece is because many of that the so-called conservative American politicians who support MEK are either getting paid by MEK, or are pro regime-change in Iran and thus are biased in their statements. I am sure there is a way to add that piece once we explain the background info on those politicians. Kazemita1 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would their bias (or lack thereof) be an issue, though? Sure, more context doesn't hurt, so long as it is concise, but the article ought to just present the facts. El_C 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - The source doesn't say that these politicians were paid, or that they were not paid, it just says that it received support from American politicians. It also makes a connection to the cult information, and is also a publication by the New York Times, so I don't see that as a valid reason to remove it. Sombody else have a better reason for why this was deleted from the article? Barca (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• We need to be very careful about using words like "but" and "however" to connect statements describing support/opposition, because criticism from Iranians and support from US politicians have nothing to do with each other, a priori. It's generally better to separate those statements. Also; we need to beware false balance; every statement about criticism doesn't have to be balanced with one about support, and vice versa; what matters is how often reliable sources discuss a given position. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vandermonde: I second that. The sentences should be separate. @El_C: I agree with you that the article ought to present facts. As an example we can concisely state facts about politicians in support of MEK, such as this: "Some supporters are paid, others see the MEK through the prism of Iran - they will just support anything that offers hope of change there. Many are well motivated but some are naive.".Kazemita1 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We are not making that connection, the New York Times is. If we decide not to make that connection ourselves, then that's a different thing I think. What the New York Times says with certainty is that the MEK has been promoted by American politicians, so why not add this in the article? Barca (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not against to back Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group to the article but as result of discussing, the removed sentence (:Still, support from a number of conservative American politicians, authors, and international policy makers has also been extended to the MEK, as an organization that could become "a democratic alternative to Iran ) should be edited, at the first "authors" is not supported by cited source and have to be removed. What about other results of discussing? Feel free to mention here. Saff V. (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: your objection that {{|tq|"so-called conservative American politicians who support MEK are either getting paid by MEK, or are pro regime-change in Iran"|}} does not seem to be a good reason to remove a reliable source from the article. We can have a discussion about the MEK paying for political support, but this does not change the statement by the New York Times. Can you please elaborate? Barca (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in this edit, we can state both facts together in the form of separate sentences. First fact is that some conservative American politicians are supporting MEK. The second fact is that those politicians are either paid or are pro-regime change.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this suggestion. We need to stay away from adding things which are not supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Designation as a cult" title

@Saff V.: In this edit, you reverted "Cult allegations" to "Designation as a cult" with the edit summary ": Don't change long standing title which was added since April 2018 ". Two points to make here:

1) Just because it's "long standing", it doesn't mean it can't be changed if inadequate.

2) If there isn't a single source confirming the MEK was "designated as a cult"; how do you justify keeping this title over the one I have proposed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Quite the opposite. There is no source that uses the word "cult allegation".

The U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has identified the MEK as having cult-like characteristics.[citation needed] Among governments of sovereign states, and Federal government of the United States[307] have described the MEK as a cult. Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult".[308] Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian,[309] Stephanie Cronin,[310] Wilfried Buchta,[311] and others have also made similar claims.[312]

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh[313] and Masoud Banisadr[314] among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich,[315] Robert Scheer,[315] and Elizabeth Rubin[316] among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.

In 1990, following to ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and a quarter of his follower's absence, Rajavi declared the second phase of the “Ideological Revolution”. By his order, all members got a divorce from their spouses. A year later, Rajavi ordered all children (800) to be moved from Iraq to Europe and America to be adopted by MEK supporters.[143][1]

An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded: “the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.[317] According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".[318]

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options”. .[319]

My suggestion as a middle-ground solution would be to use the following title for that section: "Cult-like characteristics"Kazemita1 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You are Wiki-voicing something that consists of allegations, so for this reason "Cult-like characteristics" would not work either. We need a factual title, not a POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing longstanding material or title needs the opinion of involved users and it does stand up the consequences will get. It is the point that you don't pay attention to! Why did you turn the title to cult allegation while There is no source to confirm it? Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. Aren't the sources in that section making allegations that the MEK has "cult-like characteristics"? For example, I read lots of "...so and so have described it as a cult". Those are 'allegations', not 'designations'. Barca (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Any mention of of "allegation" would actually count as pushing POV as most sources are stating the "cult-like" behavior of MEK as a fact.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Designation seems appropriate. These entities designated the MEK as a cult.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What about Status as a cult? What do everyone think of that phrasing for the section title as a compromise? El_C 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If not, this might require an RfC with a formal closing to codify the consensus (or lack thereof). Although, of course, bold ideas are encouraged. I certainly won't be deciding further on this (per my above suggestion), beyond reminding everyone about the mandatory restriction applied to this page, which determines what version stays up while this matter is being decided. El_C 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Status as a cult" seems like a good middle ground. Barca (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2019

For the sake of reaching a compromise, Status as Cult would be ok for me as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice. Any objections? El_C 06:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems these sources say that the MEK has cult-like qualities. Is that the same as "status" though? Ypatch (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not against the Status as a cult, although there is RSes (1, 2, 3 support the "designated as a cult".Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources say that the MEK has been designated as a cult. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also this source that says that the MEK is [w]idely regarded as a cult[22] and the there is this [23] which says that the US government described the MEK as cult. I dont think it makes any sense to say allegation when there is no RS source disputing that.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Saff V. has already shared these sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of the article's restrictions?

