Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede

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

---

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

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

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. :

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

Struan Stevenson:

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3]

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

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

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

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

What you are you searching for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Routledge is a known publisher and two of the books are by this publisher.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that the book by Lincoln P. Bloomfield used by OP as a supporting source was found to be highly questionable and it was decided to removed the materials citing to this source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References
References

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.

Cherry picking

June

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and as to executions, we have:

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

Let's do one at a time:

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

July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August

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

Here's the full quote and the source:

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

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

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

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

Sure:

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

[10]

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

[11]

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

[12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguing that it's repeated here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September

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

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

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

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

@Saff V.: Here's a source "The majority of those killed were supporters of the People's Mujahedin of Iran although supporters of other factions were executed as well."[17] @Mhhossein: as I've stated above, I find my proposed text provides clearer insights into these events. In any case, if either of you have any further objections, please provide a proposed text that you think would constitute a fair compromise. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

On August 28th, I wrote :Will merge everything into something along these lines:

• Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails."[18] A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process. The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."

The text describes the processes of the 1988 executions in more detail, and concludes with the IRI continuing to target members of the MEK. If you have a different proposed text, then by all means provide it, if not, I'll update this proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Now we have in the article that Following operation Eternal Light, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa...Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. Do you want to replace your suggested text with this? I believe the current material in the article about 1988 executions is more detailed. If you don't agree, we can discuss sentence by sentence.Saff V. (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The following is not included in the article:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[19] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process. The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."

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

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

Here's the revised text:

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[20] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

• The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.

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

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

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

• Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."[21] The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@El C: The first part of the text, ("Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails.")[22] is not attributed to a 15-year old volunteer; this is what TheGuardian says: "The survivors were tried on the spot and quickly executed; Mehrad watched as hundreds were hanged at gallows erected in the nearby town of Eslamabad. Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails. Amnesty estimates that more than 4,500 people were put to death, and some sources say the numbers were even higher."

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

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

October

@El C: This is my proposed text:

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

This is what the Guardian article says:

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

An this is what the Amnesty International source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."

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

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

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

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

Alright, first of all, the source says "dissidents" which does not necessarily mean MEK. Yes, all MEK members were dissidents but the reverse is not always right. Your inclusion is adding an unnecessary level of POV to the text. Secondly, as I told you here "the Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK" was concluded to be the abstract of the sources none of which explicitly supported this claim. Now you are adding a sentence with pretty much the same meaning. So, you should go by either of them. Also, "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is just a POVish phrase. I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing. El_C: Why did you ask me to repeat my words with my diffs explicitly providing my objections. It's becoming like a GAME here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if I should continue my work here... Apparently, I'm an "anti-Iran[ian] who support[s] a terror group like The People's Mojahedin Organization [and am] totally unreliable to be an admin" [[23]. El_C 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@El C: I am wondering how every thing simply came "down to whether Amnesty can be used as source". To summarize, we had a discussion back in May on whether or not "the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnapp and torture member of the MEK" was explicitly supported by the sources. The discussion was ended by you saying the sources, one of them being the Amnesty piece in question, were "quite compelling". So, we once used the source as as support for making a general statement and now it is used to express a very similar thing. This seems odd, to be honest. Another important point here is the way Stefka Bulgaria is (self?)-interpreting the RSN discussion. There are users (like [24] and [25]) besides stressing on how discriminated the source is, are suggesting to use higher quality sources instead.

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

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

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

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

1) Stefka added that Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails while in the section we had A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa. In the sentence added by him,thousands of MEK is not support by sorce and I want to ask isn't the secound sentence more detailed and related to article and why does it need to first sentence while we have secound one?

