Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

More false nuclear allegations

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

[3] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [4] [5] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017

RfC request as this is becoming a bit comical

This article comes across as having some obvious WP:NPOV and Weasel word issues. I've tried to clean up a couple of sections, but this seems to upset user:Pahlevun, who appears to have monopolized the article. I've tried to take the debate to the article's Talk page, but consensus hasn't been reached with user Pahlevun (though user:Icewhiz did support proposed changes). I think that at this point we need another neutral editor to have a look at this. What I've found, basically, is that:

1) Biased references are being used to support biased statements (these biased references often seem to be connected to the Iranian regime. As Icewhiz pointed out: Note the Iranian regime (and regime controlled media in Iran) views MEK in a highly negative fashion (MEK being on of the regular "bogeymen" in coverage, regularly assigned blame for various woes). This sometimes seeps into non-Iranian coverage (in proper sources - attributed back to the Iranian regime) - however we should be careful to attribute such negative statements here

2) Other references are being used to support negative statements that are not in the references themselves (see discussion above).

I've tried to discuss this with user:Pahlevun (see above), but he/she has opted to open an SPI case against me instead. London Hall (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The "biased references" in question that London Hall "tried to clean up" and are from "regime controlled media in Iran" or "attributed back to the Iranian regime", are the following:

• Frank Bolz, Jr., Kenneth J. Dudonis, David P. Schulz (2016). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques. Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations (4 ed.). CRC Press. p. 459. ISBN 1439846685. Aims/goals: • MEK aims for the violent overthrow of the Iranian government, with the group's ideology swinging all over the map.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jonathan R. White (2011). Terrorism and Homeland Security (7 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 371. ISBN 1133171184.
• "Toppling Tehran". Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran. Brookings Institution. 2009. p. 164. ISBN 9780815703792. The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), "Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group", Reuters, retrieved 20 July 2017, The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.
• Buchta, Wilfried (2000), Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, p. 112, ISBN 0-944029-39-6
• "Advertising: The People's Mujahideen e Khalq", The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda, Brookings Institution Press, 2018, p. 166, ISBN 9780815732198 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Cordesman, Anthony H., ed. (1999), Iraq and the War of Sanctions: Conventional Threats and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 160, ISBN 9780275965280, The MEK directs a worldwide campaign against the Iranian government that stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence.
• Ciment, James, ed. (2015), "Directory of Terrorist Groups and Individuals: Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)", World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, Routledge, p. 859, ISBN 9781317451525, Aside from its operations inside Iran, MEK has run a global propaganda campaign since 2000. MEK has an extensive overseas support structure.
• "Diary Of An MKO Rent-A-Crowd Demonstrator", RFE/RL, 30 June 2013, retrieved 24 November 2016
• Michael Rubin (7 July 2013), "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult", Commentary, retrieved 24 December 2016

—Pahlevun (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not what I claimed. However, if you'd like a list of the references that I'm suggesting are biased or being used to support biased statements in the article, I'll dig them up. I'm a bit busy now but will do it shortly. London Hall (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting comments from neutral editors

On the note of this request, user: Pahlevun seems to have taken a hold of not only this article but also all articles relating to the Iranian regime political parties and its oppositions. This type of involvement is making it difficult to work further on these articles. I don’t have the time right now to go through all the POV references/statements in this particular article, but below I’ve listed a few. Requesting that (uninvolved / unbiased) editors vote to support or decline addressing issues here. Thanks:

1) In order to buy legitimacy, MEK sometimes combines the features of the leaflet and the extended interview with purchasing usually full page, thus expensive ad space for their propaganda in major-circulation newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Washington Times. Harmon and Bowdish describe the advertisements as "well-designed" and "distinctive".[176]

Comment: There are some publications used as references in the article (such as this one by the Brookings Institution Press) that don’t only have a one-sided POV, but seem to go out of the way to exaggeratedly smear the group. Last year in the the news there were reports that certain Iran Regime's backed organizations were funding Western academia, including the Brookings Institution receiving $225,000 for "Iran-related analysis, briefings and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work." I suspect there is a connection here as the current Iran Regime sees the MEK as its main opposition, and may be out to smear the group through such publications in the West.

2) In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[194]

Comment: Could not find this in source. Instead, it claims that the Iranian regime tortured a suspected MEK member.

3) According to the official Iran newspaper, in August 2012, a number of MEK members detained by the Syrian government confessed that the MEK is training militants on Turkish soil near the border with Syria. The report also said they cooperate foreign-backed militants in Syria through the Jordanian borders and are stationed at a base called ‘Hanif’, which is "disguised as a hospital".[144]

Comment: Biased source.