@El C: Kazemita1 inserted some text into the article; then Barca reverted that text, and then SharabSalam re-inserted that text again. This text is not part of the long-standing version of the article; so isn't this a violation of the article's restrictions? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Barca has failed to substantiate their objection on the article talk page. El_C 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm still slow to understand the procedure in this article. I thought it would be good to take this to RSN, where I received some comments. The source is ok, but it's wrongly attributed to the UKBA, it should be attribute to the "US State Department." I will fix it. Barca (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. moving Operation Mersad text to 1988 executions

I reverted Saff V.'s last edit because the section is about the 1988 executions, not Operation Mersad. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section starts with the Operation Mersad and the reaction of Khomeini to it as well as it ends with the Operation Mersad. What is the problem with my edit, I just put material with the same subject next together?@El C: Please leave a comment!Saff V. (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section is about the 1988 executions. The text you're including fits chronologically in the previous section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Operation Forty Stars took place on 18 June 1988, Operation Mersad took place in July 1988, and the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners took place right after Operation Mersad (it came as a result of Operation Mersad). I don't know what you're complaining about; the text is now presented chronologically in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You disturb the balance of the text. You added Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution. The failed invasion refers to Operation Mersad, you mentioned mass execution of thousands of MEK but ignore to killing or wounding 3,500 and nearly destroying a Revolutionary Guard division by MEK in Operation Mersad which do you describe it with failed invasion.Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a section on Operation Mersad, followed by a section on the 1988 executions. This is organized chronologically. I didn't add "Khomeini used the failed invasion.."; that was already in the article. I will clarify that "the failed invasion" refers to Operation Mersad, but then all the information about that it's already in the section (Operation Mersad), which is organized chronologically in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka you need to be more careful before doing any edits! In the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners section, the reason of Khomeini's order for execution identified his fail in the Eternal Light, then you remove this negative word (failing) with the name of Operation Mersad is the natural word. Am I clear?Saff V. (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this. The information is now organized chronologically, that's all that matters to me. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The objection has merit — turning that passage into the intro for that section without any attempt to further connect it to the prior intro, which now becomes the 2nd paragraph, can be seen to hinder the flow of the section and its overarching topic. This isn't to say the section cannot be further prefaced —maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't— but if it does, it needs to be a more well-thought-out attempt to assemble all the pieces together. El_C 14:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, I checked the material to assemble all the pieces together but I found out that material belongs to forty lights and has nothing to do with Mersad and 1988 execution. Anyway According to the Guardian, the word "failed invasion" in this sentence Khomeini used failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails refers to Eternal lights operation, To make the text clear, I put it in the parenthesis but Stefka reverted it. What is the problem, the source support y edit.Can I revert it?Saff V. (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If it does, I suppose, but it is a bit poorly-written, with the parenthesis and missing the: i.e. Khomeini used [sic: the] failed invasion (Eternal lights). El_C 15:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: I wonder if you explain why reverted this edit while the admin (above comment) affirmed it.Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It was explained in my edit summary: "We have a reliable source saying "Following Operation Mersad, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed." We don't have the same saying about Operation Eternal lights. Reverting per WP:OR" Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your answer has nothing to do with my question.According to the Guardian, the word "failed invasion" in this sentence Khomeini used failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails refers to Eternal lights operation, To make the text clear, I put it in the parenthesis but Stefka reverted it, Admin said there is no problem to add it but you reverted again. why are you against to make the sentence more clear?Saff V. (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: If you put "Operation Eternal light" in the Wikipedia search box, you'll get the article Operation Mersad. That's because they're both the same event, with the MEK using the name "Eternal light", and the IRI using the name "Operation Mersad". I added a RS that described the 1988 executions as something that happened after Operation Mersad, whereas your Guardian source just says they happened after the "failed invasion". This is the reason I reverted, because there is a book that says that the executions happened after Operation Mersad, whereas your Guardian article just says they happened after the "failed invasion", but go ahead and change it if you want. You have my consensus. I'm tired of what's going on in this page and if admins are not fixing things then it's certainly not on me to take on the responsibility. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It is correct that "Eternal light" or "Operation Mersad" belongs to the one operation, but my concern is not it. I think that the word "failed invasion" should be clear and as Guadian says, it refers to "Eternal light" or "Operation Mersad", IMO it doesn't matter which of them, but one of them should be brought after "failed invasion". Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Square brackets

@El C:. An IP(?) is waging an edit war in this article. Mainly because of 'square brackets'. As such I am asking you to comment. In a 2009 report by UK Home office's border agency we read:

According to the USSD Background Note of March 2008: [...] “The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK [cult-like terrorist organisation Mujahedin-e Khalq, People’s Mojahedin of Iran] (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People’s Fedayeen, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), and the Baluchi opposition group Jundallah.” [4u] (Political conditions)

