Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

More false nuclear allegations

Unfortunately, I can't edit the article myself. But the section "Iran's nuclear program" abruptly stops in 2012. MEK has made more false allegations of the same nature, including for example the "Lavizan-3" claims that have been debunked publicly. Here are several sources for this.

[1] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [2] [3] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes: The proposal makes sense. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: Per Jzsj, the death tolls are not "well sourced", why should we give so much attention, to content that is not reliable?

---

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

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

‎Intelligence and misinformation - SYNTH?

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

Although Kazemita1 is pinged, let me elaborate on it;

• This portion was laready used elsewhere, hence I removed it.
• This portion is suffering from SYNTH issue! What does "The Islamic Republic of Iran currently runs an alleged disinformation campaign in the West" have to do with MEK?
• The sentence "he Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap..." is severely problematic; None of the sources [4] and [5] are supporting the alleged "...into providing false testimonies against the MEK". Moreover, advocacy sources such as [6] and un-attributed claims of MEK members are used to conclude a fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein: About your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I see there's a hot discussion. I did not see any of the sources say "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families." I am not experienced but think that Amnesty international is better get used carefully. We should at least use it with full attribution. In this case it does not say "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to...". I see that although this is reverted back in the article several times ([7], [8], [9], [10]). @Stefka Bulgaria: Take it easy man!Forest90 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

About a recent edit by Stefka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's in the LSE wrapper (which is not a RS). It doesn't appear in the journal itself - [11]. It's quite unlikely a short book review (in the midst of a bunch of other book reviews by other authors) was peer reviewed. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Self-sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin by Stevenson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words to watch

@Stefka Bulgaria: I think you are putting TOO much energy in this article so that you even ignore clear points. For instance, you were, in a non-stop manner ( [12] and [13]) pushing an opinion piece into the article to conclude a fact, although I told multiple times not to do that (see my comment), among others). Now, you're again edit warring against me to use a loaded word. i.e. 'however', although WP:EDITORIAL prohibits using this. To our surprise, your edit summary reads "4) “However” is not a loaded word"!!! Is however supported by the sources used? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ties to KGB

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

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

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

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

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

RFC about the death tolls in the lead

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

• Comment Removal of such a well-sourced materials needs more discussion. There are also objections by other users over removing the material ([14], [15]). Notably, I think this drive-by comment, all of a sudden appearing here!, should be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Kazemita1: In a previous TP discussion, Mhhossein said "I was reviewing the source used for the material, Abrahamian (1989) p.220, and I think the content is not sourced to a reliable source. Abrahamian has used questionable sources 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London as the source for his content making it unreliable for being used here."[16] And I quote (further) "I don't know if it's really necessary to repeat that per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.""[17]. We ended up not using Abrahamian data's because it was taken from unreliable sources. How is it different here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Yes Per Jzsj and Icewhiz. These are only estimates and UNDUE (and this is blamed on Stefka somehow, lol) Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Some people were seeking for an academic source providing us with a figure which can be safely used here. My quick search brought up [18] and [19], both saying MEK's armed conflict against Iran left more than 10,000 Iranian people dead. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."[20] MA Javadi (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

We need to embrace what all sources say (not just our preferred sources). NBC source also say "A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” so it is a difficult assertion. In Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists the MEK is mentioned as suspect, not as confirmed responsible. MA Javadi (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The third official mentioned in the NBC article is neutral, saying I neither deny nor confirm. As a matter of fact, NBC's conclusion on the matter is quite clear as the title reads Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Barca: Please see [21] and [22] both saying MEK killed more than 10,000 Iranian people. Do think they're not reliable? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what the sources are saying:

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected for 4 days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what WP:SYNTH says:

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

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

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

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

After the revolution, MEK was amongst the most stalwart supporters of the clerical regime. It grew in number and stature rapidly, soon becoming the most formidable organization in the country. The MEK used its increasing power to pressure the government into increasingly radical action—from more summary trials and executions to the occupation of the American embassy. Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran. [23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions of the BBC article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Nikoo.Amini's undiscussed mass removals

