Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

1988 executions removed

@Mhhossein: You reverted my edit from the article about the 1988 executions of political prisoners. In your edit summary, you wrote "the details and context of the executions are controversial". What is controversial about the details and context of the executions? Nika2020 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you pleas respond? You can't revert whatever you want and then disappear when you are asked about it. Nika2020 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your ping and will respond very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Your edit included "children" which is not supported as a fact by the sources. It should be attributed either to Montazeri or "Human right organizations" (which organization?). Moreover, according to the sources used in this page the prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK" were executed, not all the prisoners. Btw, wouldn't the already included execution part in the lead be a determining factor? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I wouldn't normally ping you, but Mhhossein's response here doesn't add up. I asked Mhhossein why he removed this from the lead:

"Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to be affiliated with the MEK, including children."

Mhhossein is saying he removed this edit because "not all the prisoners" were executed - but as you can see the information I added doesn't say "all prisoners" were executed. Mhhossein is also saying that the part "including children" needed attribution "either to Montazeri or "Human right organizations", and even though I don't agree he could have just attributed this himself instead of removing all the information. Nika2020 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see why I need to intervene; this is still a content dispute. Why don't you ask Mhhossein if he'd object to a version that didn't mention children, that used the necessary attribution, or that included a source that could be used without attribution? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: The sentence does not say "all prisoners", so that part of your objection is not valid. For the second part, it can be attributed to Montrazeri =

"Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to be affiliated with the MEK. According to Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri, the executions also included women and children."

Here are more sources just in case =

• "Human rights organizations estimate that between 4,500 and 5,000 men, women and children were killed in the summer of 1988 in prisons across Iran." Amnesty International

• "That this House notes that the audio file of Ayatollah Montrazeri, former heir to Khomeini, in 1988, reveals new evidence about the massacre of more than 30,000 political prisoners in Iran's prisons in the summer of 1988 including women and children and all political prisoners who supported the opposition movement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)"

Parliament UK

• "Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy"

The Telegraph

• ""At least order to spare women who have children... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not refelct positively and will not be mistake-free," Montazeri wrote in a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini. "A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by their interrogators... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic diseases."

Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran

• "Montazeri was more sympathetic to the plight of political prisoners in revolutionary Iran, and had a bitter disagreement with Khoemini over their mass executions in 1988, which he vehemently opposed, despite the fact that his son, a veteran of the revolutionary struggle, was killed at the hands of the MEK, to which most of the executed prisoners belonged."

Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings

• "The failed MEK invasion triggered a rage wihtin Khomeini's regime. Political prisoners who continued to adhere to antiregime beliefs were pulled from their cells and executed. Several thousand prisoners, including many MEK members, were killed by the Islamic regime during a two-month period."

Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps

• "Although execution of dissidents was rife in Iran in the 1980s, the 1988 summer executions were on a different scale. Amnesty International estimates the number of people put to death in that summer alone to be about 4,500, although others talk of bigger numbers. A fatwa issued by Khomeini in 1988 ordered the execution of apostates who refused to recant. Thousands of prisoners were brought before committees and asked whether they renounced their political affiliation, if they were Muslims, whether they prayed and if they believed in the Islamic Republic. Some were also asked if they were prepared to walk through Iraqi minefields, according to the audio file. Those who gave a negative answer in questioning that lasted a few minutes were put to death. Many were buried in a piece of unmarked land in the Khavaran cemetery near Tehran. Every year, as families gather to commemorate the deaths, riot police block their way. The emergence of the audio file has revived calls for an inquiry into the executions. Over the past 28 years, survivors and families of the victims have tried to support each other. In January, an Iranian woman who lost five children and one son-in-law in executions in the 1980s – Nayereh Jalali Mohajer, known as “Mother Behkish” – died."

Guardian

• "Grand Ayatollah Hosein 'Alkli Montazeri was to be Khomeini's succesor,but Montazeri criticized certain governmnetal practices that he considered a disgrace to the revolution. Among these practices were the mass executions of at least 3,000 political prisoners, which were carried out on Khomeini's behalf in the autumn of 1988"

Who Rules Iran?

• "The so-called 'Pardoning Committee' that Khomeini had dispatched to prisons, was in fact a 'Death Committee' personally appointed by Khomeini. Before this committee a prisoner was essentially asked one question: “Are you still loyal to the MEK?” Anyone who responded short of total repentance and submission faced execution. Victims were charged with “moharebeh” or “waging war on God.” This meant resisting the mullahs’ rule. The prison assembly hall became a slaughterhouse. Prisoners were rounded up in lines of six in various groups. A noose was placed around each neck. Prison guards kicked the chairs under their feet, collectively hanging them. The bodies were transferred to mass graves in meat trucks at night. On some nights, up to 400 were executed."