Essentially, UK border agency is quoting a piece from USSD Background Note in 2008, but is adding a sentence in square brackets. Am I right thinking the square brackets indicate editorial opinion? p.s. The reliability of the source has been established in the WP:RSN here with the un-involved editors voting the square bracketed piece is an interjection by the UK Home office.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the IP is correct, even though they violated the article's editing restriction. El_C 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I carelessly overlooked the restriction, my bad. Kazemita, that thread on RSN is less than a week old, has only 3 responders, of which only one has "voted" that the bracket text is an interjection by the border agency (the other replies just generally accept the document as a reliable source and have not commented on its use/meaning.) 2600:8804:1E80:EAE:7C39:7148:248:3F5C (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

After further thought, I realize that I'm just not sure which of these version is correct. Sorry. El_C 22:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8804:1E80:EAE:7C39:7148:248:3F5C:, @2600:1014:B10C:8E3A:6CB0:F625:47FB:EB5D:, @199.116.171.94: Now that you admitted you violated the restriction, please self-revert so we could talk it over.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@El_C understandable, it's not cut and dry. I hope theres more discussion here and/or at blpn. @Kazemita per the restriction I've removed the contended recent addition pending further discussion. 2600:1014:B10A:76B6:1DF:C9F0:6CE0:E7DA (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Very funny Mr/Ms IP. Not only you did not self-revert, you also removed sourced content from long-standing text.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 - I don't think it's funny that you opened an "investigation for sockpuppet" against me for this, especially because you had nothing to support this accusation. I also reverted your edit ([24]) because you are repeating that Iranian people did not like the MEK collaboration with Saddam, something that is already in the article many times. Barca (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - I am still understanding the restrictions procedure of this article, but if Kazemita1 inserts something to the article ([25]), and I revert ([26]) and present my reasons in this Talk page ([27]), can Kazemita1 just re-revert his edit back in to article without any discussion or consensus (he did this here [28])? Barca (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That passage does not mention Saddam in anyway that I can see, so your rather brief objection does not appear substantive enough for the restrictions to come into effect. El_C 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Two sources

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can I ask you to provide qouet from this source (It was used for this edit):

• Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.

As well as I don't find PBS as RS in this list. any idea for its reliability?Saff V. (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., the quote is In 1988, a new crop of wardens took over, and once again mass executions became the norm in prisons. The reason for this new round of widespread executions was Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the Mojahedin-e Khalq. PBS is a RS. ∯WBG^converse 12:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: in this edit you moved the text from the 1988 executions to the Operation Eternal light section. Why? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously clear, MEK 's members who were killed during Operation Eternal light were buried in mass graves in the Khavaran cemetery, It has nothing to do with 1988 executions.Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can I ask you to provide qouet from this source (It was used for this edit):

• Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: So you've moved content around without even looking at what the source says? This is what the source says: "Thousands of political prisoners were then executed in the summer of 1988. The majority of them were MKO members, but many also belonged to other groups. Many of them were buried in mass graves in the Khavaran cemetery, east of Tehran. Recently, the government tried to convert the cemetery to a park in an apparent effort to erase all signs of the crime. Obviously, this is talking about the 1988 executions, and nowhere it mentions Operation Eternal light. Please re-insert it where it belongs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I decided based on the your edit, Following Operation Mersad... . I asked you the material of the book, not PBS!Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need the link from the book when the PBS source perfectly outlines why this pertains to the 1988 executions (and not to Operation Eternal light, where you have included this text)? Based on the PBS source, I am restoring the text to the 1988 executions section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: right now I find out the edit which we have had discussed on,it was warned for copyright violation. on the other hand, I needed to verify the content but the source is offline and as you can see, Stefka refused to provide the content. All in all, Am I allowed to pick up the content for copyright violation?Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: sorry, I missed your query (been doing that a lot lately, it seems!). Anyway, yes. This is, indeed, another copyvio by Stefka Bulgaria. For example: Many of them were buried in mass graves in the Khavaran cemetery, east of Tehran is simply copied straight from that PBS source. Thank you for removing it. I revdeleted it, but if there are still some revisions I missed that has that copyvio still in place, please let me know. El_C 05:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Do MEK supporters' view on MEK play a role in "Perception by Iranian People"?

@El C:. I and Stefka disagree on something. The dispute is over removal of the following piece in a section titled "Perception by Iranian People":

According to Ilan Berman, 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."

This is the corresponding edit, however, I suggest you read the section in whole to get a grasp of the subject.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure what you expect me to do. I don't moderate content disputes — such is not my role here. Each of you is expected to attempt to gain consensus for your respective version. And while that discussion takes its course, the longstanding text (whichever it is) should remain in place. El_C 17:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. and yes the longstanding text is in place as we speak. The thing here is that the above mentioned paragraph is clearly a wp:soapbox and is by no means related to the Iranian People's perception of MEK which is the title of the section. As a matter of fact, the very same section says MEK has pretty much no supporters inside Iran. If you can determine if it is a wp:soapbox or not that would be very much appreciated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I'm not going to have time to read walls of text. If you wish for me to evaluate violations of SOAP or FORUM, please feel free to quote a few brief excerpts directly below this space. El_C 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong edit summary