4) In August 2013, Qassem Al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government.[146]

Comment: Biased source.

5) In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[195]

Comment: Biased source. There is more that can be included here, but I want to investigate further into the Iran Regime funding of Western academia to see if this reveals anything further. In the meantime, thanks for your input regarding the above. London Hall (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Kommentar @London Hall: Please consider rephrasing this RfC to comply with WP:RfC - specifically Statement should be neutral and brief. This RfC seems more like a lengthy summary of a dispute between editors... Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment London Hall clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy, and has ignored attempts to explain it. Simply because a source takes a negative opinion of the subject matter of the article, doesn't automatically make it an unreliable source. Please read WP:BIASED for further information. If what you were suggesting was true, it would be close to impossible to write a Wikipedia article about ISIS, because any source critical of them would become an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brustopher (talk • contribs)

References

Request for comments on article’s NPOV

The article has NPOV issues. A lot of it seems to be coming from manipulation of references, for instance:

* “In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[194]”

The Amnesty International statement actual says the contrary, that the Iranian regime tortured a suspected MEK member.

In other instances, sources funded by the Iranian Regime are being used. This creates NPOV issues as the Iranian Regime considers this group one of its main political threats. The following was published by the Brookings Institution, who receives funds to publish on behalf of the Iranian Regime:

* “Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution.[184]”

Proposing cleaning up the article and removing references funded by the Iranian Regime as these will have an inevitable bias against this group. One particular editor has monopolized the article and won’t anyone edit it, so requesting feedback from neutral editors. Support / Oppose ? London Hall (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The source, clearly says in the BACKGROUND INFORMATION (page 1): "Amnesty International continues to receive reports of human rights violations carried out by the PMOI against its own members. However, Amnesty International opposes the forced return to Iran of all those who may face human rights violations". So, this is not a "manipulation". The other source you objected is reliable per WP:RS. Pahlevun (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone has pointed out in the past, you're cherry picking information here. This report in particular is about a PMOI member getting captured in Turkey and sent to Iran for execution. There are a number of reports from Amnesty International disclosing torture and execution of PMOI prisoners by the Iranian Regime - why not include this information? The group currently represents one if the Iranian Regime's main concerns, shouldn't this be more evident on the page? London Hall (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that your hounding behaviour is constructive. Anyway, if by "cherry picking", you mean 'selecting relevant information and not selecting irrelevant information', this is what we are supposed to do. You can add "reports from Amnesty International disclosing torture and execution of PMOI prisoners by the Iranian Regime" to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where it belongs. That section, however, is about human rights record of the MEK. Pahlevun (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Duplicate Article

There is a duplicate version of this article at Mojahedin-e Khalgh that should probably be merged soon. It is somewhat biased and heavily relies on one book by Ervand Abrahamian, but there is a lot of text and maybe something useful can be found in there.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't seem like there's that much that can necessarily be salvaged from that article, and I don't really see why it should be kept up any longer. Its probably best that any info be added by someone who's directly read the Abrahamian book rather than taking that article with its talk of "attractive and voluptuous women" at face value. I'm going to blank and redirect the duplicate article, and if anyone thinks there's anything useful to add to this article from it they can feel free to do so. --Brustopher (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

