Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mhhossein (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 12 August 2019 (→‎MEK support in Iran and NPOV: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

RFC about order of paragraphs in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The RfC is closed for the subject paragraph to appear last. It is a compelling arguement that the lead has a chronological order and placing the paragraph earlier would be out of sequence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[1][2][3] by the U.S. government on 21 September 2012, and lastly by the Canadian government on 20 December 2012.[4] The MEK is currently designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq.[5] 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,[6] which was expired in 2009 after full sovereignty of Iraq.[7] Many experts[8] 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”.[9]

References

References

  1. ^ Runner, Philippa. "EU ministers drop Iran group from terror list". Euobserver. Retrieved 2012-09-29.
  2. ^ "EU removes PMOI from terrorist list". UPI. January 26, 2009. Retrieved 2012-09-29.
  3. ^ John, Mark (January 26, 2009). "EU takes Iran opposition group off terror list". Reuters.
  4. ^ Sen, Ashish Kumar. "U.S. takes Iranian dissident group MeK off terrorist list". Washington Times. Retrieved 2014-12-17.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference bdt45cgf112 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ de Boer, T.; Zieck, M. (2014). "From internment to resettlement of refugees: on US obligations towards MeK defectors in Iraq". Melbourne Journal of International Law. 15 (1): 3.
  7. ^ "Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)".
  8. ^ Filkins, Dexter (29 April 2019). "John Bolton on the Warpath". Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  9. ^ Andre Brie, Paulo Casaca, Azadeh Zabeti, “People’s Mojahedin of Iran – Mission Report,” European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran, L’Harmattan Publishers, September 2005.

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

  • Second: As 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)[reply
    ]
  • Second indeed. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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.'"[1][2][3][4] "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'."[5]
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."[6] 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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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."[7] Other analysts support this."[8][9] 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.[10] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK."[11] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-1780885575
    .
  2. ^ Shane, Scott (21 September 2012). "Iranian Group M.E.K. Wins Removal From U.S. Terrorist List" – via NYTimes.com.
  3. ^ Schoeberl, Richard (12 March 2015). "It's Time to Lift the 'Terror Tag' From Iranian Opposition Group MEK". Fox News.
  4. ^ Graff, James (December 14, 2006). "Iran's Armed Opposition Wins a Battle — In Court". Time. Archived from the original on April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Carlile, Alex (12 October 2012). "Iran fears the MEK's influence, as its protests over terror delisting show". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  6. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  7. ISBN 978-0615783840
    .
  8. ^ Pike, John. "Mujahedin-e Khalq". CFR. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  9. ISBN 9781351479134. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help
    )
  10. ISBN 978-0615783840
    .
  11. ASIN B07FBB6L8Y. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help
    )
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
E.g., the designation "terrorist organization" would not apply to its efforts to overthrow the Shah. Jzsj (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.'"[1][2][3][4] "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'."[5] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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."[4]. --Mhhossein talk 18:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[6] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
  • Second: The paragraph would be better for the readers satisfying the MOS:LEADORDER. ML 911 12:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Last: Chrono order (like it is now). Moving paragraphs around distorts events. Barca (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ISBN 978-1780885575
    .
  2. ^ Shane, Scott (21 September 2012). "Iranian Group M.E.K. Wins Removal From U.S. Terrorist List" – via NYTimes.com.
  3. ^ Schoeberl, Richard (12 March 2015). "It's Time to Lift the 'Terror Tag' From Iranian Opposition Group MEK". Fox News.
  4. ^ Graff, James (December 14, 2006). "Iran's Armed Opposition Wins a Battle — In Court". Time. Archived from the original on April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Carlile, Alex (12 October 2012). "Iran fears the MEK's influence, as its protests over terror delisting show". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  6. ^ Filkins, Dexter (29 April 2019). "John Bolton on the Warpath". Retrieved 1 May 2019.
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.

Mhhossein has contested this close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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.[1] :

  • "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[2]:

  • 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[3]:

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

Ronen Cohen[4]:

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

MEK leader
Masoud Rajavi[5]
:

  • "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[6] :

  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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."[5] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - [6] - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@Forest90: why did you edit my vote?Saff V. (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."

[7]
--Mhhossein talk 12:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You have not, in fact, established
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The closing user/admin will consider your drive-by comment and your personal attack. --Mhhossein talk 10:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That source (or the source the book is quoting) does not say that the MEK targeted civilians; but rather, it says that government supporters were shot by the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speculations of different accused groups (including the MEK, among others) is not evidence (WP:UNDUE speculation). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Also basing on Cohen and Abrahamian, which appears to be the best we have to determine that the MEK targeted Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions (and not civilians per se). Ypatch (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The sources provided show they used to attack civilian. For instance "Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" is mentioned by Terrornomics. Also, Abrahamian is not supporting the claim that MEK did not target the civilians since it's only talking about MEK's alleged attempts aimed at minimizing the civilian causalities. Other sources provided by Stefka Bulgaria are shown to be pro-MEK so we'd better not to rely on them. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To include in the lede section of the article that "the MEK targeted civilians", then we need RSs saying just that. Instead, we have "countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot", which can equate to collateral damage and a number of other things. If we are to include that the MEK targeted civilians, then we should have enough RSs saying that was the case, but we don't have a single one confirming this. On the other hand, we have RSs saying that the MEK targeted the Iranian regime and avoided civilian casualties:
Ronen Cohen[1]:

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

Dilip Hiro[2] :

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

Ervand Abrahamian[3]:

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

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rajavi agreement should immediately be ignored here, it's not supporting anything here. Also, "To limit civilian causalities" does not mean they did not attack civilians. "countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" clearly means MEK used to attack "ordinary citizens". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice the RSs I provided above (which do not include Rajavi's statement), they clearly say that the MEK did not target civilians. There may have been casualties of "ordinary citizens" as a result of MEK attacks on the state, but that does not equate to the MEK targeting civilians; rather, that there were civilian casualties on some MEK attacks on the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided are not baking your position. See "the assassination of ordinary citizens" in [8]. I know it's opinion but this opinion is not alone and is backed by other reliable sources. Al-monitor is another source showing PMOI used to target civilians by making "practices of indiscriminate bombings". So I still think the statement should not be removed from the lead. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In order to include in the lede of an article that a political group targeted civilians, we need RS clearly stating that the group targeted civilians. From all the discussion in this RfC, there aren't any sources that clearly verify that the MEK targeted civilians, so adding this in the lede of the article is WP:OR. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you have not really seen my original comment. Otherwise I am putting the quote here:

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

[9] The conversation has become already too lengthy. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terrornomics is quoting Sandra Mackey here, who says "When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Mujahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them". (Mackey, 1996:306) This is a very long stretch from having in the lede of the article that the MEK targeted civilians; it's simply WP:UNDUE based on the vast amount of sources that outline the conflict was between the MEK and the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were told not to investigate the sources further. --Mhhossein talk 12:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An opinion piece and a paraphrase from a book that doesn't confirm the MEK targeted civilians is not enough to support such a big claim, specially when we have actual RSs saying the contrary, making the claim that the MEK targeted civilians
WP:UNDUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Your own original research regarding the reliable sources is not going to affect anything here. Btw, it was shown that the opinion is hold by multiple sources, so it's not a simple OPINION. --Mhhossein talk 11:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...and they celebrated their attacks against Iranian civilians as if were their enemy." [10]
"This has included killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people."[11]
"...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot".[12]
So, there are sources having same idea! --Mhhossein talk 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is not working, your second link is by an author who's sole published work is to demonize the MEK (not a NPOV source), and the third link has been thoroughly discussed here as a paraphrase of Sandra Mackey who does not say that the MEK targeted civilians. All in all, there isn't a concrete RS that confirms the MEK targeted civilians = UNDUE claim, specially for the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mojahedin first acted against the Revolutionary Guards and only later against the military units. The Mojahedin perceived Iran's different security agencies as a factor that depressed the people and as servants of a religious government. The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only."[4]

References

  1. ISBN 178027288X
    .
  2. ISBN 978-0415669696
    .
  3. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  4. ^ Cohen, Ronen (August 2018). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6).