@BarcrMac: Your edit summary reads "MEK collaboration with Saddam, something that is already in the article many times" while the portion you removed does not talk about MEK's collaboration with Saddam. Can you please be more careful about your edit summaries? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To me it looks like repetitive information about the MEK's involvement in Iraq, but we already had this cleared up by El_C in the talk page discussion about this. Barca (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Iraq؟Saff V. (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Barca: Under which topic of this talk page did you "clear up" by El_C this problem? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I can take that, I think the reference is to the end of this discussion. El_C 13:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sanction violation

@Ypatch: I take it you are familiar with the policies of this article as admin:Vandermonde left a message on your talk page which you had acknowledged. When you add a content for which there is objection (and is reverted), you are not supposed to put it back in the article. You added this piece which is not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article. As a matter of fact there is no mention of MEK in that piece. Your previous edit gave enough information related to the incident and thus there is no need to explain about the "terrorist cell" any further. I removed the new content saying it is undue and that there is plenty of information in the previous passage on that same topic. You then put it back in the article for the second time, briefly saying it is not undue. @El C: if you want to avoid another round of edit war, this is probably the right time to weigh in.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: re-reverting, as you have done, deprives the user from being given a chance to self-revert, though. I would have preferred that. @Ypatch: please don't revert again. Aim to gain consensus for your changes, here, on the article talk page, instead. Thank you. El_C 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the quote from the Tirana times:

• "During a press conference, Veliu said the “terrorist cell is also responsible, among other things, for the March 2018 plan to carry out a terrorist attack during the celebrations of the Nevruz Festival, attended by high-level members of the to the Iranian opposition organization Mujahideen al Khalq (MEK), a plan that was prevented by increased State Police measures, thanks to accurate information.” According to Albanian police, “the terrorist cell is run by a QUDS Forces operative, known under the name Peyman, a permanent resident of Iran, who remotely manages a number of operations in Albania and elsewhere in Central and Western Europe.” One of the cell members is Alireza Naghashzadeh, a former MEK member with an Austrian passport. “Naghashzadeh was sent by Peyman to gather information in Albania during several separate visits as part of plans for an attack that was eventually halted,” Veliu explained."

You say this is "not related to the MEK", but it explains who attacked the MEK in Albania. Then you say that "it is undue and that there is plenty of information in the previous passage", but nothing about this is in the previous passage. I cannot understand why you are trying to remove this. @El C: can you explain please what's going on? Ypatch (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: this would be a good time for you to explain why you deem the addition to be undue. El_C 00:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch:, @El C:. The incident itself is about MEK, and I have no objection against its inclusion as has been done in Ypatch's first edit here. However, what he is doing in his second edit is elaborating excessively on those who are responsible for the incident. Why do I say excessively? Because, his first edit already explains who are behind the incident: "that two Iranian security officials led the network from Tehran, and that it was linked to organised crime groups in Turkey. It also said that the network used a former MEK member to collect information in Albania.". My objection is simply with the length of the material he is adding. As stated in WP:UNDUE

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.

It is my opinion that the quantity of text used for explaining the details of this incident is unnecessary. There are many incidents where MEK is involved for which we do not elaborate this much in the article. I am only asking Ypatch to be fair in terms of quantity being added.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 these are your objections, and my responses (underneath each objection):

•  "not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article. As a matter of fact there is no mention of MEK in that piece."

The quote from the Tirana times I provided in this discussion shows that this is related to the MEK and that it mentions the MEK in that piece.

•  "Your previous edit gave enough information related to the incident and thus there is no need to explain about the "terrorist cell" any further."

Saying that "my previous edit gave enough information related to this incident", when in my new edit I inserted new information about this incident.

• "I removed the new content saying it is undue and that there is plenty of information in the previous passage on that same topic"

You are taking the matter in your own hands to decide that "there is plenty of information" about this.

El_C, why do you support such reverts? You're asking me to "gain consensus" before adding to the article, and I get that, but there should have been at least a half-decent reason not to include this. Saying "I've decided that this is enough information about this" as a reason to remove sourced information sounds to me like one of the worst kinds of excuses, and that you're encouraging this is surprising. Ypatch (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I'm surprised you're surprised. I, for one, neither support nor oppose and I neither encourage nor discourage this revert or the reasons for it. It is up to the both of you to discuss this. Objecting to the addition on the basis that it contributes to repetition may or may not be valid. That is something that needs further substantiation on both of your parts. I remain fully agnostic at this point in time. El_C 03:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I am yet to hear a response about the quantity of text being used for describing a single incident. Of course one way to resolve this issue, i.e. undue weight, would be elaborate on every other MEK related incident in the article. But that is a very difficult path to take since it requires adding content for everything. As a result I suggest you summarize the two edits of yours to have proportional quantity.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C, you know how I know the content is not repeated in the article? because it's not repeated in the article. I've gone back to read in detail the article's restrictions, and saw that Mhhossein asked you "what should be done for clueless reverts?", to what you answered "users who fail to substantiate their objections, will be viewed as tendentious — which is to say, harshly." Well, this is your picture-perfect clueless revert, which Kazemita1 is now trying to divert into a "quantity of text" problem. That's easy then, lets remove text from the article because too much information is being provided, and let's call this an "undue" problem. If that's the sort of editing that's being allowed here, then I think we need to revisit the article's restrictions. Ypatch (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I'm especially interested to hear what other editors have to say about this dispute. But, by all means, please feel free to request any other admin to evaluate this particular dispute, instead of me, if you find my indecision to be slowing you down. I have no objection (if anything, it would be a relief) and do not need to be notified or consulted in any way whatsoever. Otherwise, I suggest you make use of any dispute resolution request that might bring further outside input into your dispute. The restrictions may be revisited at any time, of course, but seeing that there was unanimous support for them by all participants when I originally proposed them, my sense is that revisiting (especially with the aim of revoking) them will be challenging for you. But you are welcome to try. Either way, good luck. El_C 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: To give you an idea why I think the quantity of text you are trying to include for a single incident which -did not involve any casualties by the way- is undue, I encourage you to take a look at how many lines are allocated for the assassinations of president, prime minister and other key figures of Iran by MEK in the existing form of the article:

The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998). MEK assassinated Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, Mohammad-Javad Bahonar,.

As you can see a total of two lines is allocated to several assassinations made by MEK and yet you want to include 5 lines describing the alleged "terror cell" that was "planning" to do something in Albania. Kazemita1 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - there is a whole Wikipedia page about assassinations made by MEK called List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran. Going back to the main point, I also don't see the text is repeated in the previous paragraph. Ypatch's edit is actually very short (one sentence) and it provides more info about who attacked the MEK, which seems like important information about this story. Barca (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The page you are referring to only lists the assassinations, allocating one line to each assassination without any explanation of how it occurred. If I were to use your reasoning, Ypatch would be the first victim. In other words, we should only describe what happened in Albania in one line (instead of 5). Either way, your argument is not a defense against my objection that MEK assassinating a president and a prime minister of a country deserves much more text than someone hoping to or planning to do something against MEK and got caught before committing it.Kazemita1 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - Nobody prevented you to add more information about the president or the prime minister. You recently added a lot of information about a divorce to the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights":

"Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. 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."

But now you have a problem with one sentence about who attacked the MEK? Barca (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am glad you agree the assassination of the president and prime minister deserves more text than someone in Albania planning to form an alleged terror cell. I guess we can go on with our contribution then (i.e. Ypatch adds his piece and I do mine). But you should know that the list of MEK related incidents that are more notable than capturing an alleged terror cell is numerous and I will be happy to make them proportional to Ypatch's inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 can you just say that your revert was unnecessary so that I can bypass the article's restrictions and reinsert this back in the article? After that you are free to do whatever you want. Ypatch (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you just say -like Barca did- that MEK's assassinations such as that of the president, prime minister and other political figures are more notable than capturing an alleged terror cell in Albania and thus deserve more text?Kazemita1 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 I don't think you're getting it. You reverted me, I didn't revert you. In this talk page you have changed your reasons for your revert, all of which have been without basis. Your last reason is that "there is plenty of information in the previous passage on that same topic", but that's also incorrect. Barca pointed out the extended chronicle you added about a divorce, so refusing a single sentence that adds important information about an attack on European soil makes no sense. You're also now talking about MEK assassinations for some reason, when I never stopped you from adding anything about any assassinations. So an answer is needed here. Why did you revert me? Ypatch (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ypatch First of all, I do not like your tone. Secondly, The divorce you are referring to is termed by MEK as "ideological revolution". Academic author Ervand Abrahamian writes pages about it in his book. It is much more notable than capturing an alleged "terror cell" that was planning to do something. The piece you are trying to allocate 5 lines to has barely been cited by two news pieces. I really hope you can absorb what I am saying by due weight when I say the quantity of text allocated to each event should be proportional to its notability. For example, I can find tens if not hundreds of sources that have discussed assassination of the president and prime minister by MEK. Yet, in the article's current form there is barely a line about it. I am trying to help reach a compromise by offering two solutions: 1. You summarizing the two edits of yours into the size of your first edit. 2. You adding your 5 lines about that not-so-notable event and we -the rest of editors- having to make the rest of events proportional to the quantity you are using. Common sense says the first option is a more reasonable one. Let me know if I am missing something.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 What you are missing is to give a proper answer about why you reverted that edit. Your self-made criteria that a divorce deserves more depth than an attack on European soil seems like a clueless reason to revert. Ypatch (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is about time we have someone judge between us. Once again, the so-called "divorce" was promoted by MEK as a "revolution".--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive Edit summary

@El C: - Kazemita, in their edit here ([29]) removed "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy", which the Reuters article supports ([30]). Kazemita1 did not say anything in their edit summary about removing this sourced material. Isn't this a deceptive edit summary? Barca (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: they're claiming to be going back to the longstanding text. But at any case it is a quote, yet it was placed in the body without quotation mark (i.e. as original prose), which is a copyrights violation — so it cannot be restored, regardless. As an aside, I also notice that note 435 and 436, where this viable alternative quote is also mentioned, are duplicated. El_C 16:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: can I just use paraphrasing and quotes to insert this text back into the article? Also, isn't Kazemita1's edit summary deceptive nonetheless? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I have mentioned in my edit summary there are many things wrong with Barca's edit. To begin with, he replaced the analysts's view on MEK not having support in Iran with "other sources say". Furthermore, he has re-written the section such that a single quote in favor of MEK is preferred to plethora of sources stating MEK's lack of support in Iran. . In simple words he is promoting a minority view to a majority view which is against WP:UNDUE. So to get back to Stefka's question, no paraphrasing is not the only issue with his edit.Kazemita1 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

References

@BarcrMac: or @Stefka Bulgaria: or @Kazemita1: can you point me to when that copyvio was inserted so that I can revdelete it. Sorry for the multi-ping, but I forgot about this and would rather attend to it sooner rather than later. El_C 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC) @El C:.