@Nikoo.Amini: You're advised to discuss your changes on the talk page, before making them. For instance, you removed a whole paragraph claiming the materials was not verified by the source, while the source clearly says on P. 193 that "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 other opposition figures." In this edit, likewise, you're removing materials cited to a credible source on a baseless allegation, i.e. "unpublished research", while we know the materials is attributed to Polishchuk and that Stanford university's official web page is verifying content. Seems like you're were trying to pave your way for changing the sections/subsections (why?). Please build consensus before making such changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

For the book Iran's Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Era, there was no page number, so thank you to include this. For the book Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, I cannot find this quote "By 1978, Western intelligence agencies maintained that the MEK was supported by foreign states, based on evidence of receiving funds from Libya led by Muammar Gaddafi, as well as Iraq, then under control of Ba'athists," Can you say where it is? For the university student research, I will take this to RSN. 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" in "State sponsorship", can you explain why? Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikoo.Amini: about to Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, if you cannot find the quote, you have to make a request in TP that other users find it rather than removing the well-sourced material. Also before taking the question to RSN, you removed it by this edit summary "student unpublished research", interesting!Saff V. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain where is the quote in Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards? Also RSN discussion seem to agree with me, so I don't see your point. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein's changes

@Mhhossein: You're advised to discuss your changes on the talk page, before making them. For instance, you removed that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.", and " However, according to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government," both supported by reliable sources. Please build consensus before making such changes. Alex-h (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

1. See WP:Battleground: this talk page is not ground for battle! 2. I did discuss them, see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Changes to the lead. 3. You have restored a defamatory and challenging material regarding a BLP. Wikipedia takes WP:BLP issues seriously and "users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: 1. You're accusing me of WP:Battleground? but you wrote exactly this to Nikoo.Amini! 2. The edits I've mentioned have nothing to do with Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Changes to the lead, so please respond to what is being asked only. 3. What is "defamatory" about adding "However, according to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government."? Does the source not say this? Alex-h (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is defamatory because Col. Leo McCloskey is accusing her of defecting to the Iranian government without evident ground.Kazemita1 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the report? In addition, here is the RSN that talk about this: "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf." Stop making false accusations against me without proper evidence. Alex-h (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is the disagreement to add The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alex-h And since when do you honor inquiries from WP:RSN? I was told by RSN that I am allowed to attribute Milani's comment about MEK's connection to KGB. Yet, you reverted it. Now you have the audacity to show another inquiry from them? Either we accept RSN or we do not. There has got to be a code, otherwise no consensus can be reached about anything.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, your RSN post was not properly presented, and I was not the only one to say so. Mhhossein still has not explained his removals, but instead, you both continue to make unfounded accusations against me, such as that I'm adding "defamatory material regarding a BLP" and "not honouring inquiries from RSN." @Vanamonde93: and @El C:, as uninvolved admins that have had some recent interaction here, can you please let me know if this violates WP:Casting aspersions or WP:PA? (Mhhossein or Kazemita1 don't appear to have expressed regret or wanting to rectify their behavior here on in past warnings. It feels like we're going around in circles). Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Constant complaining to admins is not going to help resolve any problem in the long term. Let's talk about the issue at hand, i.e. inquiries from RSN. We need to set some rules in our future inquires from WP:RSN. For example, everyone should respect the outcome of an inquiry if it is from an independent and un-involved editor(s). The votes from involved editors won't count. In order to avoid any "misrepresentation", we can have the other party, i.e. the party who is against the inclusion to compile the question on the noticeboard. If we can agree on something it will help us along the way. That is my proposal; feel free to comment on it. (p.s. All those who thought my inquiry was misrepresented were involved editors who had reverted my edits at least once prior to the inquiry)Kazemita1 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I see mostly a spirited debate, but Kazemita1 could stand to lower the aggression a bit (here and elsewhere). El_C 18:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Noted El_C. With that, User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V., User:Stefka Bulgaria, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h, User:Sa.vakilian, User:Forest90 and User:Nikoo.Amini are encouraged to comment on standards for inquiring the WP:RSN.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputes

There are plenty of dispute areas between the users here. I have commented on some of them and gave enough details why they should/n't be/changed in the article. I'm trying to make it clear for insiders/outsiders/admins what's going on here and which user is doing what.