Cherry picking

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

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

@El C: I find this recent revert by Saff V. to be tendentious as there was no "Cherrypicking" or "misrepresentation of the source" as the user claims; the text simply repeats what the RSs say. This is what was removed:
  • This statement is backed up by numerous sources: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.[1][2][3][4][5]
  • This statement is attributed and backed by a reliable source: "According to European intelligence and security services (as well as MEK members), Iran's Ministry of Intelligence's networks "shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution."[6]
  • In 2011,
    Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so."[8]
  • This statement is attributed: "In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."[9]
Thanks for checking.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as saying it's tendentious, but it could be better substantiated. If one argues that something falls outside of
cherrypicked, they are then likewise obligated to show where those pertinent facts actually lie. El_C 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@El C: so they've reverted even though they haven't outlined where the WP:DUE and WP:CHERRY issues are. Wouldn't that qualify as an unsubstantiated revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it should be better substantiated now. El_C 03:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that we should be better at expressing ourselves now that the article is under this new restriction. First of all note that the article already includes "there has also been an ongoing campaign by the Islamic Republic to demonize victims, distort facts, and repress family survivors and human rights defenders}}. This is sentence is so close to one of the given suggestions. Also, there's already a sentence saying "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" and there's another one narrating Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh's claims. Should we copy here every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports? Also the article already includes "shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution". Stefka was told about this (see Mhhossein's comment on 07:21, 8 June 2019). You have also suggested to add the repetitious "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process" without making proper attributions, which adds to the severity of the problem. Just, look at the suggested title! This is while we have 'Human rights record' for the MEK itself. Should we change it into "MEK's human rights abuses"?For cherry picking, HRW reported that not only the crime of Kazemi is being in relation with MEK, but also the two of sending images of the protests to foreign is mentioned as his another crime, while it was not brought in that paragraph.Saff V. (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t think we should include “every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports” (which, by the way, we are not), then the same applies for other aspects in the article such as the “sex allegations” against the group, correct?
Also, you could have just removed text that was repeated; everything else is properly backed and attributed and refers to this section which specifically addresses “IRI human right abuses against the MEK”. Can you specify, one by one, what is UNDUE or CHERRY about each point I raised above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would vary from case to case as well as I don't know which sex allegations exactly you mean. Anyway, please let us review disputes one by one and don't say anything about sex allegations in this discussion, they are different from each other. I addressed POV and cherry picking issues in my previous comment.Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, NyTimes and the Guardian are used for the cases mentioned in sexual abuse allegations. Needless, to say that the section is titled as allegation! Not a double standard? As for the repeated text, what would remain if we remove them? --Mhhossein talk 12:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: From Saff V.'s response, I can't see what's WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE about the points raised above; can you? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can. The argument has now been substantiated. I think it's best that every case should be evaluated according to its own merits and particularities. We should not doing a pro- vs. anti-MEK counter weighting here. El_C 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Sorry, I'm having difficulties seeing it. What's WP:CHERRY / WP:UNDUE about this first point for instance?
  • The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.[1][2][10][11][12]
Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that it essentially duplicates existing material. El_C 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I had also noticed it before but missed here for whatever reason. But I can't see the WP:CHERRY/WP:UNDUE for the other text that's not repeated; this for instance:
"In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""[13]
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's essentially a duplicate of the existing materials. See 'Operation Eternal Light and 1988 executions' where 3 paragraphs are dedicated to this. So, I don't think it would be suitable to include given those materials. Moreover, for your next edits, calling sth "cruel, inhuman" without making proper attributions is not a good idea, is it? Specially when the source, i.e. Amnesty, is itself criticized for " whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein". --Mhhossein talk 14:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)  [reply]
Amnesty International and HRW are neither MEK or IRI sympathetic. Instead of creating a new section about the IRI's human right abuses against the MEK, would everyone be ok to just include (whatever is backed by RSs and isn't repeated) chronologically in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the materials are not fitting well into a time line basis. That's why I don't think it can be true for all the parts. The main sections are already showing a chrono order. Right? --Mhhossein talk 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

We have several RSs that say the IRI tortures MEK members, so this is not

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

  • "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.[14]
  • "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."[15] (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."[16]
  • "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.[17]
  • 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.[18] (University of California Press)
  • If they were lucky, Mojahedin were arrested and put in prison. Torture and firing squad came later[19] (Routledge)

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

It is nothing to do with how many RSes support the material, I am sure there are undue issues, It is better to remind your word: "There is no need to have 5 different subsections here. This refers to my previous comment about trying too hard to magnify trivial information into significant events.... The section does not need further repeated statements by the same authors.There seems to be a lot of hostility between the MEK and the IRI, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tabloid platform for amplifying this. The article needs to focus primarily on major historical / political events, as any Wikipedia article about a political party. Following your given reasons, duplicate material that some of them were repeated more than 2 times should be removed from the article.Saff V. (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we only include text that isn't already in the article. From what I can see, the text above is not repeated text already in the article. I'm also fine with not creating further subsections. Are we all ok with this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka how do you think about the following sentences? Aren't they repeated or same? Still, do you think these sentences The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families...."In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." have to be kept into the article?
in the following, I collect duplicated material for the above sentences from the article:
  1. The MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists".
  2. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih".
  3. The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.
  4. In August 1992, a MEK member was kidnapped and brought to Iran.
and as to executions, we have:
  1. In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members.
  2. In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners".
  3. The executions ordered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government. Saff V. (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do one at a time:
  • "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.[20]
Where is this repeated? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that sentences like... In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners" ...or... In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members ...as well as... A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa are enough to devoted space to 1988 executions and there is no need to detailed description?Saff V. (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does provide a more detailed description, which can be merged with "A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa". Should I come up with a proposed merge of sources/statements? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see the merged material here?Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How's this?: "A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa" A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Saff V.: in case you missed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is duplicated material. The exact number of executed people is on the article right now...In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners.Saff V. (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I suggest we replace the excerpt you provided with this:
"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."
In this instance, nothing is repeated and the info is better presented/more accurate. Can we please agree? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

My two cents; These executions were carried out when MEK had launched armed attacks against Iran and some of the members of MEK in prison were supporting this armed development by making riots. So anything you are going to add, should include such a context, without which the text would be imbalanced. --Mhhossein talk 14:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) What is the problem with adding the dates of the events? 2) This is presented within the 1988 conflict with Iran, so that's not an issue. Any clear objection why this shouldn't be on the mainspace? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to adding just the time (late July and mid-August), it makes the article more accurate. I extremely believe that we have to avoid adding duplicated material.Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think we should add repeated material. Please tell me what's repeated here:
"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."
Please be specific. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You made a loop and make me repeat my response again and again. Please change your manner!for the last time I repeat, as I illustrated to you duplicated material already, you just by using ctrl F can find duplicated material, for example, these sentences are seen in the article now: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners" or A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa orordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition orThose executed also included women and children. Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"? Does it mean torture of MEK member in prison?Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full quote and the source:
  • "Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.[21]
Any objection to include this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were already told. --Mhhossein talk 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
verify your objection, or self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
References

References

  1. ^ a b "Congressional Record". Government Printing Office. June 29, 2005 – via Google Books.
  2. ^ a b "Ongoing crimes against humanity in Iran". www.amnesty.org.
  3. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  4. ISBN 978-0520218666
    .
  5. ISBN 978-0415781176
    .
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yonah Alexander, Milton Hoenig 2007 22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  8. ^ "Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights". Human Rights Watch.
  9. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  10. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  11. ISBN 978-0520218666
    .
  12. ISBN 978-0415781176
    .
  13. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  14. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  15. ^ "What happened?". The Economist.
  16. ^ "Inside Iran's Revolutionary Courts". BBC.
  17. ^ "Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights". Human Rights Watch.
  18. ISBN 978-0520218666
    .
  19. ISBN 978-0415781176
    .
  20. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  21. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.