It has not been reinserted as there were multiple objections against its inclusion beyond copyvio.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

But do you know when it was originally inserted before it was removed? El_C 04:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C:Yes, here it is.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. El_C 14:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: In these two edits ([31] and [32]) you put back in the article that "UNHCR, HRW and the governments of France have described it as a cult", but your edit summaries do not say where this is supported. Can you please elaborate? Barca (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

See discussions here about objections against the change made by Stefka and compare my text with the long-standing version. Also, by all means, feel free to contribute to that discussion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am also having a hard time understanding this revert. Kazemita1, in a few words, can you explain why you reverted this? Ypatch (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barca @Ypatch: I am sorry my edit summary was not clear to you. However, bear in mind that you guys were not involved as much in the discussions back then. If you had, you would know I am reverting to the long-standing version due to objections made by other users involved in the discussion. Anyways, I went ahead and reviewed the text just now; I added sources for France government and HRW claims and removed UNHCR assertion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Where in the HRW document does it say the MEK is a "cult"? Ypatch (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A note on copyvio

Rather than respond at disparate sections, I'm just going to make a statement here. By accident, I have discovered two instances of copyvio in the article yesterday, which is alarming to me. Additionally, as mentioned elsewhere, there is too much close paraphrasing — likely in the expressed efforts to address the copyvios, themselves. That is not the way to do it. Original prose is needed.

If you see a copyvio anywhere on Wikipedia, please remove it immediately. Do not restore it, ever (no, not even for 5 minutes, @Stefka Bulgaria:), and report it to an admin so that it can be revdeleted.

Please note that this imperative totally supersedes anything to do with the restrictions that are placed on this article (the restrictions I devised with the consent of participants here and which later morphed into the Post-1978 Iranian politics General sanctions), or any other article on Wikipedia, for that matter. There ought to be zero compromise in this regard.

Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone going to fix and put back the copy righted information that has been removed? Barca (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick survey about my unique role here

I want to be upfront. I've just edited the article (to address close paraphrasing, but still), which makes my position here in terms of WP:INVOLVED even more tenuous than before. I have been devoting a lot of time, effectively settling disputes (as well as referring participants to other avenues of dispute resolution). So my multipart question is: how am I doing? Have I made mistakes that give you pause? Should this formula continue or has another arrangement become due? El_C 21:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You are doing great body.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your role and activity is definitely effective and useful, but I am going to ask what is the difference between me and Kazemita1 with Stefka? You immediately treated with us and imposed the restriction while Stefka with violation following cases, just got advice! Let's see that,

• Copy right violations 1, 2
• Not waiting for reaching to the consequence and edit the article, he reverted the edit you let me do it,or clear example of it is removing longstanding material (1, 2)
• Divert arguments by playing the game which you advised him for this behavior 1, 2
• Using deceptive edit summary over and over.Saff V. (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid input. I wouldn't say that warnings counts as merely advise, but point taken. The answer is that all your diffs are from late October, whereas the last restriction I applied to someone was in September, which I should note was not a block. The truth is that, as much as I try to be even-handed, due to my increasing lack of confidence in my role here, especially lately, my finger has been very light on the trigger, in general, toward everyone. That is, in part, why I am seeking further input. Because I have reached the point of doubt. El_C 14:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: I was involved in editing the page long before you come here so I think my evaluation would be a good indication of the developments we had been experiencing here. I think you did great; your presence have restored the peace to the page. This page had sometime been challenging (I think you are already aware that in the past this page had been the target of socks seeking to promote MEK's agenda. Their farm was discovered). Anyway, things are good now. Stefka Bulgaria's moving to other pages (see his edits in Khomeini for instance) tells me the restrictions and your taking care of things had been effective. Last, but not the least, if there's something to be governed here as a rule, it should be even to every body (I'm not going to list the Stefka Bulgaria's violations here, but I think he is lucky enough for not receiving admin action). The only problem with this way of handling things, I mean having an admin watching the edits and commenting on the disputes, is that the process would be very time consuming for the admin, specially if the users don't understand that they would better ping the admin when ever enough comments substantiating/questioning the positions are exchanged. My overall evaluation is that you did good, many thanks for putting time on this.