@Stefka Bulgaria: You think you can add anything with a reliable source to the lead? Well, then read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for once because you are mistaken. You think that you are the only one who rules that something important and the other thing is not? You have mentioned 'Khomeini' three times in the lead. Maybe you should consider mentioning Saddam Hussein? Pahlevun (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I can add anything with realiable sources in the lead; what I've included there is important and gives the reader a concice overview on how/why/when. I didn't "rule" it to be important, Abrahamian (1989) did. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Abrahamian wrote 307 of pages 29 years ago and you ruled that this sentence is important to be in the lead. The book was written. Why don't you use the sentence The organization, being a political one, naturally tends to mystify and romanticize its past, as well as to gloss over such embarrassments as shifts in day-to-day policy that is in the introduction? Because you pick cherries out of the sources. You see, Khomeini turned against the People's Mujahedin of Iran, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government is a made-up sentence by you. MEK members ran in two elections (Iranian Constitutional Convention election, 1979 and Iranian legislative election, 1980) to no avail. Let the lead be written with a consensus-building procedure. Pahlevun (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, it resumes the organization's why/when/how. We currently have a quote from a think tank in the lead claiming the organization is undemocratic and lacks popularity, despite many reliable sources from scholars arguing that the organization constitutes Iran's most active opposition group (Katzman 2001, etc.) You are deliverately removing factual and important information quoted direcdtly from reliable sources. This constitutes disruptive editing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are omitting to answer my question and my call for a consensus-building procedure. The lead is no place to quote sources, it is a place for summary of its most important contents. Brookings report was moved to the proper section in the body. So should Katzman's quote, and any other. Pahlevun (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been consensus at WP:RSN concerning the types of sources that would be adequate for use in this article. As already pointed out, this source being used in the lead more than qualifies. The statement resumes how/why/when the organization came to prominence, and why the conflict began with the Iranian government (unlike the text you've suggested). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria and Pahlevun: Someone please tell me why we need to have an almost 3 line long POV of Abrahamian in the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't. It is already in the body and we don't use phrases such as "according to" in the lead. If it is the mainstream view, we put it in the lead. If it is view of a scholar, it belongs to the body, not the lead. Same goes for Katzman's quote. Pahlevun (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead is removing the sentences with a source, and working on drafting a neutral-worded summary for the article's most important contents. Let's just go for mentioning facts and avoid using quotes (like "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant"). Pahlevun (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. However, I think the quoted material is not against fact and just needs to be reworded to show that, among other factors, Rajavi’s ideology made Khomeini turn against him. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the lead needs to introduce what/why/when/who. In other words, the MEK's ideals when the organization started, how it differed this from the Khomeini government, why it fell out with Khomeini, and the subsequent differences between these two political groups. Without this, this article is a strawman. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't own the article and what you say is not an important factor. Editors work based on the built consensus here, what you need to understand. Your version is really POVish. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

As already mentioned, the edits I've included are direct quotes from reliable sources as confirmed at WP:RSN. I'm not interesting in bickering, just interested in cleaning up the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Failed verifications and cherry picking

@Stefka Bulgaria:

1. You have mentioned the source pages 212 and 206 from Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?, while the book is only 137 pages. If you are not fixing it, I will remove the content.
2. You have selectively neglected the part of the source you didn't like to mention, here and here I have fixed that. Do not pick cherries out of the sources. And read WP:INTEGRITY.
3. Quote the passage including a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad, which I'm not finding on the source. That's sourced on page 4, which is in the chapter 'Iran: Relations With Key Central Asian States' (a version is here). If you are not fixing it, you may face being accused of using Wikipedia:Fictitious references.

–Pahlevun (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:

1. Ok, will look into this first thing tomorrow. It'll be sorted out in the next 24hrs, thanks.
2. I am not cherry picking; on the contrary, reading the reliable sources it seems there are a lot of interesting and important facts that have been ommited from the article; I'm trying to fix that.
3. I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'll have more time. Thanks for pointing it out. Good night

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let me get this straight: You picked The Pahlavi regime, in suppressing the PMOI, had claimed that it was a ‘Marxist conspiracy’ hiding behind the veil of Islam from page 2, and put it along with Historian Ervand Abrahamian observed that the Iranian regime was also “eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims. from page 101 to make an impression that the source considers it a baseless name-calling. On the contrary, what Abrahamian is implying on pages 100–101 is that the MEK is influenced by Marxism, but avoided to identify as such for some reason. If you are here to contribute, avoid such attitude or you may have the same fate that previous users who came here to "fix" this article had. Pahlevun (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Threats are unnecessary. If you have an issue with an edit, let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. I'll now work on the issues raised accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: in the words of Abrahamian:

"Although the Mojahedin were consciously influenced by Marxism both modern and classical, they vehemently denied being Marxists; indeed, they denied even being socialists. Three consideration prompted this denial: first, the Mojahedin sincerely believed that human beings had a spiritual dimension – a soul, and afterlife, and an inherent drive to seek God – a notion which could not be reconciled with Marxist philosophy. As the organization argued the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy." (Abrahamian, 1989:100)

"The Mojahedin felt that the average man in the street associated Marxism, as well as liberalism and socialism, with other ‘isms’ imported from the West. As Rajavi admitted years later, the organization avoided the socialist label because such a term conjured up the public mind images of atheism, materialism, and Westernism. For exactly the same reasons, the regime was eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims. One Mojahedin leader declared at his trial: “This regime claims that we are confused and misguided ignoramuses who mix Marxism with Islam. In fact, this regime that claims to be concerned about the purity of Islam is solely concerned in smearing us and sowing dissension among the opposition." (Abrahamian, 1989:101)