A) Location of the paragraph and terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK

This is already discussed and comments have arisen. I think there need to be an RFC for this (I've done it just below this discussion).

B) MEK's only targeting Islamic Republic’s government governmental and security institutions

Discussed here, here, here and here (all opened by Kazemita1) though they're not enough. This is clearly a disputed content which is kept by edit war, without building consensus.

C) Col. Leo McCloskey's comment on Batoul Soltani

This is also disputed and should not be included without having built consensus. There's already a RSN discussion over it with no certain consensus.

D) MEK's 1981 serial attacks killing dozens of Iranian officials

This is another disputed content. While Alex-h believes the content is already included in the lead, Kazemita1 thinks otherwise. This is though discussed no where in the article talk page!

E) IRI capturing and torturing MEK's members

I discussed it plenty of times here with Saff V. [24] and Forest90 [25] agreeing with that the sources are not supporting this claim and Alex-h saying the claim is "supported by reliable sources". This subject, among others, had been subject to back and forth. It's disputed and should not be included without the consensus among users. The users who intent to insert this material should carry the burden of showing how the sources support such a big deal.

F) Confessions of sexual fantasies.

There is dispute on whether to include this in the article and which section to include it in.

G) US officials confirming MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in the article lead.

The piece existed until a few days ago when MA Javadi removed it.

User:Saff V., User:Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita1, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h, User:Sa.vakilian, User:Forest90 and User:Nikoo.Amini: I'm inviting the involved users to consider discussing the above issues (and other points I've possibly missed) instead of making serial reverts. @El C and Vanamonde93: The article suffers from lack of input from neutral admins or experienced users. Please consider watching the changes and/or commenting on the disputed contents where ever needed. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep on discussing the above points under the related topics.

Dispute A

I have opened a RFC for this. Please take your words there, instead of here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute B

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

I have categorized it here since there were back and forth on it. @Kazemita1: Do you have a response for El_C's question? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Given MEK's behavior in massive bombing of a political party and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and having verified statements from sources confirming they target "low civil servants", it is a bit undue to use strong words such as "analysts confirm that the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions". --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Context:

"Khomeini banned Rajavi and other MEK candidates from office on the basis of their refusal to support his new constitution. Le Monde’s correspondent wrote on March 29, 1980 that Rajavi would have received 'several million votes'.[...] At some point in early 1980, Khomeini issued a hand-written judicial order to execute MEK members and supporters. Regime forces ransacked every office printing or distributing the MEK journal ‘Mojahed’."

"June 20, 1981 […] Rajavi and President Bani-Sadr together had 'called upon the whole nation to take over the streets the next day to express their opposition to the [regime] ‘monopolists’ who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat.' An outpouring of people materialized the next day in cities across the country – half a million in the streets of Tehran alone."

"Faced with the prospect of being swept aside by a second revolution […] Khomieni moved to impeach Bani-Sadr, forcing the two men into hiding, and launched what Abrahamian calls (p.219) 'a reign of terror unprecedented in modern Iranian history.'”

"With MEK members and sympathizers, and other political challengers to Khomeini, being hunted and summarily executed by the cleric’s enforcers, on June 28, 1981 a bomb killed and wounded a number of senior regime clerics. According to the Reuters dispatch in the New York Times on June 30, 1981, the authorities initially blamed the 'Great Satan' (the US); Abrahamian (p.220) noted that the regime also suspected 'SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime.' The Nationalist Equality Party […] claimed credit for the attack, according to the Times story. The pro-Soviet Tudeh part was also suspected. According to the Times account, 'a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack…' Within days, the regime shifted its story and blamed the MEK. Throughout its 30 years of underground armed resistance the MEK habitually issued communiqués taking credit for its actions against the regime, yet it never claimed responsibility for the June 28, 1981 bombing."