2) Stefka added that According to Amnesty International, "thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process." while we have had in that section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@El C: I contacted the Hoover institution as advised by the WP:RSN discussion. To my surprise, they sent me the whole scanned microfilms including the Persian letter and the Russian response (a total of 55 pages). Should I upload the email thread? Is uploading that single page (the same as the one in the letter under dispute) enough to wrap up this discussion? Please advise. Also feel free to send me an email so that I can send you the whole document.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I, myself, am not disputing the reliability of the source — but if anyone is, then, sure, send it to them. What I think you should focus on now, though, is reaching consensus about the due weight and neutrality as well as possible synthesis concerns that pertain to usage of that primary source in the article, as that seems to have arisen as a point of contention among several editors. El_C 21:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no worries at all. I am not planning to do an original research based on one photo. I am only going to post the image in the article. or I should say I am going to have someone do it for me given the "sanctions" :) . --Kazemita1 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria & Barca, send me an email if you want the full microfilm provided to me by Hoover Institution. Due to copyright concerns, I am not allowed to upload the whole thing here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in providing my email here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia rules say that what we include needs to be published in a reliable source. Provide the image published in a reliable source and then it will be ok to be included in the article. Barca (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please, refer to the WP:RS discussion mentioned here. As a side point, many Wiki users make a Wiki-specific email.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I second what Barca says, as well as what Icewhiz says in that WP:RSN discussion: "The issue here is more WP:UNDUE use of a WP:PRIMARY source from several decades ago - not discussed by secondary sources." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSN's discussion asked to have the photo authenticated by either driving by or emailing to the Hoover Institution of which I chose the second option. Moreover, Icewhiz is wrong saying this letter has not been discussed in secondary sources. See this 2018 piece by Abbas Milani:

MEK asked for a loan of three hundred million dollars to continue their “revolutionary anti-imperialist” actions (see: anti-Americanism)

Anyways, Hoover institution got back to me saying they have no objection to me releasing the document. Thus, here is the full document. @El C:: Is there anything else left now that the full document is uploaded?--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC) @El C: Can I go ahead and add the photo back to the article?Kazemita1 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

When you address the objections by Icewhiz and Barca, then we can look at putting the photo in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe those concerns have been replied to above (Abbas Milani) — but at the event, Kazemita1 still has a few days left on their sanction, so they may not add anything until these lapse. El_C 14:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 - I see you added the letter and the description from this source - [26], but I don't see the letter in that source. How did you connect the image you included to that description? Barca (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As instructed by WP:RSN, I gave Hoover institution the file number mentioned on the California archive website, i.e. "Opis 15, Reel 1.993, File 24". In response they sent me this document which includes the very same Persian letter (plus some material in Russian). Of course, one could also link the two if he/she knew some Persian. Here is their reply to my email.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Kazemita1 included this image ([27]) based on an unpublished source ([28]). Does an unpublished document count as a reliable source in Wikipedia? Barca (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think its reliability has been established by now. El_C 00:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all repeated statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They can be combined into this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That can be combined into this:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein, as I have already said, I have presented an objection (which you are repeatedly failing to address). In the lede section alone, the word "Saddam" is mentioned 4 times in a single paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time [siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war]. [...] If the choice is between this regime and the MEK, they will most likely say the mullahs".

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

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

• The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no same event,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do two at a time:

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

• "The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland."

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time [siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war]. [...] If the choice is between this regime and the MEK, they will most likely say the mullahs"."

• "The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland."

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

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

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

• "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[55] In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris,[56][57] so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][48]

That can be resumed into the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC about including the MEK's current principles

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

---

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

@MarioGom: But I doubt if "self-declared principles" are good for the NPOV status of the lead. As you know, "self-declared principles" need to get balanced by counter viewpoints which makes the lead even larger. The lead is already featured with "It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government. It was the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government". That said, more details can be added to the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[29]

Also, Why not adding the following:

"The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[30]

"Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[31]

"...(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"[32]

"Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[33]

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

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

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

Here we are debating about including the MEK's current principles into the article, not previous ones (many of which are already in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

We should not include it, since as I said earlier in this discussion, the proposal is against some other reliable sources. For instance, the proposal describes the MEK as being "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are sources calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin" [34]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• No: I do not think it can be a good idea to have these opinions in the lede. Descriptions of the group by the independent sources are already included in the lede. Let us don't make the POV proble.Forest90 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes This is important information and belongs in the lede. Tradedia^talk 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• No weak sources like Arab news etc and the BBC source which doesn't say the following in its voice but in a member of the group called Ahmad Moein. Puting the terror group claim in the lede is giving them due weight especially that there are strong references (see Mhhossein comment) which says that the group is an extremist intolerant group.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

BBC is a strong source, and the statement would be attributed (not Wiki-voiced), so your concerns about sourcing are addressed. This is a political group, the biggest opposition to the current government in Iran, so their principle principles (attributed to their own voice) is WP:DUE per the vast examples of Wikipedia articles we have about political groups whose principles are in the lede (such as Liberal Party of Canada, for example). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• No. Agree with user "The Four Deuces" aka TFD:

This is a matter of opinion not fact. See for example Arron Merat, "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK

Essentially, these opinions stated by MEK are not established facts. There are tons of opposing sources saying otherwise.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Recent revert by Mhhossein

@Mhhossein:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the removals regarding the N scientist, I juts mentioned the portions which were unique. So, you can have your draft based on that. Communist Party was the party running the state, so MEK's letter was infact a "State sponsorship" request. Also, Shireen Hunter is NOT the only author; see [35], [36] and [37], all saying MEK is financially supported by Saudi Arabia. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

As I checked, the following sentences are not duplicated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It had been mentioned at plenty of sources such as [38].Saff V. (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ties to foreign and non-state actors

On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani. Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.

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

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

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

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

Newsweek

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

National interest

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

The american conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ties to foreign and non-state actors

On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani. Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible violation of restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stefka removed the following sourced content from longstanding text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it's repeated already here:

• In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[195][196][197] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[198][199]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein: are you saying that this:

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

is not repeated here?:

"In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."

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

Please don't say you had not understand what I meant by "Removal of the quotation leaves the Ariane M. Tabatabai's statement". See the complete sentence: "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."" --Mhhossein ^talk 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."

is basically repeated here:

"In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."

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

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

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

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

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

RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland

Shall we replace this (currently in the article):

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

with this?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes. Per 2017–18 Iranian protests (which Rudi Giuliani credited to the MEK.[39]), resuming the MEK does have at least some support among Iranian people post the Iran-Iraq war. Cohen describes this neutrally, without favoring neither side, so it's adequate for the lead. Barca (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• No. I am surprised people are actually discussing this. How can a nation like it when you side with their enemy at war. Tinting the existing text with words such as "some sources" is obvious POV.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Firm "no" - per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:RS and WP:VER. This appears to be yet another attempt to present the MEK as a group of angels and saints, while carefully getting rid of anything that does not fit with the personal beliefs of the party's leaders and pro-MEK lobbyists. This all is the result of a recent lobbying campaign, as attested in many newspapers and other reliable sources. For instance, search for "MEK lobby", "MEK lobby John Bolton", "MEK Obama Iran", or "MEK Trump Iran" in Google. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes because second statement contains the first while being more neutral.--Abutalub (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits by Kazemita1

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

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

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

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

Further analysis of Kazemita1's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #2

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

Where this text is repeated in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context in sources

When reading source material about contentious geopolitical issues, it is quite common to find isolated sentences, in sources not otherwise discussing said conflict, making sweeping statements about the issue. I would urge caution in the use of such sources. While there is an obvious need to use available material when it is scarce, there is a tendency for such sources to lack context, and indulge in oversimplification; and as such, a detailed source is most definitely preferably, and should be given more weight. Overuse of brief mentions can often lead to an article becoming a list of accusations and counter-accusations (note that this applies to throwaway statements about both the government and the MEK). Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Can you please elaborate a little bit? I am not sure I understood what you said. I mean I have a feeling this is in regards to the recent edits, but I am not sure. So please kindly clarify.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Elaborate on what, Kazemita1? I felt I was being pretty clear. I'm not going to take a position on specific sources used in this article, because I intend to remain uninvolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Allegation of Pentagon using MEK prisoners as spies

I recently removed this statement from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civilian death numbers in the lead

Based on what I see in the conclusions, Slkr does not advise one way or another. Why did you remove it @Stefka Bulgaria:?--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What did I remove what from the lede? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-insertion of repeated text

@Sa.vakilian: I removed the following text from the article (because it's already repeated in the article):

• "According to infoplease.com, more than 16,000 people have been killed in attacks by the MEK since 1979.

You then re-inserted this back into the article. Why did you re-insert it if it's already repeated in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Defining longstanding text for this article

Because this article is edited actively, I propose that longstanding text would be about a month. Either way, let's see if we can get consensus for whatever it is participants wish it to be. Opening the floor for comments... El_C 19:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 month. Your help here is greatly appreciated, El_C, thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Hope that does not count as following Stefka around!--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, It would certainly be useful to define "longstanding".Saff V. (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Barca (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideological revolution and women's rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@El C:: The portion in question, which is longstanding, is directly related to the MEK's "Ideological revolution" and need to be restored. since it does not have to be related to "women's right". Stefka Bulgaria needs to respond why he had been over stressing on the "women's right"? See comments [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44] where he's mentioning "women's rights"!!! The argument used for removal of the text is totally irrelevant, as you see. Can it be restored? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I summarized it to following text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

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

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

I worked on the matted and the following text was made:

At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping.The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia were equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. This divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants. As Abrishamchi said on endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.source. On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution.source.