I don't know why this info is not in the article, but it needs to be included. I'll start working on this as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I simply asked for the quotes of the sources that failed verification, and the burden of proof lies with you, because you added the content to the article. It is crystal clear that I have checked Abrahamian's book, so what's the point of quoting it? My objection was to your improper synthesis of pages 2 and 101 that differed from the context that was discussed in pages 100–101. Pahlevun (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Abrahamian's quote speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Did you find "a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad" in the cited source? What do you think regarding the so-called Abrahamian's POV in the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:. No, I didn't. And if the user who added this content to the article is not fixing it I would think this is forging sources. Pahlevun (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither did I and we don't to wait for the fix. Why should we keep such a forgery? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We should not. The forgery is going to the next level. Look at this edit, that says In 2017, Roghayeh Azizi Mirmahaleh was granted asylum in Canada for fears she would be executed if returned to Iran on account of her connections to the MEK. When you look at the source cited, you would see that she was given a "temporary residency permit" for two years, not asylum. And that "She had been detained at the immigration detention centre" and "Last month, a Canadian immigration officer decided it would be safe to send her back to Iran." Pahlevun (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The edits I've included are direct quotes from reliable sources as confirmed at WP:RSN. I'm not interesting in bickering, just interested in cleaning up the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the sources you forged is no "bickering", and you should be responsible for what you add to the article. Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of killed by MEK

The figure 16,000 is mentioned in "Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East" which seems to be reliable enough. However, I checked other sources; this one says: "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict," and the other one says: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians”" --Mhhossein ^talk 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, it does not come across as a figure that can be verified:

• Qasemi source is referencing directly from infoplease.com, which is not a reliable source.
• Ploughshares source should not be used in this article as it has been linked to the current government in Iran, who seem out to suppress this group

As per the Piazza source, an interesting article, though not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. If we do include Piazza's figure, we should provide the context of the quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. You need to review many of the guidelines, WP:BIASED among others. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The book published by Springer is alone reliable enough to cite it as a fact. @Stefka Bulgaria: The book is a Secondary source subject to scholarly peer review (and thus, reliable for Wikipedia), if you think that the phrase is not supported by a reliable source, why don't you contact the publisher, instead of questioning the merits of the publisher in Wikipedia, which has an established policy towards such sources? Pahlevun (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the Springer publication that's the issue, but the infoplease.com site it used to draw this figure from (as outlined by others at WP:RSN). Regardless, some interesting info there that I'll include in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for split of MKE from the Islamic Revolution

As far as I know, the particular reason for banishment of MEK from Iranian politics has been their decision to boycott the constitutional referendum which instituted the Islamic Republic. This is mentioned in opening paragraph of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran but not in the lead. It should! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should, as it begins to describe why/what/when of the conflicts between the Iranian clerics and the MEK. This was one of the first documented events (from a series of events) that marked the fallout between the MEK and Khomeini:

• "The Mojahedin also refused to participate in the referendum held in December to ratify the constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts, even when Khomeini had called upon all good Muslims to vote ‘yes’. This was the first crucial issue on which the Mojahedin openly defied Khomeini." (Abrahamian, 1989:197)

Recent revert and Canvassing

Khomeini and the MEK subesequently became rivals. Concerning the "hypocrites" designation:

• "The Islamic Republic, for its part, executes Mojahedin members on the grounds that they are ‘monafeqin’ (hypocrites) waging an unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers." (Abrahamian, 1989:2)

• "The Khomeini regime did everything it could to put the former quite popular opposition out in the cold through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxists hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘eclectics’, and as ‘counter-revolutionary terrorists’ collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists" (Abrahamian, 1989:256)

• "Khomeini tries to discredit the Mojahedin as "American hypocrites" for seeking aid from the West"