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

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

I would note that MEK's involvement in Hafte Tir bombing and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is disputed (one of many claims) - and in any event the first is a regime affiliated political organization and the second is military target. Civil servants are also a regime target. None of the assertions above (2 of which are clearly disputed) are convincing regarding civilian targets. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not all politicians in the Hafte Tir bombing were statesmen or members of the current government. Nuclear scientists assassinated by MEK were NOT members of the military. Some of them were academics with no ties to government or the military at all. Read Assassination of Masoud Alimohammadi where it talks about his political views to see for yourself. The guy was closer to opposition than to the state. Also, as mentioned here an independent source disputing MEK's involvement in the assassination of nuclear scientists is yet to be found. As for Hafte Tir bombing there are pretty strong sources confirming MEK's involvement:

• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.

I encourage you to find similar sources that deny MEK's involvement in that bombing incident.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1 and Icewhiz: There are plenty of cases were MEK violently killed civilians only for they probable sympathy towards the government or only because their targets had been beard or wearing Chador (signs of being religious, respectively for men and women). You can see examples of MEK's child killings here and here. There are some more sources on this:

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

So, saying in the lead that MEK only targeted governmental targets is just giving undue weight to the claim. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that Khoemeini and the clerical regime blamed the MEK for all sorts of things, some of which have been confirmed by the MEK and some of which amount to allegations without evidence.

About Kazemita’s sources: even though they they have some issues including a few inaccuracies (such as death toll count in the June 28, 1981 IRP bombing), they all acknowledge that the MEK’s targets were Iranian officials (the part that Kazemita didn’t include in his quotes above for some reason).

About Mhhossein’s sources: The first two links are Tehran based government advocacy websites. The Terrornomics source cites Sandra Mackey’s “The Iranians” as its source for this claim, who in her book says about the 1981 bombing:

• "Converting the Islamic Republic’s loss into political rhetoric, Khomeini held the Muahedin-e Klhalq responsible… When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Muahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and Revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them.

This is not equivalent to "targeting civilians", also confirmed by the following authors:

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. :

• "...the violence was targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc; and second, all these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between the MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs."

Struan Stevenson:

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

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

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Come on! Are you asking us to act based on Rajavi's "pledge"? Here's Wikipedia! Moreover:

• The portion quoted from "Terrornomics" is exactly supporting that MEK targeted civilians.
• Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
• There's a wrong link of Cohen's.
• I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
• As for the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[26] So, please come back with a an academic and neutral source! Note that I already presented two sources saying "Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" and that MEK's operations included "killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people." --Mhhossein ^talk 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... I would have thought the 6 sources provided in my previous post all passed WP:RS and clearly stated that the MEK did not target civilians. Here’s one more:

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

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

I don't think that it is in dispute that the Islamic regime is not a reliable source about their political opponents. El_C 21:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly @El C:. And we all know David Gold, Eileen Barker, NBC news, and Haarz are not in any way related to the Islamic regime and yet they all confirm MEK targeted ordinary people.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• "David Gold" (Terrornomics): quotes Sandra Mackey, who does not say the MEK targeted civilians: "Converting the Islamic Republic’s loss into political rhetoric, Khomeini held the Muahedin-e Klhalq responsible… When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Mujahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and Revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them."

• "Eileen Barker": author is actually Massoud Banisadr, another former MEK member whose published works focus exclusively on attacking the MEK. His observations are far, far from neutral analysis and UNDUE. We have, nevertheless, included some of his views in the article, but they should not be the determining factor of a major claim based on lack of neutrality.