NLA

@Mhhossein: In this edit, you seem to have removed that the NLA was active from 1987 to 2003. What sources confirm that the NLA has been active beyond the ceasefire agreement? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you mean this one where I just elaborated my point by saying "Ceasefire agreement does not mean they're not armed no longer." In fact, there should be a source confirming they were not active beyond the agreement. For instance, see Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and search for "MEK". --Mhhossein talk 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman response since whether they are "armed" is not in discussion here. You removed that the NLA was active from 1987 to 2003, so please provide some RSs that verify the NLA is still active, otherwise please self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, "whether they are "armed" is not in discussion here" and I'll revert if you provide a reliable source saying MEK had armed activities only between 1987 - 2003 and they did no armed activities afterwards. --Mhhossein talk 18:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my posts again. We're discussing the NLAs period of activity. Are you saying the NLA has still been active beyond 2003? If so, you need to provide some RSs that confirm this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"US. military leaders in Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with the MKO in April 2003 that allowed it to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces."[13]. --Mhhossein talk 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Mhhossein added in the article that the NLA (the MEK's military wing) has been active since the MEK's 2003 ceasefire agreement. However, the only source Mhhossein has provided to back up that statement is the one he included above, which doesn't mention the NLA but says that the MEK were allowed to keep weapons after the ceasefire agreement. I find that this is problematic because allowing the MEK to keep weapons is not the same as the NLA continuing to be active. Could you please weight in? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
consensus for it. That's how this works. Slow but (hopefully) steady. El_C 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, think I'm starting to get the hang of this, slow but steady... thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Please note that I just restored the long standing version of the article which was recently changed by the IP without building consensus. So, it's up to Stefka Bulgaria to build a consensus for changing the long standing version. The only source Stefka Bulgaria relies on is the sources saying the made a ceasfeire agreement in Iraq which it does not mean they were no longer active. For example, MEK is among the suspects of the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. --Mhhossein talk 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MEK (along with other groups) is suspected of being behind the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, but that's not confirmed and does not mention the NLA anywhere. It's quite simple, if the NLA has been active beyond 2003, then there should be RSs supporting this, but there aren't. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the other version can be up in the meantime, if it is, in fact, the longstanding version. But regardless of which version is up in the interim, indeed, there needs to be supporting evidence that the NLA remains active (in some capacity, at least). Key word is substantiate. El_C 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already restored the longstanding version. Stefka Bulgaria's comment was not, let's say, accurate when he said I had inserted something in the box while I had just restored the longstanding version. Anyway, do you think MEK's agreement with U.S. is an indication of the group becoming inactive? I don't think so. --Mhhossein talk 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about the MEK as a whole, though, we're talking about the status of its military wing, which, speaking for myself, I have no idea about. Again, both sides should work on substantiating. El_C 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your advice on substantiating and I'm pretty much ready to accept the sources saying NLA was inactive after 2003. --Mhhossein talk 05:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Mhhossein added in the article] that the NLA was been active since 2003, but has not provided any evidence to back this up. Is this correct? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. Can you please be accurate when talking about others' edits? After this comment, which was misleading, you're now saying I have "added in the article that the NLA was been active since 2003," which is not true! --Mhhossein talk 11:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, you need to provide a reference saying that the NLA has been active beyond 2003. Do you have a reference? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The branch had been active since 1987 and there's no reliable source saying it got inactive at a certain point. So, you need to find a reliable source saying the group was inactive after 2003. --Mhhossein talk 10:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: The MEK signed a ceasefire agreement in 2003; plenty of sources covering this:
  • In April 2003, US forces signed a cease-fire agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the MEK.Israeli National News
  • The MEK/NLA subsequently signed a cease fire letter on April 15, 2003. The Guardian
  • In the aftermath of the war in Iraq and on or around 15 April 2003, Coalition forces signed an agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the PMOI in Iraq. The Economist
Since the 2003 ceasefire agreement, there haven't been any recorded incidents involving the NLA. As such, if you make a claim that the NLA has been active after 2003, then it's on you to provide such evidence. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that "mutual" agreement between MEK and U.S. Note that the agreement "allowed it [MEK] to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces."[14] In fact, they agreed not to make operations against U.S. and it does not mean they were completely inactive since then. There are some cases where MEK carried out operations, for example see Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists were MEK is of the main suspects according to analysts and experts. --Mhhossein talk 11:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of tanks? — where do they keep them? Anyway maybe you two can compromise with a label of inactive but a note about suspected activities past that date. Just a thought. El_C 16:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: If Mhhossein can find a source that says the NLA is suspected of any activity, then by all means let's come up with a middle-ground. Mhhossein is not, however, putting forth such a source (the suspicions about of nuclear scientists does not mention the NLA). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: you have the floor. El_C 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EI C for the suggestion, however we still need sources saying NLA has got inactive. I checked MEK's official website and found some more interesting clues supporting my position. For instance, this link speaks of NLA's summon letter being distributed across Iran amid the previous presidential election or this one talking about the history of NLA. The latter does not say in any ponint NLA was inactive and emphasizes that NLA has passed multiple steps in its history. Also I'd like to say that Stefka Bulgaria's assertion on using an emblodened 'NLA' just baffles me. Despite what he tries to pretend, NLA is not something different from MEK. See this source for example: "In the Matter of the Designation of the Mujahadin-e Khalq...Also Known as the National Liberation Army of Iran, Also Known as NLA, Also Known as People's Mujahadin Organization of Iran..." The MEK members still use this title indiscriminatedly when refering to their group ([15]). --Mhhossein talk 11:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, there may have been a cease fire, but do you have evidence that the NLA actually (officially) suspended operations? — actual mentions to that effect beyond your own
original research that speak as to its overall lack of activity passed a certain date? Mhhossein, on the same token, do you have actual evidence of (overt, covert) activity that goes beyond suspicions? Again, a compromise that includes exactly what we do have to show in this regard, might be the best way to resolve all this. El_C 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
El_C, there is no evidence of the NLA taking part in any operation beyond 2003, just like there isn't evidence of other things that the NLA did not do. It's confusing to me to have to provide evidence of things that have not happened. Also, the NLA is not the MEK, but the military wing of the MEK. The NLA has been active from 1987 to 2003, and thus we have sources that confirm its activities during this period. If there are sources that confirm the NLA has taken part in any event after the 2003 ceasefire agreement, then we should certainly include this in the article; however, there aren't any. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had already said above we're not talking about the MEK as a whole, though, we're talking about the status of its military wing, so that was unnecessary. I am up to speed. Anyway, if you have sources that NLA disbanded or suspended operations then you should provide these. If not, then that probably would have to be qualified. El_C 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C: That MEK's official website talks about the NLA's activtiy in recent years is a good indication of the branch being still active. Please search Persian: ارتش آزادی بخش ملی ایران. I made some examples, but see this one which talks about a 2013 report by NLA on a murder case. What more do we need here? --Mhhossein talk 12:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Here are sources that confirm the MEK were disarmed in 2003 by the US:

  • The MEK/NLA subsequently signed a cease fire letter on April 15, 2003. Heavy weapons and all light arms were confiscated from the MEK, and the membership of the MEK in Iraq was consolidated from several MEK camps to the main camp at Ashraf.

    [16]

  • In May 2003, the Washington agencies agreed to direct coalition forces to secure the MEK’s surrender and to disarm the group. Again, the coalition officers who negotiated with the MEK leadership were dissuaded from carrying out this instruction. Rather than insisting upon the MEK’s surrender, they accepted a cease-fire agreement under which the MEK would be disarmed and its (at the time) 3,800 members would be consolidated and detained through assigned residence (rather than internment) at the MEK’s largest facility, Camp Ashraf.

    [17]

  • Until the American invasion of Iraq last year, the People’s Mujahedeen maintained armed camps near the Iranian border… The American bombing raids on the camps represented the most aggressive approach by the United States in the handling of the group. It was followed by a gentler approach, including prolonged case-fire negotiations and a cordial relationship between the group and the American military police unites that have guarded the camp, preventing members from leaving except under American military escort.

    [18]

  • Eventually, the NLA was consolidated into Camp Ashraf… and oversight of the NLA was assigned to the U.S. military. A cease-fire agreement was signed between the U.S. military and the NLA… All NLA members signed letters renouncing terrorism.

    [19]

  • On April 2003, members of the U.S. Special Operations Forces signed a ceasefire agreement with MEK leaders. Subsequently, Department of Defense issued guidance through CENTCOM to forces on the ground to effect a MEK surrender. Following a series of negotiations with MEK leaders, the several thousand MEK members were separated from their well-maintained heavy weapons and brought under coalition control at Camp Ashraf in Diyala province. […] After the security agreement took effect on January 1, 2009, U.S. forces handed control over the outer perimeter around Camp Ashraf to the ISF.

    [20]

  • Aside from the National Liberation Army’s attacks into Iran toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War, and occasional NLA cross-border incursions since, the MEK’s attacks on Iran have amounted to little more than harassment.

    [21]
There are more available if needed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating the old comments. The question is not whether they had agreements or not. There might be millions of sources saying they had ceasefire with the U.S. So what? My sources from the official website of MEK explicitly talk about the NLA's activities. --Mhhossein talk 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm providing sources that say the NLA was disarmed by the US in 2003, which is I believe what El_C asked for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka Bulgaria, so did the MEK follow through on that agreement? Was the NLA disarmed in the end? El_C 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: According to the sources, the MEK was disarmed in 2003. Here is another source by the

LA Times (currently being discussed in another TP section):

"Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

[1]

Since it was disarmed, there haven't been any reports/sources of the NLA breaking their agreement with the US, or taking up arms in any other incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Is Tehran spying on Southern California? Feds say O.C. waiter and 'Chubby' from Long Beach were agents of Iran". LA Times.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. We have to go with the sources say, until other sources establish this to the contrary. If after the 2003 agreement with the US to disarm, the NLA still participated in other (covert, armed-encounters) operations, even if on behalf of US allies, this needs to be established by the available sources. Was the NLA actually dissolved, also? El_C 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: RSs say that the NLA was disarmed in 2003 by the US, and then there's nothing else about the NLA from 2003 onwards. My suggestion would be to reflect what RSs say: "Founded in 1987 - disarmed in 2003" (or something along those lines). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C: The details of the ceasefire is also given in this reliable source which says MEK was "allowed it to keep all its weapons". As for the NLA being dissolved, I already provided links to the MEK's official website talking about NLA's recent reports. So, the sources say they are not dissolved. --Mhhossein talk 13:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: The fact remains that sources say the NLA/MEK was disarmed in 2003, with no other RSs saying the group has broken the agreement or that the NLA has been involved in any other event since. This source may also be of interest:

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam, occupying US forces disarmed the residents of Camp Ashraf and signed a formal agreement that promised them the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlines the rules for protecting civilians in times of war.