Mhhossein and Stefka Bulgaria any opposition?Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please add the sources so I can go through them along with the text? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources were provided.Saff V. (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V., so the whole paragraph is based on the Abrahamian book? This is what Abrahamian's book says:

"In the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping... It involved women with young children and, even more unforgivable, the wives of close friends, a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. To top it all, the reference to the Prophet was not only irrelevant but also outrageously irreverent."

What does this text tell us about the MEK's "Ideological revolution and women's rights"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Only this paragraph belongs to Abrahamian's book:"At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping." As El_C demanded (here and here) I try to make clear the aim of that divorce and marriage. I don't know why my proposed text was not posted completely, yesterday I found it incomplete so I reposted again.Saff V. (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The idea here was to make this more concise, and you've actually expanded it. Aside from "On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK", can you please explain how the rest of this text pertains to "Ideological revolution and women's rights"? In what way does a divorce help explain either the MEK's ideological revolution or Women's rights? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As it was said before there is no need be related to woman's right, It is enough to be related to Ideological revolution. I made some changes in the suggested text to be more obvious:

At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'.As Abrishamchi said on endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization.source. On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution.source. This divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants.source.According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.source. Saff V. (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's not relate it to "women's rights", let's relate this to "Ideological revolution". What is the MEK's "Ideological revolution"? and how does a divorce help the reader understand it better? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria I don't know how many time are you going to point ([45], [46], [47], [48] and [49])that there is no relation between material and women's rights and how many times we have to respond (1, 2 and 3) that also the title including "ideological revolution" and it is enough!

@El C: As you asked to make material more clear. I gave it try and provided a text. Does it make a sense? Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If you read my last message, you should see that I suggested that we don't relate this to "Women's rights". Moving forward, my question was quite simple: How does a divorce help the reader better understand the MEK's ideological revolution? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I brought your answer in suggested text: this divorce (of Abrishamchi) represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization.Saff V. (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So there was a divorce so that some members could "devote themselves more fully to the organization"; so what? What does that tell us about the MEK's "ideological revolution" (beyond that there was a divorce in the process)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The great revolution tied with new leadership (of Rajavi and Azodanlu) whereby it was mentioned that the central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution. In another hand, Maryam Azodanlu was known as the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. So she needed to divorce Abrishamchi for marrying Rajavi. It was mentioned that "Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution". As the sources say, these marriage and divorce illustrate to members that they have to devote themselves more fully to the organization as their leaders don't divorce or marry just because of their own desire.Saff V. (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The way you write it lacks context and gives unnecessary emphasis to a divorce/marriage, which is really secondary here. I propose that if we include this, that it'd be more like the author has written it, which is more NPOV:

"On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution.""

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggested the text to explain relations between marriage and divorce of MEK and grat revolution, as well as Stefka Bulgaria wrote his opinion above, I thought other involved users is needed.Saff V. (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C:,@Mhhossein: and @Kazemita1: Please leave comment. As I explained in my pervious comment and the objection of user:Stefka Bulgaria, your opinion is needed. I am going to add this text to article!Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is my two cents. This piece is written by Ervand Abrahamian. You cannot possibly find anyone more neutral than him when it comes to contemporary Iranian history. I therefore suggest we keep it the way he wrote it. Let's face it as once mentioned by Vandermonde, nobody's hand is clean. So I suggest Stefka does not change the wording of Abrahamian for obvious reasons.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., you forgot to include me, as I am also involved in this discussion. I stand by my point 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) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Admin demanded to make it clear!Saff V. (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What Stefka wrote is clear. Barca (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Stefka wrote his/her version of history. Instead, I propose we stick to the version written by a world-class historian, i.e. Ervand Abrahamian.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, please be careful when you make remarks like that. I did not write my "own version of history", I quoted directly from the source. Please cross out what you wrote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:Ok I have no problem with your suggested text which is more summarized I just added the saying of Ervand Abrahamian to end of it. @Kazemita1: I think I don't get your mean or objection. Anyway is anyone against the following text?