• "NBC News": is the only source that says that two "U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group". Haaertz contradicts this, saying "Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting." Because there isn't evidence, the MEK have been treated as suspects. (Haaretz just quotes NBC).

I have started a RfC below about the allegation concerning the MEK targeting civilians. About the nuclear scientists, the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists already describes the MEK as suspects, so we should do the same here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's you're respond:

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

@El C: Willing to take a look at it? Please note my comment on how the two major sources provided by Stefka Bulgrai (books by Bloomfield and Stevenson) are not neutral and should not be given UNDUE weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Agreed. Sympathetic sources (like the "Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Masoud Banisadr), as well as self-published sources (like the "Living in hell"), both of which Mhhossein provided above, should be avoided. We can do a deeper analysis of sources supporting the claim that the MEK did not target civilians as I don't see issues with most of the them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

'Living in Hell' maybe subject to negotiation but 'Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements' is edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge, so can't be simply discredited. Please note that, as per WP:ONUS "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --Mhhossein ^talk 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Defending a self-published book and some writings by Massoud Banisadr (an ex-MEK member that dedicates the whole of his work to attack the MEK) won't get us far in our quest to avoid sympathetic sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

stop making personal attacks. Did I ever commented on your using the sources by Bloomfield and Stevenson? While we know that none were sympathetic sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute C

McCloskey guesses! Soltani was recruited by Iran. My evaluation of this content is that McCloskey's view is a minor viewpoint that can hardly be considered as reliable enough and hence its usage for describing a BLP is not recommended. I think, this defamatory content should be kept out of the article unless there's consensus over its inclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find another RS to verify the claim about Soltani! Why do we devote space to a person who was not a key member or playing role in key event(s) belongs to MEK, So I agree with Mhhossein.Saff V. (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RSN response on 4 May 2019: "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf"." Alex-h (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

So what? That's not the last say in the world, specially when only 2 users have participated the discussion (including me). See my response. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We go to RSN to get non-involved editors to comment on the reliability of the source. The source was presented at RSN properly and neutrally, and Francois Revere said it was ok for inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your edit summary reads "McCloskey source was approved at RSN" while RSN is not for "approving edits" and that no consensus was built there. Why are you repeatedly reverting this disputed BLP content without trying to build consensus (as ONUS demands?). (notifying El_C). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry to keep pinging you, but as one of the few admins that has had some involvement here, it seems suitable to ask you. Mhhossein objected this source, so I took it to RSN, where the only experienced editor to comment was user:François Robere, who responded "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf." I added the source back to the article based on this feedback, but Mhhossein continued to object/revert the inclusion. I feel like I'm missing a part of the puzzle here. Why is this allowed to happen? What could have I done on my side to make this any better? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

What you could have done better User:Stefka Bulgaria, was to choose a middle ground rather than pushing on your own point of view. That is the only solution to avoid edit wars. Previously, I had tried that when trying to include an RSN approved content about sexual fantasy interviews in MEK camps and your camp kept reverting it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the edit] because the explanation does not guarantee inclusion. There should be consensus over inclusion. The onus is on those who wish to include.Saff V. (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: You proposed starting a RFC; But the RFC should be over inclusion of this disputed content attributing a defamatory content to a BLP. As I have repeated elsewhere, the ONUS for including a disputed content is on those who wish to include the content. Moreover, per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Please let me know if I'm wrong. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe take it to BLPN, or try to explain what you perceive as the outstanding BLP issues in a more concise way. Sorry, I'm just spread a bit thin lately. El_C 17:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute D

Regarding Alex-h's edit, unlike what Alex-h claims in the edit summary, the lead does not talk about MEK killing prime minister, president and congress members. These were important acts of terrorism performed by MEK and are worth mentioning explicitly rather than summarizing as "MEK killed officials". Killing officials could be mistaken for killing regular soldiers, police officers or government employees. Assassinating the president and prime minister and half of the congress is a big deal and is due to be mentioned in the lead, specially when it is covered by an independent secondary source such as Guardian. This is a crucial part of MEK's history.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Only WP:DUE confirmed events should be included in the lede of a controversial article that's already too long as it is. Disputed events can be described in the body with context and counter-arguments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are yet to show any independent source that denies MEK's involvement in Hafte Tir Bombing or their role in assassinating nuclear scientists.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of RSs in Hafte Tir bombing explaining this:

The Islamic Republic of Iran first blamed SAVAK and the Iraqi regime. Two days later, Ruhollah Khomeini accused the People's Mujahedin of Iran. Later a Kermanshah tribunal executed four "Iraqi agents" for the incident, and a tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. In 1985, the head of military intelligence informed the press that this had been the work of royalist army officers. Iran's security forces blamed the United States and "internal mercenaries". ... According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular." According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP."

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

Dispute E

Saying IRI is "known" to capture and torture MEK members is a big deal. Saying some one is known for something needs a reliable source and none of the cited sources support this claim.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Can you see the cited sources for this edit? As I have already said, advocacy sources such as [27] and un-attributed report are used to conclude a fact. I recommend removing this disputed content. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

El_C: I've put much time on making this section to organize the major disputes. So, what should be done? Commencing an endless discussion with no un-involved input? who's going to help with resolving the disputes? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

El_C: There's no dispute over whether or not the material is suitable for inclusion. I say the sources even don't support such a level of assertion. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested to learn what other editors think. If consensus can be shown, I'd be willing to edit the protected page to that (whichever) effect. El_C 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C: They are watching our discussion and don't have to say anything, since their version is safely locked (please don't link to Wikipedia:Wrong Version). I showed multiple users saying the sources are not supporting the claim and while the policy saying "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" you're actually asking me to do the reverse. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do anything. But, indeed, a lack of participation from those who support the other version may lead me to revert the protected page to your version. Time will tell. El_C 19:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some sources supporting the claim that the IRI has kidnapped and tortured MEK members. These all meet WP:RS, so not sure what the issue is here:

• "The Iranian regime, however, launched an astounding demonizing and Disinformation campaign against the MEK. Iran's agents in the Intereior Ministry kidnapped MEK members while others discuntinued the government's allocation of food rations, medicine and fuel for residents of Ashraf City contrary to all Islamic and Iraqi traiditions.
• "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.
• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."
• "The siblings were tortured in front of each other and repeatedly threatened with execution... Farzad was a nonviolent activist and supporter of the resistance group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), best known in the West for revealing details of the regime’s theretofore hidden nuclear program... "They wanted me to confess to crimes that I had not committed,” Farzad said. They wanted him to publicly renounce the PMOI (also called Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran. “They told me, ‘You come and do an interview against the PMOI, the MEK, and the NCRI,’ ” he said. “They would throw me on the ground and treat me like a football between three people. .  .  . Several times they did this to me in front of Shabnam’s eyes in order to break her.”

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

References
References

Well, came your comment after the warning. Anyway, your sources include claims by three people allegedly poisoned and tortured, an out of the ark source, i.e. Abrahamian's book, saying MEK made attacks for "imprisoning, and torturing political activists" (which should not be taken equivalent to saying Iran imprisoned, and tortured MEK members), a report by an advocacy group which, at best, can't be used un-attributed just like the report by the U.S. house of representatives saying "Iran's agents in the Intereior Ministry kidnapped MEK members". Come on, none of the above content can be used for concluding a fact like that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" with such a level of assertion. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Among all the sources mentioned by Stefka, I only find Ervand's book reliable, in which there is no discussion of kidnapping MEK families. In fact, Masoud Rajavi's son was among the survivors of IRI's raid to Mousa Khiabani's safe-house, but the ended up growing up freely with his grandfather and leaving the country after all. --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to delay in response! I have to note that there is a difference between MEK's family which is our subject and political activities that have nothing to with our discussion but most of Stefka's source belongs to it. Also Congressional Record is as a reliable source for opinion (at that date), not as a reliable source for a fact OR Congressional Record is not a record of facts, it's a record of what was said. All in all above sources cannot support The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.Saff V. (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Really? I could have sworn all these passed WP:RS and all describe torture or kidnapping of MEK members or sympathizers by the IRI. I browsed and found more:

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

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

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

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

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

Now that I've found these other RSs, I believe they should also be included in the article. If @El C: thinks thinks all these are not enough, I can look for more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources for kidnapping and torturing MEK members may be, but their families no. The edit shown above by Mhossein (currently in the article) asserts kidnap and torture for MEK family members as well. That has to be corrected. Besides, "known" is a strong word. You guys never tolerate anything close to this no matter how many sources confirm MEK's assassination records in Iran; instead you change it to "According to ...". --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I found this:

• "documenting and investigating the crimes, including the extrajudicial executions carried out in 1988, as well as the ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims’ families... Amnesty International’s focus on one of the most heinous chapters of state violence in Iran’s recent history is further prompted by the ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about the extrajudicial execution of political dissidents in the 1980s"
• "According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these Intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution.

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

I, personally, found the latest content contained in the sets of sources presented directly above, quite compelling. El_C 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I will start moving some of these quotes/sources into the mainspace (as far as I can see, these sources here are neither MEK nor IRI sympathetic).

References
References

Dispute F

While, I no longer push for including the "sexual fantasy confession" in the sexual abuse section, I still think it is worth mentioning in the article. One candidate section could be the human rights abuse section. There are at least two independent sources that mention this and it makes me believe it is due for inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Votes from independent contributors of WP:RSN confirm the reliability of the source for the assertion, although mention that it is not sexual abuse.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Dispute G

As far as I am concerned, when an incident is so notable that has an article in the Wikipedia, it should be due for inclusion in the lead. Secondly, it is important to include it because in a way MEK broke its promise to USA after its ceasefire in 2003. --Kazemita1 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

With Confirming Kazemita1's comment, why was the well-sourced material by haaretz removed? when the claim is supported by RS, it would stand as a fact! Isn't it? Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

See MA Javadi's RfC post: "A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” so it is a difficult assertion. In Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists the MEK is mentioned as suspect, not as confirmed responsible." Alex-h (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

...and we can say in the lead that MEK is suspected to be involved in the assassination of the Iranian scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

We call the content disputed when some deny and some confirm it. Here, We have more than one independent source that confirms MEK's involvement, but no independent source is yet to be found that denies MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The third official mentioned in the NBC article is neutral, saying I neither deny nor confirm. As a matter of fact, NBC's conclusion on the matter is quite clear as the title reads Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News. If we don't find any source that denies MEK's involvement in the matter, it should be mentioned as confirmed. However, if we find a disputing source we can then use the word suspected.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MA Javadi already included this in the RfC below:

"On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."[28]"

Considering the active active disinformation campaign against the MEK, only concretely confirmed data should be included in the lede. Complex allegations can be included in the body, along with context and counter-arguments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

NBC and Haartz are not part of misinformation against MEK. They are independent reliable sources. I do not recall I ever appealed to Iranian officials to prove a point in any of my edits on this article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC about order of paragraphs in lead

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're sticking to those "according to"s and ignoring established facts such as "The US state department, which decides which groups to include on the list of designated terrorist organisations, points to a long and bloody history."[29]. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Edit request

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

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

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

RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede

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

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

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. :

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

Struan Stevenson:

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

• Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
• I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
• As for the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[30] So, the sources are not academic and neutral.

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

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

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

Looking at the three sources above - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - [31] - it also isn't on geopolitics, but rather on the ideology/religious doctrine of MEK. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship. Which leaves use with Terrornomics - which indicates that MEK will kill civilians it sees as government supporters - which is not so strong here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[32]

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

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

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

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

What you are you searching for?

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

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

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

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

Protection 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection 3 removals

Does anyone object to the following inclusions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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