[22]
There have since been numerous violent attacks by Iran and Iranian proxies to MEK refugee camps,[23][24] which led to the US relocating MEK members to Albania. There isn't any mention of the NLA (or any type of armed resistance) during these violent attacks against the MEK (or any other event after 2003 for that matter). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the NLA was active under Saddam - and was tolerated and promoted as an armed force (including heavy arms) by Saddam. Following their 2003 disarmament (see - [25] - they had the strength of an armored division circa 2003) - they no longer exist as an actual regular force (in terms of actual men/women and material). Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but your understanding is just against the facts found in the MEK's official website, as I showed earlier in this section. They still talk about recent reports by NLA! --Mhhossein talk 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And is MEK a RS? The source you pointed out mentions some report from Camp Ashraf (since closed moved to Camp Liberty, since closed move to Albania). MEK might still refer to NLA. There might still be people with NLA ranks (just as Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran might style himself as something, as may people associated with various defunct groups). However - NLA as a bona fida armed force (with tanks, artillery, APCs, etc.) - ceased to exist in 2003. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MEK's official webpage can be used in this case; My source talks about a 2013 report by NLA on a murder case. Also please note that the 2003 ceasefire agreement "allowed it [MEK] to keep all its weapons"[26]. --Mhhossein talk 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm..... Not per my understanding or RSes. They may have been allowed to keep weapons in some interim ceasefire (in April 2003 per your source - however they were subsequently disarmed (I think in May 2003) - and your cited sources explicitly says "renounced the agreement a few weeks later"). Sources such as - mcclatchy in 2003, NYT in 2012, a 2009 RAND paper, a 2016 House of commons library briefing, Guardian in 2012 (which goes as far as saying "forcibly disarmed by the US army in Iraq") - all state they were disarmed. They used to have an armored division+ in Iraq - this simply doesn't exist anymore (heck - MEK as a visible group in Iraq doesn't exist following the final Albania move). Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I think that there has to be evidence of some sort of armed encounters in order to render the NLA with active status. Who here agrees with that as a standard? El_C 20:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do - for inclusion - but it is too high to exclude. AFAIK during the last decade of their existence (93-03) - they were mainly or even only in camp (with a division worth of tanks) - they were an active force, just not engaged in major conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all the sources we addressed so far say they were disarmed in 2003 and we should not go beyond these sources by saying they were inactive. Hence I suggest to mention in the infobox that they were disarmed in 2003. --Mhhossein talk 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that there has to be evidence of some sort of armed encounter in order to render the NLA with active status. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: based on this TP discussion, I edited that the NLA had been active until 2003, but Mhhossein reverted this saying that there is no consensus for this. Is this correct? Thank you Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining concern is the MEK's official page pointing to NLA official activities such as the 2013 report I mentioned in my earlier comments. When you say NLA is inactive, it gives the impression that there's no longer such a thing as NLA, which is against the clues available in their official page. That said, I'm not of course against pointing in the infobox that NLA was disarmed in 2003. --Mhhossein talk 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add in the infobox that it was disarmed in 2003. About the NLA being mentioned on the MEK's website: 1) I don't speak Farsi, but using Google translate it appears that the reference you're talking about refers to a statement by a MEK committee that also included previous NLA's Security Committee members, correct? 2) Is the MEK website a reliable source for this Wiki page? If so, that opens up a whole new door of information we can include in this Wiki page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK with mentioning somewhere in the infobox that the NLA was disarmed by the U.S. Also, the source I provided speaks of a NLA report issued recently. Did I suggest using the webpage to add info into this article? I just meant to reassure the info added in the infobox is the most accurate thing we know. --Mhhossein talk 11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fund raising

Guys do you think "Fund raising" is an appropriate title for the section mostly dealing with illegal activities of MEK such as money laundering? --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obvious paradox. How about illegal Fundraising? Saff V. (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are various different cases there, not all illegal, so "Fund raising" is fine. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The section is mostly dealing with the illegal fund laundering networks of MEK so the title needs to change. --Mhhossein talk 12:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section also includes lots of hearsay from Netjang Society and other unverified sources. Let's keep it NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any fair objections against changing the title into something showing their illegal activities as per reliable sources? --Mhhossein talk 05:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this section includes lots of hearsay say from Netjang society and other similar unreliable sources. Using quotes such as "According to four anonymous Iranians claiming to be ex-MEK members" and presenting it in Wiki voice as verified info is
WP:OR: , and there's quite of bit of this here (as well as throughout the article as a whole). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Haft-e Tir Bombing

This incident is inserted under 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' section while there are numerous non-Iranian sources saying MEK did the bombing (such as those mentioned by Kazemita1), among the sources are a report by the U.S. Department of State. I think it should be relocated to a more suitable section such as 'Assassinations'. --Mhhossein talk 12:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, there are plethora of independent evidence besides US Department of State declaration that you mentioned above that find MEK responsible for this bombing:
  • "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.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1:So this is not just an allegation by Iran. --Mhhossein talk 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See
Hafte Tir bombing. There are different suspects, including "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."[1] Barca (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The article you mentioned is under construction(Wikipedia is not a reliable source :) ). That said, I think it should be easy to find out which opinions on this matter are fringe and which ones are prevalent based on the sources we will be finding in the days to come. So far I have found the following independent reliable sources backing the idea that MEK committed the bombing:

--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there have been trials, executions, and plenty of accused, including Iranian officials (who also blamed the MEK). In so many words, lots of suspects:

  • “A Kermanshah tribunal executed four "Iraqi agents" for the incident, and a tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. Iran's security forces blamed the United States and "internal mercenaries".[2][3]
  • "According to a
    New York Times on June 30, 1981, "the authorities initially blamed the 'Great Satan' (the US)." Ervand Abrahamian noted that the Islamic Republic "also suspected 'SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime." According to The Times, the Nationalist Equality Party claimed credit for the attack. The pro-Soviet Tudeh part was also suspected. According to The Times "a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack". Within days, the regime changed story and blamed the MEK."[4]
  • "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."[5]
  • “According to The Times, the Nationalist Equality Party claimed credit for the attack, and that "a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack."[6]
  • "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."[1]Barca (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those old sources should not be given much weight as per
WP:AGE MATTERS, since they don't cover the recent findings and developments. Almost all of the recent sources put the finger towards MEK. There are always some minor viewpoints which should be given the due weight. The sources you suggested are either old or minor. --Mhhossein talk 10:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Right... so we shouldn't use records of people accused, tried, and executed over this incident (also groups claiming responsibility) because the sources are old? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful not to say "use" though you interpreted it as such. Those old sources should not be given much when making decision, though they can be mentioned according to their weight. --Mhhossein talk 05:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources describe the sequence of events, including the IRI eventually putting blame on the MEK (which is far from being "evidence", specially considering the major disinformation campaign by the IRI against this group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're tryring to pretend that only IRI sources are saying MEK did the bombing. NO, there are plenty of fresh academic sources also saying MEK did it. So, your argument is not applicable here. --Mhhossein talk 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a
WEIGHT issue, as the policy demand, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...or Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. If we ignore Abrahamian and his work, is there any author who beleveis that IRP leaders were in charge of bombing? How about Forqan group, is not a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority? this report of guardian and RAND Corporation support that MEK is responsible for bombing.Saff V. (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Just like everything else in this article, there are different sources saying different things. We just include what the RS say, as events unfolded, and aim for a NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask for the last time; Do you have any fair objection against having recent academic sources as a base for deciding whether or not Haft-e Tir Bombing was carried out MEK? --Mhhossein talk 12:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This does not change what previous sources have said about this incident including who the IRI blamed, who claimed responsibility, and who was executed on account of this event. In conjunction, what can be confirmed for certain is that the IRI blamed the MEK for this incident, but that many others were also suspected, including IRP leaders (see Barca's sources above) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, that MEK did the bombing is not merely an allegation by Iran! --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As sources outline above, it was an allegation by Iran, as it there were other allegations made (including against the US and the IRI), none of which were ever verified through evidence, with other groups claiming responsibility and several people being taken to court and executed because of this incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question is simple; Should we ignore the numerous fresh academic sources saying MEK was the perpetrator? --Mhhossein talk 15:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should not ignore any of the sources, specially those that confirm executions and groups claiming responsibility for this incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why we should not say it's just an Iranian allegation. --Mhhossein talk 06:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RSs say that this was an allegation by the IRI, so that's difficult to dismiss. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we already in a
Viscious circle? There are plenty of fresh and academic sources (see some of them) saying MEK did the bombing and you're showing some old sources saying Iran alleged the MEK to be the perpetrator. I'm saying we should not give the readers the impression that it was only an Iranian allegation (because it's clearly against what those academic sources say). @El C: Would you please assess the consensus here? should the Haft-e Tir bombing fall under 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' section to make the readers think it's merely an allegation by Iran? --Mhhossein talk 10:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point. The overarching description should follow that. El_C 17:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed, lets use all available sources to construct the narrative, with newer sources as focal point. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9
    .
  2. ^ "33 HIGH IRANIAN OFFICIALS DIE IN BOMBIMG AT PARTY MEETING; CHIEF JUDGE IS AMONG VICTIMS", NY Times
  3. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  4. ISBN 978-0615783840
    .
  5. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  6. ISBN 978-0615783840
    .

Heshmat Alavi

@Kazemita1: In this edit, you reverted the following back into the article with the edit summary "It is related to MEK, in that it shows the impact of its propaganda campaign":

"Media outlets that have published the writings of "Heshmat Alavi" include Forbes, The Diplomat, The Hill, The Daily Caller, The Federalist and the English edition of Al Arabiya's website. One article of "Alavi" published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran.[1] Since the article's publication, Twitter has suspended the "Heshmat Alavi" account, and the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website.[1] A website purported to be a personal blog of "Heshmat Alavi" published a post with counterclaims."

However, this text refers specifically to Heshmat Alavi, and not the MEK (even if Alavi ran a "propaganda campaign", the text you presented here is not linked to the MEK in any way). Could you please explain or self-revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, Heshmat Alavi is a creation by MEK. What do you mean by "the text you presented here is not linked to the MEK in any way"? --Mhhossein talk 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it might be useful that the washington post reported that On Sunday, the Intercept published an investigation into Heshmat Alavi,a rabid supporter of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a controversial Iranian opposition group.Saff V. (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources saying that Heshmat Alavi is a "creation of the MEK", then we should include that in the article, along with anything else that's in relation to the MEK. The quote mentioned above, however, is not related to the MEK, so it has no place in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly all the sources on Alavi mention MEK is being behind. Anything directly related to the MEK's creation may be added, as long as the wp:size allows. I can show sources if you like. --Mhhossein talk 12:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the MEK, so anything in relation to the MEK should be included. Where Alavi published is not related to the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple, MEK's creation had been promoting MEK's propaganda! --Mhhossein talk 18:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What MEK propaganda was published in the outlets mentioned above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Massoud Rajavi was instead of Heshmat Alavi, is not an article published by him related to MEK? In other hand, Please pay attention to these sources, he is a fictional persona that reportedly was created by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) by by aljazeera and other sources like, farsnews, presstv. Saff V. (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but can't understand what you're trying to say. Can you please answer my question? What MEK propaganda was published in the outlets mentioned above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done here? If nobody answers my question, I'll presume we're in accordance that no MEK propaganda was published on the named outlets. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One article of "Alavi" published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran.So It is clear Alavi as a creation by MEK was going to encourage Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran. It is MEK propaganda!Saff V. (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a logical question. It's quite clear that MEK's creation promotes MEK's propaganda, which is anything against Iran. So what? --Mhhossein talk 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question is a simple one: What "MEK propaganda" was published in the outlets mentioned above? @El C: if opposing camps refuse to answer simple/direct questions, what happens then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if SaffV provided such an answer — is that not the case? El_C 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: sorry, but I can't seem to see it. How is an article published on Forbes that doesn't mention the MEK related to the MEK? What about the other news outlets mentioned here? how are they linked/related to the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was settled already. Anyway, what matters is what reliable sources say. It is not our role to investigate these sources further. El_C 17:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Hussain, Murtaza (9 June 2019). "An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?". The Intercept. Retrieved 13 June 2019.