As for making edits, like what you did for removing the close paraphrasing issue, why not asking the involved users to ta take care of things themselves? They (including me) should learn to discuss and edit without you while they feel your presence all the time. We should learn to make it easy for you to follow the comments; long and confusing threads would be very energy consuming, I believe. -Mhhossein ^talk 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: thanks for the kind words, they are much appreciated. Yes, the MEK article disputes are demanding, but I'm happy to help. The constant and chronic edit warring resulting in the article being protected for weeks at a time, was not sustainable. As I already mentioned to you last week, I just want to make sure that I have the consent, and outright support, of, well, pretty much all participants. If even one person objects, then I'm not sure I'd be able to continue my role here. That's why I'm bringing it up. I want it to be crystal clear. I'm not fishing for compliments, though those are always nice! Not be paranoid, but for me, there's also safeguarding myself from misrepresentations that I abuse my authority here in any way. As for my rewriting that copyvio sentence, you're right I should not have touched the article — I guess my instinct was to fix rather than redact. But, indeed, it was probably the wrong call. El_C 23:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. I don't know about others, but I told you my words. I had the same idea even when you commented against my objections. I know you are putting time on this. Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for your work and maybe because of the sensitivity of this page I can understand your suspicion. But your doubt has been given more allowance to Stefka do more wrong edits, We just two days ago found out the edit which Stefka did on 20 October has copyright violation. If you blocked him on 20 October he did not bring another material with copyright issue on 24 October (after 3 days). and on 31 October he violated copyright on this edit of Khomeini's page. It is the outcome of your doubt. Maybe there was another violation in his edits and we didn't see because of his mass edit (bringing mass material into the article). It violated being even-handed, the restriction imposed for me and Kazemita but Stefka just gets the warning. @El C: any way, without your presence we would not have been able to bring the article to this level of progress.Saff V. (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, MY tone was not soft, but it is hard to me as someone who was affected by the restriction, to see others with lots of violations and no one does not enforce laws for them.Anyway, Thanks for attention.Saff V. (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My problem is that the more I become involved in the article, the more I feel I am becoming WP:INVOLVED. The more I am asked to weigh on the nuances of whether certain content facets and objections have been substantiated, the more I feel doubt in my role here. That this doubt had become more acute lately and as a result has affected enforcement of some versus others, well, that is just pure chance. Anyway, the thought has occurred to me more than once to abandon my role here and to either withdraw from the article or to join it as a regular editor, with the authority to enforce restrictions explicitly revoked. That is why I am facilitating this discussion. Note that I am unlikely to do anything admin-related on this page in the immediate sense (aside from obvious emergencies like redacting and revdeleting copyvios) until this discussion clarifies where things stand. As mentioned, the restrictions I originally helped to devise with the consent of participants here, and which have later morphed into the overarching Post-1978 Iranian politics General sanctions — these may be enforced by any admin. Should it still be me? That is the question I pose. El_C 17:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As a followup: the more I make comments such as this on the article talk page, the more I feel my position becoming increasingly untenable. The question I pose is: A. How vital is it to have this highly-contentious article, effectively, moderated?; and B. How vital is it that that person would be me? El_C 21:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's face it. There is a single reason why this article is contentious. It is because of the current political situation and I am not getting into details of that statement to avoid commenting on users. That being said, so long as the political contention exists, so will the contention on the article. As a result, we need a moderating force. Given your experience with the users involved I highly suggest that you stay on top of this issue. --Kazemita1 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kazemita1, He is right on both answers.Saff V. (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C - I think you're help here as an admin is needed. That being said, I don't see why you could not get involved as an editor while you are also involved as an admin. Maybe there is a guideline where these two things should not be mixed up? I don't know. In general, what I have seen in this talk page is that walls of text are some times thrown at you, which some times diverts from resolving the points in discussion. I have also noticed that the page's restrictions are some times applied for some editors or circumstances, and not for others (for example, this recent edit by Kazemita [33], which they have removed without any explanation on this talk page). My advice would be that we keep talk page discussions short and to the point, and that the page's restrictions apply all the time and for everyone (and not loosely, as they appear to be at the moment). I think these two points, if enforced properly, would solve a lot here. Finally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with you editing the article while acting as an enforcing admin. To respond to your questions, I think it's vital to have an admin moderate this article, and I think you have been doing a good job here in general, but if we enforced WP:BLUDGEON and the page's restrictions more firmly from now on, then we could better benefit from your help. Barca (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Barca, the guide is WP:INVOLVED, but I am following the advise given in Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide/Dealing_with_disputes#Definition_of_uninvolved. In its exception, it states: If there is any doubt about whether or not you are uninvolved, but for some reason you think that you, as an admin, are the best person available (perhaps if the participants have invited you to intervene), it is best to openly declare your intentions on the article talkpage, and get a formal "signoff" from the participants. El_C 16:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Hi , Regarding your recent question about Admin role, you have a difficult job and you are doing fine. Editors who write in favor of the government in Iran have their own agenda, but this page is about the opposition. The difficult part is to see the fake publications. The government in Iran spends huge amount of money creating fake news and this makes judgment difficult. Your question about your role shows your sense of responsibility and I appreciate that. Please keep on going. Please remember the disputes have their roots in Iran and in the war between the government and the people, everything would finally be resolved there. Thanks for your endeavors in making this page more readable and truthful for the many readers who follow the events on Wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• @El C:. Hi. I do not know if this edit by Alex-h counts as personal attack, but I can tell you that as a person who edits here voluntarily, I am certainly offended by it. Just to give you an idea, not all Iranians who despise of MEK's past are pro-government.Kazemita1 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a personal attack. They don't have to represent the reality in their assessment. A reality which consists of the following: there are those who oppose the Islamic government in Iran and who also oppose the MEK. Those people also exist alongside those who support one but oppose the other. I doubt there are (m)any who support both, though. At any case, both sides have significant resources which they use to advance their own position and diminish that of their opponent. That is an indisputable fact. But, in the dispute between the two, someone who opposes any one of these sides at any given time may erroneously be conflated with supporting the other, which in many instances would, indeed, be a false conclusion. El_C 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Alex-h: MEK is known for its Propaganda campaign and we don't know how many "Heshmat Alavi"s or "online soldiers" are working for the group. Who knows? maybe they have also hired Wikieditors to promote their agenda (a sock farm pushing the POV of MEK was discovered, did you know?). That is why the editors need to be careful about the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein:Thanks for that veiled accusation, it's not the first time you've made accusations of sockpuppetry here, but just so there are no misunderstandings on that, no, I'm not a sockpuppet of the MEK. As a matter of fact, I stopped editing this article a long time ago because the way you and Saff V. (and more recently, Kazemita) persistently prevent certain information from being included in the article while having no problem including all kinds of Islamic Republic propaganda to it. Also so there are no misunderstandings, I'm not accusing you or anyone of being an Islamic Republic sockpuppet, but you lot have made it almost impossible for other editors to edit this article with some degree of neutrality, and that's the reason I stopped editing here.Alex-h (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's no accusation and please stop making harassing comments. I tried to shed light on the MEK's efforts as a part of its Propaganda campaign. By the way, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK (People's Mujahedin)." --Mhhossein ^talk 20:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: I'm not sure what your intentions are bringing here a comment from a dismissed SPI case you yourself filed a year ago. But if you're going to hint that there is sockpupettry here at this time, you need to take that back to WP:SPI, just like it was done for User:Expectant of Light, an editor you closely contributed with here and ardently defended, even though was blocked for admitted to sock-puppetry and Ad hominem. Alex-h (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: I do understand your feeling and I was afraid of having you reach this point of uncertainty. For this, I blame the editors who kept pinging you for every single issue, which had to be in fact resolved by mutual discussions between the editors. But, I think this is you who should chose your role from now on. We agreed upon a the restriction and we need some one to enforce it; I think, now that you have dealt with the editors and the article, there would be no choice better than you for dealing with the disputes. So, I suggest you to keep on the admin job and let the editors grow! This is my suggestion for today, I don't know if tomorrow things would be the same. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1's lede edit about politicians receiving Payment