Intependent

• ""In my view, the biggest crime in the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us, has been committed at your hands," stated Khomeini's one-time heir apparent to judicial authorities responsible for the decision. "They'll write your names as criminals in the history [books]." The events of 1988 represent a grim nadir in Iran's recent human rights record. Without even the formalities of a show trial, the Iranian government summarily executed thousands of political prisoners who had languished in its jails for years. The majority were supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization, better known by their Farsi-language abbreviation MEK."

HRW If you have anything else to add, please comment. Nika2020 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you did not read my comment carefully. Anything to be included should be neutrally depicting the story. But, as you see the pretext and the condition of the executions are controversial. As I mentioned, not all the members were executed (your edit conveys a wrong impression). Moreover, why do you think Montazeri's POV is lead-worthy? Also you failed to recognize the fact that there's some mention of MEK members being executed which adds to the issues. Suggestion? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I only suggested attributing to Montazeri because this is what you suggested [1]. What would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources? Nika2020 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually I meant to tell you this POV is not suitable for lead. I already asked you why you thought Montazeri's POV was lead-worthy? Also, how many times should it be repeated the MEK members were executed? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: this is not POV, this is something that happened and that is covered by a wide variety of reliable sources. Just saying that you don't want it in the lead is not a reason not to include it. Vanamonde: Mhhossein is saying that the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is "POV", and that for this reason should not be included in the lead. This is not content dispute, this is refusing to acknowledge MOS:LEAD and what a wide variety of reliable sources are saying. Nika2020 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you need to substantiate your objections more than you have done. If coverage of the 1988 executions is "POV", you need to demonstrate that with reference to what sources say about them. If it is not POV, then it needs to be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I think you need to read the comments (specially this one) once again. That the executed people included children the POV of Montazeri. Moreover, the lead already includes sentences on the members being executed. This is exactly a content dispute. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have read all the necessary comments. You are once again dodging the issue. This section is about whether the 1988 executions need to be added to the lead. You have objected to a very specific portion of the proposed text; ie, including "children" among the victims. If you have objections to the rest of it, you need to state those now, otherwise Nika2020 would be justified in adding the reinstating the rest of their edit (ie everything except the two words "including children". You also acknowledged above that unspecified human rights organizations make the same claim, but now are insisting that it's just Montazeri. You also state that the "the lead already includes sentences on the members being executed"; but the lead, as far as I can see, only refers to executions in 1981, not 1988; how is that relevant here? What decision is made about the content in the lead is indeed a content issue, but your conduct in that discussion is a behavioral issue. Specifically, you need to stop using a specific issue to avoid engaging with the entirety of what is being proposed. That is a form of stone-walling, and isn't acceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To me, your comment shows you have not been following the discussions very carefully. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, only the prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK" were executed. Adding this will not convey a wrong impression that all the prisoners were executed. Also, I did not insist this is just Montazeri saying that. I see covering the claim of an unspecified human rights organizations or Montazeri in the lead would be against DUE. As for the 1981 execution, I was infact trying to say anything to be added should consider this. For instance, why not mentioning in a general sentence the MEK members were executed by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your continued insistance, I have in fact read those comments. You are still misunderstanding my point, and it is concerning, to say the least. Some content was added to the lead. You removed it. Nika2020 asked you what your objections were. All the objections you have listed are to specific portions of the text, and could be addressed with a slightly modified version of what was originally posted. Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no". That being said; Nika2020, you need to engage here; I'm not doing your work for you. This is more or less the last thing I'm going to say in this discussion, unless anyone engages in sanctionable behavior. To be very clear, stone-walling on the talk page is sanctionable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Please understand that what happened in the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners is not "POV", is something that many reliable sources confirm happened (I can list them if you want, but there is really no point since we already have a whole article about this). You also say the lead already includes "sentences on the members being executed", but this is not accurate since the current (passing) mention of executions in the lead talks about what happened in 1981, not 1988 (two very different events). There is no denying that the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners happened (not "POV"), and that this is an important event in the history of the MEK, so it belongs in the lead. If you have a problem with the information as I have presented it, please say what would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources. Thank you. Nika2020 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Despite your claim, I did not just say "no". I believe you have already got involved in the topic more than enough. A third party may view this comment, for instance, as coming from an involved party. Contrary to WP:ONUS, you are asking me to build consensus (which is actually the duty of Nika2020 - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.") As for "All the objections you have listed are to specific portions of the text, and could be addressed with a slightly modified version of what was originally posted". Not really, This was a matter of talk page discussion, what I am doing here. @Nika2020: WHO said the 1988 executions was just a POV which should not be included in the lead? Please note the main objections I have already raised (let me know if you need more clarifications). As for the 1981 executions, yes, they are different events and I was just suggesting to merge any further inclusion of "execution" with this one. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: merging different events into a single passing comment would be excluding information that is as DUE as anything else that is currently in the lead. Because the 1988 executions is DUE information, then please stop making this so difficult and provide your compromise about adding this in a way that "neutrally depicts" the sources. Nika2020 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there are many other DUE info which is not in the lead (such as Hafter Tir bombing). Anyway, this is not being talked about. On my part, I raised my objections in my previous comments, among them the necessity of the insertion of "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK". I welcome the draft of your modified suggestion based on our discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trying not to get involved here, but, Mhhossein: your comments to drive Vanamonde away from this talk page [2] resembles SharabSalam's previous efforts. Vanamonde is currently the only admin willing to help in this mess, so please don't start accusing them of being "involved". They have done everything right not to be involved here while continuing to break the deadlock that is this talk page, so please stop all the wiki-lawyering. Barca (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Every one knows I was of the pioneers of asking admins to stay here, and, I suggested him what I thought. You should not interpret my comments in other ways which is not meant by me. I already know how time&energy consuming watching this page is. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: then stop accusing Vanamonde of being "involved". It is quite evident they are not involved, and their input here is necessary. Barca (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: It's not an accusation, I said what I saw. Anyway, Vanamonde's edits speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein If you think the Hafte tir bombing is DUE for the lead, then I welcome you to start a talk page discussion about that. This talk page discussion is about the 1988 executions, so please don't mix things. Based on your objections, then this is what I suggest:

• "Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to remain steadfast in their support for the MEK. According to Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri and Amnesty International, the executions also included women and children."

If you have further objections, I welcome your draft. If you don't present any more substantiated objections, then I don't see a reason why this cannot be included in the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Execution of women and children is a BIG claim that requires big sources. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1, "Khomeini's former deputy Ayatollah Montrazeri and Amnesty International, the executions also included women and children." does have big sources (Tehran Blues: Youth Culture in Iran, Saqi Books The Economist Parliament.UK The Telegraph Amnesty International). Mhhossein: you made this revert, so your input is required. Please say if the version I proposed in my last post is ok, or, what would be your compromise that "neutrally depicts" the sources? Nika2020 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I am pinging you again because you are the one who made the revert, so your input is required. Please respond. Nika2020 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nika2020. I was busy with RF. That there are books on the Montazeri's POV does not change the very fact that it's the POV of Montazeri and I object including this POV into the lead. As for the context of the executions, which I stressed from the first day, there's a claim from the Iranian side according to the Amnesty report (and some other Farsi sources) saying those executed were involved in riots inside prisons simultaneously with the MEK's attack to the Iranian borders. I am not favoring inclusion of this POV either, but am trying to say, if this the case, the executions were not merely because of the MEK's military attack. What do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: My suggestion includes Ayatolla Montazeri's and Amnesty International's reports, so it's not just a "POV" as you say. If you object their inclusion, you need to explain why you object (saying that you don't like what they say is not enough to exclude their reports). About the executions, I have provided enough sources that explain why they happened. If you have other sources saying otherwise, you need to provide them and say what is your suggested compromise that "neutrally depicts" all the sources. Nika2020 (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

When did I show my like/dislike (please avoid making further accusations). As for the POV, please see my comment -07:35, 17 May 2020- in this thread. Unspecified HR organizations and Montazeri are not really suitable sources of information for lead of this article (though they can be used in the body). That's why I say the context the details of these events are controversial. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You have warned Mhhossein twice that they are stonewalling this discussion ([3] and [4]). Since those warnings, I have asked Mhhossein 5 times to provide a compromise that neutrally depicts the sources, but they continue to evade any sort of compromise regardless of all the reliable sources supporting this information. I reaffirm that this is not a content dispute, but about Mhhossein refusing to acknowledge MOS:LEAD and what a wide variety of reliable sources are saying. Nika2020 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nika2020: You've proposed adding two sentences above. Reasoned objections have been made to the second, but not to the first; as such, you have consensus here to add the first sentence to the lead. If you want to add the second, you will have to start an RfC, as the objections here are in fact reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC about statements from former members of the MEK

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

The consensus of the discussion is to not include these quotes. Several contributors seem to argue that it is enough to guarantee inclusion that the quote appears in reliable sources. It is not. In the end, inclusion of material in the article is an editorial decision and other policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT, must also be considered. There was slightly more support for Rajavi's quote, but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached. SpinningSpark 16:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

---

There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:

1. "According to former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, "[l]ooking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs"
2. "According to Masoud Banisadr, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"."
3. " According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."
4. "Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."
5. "According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, "several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members".

Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - as nominator. None of them add any new information to the article (except superficial criticisms), and they are all WP:UNDUE (none of the things said are verified by reliable sources. The only thing available are repetitions of these quotes in other sources). Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  In a RfC there is no "nominator".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• No they should not be removed. They are all well-sourced and noteworthy content..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes These statements are not from "noteworthy" sources, they are from people that have left the MEK. This maybe could be placed in a section that includes POV from former MEK members (still has major WP:NPV problems, but better than what is in the article now), but not as stand-alone statements. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what these are, random statements from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• No We can't remove them merely because they're from the former members of MEK rather the coverage of the quotes by the reliable sources should be the determining criteria. "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards", for instance, is described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. This quotation is independently used by other reliable sources such as NYT and Foreign Policy. Also, Masoud Banisadr is not simply a former MEK member, he is a scholar authoring books and articles so his views should be weighed here. As for the propaganda campaign, the full report is provided by Aljazeera and this is not again merely a claim by a former member. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The following shows the materials should not be removed solely because they're from the former members of MEK:

  "The only people who can truly understand what they’ve endured are other former MEK members."

  Source: DEFECTORS TELL OF TORTURE AND FORCED STERILIZATION IN MILITANT IRANIAN CULT. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: they should be removed, per the following:

1. These are not scholarly / journalistic analyses, they are allegations from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)

2. There is an ongoing "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" where "Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK.""

3. These claims don't add any new information about key events that isn't already backed by reliable sources (posed neutrally and well-researched).

4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of "reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article.

5. To the closing admin/editor: please note that the RfCs in this Talk page have ended in no-consensus for the past year or so (mainly due to the overwhelming bludgeoning). This results in information that isn't encyclopaedic or deriving from reliable sources kept in Wikipedia (which would also be the case if this RfC was closed in no-consensus). It will take a bit of time to weight carefully votes and what the sources are saying, but that is the only way to close these RfC's adequately. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign. This would be very ridiculous to remove the statements by the members of the MEK who give the most natural narration of the events in the group only because MEK thinks there's allegedly a "misinformation campaign" against them. Using this argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We're not including claims by Heshmat Alavi in this article. For obvious NPOV reasons, we're also not including claims from any other current MEK member in this article. That should also apply to claims from MEK defectors (what this RfC is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Heshmat Alavi was just an example. I mean MEK's propaganda campaign should be taken care of, too. Anyway, we don't remove quotes like "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." which are independently covered by the the reliable sources. This example was described by Center for American Progress as being an infamous quote. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Per Stefka Bulgaria. Factual integrity above everything else . Barca (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - If it is true that the article does not include claims from current MeK members (I have not checked), then, by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members. We either include both (current and former member claims), or neither. If we include both, I think it would open a can of worms. Excluding both POV sides solves this problem, leaving in the article the claims from more credible and neutral sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Reading some of the votes and discussions, I don't agree that reliable sources should be the determining criteria. The content itself is poor and does not clear up or give further evidence of their subject areas. Quote 1: The MEK seems to have gone through ideological phases, but describing them as "some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs" does not clear up what the MEK's beliefs were. Quote 2: Like the first quote, "MEK called Saddam Hussein an "aggressor" and a "dictator"" does not clear up the MEK's relationship with Saddam Hussain. Quote 3: Like the previous quotes, "the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America" does not give information about the MEK's relationship with America (were they "Anti-imperialist"? or did they receive support from the US? these are better areas that can be explored). Quote 4: The quote "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" leaves more questions than answers (what was happening between Rajavi and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards? What was Rajavi's relationship with with the Kurds? we don't know, and this quote does not clear it up). Quote 5: This is the only quote I'm leaning towards keeping. "According to former MEK member Hassan Heyrani, several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members" does give some kind of "data", but considering the source of this data is polemical, I would be ok with excluding this too. Idealigic (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"I don't agree that reliable sources should be the determining criteria" is against our policies and guidelines. At least, you are asking others to act based on the Original Research, as opposed to adhering to the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, your own comment citing this policy, and Vanamonde's comment reminding you of this policy. On top of that, saying that Idealigic is "asking others to act based on the Original Research" is completely false. Ypatch (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My own comment is completely right. Idealigic's comment is a mixture of OR and his own viewpoints. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - you have an odd idea of what it means to work together. It means respecting other's opinions, not discrediting them when their vote doesn't agree with yours. Little appears to have changed since that discussion: "It's very interesting to me that you have tried to discount people's opinions, the way that the vote was captured, etc. if the vote doesn't appear to be going your way... and instead devolving to complaints, deflection, and personal attacks has been disappointing. I don't think that you'd be happy unless the voting turned out differently" Ypatch (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• No: I presume, according to the recent discussion, the related sentence to the murder of Kurds with tanks is notable enough. In regards to the sentences of "Masoud Banisadr", considering that he is an author working with credible publishers, I recommend to use his sentences with "attribution" (in the article). Regarding Hassan Heyrani's sentence, I think it is better to pay heed to the context which is in the article. Aljazeera's report concerning the activity of campaign (supporter of MEK) seems to be incomplete without this sentence. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: these should not be in the article. In contentious articles, we should only include comments by people with some kind of credibility for fact checking. Allegations made by MEK members, like any other random people saying they have heard something, falls more into tabloid territory. There is a book full of allegations by MEK members which we can use to turn this Wikipedia page into their personal diary, but I don't think that is a good idea, just like including these random claims from MEK members is not a good idea. If we include these claims, we are violating the guideline that says "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." [5]. Nika2020 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that you're missing WP:DUE. Btw, they are not random people. Masoud Banisadr, for instance, has contributed to multiple high quality scholarly works. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Masoud Banisdar is a MEK defector whose' only few published works consists solely of POV against the MEK; in the words of Icewhiz:

"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 - [34]. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship."

Banisdar's quotes were initially wrongly attributed to Eileen Barker (and I suspect why that was). Which leaves the remaining quotes from other MEK members, all of which are indeed quotes from "random people". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The chapter is finally edited by Barker. Btw, Banisdr's claims are reflected by multiple sources. Instead of trying to discredit the former members as being "random" I would focus on what they said and whether they are DUE. Solely calling them former member is not a ground for removal of their statements published by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

An ex-MEK member wrote that chapter, which was included in the article as "According to Eileen Barker, "...", and you are defending that saying it was finally edited by Barker? Have the last word if you like; I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• No: If they are covered by reliable third party sources, they should not be removed.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• No: "Factual integrity" for someone's testimony being represented is determined by the reputable journalism, not people editing encyclopedia articles. Some of those quotes were recorded by human rights organizations. Can no victims of any crime ever be published as long as perpetrators dispute it? The readers know the sources and if any reputable articles specifically disprove the testimonies, those should be included too.Iranians (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2020 (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.

• @Spinningspark: Regarding the Rajavi's quote you said "There was slightly more support for Rajavi's quote, but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached." As I showed, three credible/reliable sources have mentioned the quote independently which shows it was DUE. Also, consensus has to be reached for the removal of this longstanding text (not for keeping it). --Mhhossein ^talk 05:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There was consensus. The above RfC was opened and formally closed. Why is The consensus of the discussion is to not include these quotes so hard to understand? Rajavi's quote might, or might not, gain consensus if discussed on its own, but that discussion needs to happen first. SpinningSpark 08:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Spinningspark: For my own information, can you say how Rajavi's quote is not fulfilling WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT? Regards, --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think you have grasped my role in closing the discussion. My role is to assess the consensus of the discussion. It is for the editors of the page and other participants in the discussion to determine what is UNDUE and NOT. SpinningSpark 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Spinningspark: Thanks for the response. I understand it completely. The question is regarding your closing comment saying "but not enough for me to be able to say that consensus had been reached"; I showed it Rajavi's quote being independently covered by three reliable sources (which shows it is DUE). Now, the question is which argument by the users was fascinating enough for removing this longstanding DUE material? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @Mhhossein: This RfC was reviewed by an experienced admin, and it concluded in consensus not to include statements. You have a tendency to make constant complaints to the closing admins in RfCs that don't go your way. You've done that here, here, and now on this RfC. There was consensus not to include these statements; WP:DROPTHESTICK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Stefka Bulgaria: The comment by the experienced admin is contradicting. The fact that you are here with a battle ground language shows you are extremely concerned about your recent RFC which aims to mass remove well sourced materials. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark's comment is not contradicting; and his closing remarks are well thought-out. Nobody is using "battle ground language", and nobody is "extremely concerned about your recent RfC". We have these RfCs to determine consensus; consensus was determined here by an experienced admin. I realize you wanted a different outcome, but that was not to be this time, and so it's time to move on. That's the last I'll say here Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources showing DUE weight