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

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

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

The file is found elsewher and I don't think hamneshinbar is the ultimate source. According to this the letters are kept in the archive of Standford University. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to radiokoocheh.info? That is also not a reliable source, and the Commons file links to hamneshinbahar.net, which is not a reliable source. Barca (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein? Can you please reply to my comments? Barca (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who originally put it in the article, I take the liberty to answer on his behalf. You may read about the letter here in the California Archives. Just search for the figure instruction using CTRL+F and you shall find them.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is being discussed here in the source of the image. This image, which is currently in the MEK article, links to Hmaneshinbahar.net, which is not a reliable source. Barca (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone respond here please? The source for this image does not seem to be a reliable source. Barca (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS? Barca (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, no response implies consent. El_C 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful(?) demonstration

The lead describes the

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

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

    [27]

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

    [28]

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

    [29]

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

    [30]

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


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

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

[31]

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

    [32]

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

    [33]
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was brought in
WP:YESPOV that A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.So without considering why sources describe the protest "bloody" or"peaceful", it is necessary to balance all viewpoints not removing one or opposite opinions. Also, I think that it is a disputed subject, is it really need to mention it in the lede section?Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no need for Wiki-lawyering, Stefka's sources say the protest started peacefully until the government opened fire on protesters. Barca (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and Stefka Bulgaria knows this well and as El C said, these MEK-sympathetic sources are "for our immediate purposes here, problematic". Also, since when do we interpret "revolutionary resistance" as "peaceful"? That's simple, if there's controversy over whether or not the demonstration was peaceful, then we should not have this qualification in the lead. --Mhhossein talk 14:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Isak Svensson is Professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden, and former Director of Research at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand." Ervand Abrahamian and Dr Bayram Sinkaya are also fully qualified authors that confirm the protests were peaceful until the government suppressed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you said don't change the fact Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and hence is closely related to MEK. Also, that Bayram Sinkaya (WOW he's a doctor!) says something which is objected by other known authors, tells us there's a controversy over the quality of the protests. Why are you attempting to insert a controversial word into the lead? --Mhhossein talk 13:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get that Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup"? Also, how is Ervand Abrahamian and Dr Bayram Sinkaya related to the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just mistook him with Struan Stevenson, but it does not change anything since he used Abrahamian as the source for his claims. Also, Bayram Sinkaya just talks about a "revolutionary resistance" which does not mean there was a peaceful demonstration. --Mhhossein talk 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a specific demonstration, not the "revolutionary resistance" as a whole, and we have RSs saying this was a peaceful demonstration. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have reliable sources describing this demonstrations as "riot", "clash" and "bloody". In fact, reliable sources are inconsistent with their descriptions of this demonstration so using the "peaceful" qualifier is against NPOV. --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been addressed: the demonstrations, according to RSs, were peaceful until they turned bloody on account of the IRI targeting protesters. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, some of the sources I provided say otherwise, that's why we can't use "peaceful". Do you have more things to add here? --Mhhossein talk 07:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the RS I provided earlier:

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

[34]

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

    [35]

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

    [36]

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

I was asking for a rational argument. Don't bludgeon the process by over repeating these wall of texts please. --Mhhossein talk 04:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the RSs provided, there you will find the rational argument that explains the process of these protests. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, you had no new thing to add. We already saw the sources saying the demonstration was peaceful and I provided sources describing the demonstrations as "riot", "clash" and "bloody". --Mhhossein talk 10:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, may have turned "bloody" when the IRI started targeting demonstrators, but, according to the sources, the protests were peaceful to start with. So when we say that the "MEK organized a peaceful protest", it reflects sources accurately. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're again relying on your OWN original research, which is not supported by the reliable sources. No, "MEK organized a peaceful protest" presents a POVish selection of sources. --Mhhossein talk 13:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources more carefully. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'd like to ask you do. --Mhhossein talk 11:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    20 June, 1981 Iranian protests as being "riot", "clash" and "bloody". Stefka Bulgaria, from the other hand, has 2 sources describing the protests as being 'peaceful'. I've concluded that reliable sources are not consistent in describing the protests and we should not take sides in the lead of the article by having qualifications for the protests. Would you please assess the consensus? --Mhhossein talk 11:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oops! I meant to @El C:. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Obviously, there's a split in the scholarship (and a debate about the neutrality of some) regarding the extent to which these protests were peaceful or riotous, on the one hand. And on the other, whether Khomeini's forces treated protesters as armed combatants or themselves were engaged by "revolutionary resistance" immediately taking up armed struggle ("revolutionary" resistance" does not automatically equals armed struggle, however). Or, whether the reality is somewhere in the middle and involves facets from both scenarios. The point is that it's difficult to parse the historiography, for me at least. But you can, indeed, compromise and qualify, bringing up the split in the scholarship (like in an explanatory note). El_C 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: Thanks for the response. Firstly please see this modification to my comment. I've in fact opened this topic to show there's a "split in the scholarship". Despite this inconsistency in the sources, the lead of the article is describing the demonstrations as being peaceful and I think the lead should remain neutral when describing the incident. --Mhhossein talk 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have here 3 reliable sources (Ervand Abrahmian, Bayram Sinkaya, and Isak Svensson) saying that the MEK organized this as a peaceful protest, which does not contradict the other sources that say these protests turned "bloody" (RSs say that the IRI attacked protesters, which may well be interpreted as "protests turning bloody"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I told you previously to avoid making misleading comments (diffs needed?). Just few sources are talking about the demonstrations "turning" violent. Also, just 2 sources are supporting that claim (Isak Svensson is referring to Abrahamian). Most of what I provided are describing the demonstrations as being violent without saying how the became so. There's a rough consensus here that the reliable sources are not consistent with describing the event and that the "split in the scholarship" should not be ignored. That's why the lead should stay away from making judgements about the status of the events. I'm going to remove to remove the qualification "peaceful" if you fail to provide a fair objection. --Mhhossein talk 06:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RSs provided speak for themselves, so no, there is no consensus to remove "peaceful" from the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the sources speak for themselves and as it was shown, they're not consistent in describing the incident. Though enough sources were provided, the following clearly show the consistency better than before:

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

    [37]

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

    [38]

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

Among the the above sources, first one clearly talks about MEK fighters acting on 20 June 1981 and second one mentioned MEK's armed conflict at the time. --Mhhossein talk 14:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not address the protests, and there are reliability issues. Do not change the live content without consensus first. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: Your revert was clearly tendentious and a misuse of the new restrictions of the article. I'm just baffled by your recent arguments; The quotes I provided directly and explicitly talk about the 20 June 1981 demonstrations and the sources are reliable enough. Taylor & Francis-2012, SAGE-2015, Abe Books-1989, Routeledge-2011, HRW. I don't need to gather all sources on the earth to convince you, since it's not what consensus building constitutes and I think your failing to substantiate your objection, as El C said, needs to be properly addressed. --Mhhossein talk 13:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just say the the lead of the article should not take side when mentioning the 20 June 1981 protests since the sources are not consistent in describing the demonstrations. I even showed fresh sources saying it was violent and armed. While Stefka Bulgaria says the lead should describe it as 'peaceful' only because old source, Abrahamian 1992, is saying so. --Mhhossein talk 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was it intended as an armed insurrection? Was it a demonstration that responded with armed struggle to excessive force? Was it a combination of these two scenarios? I, at least, am unable to tell. I agree, though, that modern historiography is more pertinent for our immediate purposes here than an older one. El_C 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to sources, the protest was not intended as an armed insurrection. In fact, sources specifically says the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful until Revolutionary guards cracked down on protesters (turning protests bloody, etc.), which matches the supported claim: "the MEK organized a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic Republic party". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is what YOU think or what you like to see in the article, not the fact supported by the sources.
the article dedicated to the incident or briefly in the body of this article. Certainly, where ever it's suitable, the lead of this article is not a good place for having such a judgement. For my own information, do you find such a revert in response to my edit (see the edit summary), after such an amount of discussion, collaborative needing no caution? The users should be warned against making bizarre arguments given the fact that the article is under restrictions. --Mhhossein talk 18:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed,
Talk:20 June, 1981 Iranian protests is currently a blank page! Ordinarily, the nature of that event should be decided there and juxtaposed here. What is the longstanding text and how did it come about? El_C 19:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well - it's a short article, few editors (to be more precise - mainly written by a single editor) - I wouldn't read too much into consensus (or lack thereof) in that article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: What longstanding text are you asking for? --Mhhossein talk 11:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking in what context did "peaceful" come about? El_C 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: The WikiBlame is not working properly, or I would tell you when it was inserted into the lead (I'll give it another try tomorrow). But, why are you asking for this? The sources are already ploughed up and we saw the inconsistency among the sources. I don't know why we're keeping that word in the lead at the moment? --Mhhossein talk 12:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[39]