The "hypocrite" designation is deliberate name-calling by the clerics (not the Iranian people), nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Abrahamian mentions many facts but his tone is sympathetic with MKE because of his own leftist tendencies. His narrative also lacks nuance. For example the idea that MEK collaborated with Saddam's war of aggression against Iran is a fact not an allegation by Iran. MEK also took part in the dark chapter of brutal repression of millions of civilians in 1991 uprisings in Iraq by Saddam. These are important facts that have to mentioned in a neutral tone. As for "hypocrite" regardless of which sectors of society use it, it is the official position of IRI. And given MEK's treacheries against Iran, it is not far-fetched at all. Btw, there are scholarly works in Persian published by IRI about MEK that must be used for balance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If you read different books by Abrahamian, you'll see that he's not particularly sympathetic of the MEK. His report of the events here is important, not only because of his academic background and expertise in the subject, but also because of the time when his book was written. I'm with you on the neutrality point, which this article lacks, but using media ran by the current Iranian government would create issues as it's in direct COI with the subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: As I told you some days ago, you need to review some of the Wikipedia guidelines. The COI issue you threw, has absolutely nothing to do with the sources. In fact, Conflict of interest is a user behavioral guideline which discourages editing "about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: If you want to be reported in ANI, continue your disruptive behavior in this page. The work I have used is the most authoritative work ever authored on MEK. It comes in three volumes relying on SAVAK intelligence documents, IRI intelligence documents, Pahlavi-era press, hundreds of interviews, published biographies etc. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And as for IRI's characterization of MEK as "munafiqin", whether the term is derogatory or not, doesn't validate its removal. As per WP:NPOV we have to add all major viewpoints to the article regardless of whether some sources consider it untrue or derogatory. You have to improve your understanding of Wiki policies before making radical changes to the article. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: As mentioned on previous conversations, I'm not interested in bickering or making consesanding remarks (FYI, I'm familiar with regulations here), I'm just interested in cleaning up the article. As for the IRI's characterization of the MEK as 'munafiqin', you have said it, it is the IRI's chareterization of the MEK, not "Iran's" (as you've described it in the lead). This type of careless name-calling is one of the main issues in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You are against bickering but for some reason you don't respect consensus and discussion. And IRI position often reflects the view of a great number of Iranian people because even today the establishment is still fairly popular despite complaints about economic problems, and given the massive funeral for Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, we can deduce his position was shared by millions of Iranians back then who had seen horrors and treacheries of MEK first hand. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Properly cited reliable sources is all that's imporant here. Inclusions based on "often reflects the view of a great number of Iranian people..." do not have any merit in an encyclopedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria: Why do you persistently censor "Iranian authorities [or Iranian people] commonly refer to the MEK as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" from the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: It's the Iranian authorities who refer to the MEK as 'hypocrites'. I've categorized this accordingly, as a statement by Iranian authorities, together with other statements concerning the MEK by Iranaian authorities (which are in direct conflict with the MEK, and therefore need to be categorized accordingly). You have removed this, along with the "Suppression by the IRI" section, with no valid justification. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You already said that "Properly cited reliable sources is all that's imporant here". This source clearly says: "the group is commonly know in Iran as Munafiqin." Anyway, let's take your word, i.e. "It's the Iranian authorities who refer to the MEK as 'hypocrites'", for a moment. Why do you remove it from the lead which should be a summary of the whole? Is there anything wrong we're not aware of?--Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not my word, it's in the references supporting the statement: As documented in the "Suppression by the IRI" section, the IRI appear to be trying to extinguish the organization, so if we include their perspective it needs to be ackowledged as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

It's getting more interesting. You forgot to comment on This source. So, why did you removed the whole instead of modifying the wording? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a fringe source, and the others are not. If in doubt, check the publishers. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As already explained, this is the view of the IRI, and needs to be presented as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

PS, In your haste, you may have missed that the sentence was not removed, but placed under it's appropriate section, so including here for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_views_on_the_MEK Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not my haste. You had to put it in the body, too. It's highly dubious that you remove that term from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this so many times already I don't know how else to say it. As per reliable sources, it's a statement by the IRI, and needs to be described as such (it has no contribution to the who/when/why info from neutral sources included in the lead, so it was included in a section with other statements by the IRI). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are still persisting on disruptive editing. Discuss your changes before pushing them so aggressively like this. Obviously you don't have consensus for your edits. So don't remove well-sourced, well-organized material before reaching consensus. The idea that simply because a source is published in IRI it has to take a backseat is laughable whereas I have already explained, this source in particular is the most authoritative work ever published about the topic and should be in fact the primary source used across this article about the topic, whereas I have only used a summary of it in the lead. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Are you still following this talk? I likewise think Stefka Bulgaria is being disruptive in this page and strongly POVish. He appears intent on organizing the page and its content in a way that renders this notorious terrorist cult that has somehow bribed its way into Europe in a finer light. Creating an entire section for "suppression" prior to any background and any history seems very odd to me. I mean do readers who come to this page want to drop in to only read about how they are "suppressed," or first of all who and what they are and what they have done through their colorful multi-phased history and their several metamorphoses to this date? --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Drop the stick. Every body knows what a lead is, so don't repeat the "who/when/why" anymore. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