@Ypatch: Why did you removed the sources which I had to show the quotation "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" had received independent coverage by multiple reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - this was already explained in my edit summary. We already have a source by Elizabeth Rubin that says "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." Repeating the same quote in questionable sources does not give the quote DUE weight. Ypatch (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when American Progress and Foreign Policy are counted as questionable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ypatch that repeating the exact same quote in different sources doesn't make the quote more "notable"; no matter how you paint this, it is still only a an allegation from an MEK defector. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually the reverse! According to the WP:DUE the materials should be represented "in proportion to the prominence' of it in the reliable sources. If it is repeated independently by different reliable sources, then it's indicating the material is notable enough. I am going to restore those citations if you can not substantiate why those reliable sources independently covering the quote should be removed. The very fact that you object the inclusion of those citations is itself meaningful. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - as much as you're trying to make this come across as "prominent", it isn't. The current RfC about including this sentence in the article is the place to raise your points so you can try to get consensus there, like the rest of us are doing. Ypatch (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The prominence comes from the very fact that at least three high quality sources have covered that independently. @Vanamonde93: your insight please: they argued "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards" should be removed on DUE grounds. I added American Progress and Foreign Policy sources besides the existing citation to show there are at lease three high quality sources independently covering the quotation which, in accordance with WP:DUE saying the materials should be represented "in proportion to the prominence' of it in the reliable sources. Ypatch removed the citations. Can you judge the discussion to see if the removal of those citations are justified? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch's objection actually was that "We already have a source by Elizabeth Rubin that says "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." What was argued was that the sources you added, Mhhossein, don't make this more WP:DUE because they are merely repeating the same quote (a quote which is currently in the article). Also, that quote is being discussed in the RfC about statements from former members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch also said the American Progress and Foreign Policy sources are questionable! I had added them to show the quote had been of the interest to at least three high quality sources. This, in accordance with WP:DUE, is an indication of the material receiving due weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is once again interrupting my communication with Vanamonde93 when I am talking about Ypatch's edits (it has become like a pattern here). --Mhhossein ^talk 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is an utterly pointless argument; why do any of you have strong opinions on how many sources are used to substantiate this point? In general, on contentious articles, more sources are not a bad thing when due weight is being debated. I suggest you let the sources remain in. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

RFC about inclusion of the content from The Intercept source

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 following content from The Intercept 2020 report be included in the "Designation as cult" section of the article?

"According to the Intercept 2020 report, the testimonies of the MEK's former member imply that MEK is "a brutal organization" holding "thousands in a state of physical and psychological slavery" for decades."

Please say if you have suggestions for modifying the content to be included. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: This is a fresh and unique report we need to you use. Actually, nowhere in the article the testimonies of the MEK members are being evaluated by a third party! So why should we miss this fresh report by a credible source like The Intercept? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No: For many reasons, but mainly per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. These obviously controversial labels. Human rights record content are already occupying a large part of the article, and doesn't need more contentious POV (than what it already has). Barca (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No- We already have so many allegations from "former members" in the article, and "imply" is equal to a hypothesis, not fact. This article needs facts, not hypothesis. Nika2020 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Intercept is a reliable and neutral source and the sentence is well quoted such that the "hypothesis/fact" issue no longer applies.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• No: Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Also per the (similar) recently-closed RfC about adding testimonies from former MEK members to the article; to summarise some of the points raised in that RfC (which also apply here): random superficial criticisms about the MEK from defectors lack factual integrity and is not encyclopedic material. Also per the closer's remarks on that RfC: "Several contributors seem to argue that it is enough to guarantee inclusion that the quote appears in reliable sources. It is not." Additionally, since we don't include testimonies from current members to avoid WP:NPOV issues, the same should apply about adding testimonies from former members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, trying to insert in the article that a political group is ""a brutal organization" holding "thousands in a state of physical and psychological slavery" for decades."" is taking POV pushing to a whole new level. Filling the article with all this POV is distorting it, and that's a bad thing, not a good thing. Alex-h (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• No Name-calling which adds nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: MEK is a closed group. By removing statements from former MEK member we will be excluding a vast amount of our knowledge from this group. It is no incident that most main-stream media outlets use these testimonies in their articles on MEK. I believe we can trust Intercept on this matter given that the independence of the source and the subject.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - All the "no" votes have pretty much said it. This is just name-calling and POV pushing that adds nothing. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2020 (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.

Vanamonde: AFAIK, MEK is not open to outsiders and few journalists could see inside or talk to the current members. That's why, the quotes by the former members reported/endorsed by the reliable sources is vital to this page. Anyway, thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Why are you rehashing arguments from the RfC here? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a rehashing of older things or saying why no consensus is achieved, but meant to say why the quotes are crucial to this page. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Would you please elaborate on "turning this into a readable article"? Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have done so at great length on this talk page before. I am not going to repeat myself, because it's utterly exhausting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A diff to that comment can be helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You could skim the archives to find my comments just as quickly as I could, so I'm not going to spend my time doing that. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Rajavi's quotation regarding killing of the Kurds be included in the article?

The outcome of the previous RFC and the subsequent post-closure discussions made me start an RFC regarding inclusion the following quote allegedly made by Maryam Rajavi:

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

Should it be included in the article? Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Per WP:DUE. It is interesting to know the quote is portrayed by Center for American Progress as being "infamous". Furthermore, it is covered independently by three reliable sources Foreign Policy, Center for American Progress and The New York Times with dozens of other reliable sources, like RAND report, The Intercept, Salon, The Guardian using the quote when portraying the group's collaboration with Saddam. This shows the quote is not only DUE but also adds to the encyclopedic value of the article. Why should not such an important and infamous quote be used in the page? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. As mentioned by the user concluding the previous RfC, this statement could stay in the article. It has enough coverage thru independent reliable sources and MEK's treatment of the Kurds begs more attention in the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• No: It was determined in the last RfC that this claim is an allegation from an MEK defector, and therefore not suitable for the article. Here are my reasons not to include this (again):

1. This is not coming from a scholarly / journalistic analyses, but it's rather an allegation from non-qualified sources ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity." - which is not the case with these claims)

2. There is an ongoing "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" where "Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK.""