On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution."According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.Saff V. (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what you've added about Abrahamian at the end gives any insight into the MEK's ideological revolution or Women's rights. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It does not have to give insights into ideological revolution. MEK tried to facilitate its ideological revolution by divorce/marriage, but the action had some more outcomes including what Abrahamian said (it "isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself"). Also, I suggest to use the description by Abrahamian, saying the divorce/marriage "paved" the revolution. Moreover, the portion used from this source is a verbatim copy and paste which needs to be reworded before getting into the article's body. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The section's title is "Ideological revolution and Women's rights", so it needs to contribute to that particular discourse. Pushing a divorce/marriage narrative is not important as it's something that happens every day, multiple times, across many cultures around the world. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Comparing Ervand Abrahamian's words with SaffV's proposal, I tend to agree with his version more than Stefka's.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, Abrahamian's book has more to add on this topic which I just realized for some reason has been censored from the article some time ago. I will go ahead and try to pull that content up from Abrahamian's book. --Kazemita1 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the part I am talking about from Abrahamian's book:

On 27 January 1985, Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.( Abrahamian 1982, p. 233–234.)

Stefka Bulgaria, to respond to your objection, I have to say the added sentence from Abrahamian is not only about a simple marriage or divorce, but also support the title (ideological revolution), As Abrahamian mentioned, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'.Mhhossein, If the text is confirmed with involved users, I will reword it.Kazemita1, thanks for providing the text of Abrahamian, but forgot to sign your comment!Are you going to make more complete the text? Are you against the following text?Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Final text up to now: On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution."According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself. As he mentioned, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'.Saff V. (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

October

@Saff V: you are repeating information (again). This version is NPOV, and doesn't dabble on what's already been established:

"On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution.""

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

As you said, saying that something is just "POV-ish" is not a substantive objection!Saff V. (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you remove "As he mentioned, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'".Mhhossein suggested to add it.Saff V. (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Stefka's objection has more to do with not repeating things and keeping it to the point. I think his/her suggestion is fine. Barca (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the comments before making comments. @Stefka Bulgaria: You need to have a serious abjection against me saying that the divorce/marriage "paved" the revolution should be mentioned in the text. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it's already repeated here: "The MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution."" Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they're totally different. "Deepening" something is completely different from "paving" that. Another point, Here you said that "Pushing a divorce/marriage narrative is not important as it's something that happens every day". Should I care your 'Original Research' and ignore Abrahamian's comment on the outcomes of this divorce on the MEK's social life?--Mhhossein ^talk 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying they are different because one quote says "paving" and the other says "deepening"? If that's really the issue, we can include both: "Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution." Fair compromise? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka. It would work as a good compromise so long as you add the consequences of this marriage/divorce. In Abrahamian's words:

As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture.

Kazemita1 (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, This sentence (According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.) would be included in the article, if there was no seriouse answer to Mhhossein's concern.Saff V. (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.; I've already addressed Mhhossein's concern, and Kazemita1 already included that in the article. That text already addresses the marriage / divorce that you've been wanting to include in the article clearly and concisely. We could write a whole section about how the MEK reacted to this divorce, and how the Iranian public (inside and outside Iran) reacted to it, as well as how different scholars reacted to it, and commentators and so forth, but that's not what this section is about, so mentioning the divorce / marriage, as we've done already, is plenty for our purposes of describing the process of how the MEK leadership came to be (within the context of "Ideological Revolution and Women's rights"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka: We are not attempting to write a large section about the divorce/marriage. We are asking for a compromise, i.e. allowing a shortened version of the analysis done by an expert about the aftermath of the ideological revolution. So far you have reverted any such inclusion in the article; short or long version. Which is why I would like to ask the admin to weigh in as I do not find your objections substantive.@El C:--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Stefka Bulgaria, you are being obstinate here. You can't remove longstanding text (wholesale) with the purpose of making it more concise while neither doing so yourself nor accepting other editors' efforts to do so themselves. That increasingly risks being interpreted as tendentious, I'm sorry. El_C 12:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, sorry to bother you, is it allowed to revert this edit of Stefka?Saff V. (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: the text was removed over 2 months ago, so, unless I'm mistaken, it does no longer constitute "long-standing"? Also, if the text is currently being discussed, am I not correct to revert it? (if not, I'll self-revert). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, what Kazemita1 claims about me "not compromising" is false. I've already proposed two compromises here, including the last text Kazemita added to the article (was proposed by me, it's even stated in Kazemita's edit summary!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

But there's concise and there's stripping the content bare to the point that it is no longer recognizable as such. El_C 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

3 days ago I proposed that we compromise into including the following:

• "On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution."""