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

    [40] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you not to bludgeon the process by repeating your wall of texts; this is the 3rd time your over repeating those sources, which shows you have nothing new to add (for your response see my 14:47, 13 July 2019 comment). El_C: Would you please respond to my previous comment, notably to why we're keeping the word "peaceful" in the lead despite the fact that the sources are not consistent in its description? I think it's quite clear that the lead of the article should be neutral with this regard. Btw, the tool still does not work properly, though I don't know what would happen if it works. --Mhhossein talk 14:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm unable to clearly parse the pertinent historiography, so the status of that word as constituting longstanding text (or lack thereof) actually becomes rather key. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: But I did not ask you to "clearly parse the pertinent historiography". That's not easy, I know. You already said there was "a split in the scholarship" and that "compromise" could be a good idea. Also you noted that modern historiography should be priored for this immediate purpose. Note that at the moment we're relying on a 1992 book and I showed multiple fresh sources, some of them academic works, contesting the current status of the lead. I think it's logical, under the circumstances, for the lead to be neutral with regard to the description of the incident. --Mhhossein talk 19:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't know if I'm able to decide this by fiat. Perhaps yet another RfC can resolve this. El_C 19:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: I think this not so complex to be resolved via a time consuming RFC. This topic is opened since 6th July and Stefka Bulgaria's failure to substantiate his position without adhering to his own original research should be enough for now. Building consensus is much different than trying to convince a user who repeatedly says same thing. --Mhhossein talk 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't disagree, and I, too, am inclined to go with the more modern historiography over an older one — yet, it still feels like too much of a content decision to make by fiat. That's why I still think revealing the edit history context to how the word "peaceful" came about is still important. El_C 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: Well, I tried to find how the word peaceful was inserted, though it was time consuming. I knew Stefka Bulgaria himself had did it, but I could not tell the precise date. The disputed content was first added by Stefka Bulgaria to the body. Days later, he inserted it into the lead without using "peaceful", wikilinked the phrase and added the word "peaceful" to the lead. It was not though without back and forth, you can see the edits between them. You can see the source being an an old book. --Mhhossein talk 06:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating, Mhhossein. I see. Well, obviously it constitutes longstanding text. That having been said, relying on older historiography when newer sources exist, is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria, are you able to provide more up-to-date sources that support the "peaceful" assertion? If not, removing "peaceful" and adding an explanatory footnote that deals with the scholarly split (vis-a-vis "peaceful" and/or lack thereof), is a compromise that's worth considering. What do other editors think? El_C 10:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much Ado About Nothing. We don't really need to label the protest (and one could claim that due to the very severe IRI crackdown - it wasn't peaceful disregarding the protester's actions). I would rephrase "Along with then president Abolhassan Banisadr, the MEK organized a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic Republic party (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d'état)." to "The MEK organized a large demonstration against the Islamic Republic party and in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr". Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Icewhiz. Barca (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I stated one month ago, but Stefka Bulgaria turned the discussion into a frustrating process by over repeating his non-applicable arguments. He needs to be warned against misusing the restriction of the article to avoid such "Much Ado About Nothing"s. --Mhhossein talk 12:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of sexual abuse

These edits were included back into the "Allegations of sexual abuse" section:

  • Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused", although her subsequent allegations involve her suffering physical and psychological torture which included a forced hysterectomy.

Can someone explain how this constitutes "sexual abuse"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't a forced hysterectomy mean sexual harassment? She did that by force not her willing.Saff V. (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She "avoided being sexually abused" means she had to protect herself against abuses which means there were some people trying to abuse her. --Mhhossein talk 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which means she was not allegedly "sexually abused". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, The Answer is Right Under Stefka's Nose, but he urge to deny above statement or forcing Mek's member to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders are the example of sexual abuse and is trying to remove them.Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you write in an encylopaedia that there was sexual abuse, there needs to have been some sexual abuse involved. "Avoiding sexual abuse" is not part of being "sexually abused". "Forced hysterectomy" is also not sexual abuse. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No women need to protect herself against sexual abuse where there's no threat! --Mhhossein talk 13:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that threat does need to be acted upon in order for it to constitute sexual abuse — otherwise, it can be precautionary. That is to say, there can be instances where one does feel they need protection from sexual abuse where no such potential actually exists. But that's all in the abstract. There's no sexual component to a forced hysterectomy — I would classify it as
reproductive abuse. The sexual fantasies confessions probably does count as sexual abuse, however. El_C 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@El_C Thanks for responce, How about HR violation? Can't we consider the sexual fantasies confessions in front of commanders publicy as a Human right violations?Saff V. (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but sexual abuse is a human rights violation, by definition, wouldn't you say? El_C 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thoght that it would be a sexual abuse but if you don't agree with that, I can wrote about the sexual fantasies confessions of MEK's member in to HR violation of article,Can't I?Saff V. (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion, again, is that it probably is sexual abuse, even if there is no physical coercion. But it's up to other participants to decide if it is or isn't that. I'm already having an undue influence by even expressing my own view, in this instance (though, in fairness, I was pinged). In principle, though, my own personal view should have little influence on these content decisions. But that is often a challenging tightrope to tread. El_C 05:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whlie the ony objection for this edit belongs to Stefka, @Stefka Bulgaria would you provide rational grounds to convince us?Saff V. (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Sexual abuse is human rights violation, a good solution would be to include all this in the HR violation section. Barca (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're giving a name to something that doesn't properly describe it. Last time I checked, "sexual abuse" involves some kind of sexual contact. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast to YOUR definition of sexual abuse, "non-contact sexual abuse" is also defined and used in the literature (see [41], [42] and [43]). So I concur with others saying it's some sort of sexual abuse. --Mhhossein talk 15:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, see
WP:DUEWEIGHT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you serious? Did you just labeled those academic sources (notably [44], [45]) as having undue weight and are just trying to use Wikipedia despite Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Did I get it right? --Mhhossein talk 13:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to parse ourselves whether a certain set of actions are "sexual abuse" - do we have sources using this terminology? Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you've read the previous comments! I already provided two academic sources. --Mhhossein talk 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria, every one knows wikipedia is not Rs!Please try to convince us, if you cannot, I will use BarcrMac's suggestion or restore the material.Saff V. (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the prior discussion - I see academic sources on sexual abuse - e.g. The Harm of Contact and Non-Contact Sexual Abuse: Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Health in a Population Sample of Swiss Adolescents - but to use them on MEK would be
WP:SYNTH. Do we have academic sources describing MEK's actions as sexual abuse? Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
So you might have missed the first comment. It's already documented; The victim is reported as saying "she avoided being "sexually abused"". --Mhhossein talk 14:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a
WP:RS stating this in its own voice, as opposed to quoting former members in an interview? Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually we are not in need of such a source thanks to the section title being on "allegation"s. --Mhhossein talk 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a whole disinformation campaign by former members recruited by the IRI against the MEK. Considering this, we should only include reliable information in this article, and as such, "allegations" (specially by former members) has no place here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By providing RSes, It is confirmed there is non-Contact Sexual Abuse. @Stefka, I cannot accept your previous comment. Why do you think that Zahra Moini's saying supported by the guardian, has no place in the article? Are you able to confirm her saying were published under the IRI pressure against the MEK? Is there any opposite opinion to restore this edit?Saff V. (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second Icewhiz's concern. If we have WP:RS stating this in their own voice (as opposed to former members in an interview), then we'd have something here. Barca (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria: We can't act based on your own personal concerns regarding those campaigns. By the way, why aren't you concerned about MEK's online soldiers and possibly plenty of Heshmat Alavis promoting MEK's propaganda? @Barca: Every thing is attributed and reliable sources are used to reflect those interviews, so there's absolutely no concern. --Mhhossein talk 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: why so much emphasis on including all these derivatives of human rights violation, sexual harassment, etc.? Why not stick to the most significant points and leave it at that? Barca (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You speak as if "sexual abuse" is something we should ignore! I don't think it can be a good idea, since we need to abide by the narrations provided by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please read my message again? I don't believe I said we should ignore "sexual abuse". I asked "why so much emphasis on including all these derivatives of human rights violation, sexual harassment, etc.? Why not stick to the most significant points and leave it at that? Barca (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with sticking to the most important and encyclopedia worthy things, though I don't find these quotes to be non-significant though we should care not to add every single claim! --Mhhossein talk 13:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether or not the enforced public confession of sexual thoughts constitutes 'sexual abuse', which some users here agreed it does, I tried to find sources making the connection. I'm listing few examples of my findings:
  • "Sexual harassment is specifically defined as unwanted sexual advances, or visual or verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature." [46]
  • "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment...:[47]
  • Verbal sexual abuse can include sexual threats, sexual comments about the person's body, lewd or suggestive comments, and inappropriate discussions."[48]
So, enforcing someone to detail his/her sexual fantasies, which is of sexual nature, can certainly be labeled as 'sexual abuse'. --Mhhossein talk 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Barca is trying to say is that Allegations of sexual abuse is plenty, specially these being "allegations". Allegations of "verbal sexual abuse" (and the rest) is pushing a POV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty? not really. Despite the sources, do you have any fair objections against adding the sentence on 'confession of sexual fantasies' in the source's voice? --Mhhossein talk 13:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein:Thanks for providing sources. Stefka Bulgaria, Can you explain why Allegations of "verbal sexual abuse" (and the rest) is pushing a POV?Saff V. (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the political opposition to the IRI, not about sexual harassment and its variants. I agree that we should stick to the main points and that's plenty. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every one just see the argument; "This is an article about the political opposition to the IRI"!!! This article is on MEK and sexual abuse of members by MEK is an inseparable part of MEK's history. Do you have anything more to add? --Mhhossein talk 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is what you appear to try to emphasise to the last very detail and allegation; what I'm saying is that these are trivial allegations. You object to include what the group advocates politically, but want to emphasize unconfirmed allegations of sexual harassment? (when there is already a section on "allegations of sexual abuse"?). This is pushing a POV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the section is featured with 'allegation' qualification. Verbal/physical sexual misconduct is what most of the ex-members and reliable sources are talking about, so it merits having a separate sub-section. Also, you're not prohibited from adding counter arguments if there are reliable sources supporting them. I'm still waiting for a fair objection against inserting 'enforced public confession of sexual thought' in the section, despite the sources I just provided. --Mhhossein talk 12:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Barca, no need for further emphasis on "including all these derivatives of human rights violation, sexual harassment, etc.", sticking to the most significant points per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the subject of our dispute here. Btw, 'enforced public confession of sexual thought' is of the most significant points reliable sources mention when writing on MEK. --Mhhossein talk 06:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Enforced public confession of sexual thought', which is an allegation, is not a significant contribution, we keep the important points only to avoid creating a POV problem. Barca (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, I think your opinion is needed. As you know this discussion is related to the allegations of sexual abuse for Zahra Moini and enforced public confession of sexual thought. Mhhossein provided sources to confirm they are an example of sexual abuse. But Barca and Stefka claim that such Allegations are not significant and have POV issue because this article is about the political opposition to the IRI. Really is writing about sexual abuse of MEK not important? while reliable sources support two material and there is no undue weight, how it can be pov pushing? Thanks Saff V. (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that this article is about the MEK and should cover all facets related to it — including but not limited to distortions of
self-criticism that may veer toward sexual abuse. That does not mean that my opinion can be used to enforce content decisions by fiat, however. El_C 08:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
self-criticism that may veer toward sexual abuse"?Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that's what I see the confession of sexual thought to be: a distortion of
self-criticism — a practice which (pardon the pun) I am critical of, anyway. El_C 09:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Stefka Bulgaria, at first, said "(...) "sexual abuse" involves some kind of sexual contact." Then, when I provided sources on "non-contact sexual abuse", he referred us to the definition by Wikipedia (OMG!!!) and mentioned
WP:DUEWEIGHT! To further prove that 'enforced confession sexual thoughts' is considered as 'sexual abuse', I provide more sources. This time, Stefka Bulgaria, found a new objection; he said inserting the 'enforced public confession of sexual thoughts' was pushing POV and this matter is not important. What more objections would be created in future? How lengthy the discussions should become? --Mhhossein talk 18:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I also have made objections. Barca (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about fair objections. You said the thing was not important, which is already proved to be baseless given the amount of coverage by sources. There are numerous sources talking about it. --Mhhossein talk 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this comment where I have elaborated on why your objection is not fair enough. --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein won't allow to include what the MEK currently advocates politically, but wants to include allegations of unconfirmed verbal abuse. Including all these unconfirmed allegations keeps adding to the POV issue in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unconfirmed verbal abuse?! it is supported by The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda book.As
WP:NPOV demands,All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so where is the POV pushing with inserting the confession of sexual thought?Saff V. (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The comment by Stefk Bulgaria is clearly showing he has no fair and substantiating objection against inclusion of the 'enforced public confession of MEK members' sexual thoughts' in it's related section. I have no idea how adding a pro-MEK POV to the lead could be equivalent to the adding a well covered text to it's due section. --Mhhossein talk 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally to the above, a mysterious IP already took this to RSN, where an uninvolved editor determined these allegations were not sexual abuse. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not important for us since RSN is not devised to determine whether or not something is sexual abuse or like, specially when there are plenty of academic sources saying it's indeed sexual abuse. --Mhhossein talk 08:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the RSN discussion that this is not sexual abuse. Barca (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of disagreement or like. Given these concrete sources clearly saying those "sexual confessions" are counted as sexual abuse, your disagreement is not applicable. --Mhhossein talk 04:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page is under restriction