3. These claims don't add any new information about key events that isn't already backed by reliable sources (posed neutrally and well-researched).

4. There is a major "misinformation campaign against the MEK" where there is evidence of "reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." In other words, if the information is not coming from a trusted academic or journalistic outlet, then it should not be in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. Mhhossein is not presenting this neutrally. The full quote is "And former Mujahedeen members remember Maryam Rajavi's infamous command at the time: Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." so this is coming from yet another former MEK member making allegations, so it is not WP:DUE. On the contrary, these are unverified allegations by people that have vested interests on this topic, and therefore could be just making it up. Factual integrity above everything else. Nika2020 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably you need to read the quote once again. "former Mujahedeen members" (not solely one member!). Also, the source describes the quote as being "infamous" adding to its weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. For what Nika2020's explanation is saying. If it's not coming from a reliable source, then it should not be in this article. "Former Mujahedeen members remember" are not reliable sources, and Mhhossein not including that part of the quote gives me even less faith in this proposal. Idealigic (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• No This statement is from people that have left the MEK, they are not from "noteworthy" sources. We don't include random statements from the public in encyclopedia articles, and that is what this is, a random statement from people that have left the MEK. Alex-h (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No: These are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article. We recently had a similar talk page discussion where Mhhossein (and Kazemita1) both said that adding quotes from MEK members were "promotional" or "soapbox" [6], and I agreed. Now they can't have it both ways where they cherry-pick their preferred quotes, but omit the ones they don't like. Since we have been agreeing that we won't be adding quotes from MEK members in the article (per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV), then this other quote should follow the same rule. Barca (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing "major points" with the "verified points". They are far way different. "Major points" are those possessed by numerous people/sources and are covered by reliable sources in an appropriate manner. Using your false argument, Flat Earth should be removed, since not only is it not verified that the earth is falt, but because it is proved that the earth is not flat! Btw, I am still by my word; Ebrahimizade's comment is promotional and is irrelevant to this page, while it can be used on his own page. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should be highlighted that "infamous quote" is used by the sources (see my previous comment for those sources) to explain the level of the MEK-Saddam Hussein cooperation. That's why including these highly repeated quote would be useful. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - Mhhossein is debating that this is an "infamous quote" that explains the level of the MEK-Hussein cooperation, but it's not. This is a claim from some people saying they heard Maryam Rajavi say "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." Inserting a quote in a Wikipedia article which isn't verified but is defaming would pose WP:BIO violations (which is why I suspect they haven't tried to insert it in the Maryam Rajavi article). This quote could easily have been fabricated, and even if it wasn't, it does not explain anything except trying to characterise a BLP as someone who ordered the killing of Kurds - something that doesn't appear to be verified by any other source. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't say this. Reliable sources say this!!! Let's see what your comment is saying:

• "Inserting a quote in a Wikipedia article which isn't verified but is defaming would pose WP:BIO violations". This is False. Nowhere in WP:BIO you can see the "verification" or lack thereof. As WP:BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." For this quote there are various reliable sources.
• "This quote could easily have been fabricated". The sentence in the article reads as if she is quoted as ordering to kill the Kurds, so proper attributions is made and there's no issue.
• "it does not explain anything except trying to characterise a BLP as someone who ordered the killing of Kurds - something that doesn't appear to be verified by any other source." MEK's role in helping Iraq's Saddam with suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings is like an established fact:

"It aided Saddam with operations against the Kurds in the north..."by Oxford University Press, P. 250

"the report, drawing on U.S. government sources, notes, “Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, ‘a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border.’” The report goes on to cite the Kurdish leader—and first president of Iraq after the fall of Saddam—Jalal Talabani, as telling reporters at the time that “5,000 Iranian Mojahedin [MEK] joined Saddam’s forces in the battle for Kirkuk” and points to Wall Street Journal reporting as well on the MEK’s part in this bloody campaign"by POLITICO

"The NLA's last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991 when it joined Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion," the state department report said" by the Guardian. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - you're not listening. This would be like someone without any credible qualifications making unverified claims that the Supreme Leader of Iran said something outrageous, and then me persisting to have it wikivoiced in Wikipedia. That's how fake news is spread. Also all the quotes you have presented talk about the MEK, and not Maryam Rajavi. In other words, you are trying to bridge huge gaps through bits and pieces that don't hold up, which adds up to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH in a contentious topic. No, adding this quote to the article is not a good idea. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My response is still the same. I showed multiple reliable sources are using the quote (some of them independently) hence DUE is applied. There's no Original Research. You said "[it] doesn't appear to be verified by any other source" and I showed your argument is false. Maryam Rajavi is the MEK's leader so the operations involving attacking the Kurds had been under her direct command. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Did a bit of research into the alleged participation of the MEK against Kurds in Iraq, and found sources saying that the MEK never took part in the Kurdish uprising and that the allegations originated as part of a disinformation campaign by MOIS:

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."
• "From our independent investigation and discussion with parties involved, we find these allegations false . . . Most of the allegations made against the BNAA regarding the Kurdish people come from a man named Jamshid Tafrishi- Enginee, who was cited by people at this session of the sub-commission as a former leader of the Iranian Resistance. Our investigation indicates that Mr Tafrishi-Enginee joined the Resistance in 1988, but left after 19 months with a low rank. In his letter of resignation, hand-written and dated 23 September 1990, he sites personal problems and requests leave to transfer to a refugee camp. He then traveled to Europe where he began to campaign publicly against the NLA. There is compelling evidence that he is in fact an agent of the Khomeini regime's Ministry of Intelligence. In a letter dated l4 July 1999, Mr Hoshyar Zebari, then head of the Kurdish Democratic Party's international relations and presently Foreign Minister of Iraq (see document [97]), wrote, The KDP as a major Kurdish political party has led and participated in the Kurdish Spring uprising of 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan . . . The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin-e-khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs." 

There is a lot of misinformation going around about the MEK it seems, and more of a reason not to include this alleged quote. I will add this new found info to the article and start a new RfC about the allegations involving the MEK against the Kurds in Iraq. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not used these two quotes to reach such a strong conclusion, i.e. "MEK never took part in the Kurdish uprising". This claim seems silly in face of vast number of sources saying MEK were involved in cracking the Kurdish uprising in Iraq. Here are some of the sources:

• "It aided Saddam with operations against the Kurds in the north..."by Oxford University Press, P. 250
• " ... to Saddam that MEK fighters not onlyassisted the Iraqis inthe IranIraqWar but also helped Saddam putdownthe 1991 Kurdish uprising"[7]
• "the report, drawing on U.S. government sources, notes, “Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, ‘a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border.’” The report goes on to cite the Kurdish leader—and first president of Iraq after the fall of Saddam—Jalal Talabani, as telling reporters at the time that “5,000 Iranian Mojahedin [MEK] joined Saddam’s forces in the battle for Kirkuk” and points to Wall Street Journal reporting as well on the MEK’s part in this bloody campaign"by POLITICO
• "... The Kurds and Shiite Arabs have long reviled the MEK because Saddam Hussein used it to help put down their uprisings ..."P.217
• "MEK fighters not only assisted the Iraqis in the Iran–Iraq War but also helped Saddam put down the 1991 Kurdish uprising."P.76
• "In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north."By the Guardian
• "where it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88) and reportedly helped quash Kurdish uprisings in the north and Shia unrest in the south (1991)."by Council of Foreign Relations.
• "They were helped out by Arabs, and then turned themselves over to the Kurds, ..."by the New York Times

You can of course find more sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Sources

Brustopher In your revert, you say that the following are not RS:

• Global security: Iran, fifth report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee

• Camp Ashraf: Iraqi obligations and State Department accountability by the United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs.

How are these not RSs? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There wasn't much space in the edit summary to express myself so I might have expressed this poorly. I'm not saying the report is an unreliable source. My problem is that the claims you've added about the allegations being false according to "International Educational Development" are not sourced from the report, but are instead sourced from the written evidence the NCRI (for all intents and purposes the MEK) submitted to the Parliamnetary report. This may be poor reading on my part, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find the comments replicated outside of the NCRI's own evidence submissions. What the MEK says about the MEK is clearly not a reliable source. --Brustopher (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Brustopher, MEK can only be a reliable source for its own POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Brustopher Thank you for your response. Can you please say where in these two sources it says that the the report derives from evidence the NCRI submitted? I can't see that anywhere in these two sources. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading the report at p.236 you can see these comments arent within the body of the report, but are in fact part of a memorandum submitted by the NCRI. Brustopher (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Brustopher: Thanks again for the link; I had not seen the report on this PDF format where it is indeed shown that this is part of a NCRI report. I propose including it in the article in this format:

"According to a NCRI report, in 1999 Hoshyar Zebari stated that the MEK were "not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath". The report also said that the allegations concerning the MEK targeting Iraqi Kurds and Shiites are false and can be linked back to a misinformation campaign by Iran's Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS)."

What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Stefka, you're reaching. Look for some independent sources, please; denials from non-independent sources are rarely worth anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I thought it could be useful for the groups own POV, but I'll have a look to see if there are better sources for this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References
References