As I see it, this text does not strip anything away, but rather, focuses on what Kazemita1 and Saff V. are trying to include here: a divorce/marriage that helped the MEK's ideological revolution. I don't see how the text I proposed is "no longer recognizable" from what they're trying to include, but as I said, if I'm wrong, I'll self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It certainly does. No mention of "divorce" (really? "already married"?) and Abrahamian's exposition on how this was viewed in Iranian society is absent, as well. El_C 14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've self-reverted. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A recently removed piece from the long-standing text

Hello @El C:. The following piece used to be in the article for at least 6 years in the section titled "Ideological revolution". The content is from Ervand Abrahamian's book on MEK which meets WP:RS. The author's neutrality has never been an issue either:

At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.

Early August, when I was on a long journey, Stefka removed the content. You had correctly pointed out back then the section needed to be more concise. However, it occurs to me removing the whole piece was a bit too much. To say the least, it talks about how the ideological revolution was looked upon in average Iranians eyes. I am therefore reaching out to you to see if you are OK with reviving a shortened version of the above.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay. El_C 18:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: This text is currently being discussed in the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights", shouldn't it be settled there before inclusion? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Settle away, but this does not preclude bold edits from being undertaken. El_C 19:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am actually involved in the discussion Stefka is talking about to some extent. However, the discussion there is on the ideological revolution itself and not about how the Iranian middle class looked upon to it. It was for this reason that I opened a new section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: As you said "this does not preclude bold edits from being undertaken", Why did Stefka Bulgaria revert this edit by Kazemita1?According to which comment?Saff V. (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: According to this one and this one. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought we were going to use our words instead of see this diff. At least provide a brief summary — sorry, but this is not acceptable. El_C 12:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, all these "revert per TP" — those edit summaries are not working for me. Please aim to do better. At least try to give us a hint! El_C 12:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Don't mix issues together. The removed text by you is related to 6 years of longstanding material, but your answer has nothing with that, it was told you many times that the name of the section is Ideological revolution and women's rights, as the Abrahimian sources confirm divorce / marriage related to Ideological revolution (Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to pave the way for this "great revolution" )!@El C: It is such as awful game designed by Stefka make me repeat that how many times we have to respond (1, 2 and 3, 4) that also the title including "ideological revolution" and it is enough!please save me from this game!Saff V. (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I got this wrong, if removed over 2 months ago, then it no longer constitutes longstanding. Also if it's being discussed in the corresponding Talk page, then it can be reverted until some king of consensus is reached (as it has been so far in that TP discussion, with me proposing comprises there). If I'm wrong about this, I'll gladly self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think the other parties see this as much of a compromise. That your removal two months ago wasn't reverted does not mean that there should be no text to supplant the missing content — since it was removed with the expressed intent of restoring part of it. Clinging to the notion of (2-month) longstanding text, in this instance, can indeed be viewed as gaming the system. I, therefore, am inclined to allow the latest addition which was removed to stand — an addition which of course you may further discuss and refine here. El_C 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was only pointing out that the claim that this constituted "long-standing text" is not in accordance with what we agreed long-standing text constitutes, that's all. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent edit by Ypatch

@Ypatch: would you provide the text from Time which support added sentence (These are charges that the MEK has denied). I didn't find any related material to verify in the source!Saff V. (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"At the same time, it's a win-win for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who gets to burnish his tough-guy credentials ahead of national elections early next year as well as please his allies, the ayatullahs. There's little love in Iraq for the MEK, which was welcomed by Saddam Hussein in the mid-'80s, when he was at war with Iran, and supplied with a training camp and armaments. The group is accused of repaying its benefactor by helping quash Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions — charges the MEK has denied." Ypatch (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamian 1982

Does anybody know which book is referred to in the article by that name?--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be this one as well as this tool can be useful.Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Saff V. I went ahead and checked. It appears some of the material that is attributed to the 1982 book written by Abrahamian is actually from the 1989 book, i.e. Radical Islam. For example the following piece is indeed in the pages 233-234 of the 1989 book:

In 1982, historian Ervand Abrahamian wrote that "the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions"

I will go ahead and fix the wrong attribution.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Ok. I found another piece that is from 1989 book and is wrongly attributed to the 1982 one:

Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.