Reverting this source by Kazemita1 because it's a disputed statement for the lede (not all politicians advocating for the MEK are paid, as the source itself says):

"Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes. But then many other prominent MEK supporters act without payment."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That is right. So says the text in place "Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group.". --Kazemita1 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, my grammatical improvements to this passage should bear no special weight (quite the contrary) and were unrelated to my copyvio fix — what should be in place while this is being discussed is the longstanding text, which I presume constitutes removal. Likewise, for Stefka Bulgaria's "conservative American politicians" bit, which was my copyvio fix, and which is being objected to elsewhere on this talk page — where the longstanding text would also be (I think) removal. So there we have it: the last two sentences of the lead, which I can appreciate are of tremendous import. There's two options of what to do immediately. There can be a quid pro quo compromise on the side of inclusion with both passages retained (and perhaps with "many" changed to "some"); or, we can err on the side of removal for both, while they are continued to be discussed individually. True, there may not be a direct relationship between the two passages aside from both together ending the lead, but I'm trying to be creative here! Perhaps foolishly. Ultimately, it is up to both of you (or the two opposing camps, in general) to decide how to go about this. El_C 05:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources

Kazemita - in your edit ([34]) you have removed cnsnews, haaretz, nytimes sources from the article. Please explain why. Barca (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See the section right above. You will see El_C's notes. There is also another discussion going on here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The violation of EmilCioran1195

It seems that EmilCioran1195 violated the restriction of the page, at first he added the group's ideology to the infobox, it was reverted by me, then he reverted it for the second time.@El C: I wonder if you check the situation.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

please refer to me what "violation" of any "restriction" (policy?) I have made. Secondly, explain why the BBC is wrong/inappropriate in applying the designation cited. Best regards, - EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

additional sources: New York Review of Books[35], HuffPo[36], Council of Foreign Relations[37], The Guardian[38], teleSur [39] EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ervand Abramanian, The Iranian Mojahedin, (Page 145)

Sussan Siavoshi, Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah, (p. 80): "In 1975, a group [MeK} within the organization rejected religion and declared themselves Marxist-Leninists". 2017, Cambridge University Press. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Baktiari, Bahman. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies; Villanova, Pa. Vol. 13, Iss. 1, (Fall 1989). The leftist challenge: The mojahedin-e khalq and the tudeh party. "The Mojahedin wanted the Islamic Revolution to help them establish an egalitarian society through the fusion of Marxism and Islam"[40]