@BarcrMac:, As you got some warning as to Page restriction in your TP, I have to notice that your edit is against page's new situation, so, please revert your revert.

In addition, the latimes does not support the MEK became known for its female-led military during their time in Iraq, it was written that Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In other words, we can't understand from Latimes article how long time MEK became known for its female-led military. Also this sentence:In 1985, Maryam Rajavi was made joint leader of the MEK is duplicated and it is the same as the first sentence of the paragraph: On 27 January 1985, Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. Do you get my mean?Saff V. (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, self-reverted. Now the LA Times quote: " Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003." this should be something that can go into the article, or is there an objection with this too? Barca (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revert! after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 doesn't mean during their time in Iraq, does it?Saff V. (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please read my message again? I'm asking to quote directly what the LA Time says. Barca (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. you can quote directly!Saff V. (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Because it's highly POVish! Why not adding the following:
  • "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.
  • "The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[49]
  • "Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[50]
  • "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.
  • "the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"[51]
  • "Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[52]
  • "..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[53]
--Mhhossein talk 05:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman argument since we are not talking that, but to answer your question anyway, the reason we're not using "violent" in the lede is per this AfD. Now, could you please answer how including what the group advocates is POVish? (just repeatedly asserting that it's "POVish" doesn't explain it) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read the comments carefully please. There are many other things the group advocates and we're not going to cherry pick the POV of MEK. --Mhhossein talk 10:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? we already had a RfC about using the word "violent"; is there anything else you have in mind? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the examples in the above list. --Mhhossein talk 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've had many TP discussions about these. You need to be specific. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MEK is described as, being "Islamic extremist", being not far from Marxism, advocating "a secular Iranian regime" and etc. Why not adding them? --Mhhossein talk 13:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How the group is described, and what it advocates, are two very different things. I'd be fine with adding that the group was influenced by Marxism (this is already in the article) an that it advocates a secular Iran. We can include this in a section together with the other remaining text:

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

[1][2][3][4]
Agreed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
my point is that, for example, how can the group be described as "Islamic extremist" while advocating "anti-fundamentalist Islam"? --Mhhossein talk 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's leave UNDUE and fringe claims aside, and just abide by what the majority of reliable sources say. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were you serious by this, making the lead more POVish than before? Is that what "majority of reliable sources" say? --Mhhossein talk 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arresting two people in relation with MEK

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

The report derives IRI sources, which as we've seen, are not reliable sources for this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show which discussion prohibits using those sources attributed? --Mhhossein talk 10:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. Btw, if we have an "IRI" views section, then we should also have a "MEK" views section per NPOV. I'll get to work on this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Stefka Bulgaria, you claim that th Radio farda is not RS. When it was asked to provide reason, you said it is better have an "IRI" views section.I cann't get your mean!Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, the report derives from IRI sources, which as we've seen, are not reliable sources for this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and I asked you once and in the case you ignored; Where on earth did they agreed IRI sources are not reliable for IRI positions attributed? --Mhhossein talk 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and I repeat... again... :We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. Btw, if we have an "IRI" views section, then we should also have a "MEK" views section per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You picked up the report of Radio Farda with this reason, unconfirmed allegations by unconfirmed individuals because you don't count it RS. O.k. first of all, convince us why are not IR sources reliable?Saff V. (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding all POVs under one section adds to the POV issue of the article, which is not suitable here. --Mhhossein talk 11:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If we include IRI POV in this article (and we are including IRI POV in this article), it needs to be labelled as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who said IRI POVs should be gathered under one section? --Mhhossein talk 13:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will start a MEK POV section per NPOV, would everyone be ok with that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This will worsen the POV issue, as I explained. --Mhhossein talk 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is any main objection with thisedit. Am I right? Another hand I am against MEK POV section. We can put every material into a related section of the article make balance and solve the POV issue.Saff V. (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't include MEK POV, then also we should not include IRI POV per
WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, we either include both sides of the POV, or neither. Barca (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ideological revolution and women's rights

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

"At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of

Musa Khiabani
's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."