I will go ahead and fix the wrong attribution.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary

@El C: pardon to bother you! Is this edit fixing grammar, while quashing Kurdish has not mentioned in the previous sentence or is fixing grammar picking up the "According to Time"?Saff V. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it certainly does more than just fixing the grammar (which, indeed, needed fixing). Again, Stefka Bulgaria, you need to do better when it comes to your edit summaries. Don't shy away from explaining exactly what you're doing. Also, does anyone know what is up with that cn at the end? Who added that? Is Time an inadequate source? El_C 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That Cn was from Saff V. I´ll explain my edit summaries more in detail from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I inserted, Denying the aid of Saddam for quashing Kurdish or Shia uprising is the claim need to more RSes.Isn't it?Saff V. (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would that single reliable source not be enough? El_C 16:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• El_C you attribute it to shyness, thank you, but please see the following:
  • Edit 1 with the explanation mentioned here.
  • Edit 2 with the explanation mentioned here (per which TP???)
  • Edit 3 with the explanation mentioned here (per which TP???)
  • You just mentioned something similar (I think)

--Mhhossein ^talk 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not attribute it to "shyness" — I said "don't shy away from." At any case, the expectation is that they are to do better from now on. El_C 16:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, "don't shy away from" does not necessarily mean that. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry, I missed your Question! I believe in Only Time (one source) is not enough to deny the collaboration between Saddam and MEK while there is plenty of sources which supports the collaboration. Am I clear? In addition I am going to ask, Has Stefke allowed to remove CN tag which I inserted it when I have not answered your question up that time?Saff V. (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, that is a reliable source. You cannot ask for a citation when one already exists! If you find a source that disputes what is being attributed, that's another matter. But there is no rule requiring multiple sources, and I deem such a request to be redundant. El_C 17:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Material

@Stefka Bulgaria: You picked up According to Arron Merat, Iraqi human rights tribunal has accused MEK leaders for their role in participating the uprisings. from the article, because it is repeated and we already have "In July 2010, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, including Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, for crimes against humanity committed while suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[187] ") in article. But how are you sure that "the accusation of Iraqi human rights tribunal" which was mentioned in the removed sentence belongs to July 2010?

Guardian Wrote that In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north. According to the New York Times, Maryam Rajavi told her fighters: “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian revolutionary guards.” The MEK vehemently denies it participated in Saddam’s campaigns to put down the Shia and Kurdish rebellions, but an Iraqi human rights tribunal has indicted MEK leaders for their role in suppressing the uprisings.Saff V. (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to an Iraqi tribunal accusing the MEK of participating in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, then yes, it looks like both quotes are referring to the same event. If you can show how Arron Merat's quote refers to a different event, then by all means provide the relevant source/text that shows this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Un balanced contrast

Does "many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France" have the same weight as "some conservative American politicians"? Absolutely not. Hence we can not make a strong contrast between them with "Although". On another hand, Using "Although" is not supported by NYT source which it has mentioned the contrast (without using Although) only between "many Iranians" (not many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France) and "some conservative American politicians". As a result, I reverted this edit.Saff V. (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "Scorned by many Iranians as a cult and for its long alliance with Saddam Hussein, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative for Iran’s future."

This is what I added to the article: "Although many experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the group nonetheless has been promoted by some conservative American politicians as offering a democratic alternative to Iran.

The source is valid, and all that's been included is what the New York Times says. If you're objection is that the New York Times doesn't use the word "although", then I'll use the phrase they use, "scorned by". Also, I'm adding this source and this source, which support the NY TIMES claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Designation as a cult" title

@Saff V.: In this edit, you reverted "Cult allegations" to "Designation as a cult" with the edit summary ": Don't change long standing title which was added since April 2018 ". Two points to make here:

1) Just because it's "long standing", it doesn't mean it can't be changed if inadequate.

2) If there isn't a single source confirming the MEK was "designated as a cult"; how do you justify keeping this title over the one I have proposed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Quite the opposite. There is no source that uses the word "cult allegation".

The U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has identified the MEK as having cult-like characteristics.[citation needed] Among governments of sovereign states, and Federal government of the United States[307] have described the MEK as a cult. Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult".[308] Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian,[309] Stephanie Cronin,[310] Wilfried Buchta,[311] and others have also made similar claims.[312]

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh[313] and Masoud Banisadr[314] among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich,[315] Robert Scheer,[315] and Elizabeth Rubin[316] among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.

In 1990, following to ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and a quarter of his follower's absence, Rajavi declared the second phase of the “Ideological Revolution”. By his order, all members got a divorce from their spouses. A year later, Rajavi ordered all children (800) to be moved from Iraq to Europe and America to be adopted by MEK supporters.[143][1]

An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded: “the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.[317] According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".[318]

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options”. .[319]

My suggestion as a middle-ground solution would be to use the following title for that section: "Cult-like characteristics"Kazemita1 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You are Wiki-voicing something that consists of allegations, so for this reason "Cult-like characteristics" would not work either. We need a factual title, not a POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing longstanding material or title needs the opinion of involved users and it does stand up the consequences will get. It is the point that you don't pay attention to! Why did you turn the title to cult allegation while There is no source to confirm it? Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. Aren't the sources in that section making allegations that the MEK has "cult-like characteristics"? For example, I read lots of "...so and so have described it as a cult". Those are 'allegations', not 'designations'. Barca (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Any mention of of "allegation" would actually count as pushing POV as most sources are stating the "cult-like" behavior of MEK as a fact.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Designation seems appropriate. These entities designated the MEK as a cult.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What about Status as a cult? What do everyone think of that phrasing for the section title as a compromise? El_C 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If not, this might require an RfC with a formal closing to codify the consensus (or lack thereof). Although, of course, bold ideas are encouraged. I certainly won't be deciding further on this (per my above suggestion), beyond reminding everyone about the mandatory restriction applied to this page, which determines what version stays up while this matter is being decided. El_C 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of the article's restrictions?

@El C: Kazemita1 inserted some text into the article; then Barca reverted that text, and then SharabSalam re-inserted that text again. This text is not part of the long-standing version of the article; so isn't this a violation of the article's restrictions? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Barca has failed to substantiate their objection on the article talk page. El_C 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. moving Operation Mersad text to 1988 executions

I reverted Saff V.'s last edit because the section is about the 1988 executions, not Operation Mersad. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section starts with the Operation Mersad and the reaction of Khomeini to it as well as it ends with the Operation Mersad. What is the problem with my edit, I just put material with the same subject next together?@El C: Please leave a comment!Saff V. (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section is about the 1988 executions. The text you're including fits chronologically in the previous section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Operation Forty Stars took place on 18 June 1988, Operation Mersad took place in July 1988, and the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners took place right after Operation Mersad (it came as a result of Operation Mersad). I don't know what you're complaining about; the text is now presented chronologically in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You disturb the balance of the text. You added Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution. The failed invasion refers to Operation Mersad, you mentioned mass execution of thousands of MEK but ignore to killing or wounding 3,500 and nearly destroying a Revolutionary Guard division by MEK in Operation Mersad which do you describe it with failed invasion.Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a section on Operation Mersad, followed by a section on the 1988 executions. This is organized chronologically. I didn't add "Khomeini used the failed invasion.."; that was already in the article. I will clarify that "the failed invasion" refers to Operation Mersad, but then all the information about that it's already in the section (Operation Mersad), which is organized chronologically in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka you need to be more careful before doing any edits! In the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners section, the reason of Khomeini's order for execution identified his fail in the Eternal Light, then you remove this negative word (failing) with the name of Operation Mersad is the natural word. Am I clear?Saff V. (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this. The information is now organized chronologically, that's all that matters to me. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The objection has merit — turning that passage into the intro for that section without any attempt to further connect it to the prior intro, which now becomes the 2nd paragraph, can be seen to hinder the flow of the section and its overarching topic. This isn't to say the section cannot be further prefaced —maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't— but if it does, it needs to be a more well-thought-out attempt to assemble all the pieces together. El_C 14:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)