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

It was brought that According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. My mean divorcing because of MEK's goals" is exactly "in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'". Also, the material that you were going to delete,
wife-swapping and divorcing in order to facilitate this 'great revolution', completely suit with the title Ideological revolution and women's rights, which is obviously clear.Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It just comes across about a lot of text about little. Would you be fine with reducing it? Barca (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous reason has nothing to do with the length of text. In addition, there is no detailed info or duplicated material so reducing is not needed.Saff V. (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if we decide to include that a divorce was made to help facilitate Women's rights, then that's all we need to say about that, there's absolutely no reason to expand on this this much. Barca (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No where in the source says the divorce was made for the sake of Women's rights (though this is not even disputed here). Also, changing the family name is also signaling the adherence of Maryam to the goal's of their organization, i.e. MEK. --Mhhossein talk 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using your own terminology, what is the "fair objection" for keeping this text to the point (only mentioning things related to the MEK and Women's rights)? Barca (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IYO, which part of text is not connected to MEK?Saff V. (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V., I think you've misunderstood Barca's question, which is how is this text above relevant to the "MEK and Women's rights"? (the section where this text is included). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. how is this text above NOT relevant to the "MEK and Women's rights"?Saff V. (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because nowhere in it does it talk about Women's rights; it just talks about divorces and marriages. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No where? Please read the text more carefully. This part of text "This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends were considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture." is obviously connected to woman right.Saff V. (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is that quote connected to Women's rights? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wife-swapping has close connection with Women's rights. Then why do you try to find a relation between text and woman's right? this divorce and marriage of Maryam Rajavi is connected to Ideological revolution and because Maryam got a divorce Abrishamchi and married Rajavi within a short period of time when they were the leaders of MEK and such marriage and divorce is taboo in Iranian culture. In addition according to this sentence,Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution', Is n't it against the women's right, divorcing for facilitating this 'great revolution'?It is the connection that you try to deny!Saff V. (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I asked Saff V. to explain how the highlighted text here, which deals mainly with marriages and divorces, is connected to Women's rights (the section where this text is currently included in the article). Saff V. replied that these divorces/marriages have "a close connection with Women's rights", arguing that MEK leaders married within a short time span (even though such things happen in many cultures and do not necessarily pertain to Women's rights, or lack thereof). Could you please advice? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the assertion should be made more concise. The relevance to the MEK (questionable marriages/divorces, their connection to women's rights) also ought to be made more clear. Not to sound like a broken record, but again, I'm a big proponent of using explanatory notes as a means to reach compromise. El_C 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Saff V. still hasn't provided a logical argument on how this relates to women's rights. Can I go ahead an edit this in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative. El_C 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefka Bulgaria Are you going to restore this sourced long standing text into a suitable subsection or it should be done by others? --Mhhossein talk 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this to be restored, it needs a logical argument as to why this pertains to Women's rights, or lack thereof. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of repetitive text here. Will clean up accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The time is vital key so they are not duplicated. None of the above sentences include assistance in 1986.Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can hardly be considered as duplicates. Some are talking about MEK's helping Saddam in suppressing the uprisings in Iraq, some others about MEK's assisting Saddam to fight against Iran, some speak about creation of NLA while some others include opinions of some figures on the MEK's siding with Iraq. Though, all others which say nothing than MEK's siding with Saddam can be considered as duplicate. --Mhhossein talk 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These all repeat Saddam Hussain's alliance with the MEK. We certainly don't need to mention 11 times that Saddam Hussain allied with the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why one could not say they're all duplicates. --Mhhossein talk 11:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

These are all repeated statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They can be combined into this:

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

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

Fisrt of all, "A wide range of sources state" is an example of
Weasel words. Then the quote of Pahlavi and Djavad Khadem or equipping of 7,000 members of the MEK are left. Also in your text, it is Pretended that the collaboration between MEK and Sadam just refer to 1983, but in fact, it is not true.Saff V. (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
How would you rephrase it then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I do this? there is no need to rephrase!Saff V. (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That can be combined into this:

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

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

References

  1. ^ "West can pressure Iranian regime by supporting the people". Arab News.
  2. ^ "Iran's Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times". Int Polciy Digest.
  3. ^ "Iran exile group MEK seeks US terror de-listing". BBC.
  4. ^ "Why We Shouldn't Worry About Giuliani's Ties to an Iranian Resistance Group". Politico.
Stefka Bulgaria's version looks like it can become a decent compromise. Saff V and Mhhossein, what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it? Not to sound like a broken record, but maybe consider explanatory notes to, at least partially, serve this purpose...? El_C 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the first point, In the provided text by Stefka, it is pretended the collaboration between MEK and Saddam was beginning from 1983. Is it true? Is not any collaboration BEFORE that? Secondly, the reaction of Pahlavi or Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem needs to keep. It is important people with different views how describe this collaboration. As well as equipping 7,000 members of the MEK by shows the level of this support and citing the exact number makes clear how the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein. It is not detailed INFO! Please pay attention to this sentence "MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising". Is it really duplicated?Saff V. (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V., as El_C suggests (and as I mentioned earlier), what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it?? There is certainly no need to have this repeated 8 times in the article when it can be phrased in one paragraph that includes all necessary information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you make me repeat my opinion again and again. I read the opinion of you and El_C then I presented my idea. Your paraphrasing doesn't contain some vital point. WHICH POINT, please read my previous comment.Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Saff V.: Please provide a paragraph (as I did above) that doesn't include repeated text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about including the MEK's current principles

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

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

[1][2][3][4] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "West can pressure Iranian regime by supporting the people". Arab News.
  2. ^ "Iran's Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times". Int Polciy Digest.
  3. ^ "Iran exile group MEK seeks US terror de-listing". BBC.
  4. ^ "Why We Shouldn't Worry About Giuliani's Ties to an Iranian Resistance Group". Politico.
MarioGom: A single reason? The suggested sentence says the MEK is advocating "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are numerous sources saying the opposite; for example this book says MEK is "a guerrilla group of radical Marxist-Islamist ideology" and this one calls it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin". --Mhhossein talk 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: Maybe wording can be improved or better sources can be examined, but self-declared principles or goals are due. --MarioGom (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: It's not a matter of rewording and you already agreed to include a sentence which contradicts some reliable sources.--Mhhossein talk 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein I voted yes because I expect self-declared principles to be covered in the article. If the proposed sentence contradicts some reliable sources, maybe you can add an alternative proposal below? --MarioGom (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: But I doubt if "self-declared principles" are good for the NPOV status of the lead. As you know, "self-declared principles" need to get balanced by counter viewpoints which makes the lead even larger. The lead is already featured with "It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government. It was the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government". That said, more details can be added to the body. --Mhhossein talk 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Wikipedia's policies don't just allow for opinions to be included in our articles, they mandate it, provided said opinions have an appropriate degree of
    WP:WEIGHT test, then we cover the controversy, discussing the span of perspectives on the topic, and carefully attributing to avoid putting undue weight on something that should not appear in Wikipedia's voice. I'll have to review what the current-day sourcing says on the MEK, as a broad matter, before I forward my own opinion, but having just read the source you provide above, I'd have to say that it doesn't really support the "no" !vote you have attached it to, but rather seems to support a finding that we should be discussing the MEK's face value assertions--but not without presenting other outside perspectives as well. The source clearly approaches the topic from multiple angles to present a holistic view without giving improper emphasis to one side or another. That, as it happens, is what our policies would have us do as well. And it doesn't matter whether those perspectives are "opinions" or "facts"; indeed, outside of a small percentage of our articles in the physical sciences, logic, and mathematics, almost all of our articles on this project are sourced much more by RS providing opinions rather than pure empirical fact--to whatever extent it even exists. Snow let's rap 06:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes - I agree with Snow, we should be discussing the MEK's face value assertion, but presenting criticism as well. This National Interest article, for example, presents supporters and detractors perspectives: To its supporters, it is the most organized and disciplined alternative to the current clerical regime in Tehran, and the only one that is truly capable of establishing a democratic, secular Iran. To its detractors, it represents a fringe element that promotes an unpopular, unworkable vision of Iran’s future. Barca (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - As long as this quote is clearly presented as a self-representation of the group and not as Wikipedia's voice, of course it should be included. I'm sure there is plenty of space in the rest of the article to make clear that not everybody is on board with this. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the lead should be the summary of the most important points of the article but now the suggested text is not supported by so well-known sources. For example, "Arab news" or "Int Polciy Digest" is not enough to improve the verification of the text.Saff V. (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - per PraiseVivec, as long as it's attributed, of course it should be included. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The platform of thia political movement is clearly lead DUE. We should also include notable opposing views - e.g. IRI.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This is currently adding to the POV problem of the lead. The suggested sentence is against reliable sources. For example, the group is described by some reliable sources as following Islamic extremism, in contrast to what the suggested sentence say:
"..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[54]
Also, Why not adding the following:
"The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[55]
"Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[56]
"...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.
"the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"[57]
"Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[58]
--Mhhossein talk 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is about the MEK's current principles. None of the sources you've provided address the MEK's current principles. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion contradicts reliable sources. See my comment. --Mhhossein talk 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEK support in Iran and NPOV

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

Re-inserting the edit based on lack of any logical counter-argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. You need to prove " this is difficult to ascertain" is supported by reliable sources. Your change is a SYNTHESIS of some sources. Don't revert please.Saff V. (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."[1]
  • "The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."[2][3][4][5][6]
  • "In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""[7]
  • "In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."[8]

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

None of the sources say: "...though this [MEK's damaged appeal in Iran] is difficult to ascertain as MEK supporters are targeted by the Islamic Republic". --Mhhossein talk 18:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your objection was with my paraphrasing then? I'll use Cohen's words then. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:SYNTH you should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Your change was partially ok but still needed some changes. The material needs to be attributed and the sources used should be directly support the text. Don't use excess and unrelated citations and don't violate the restriction of the article. Please draft your suggestion here before inserting it into the article. --Mhhossein talk 11:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ISBN 978-1845192709
    .
  2. ^ "Congressional Record". Government Printing Office. June 29, 2005 – via Google Books.
  3. ^ "Ongoing crimes against humanity in Iran". www.amnesty.org.
  4. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3
    .
  5. ISBN 978-0520218666
    .
  6. ISBN 978-0415781176
    .
  7. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
  8. ^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran&oldid=910482961"