My edits have been explained quite clearly; but just in case, here it is again: sources/statements from the Islamic Republic of Iran are far from being a neutral source in this matter as the IRI have been at war with the MEK since the revolution. Despite your canvassing, this needs to be identified in the article. This doesn't mean the source/statement needs to take a "backseat", it just needs to be identified as what it is: a source by the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your edits are explained but doesn't respond to counter arguments. So please specifically respond to these arguments since you've been bordering in WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and I'm considering taking you to ANI unless you engage in productive discussion. So please respond to each argument without ignoring:

1. First of all why do you keep reverting before reaching consensus for your contested changes? Why do you proceed making even more changes when your past changes are not even resolved? What kind of behavior is this?

There is an obvious POV pushing in the article as well as its Talk page. My priority, as should be yours, is to include neutral content from reliable sources into the article. I'm including direct quotes from reliable sources here, and you are removing them, while keeping the same sources in other parts of the article. What kind of behavior is that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed Abrahamian on the ground that it lacks context. And removed Piazaa on the same ground as well as it being a fringe POV. I explained since MKO after its transformation to an atheist organization has been involved in repression of minorities in Iraq and has been described as a terrorist cult of personality with claims of abuse of its members and so forth, we should be careful when quoting their original goals when they were a Muslim leftist group. But I don't see you addressing any of these arguments but rather you repeat the same "neutral sources" mantra whereas my concern is context and weight which is much more important in lead than in body since the lead should be summary and proportional representation of the body. And since I started this last conversation I only waited for your response but you once again reverted your contested changes. This is not how consensus building proceeds but rather disruptive behavior.

If you don't think Abrahamian is a reliable source, you can take it to RSN, as it's been done in previous discussions. Until then, as per previous discussions at RSN, it needs to stay in the article as it's perhaps the best source for this information. It was me who originally raised the issues of "context" within the article, and I'll continue to develop the context of its various sections. If you have an issue with the sources being used, you can take this to WP:RSN, which is what it's there for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep parroting your baseless accusation? For the third time in this page, I didn't say Abrahamian is not neutral. I'm objecting to mentioning a description of original goals when those don't represent most of MKO history! I'm objecting to putting a statement without proper context and qualification in the lead. So it has nothing to do with WP:SRN! Is that so difficult for you to understand or you are so obsessed with WP:DONTHEARTHAT? --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement is context. No need to be rude. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I removed Abrahamian's narrative from the lead explaining that "Abrahamina's is an outdated study. Plus, I don't see why of all the vile things that the MKO have done in the greater period of their history a description of their original goals must be cited without qualification considering their later transformations." However you restored Abrahamian saying "Restoring well-sourced material from neutral sources" not addressing my arguments since I had not said that Abrahamian's piece is not well-sourced and as for neutrality I'm more concerned about accuracy of Abrahmanian's description since MKO embraced atheism in 1976 until 1979 revolution when they suddenly reverted back to Islam under Rajavi which is actually one of the reasons they been accused of "hypocrisy" in Iran (or by the Iranian government). So Abrahamian's claim that they are an Islamist group is inaccurate since it doesn't take into account their 1976 atheist coup as well as their later history post 1989 since it is largely and outdated study especially compared to PSRI's study (which I will address in the next para). That's why I think his view needs proper context and therefore have to be to moved to the body where it is possible to put it in the proper context.

When describing the origins of the MEK, Abrahamian cannot be outdated as he's a scholar and expert on this topic deriving from when the Iran Revolution was taking place. There isn't a better source to describe the MEK during the pre-revolution times. And again, he's book is being used throughout the article to describe other (contemporary) aspects of the MEK (which neither you, Pahlevun, or Mhhossein seem to mind). It is important to outline, clearly and neutrality (via reliable sources), the historic and ideological transitions. This is part of the MEKs history, for better or worst, and censoring it just because it portrays some kind of positive light on them is POV pushing. (BTW, you're wrong about why Ruhollah Khomeini began to describe them as 'hypocrites'. The explanation was included in the article, but now has been removed, but needs to be included again) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

PSRI study is far more authoritative than Abrahamian because like I said it draws upon documents that has been inaccessible to any other study whether published in Iran or outside Iran and it is a very voluminous source (3 volumes each about 700 pages long) with appendixes containing copy of cited SAVAK's documents, biographies of key members as published by MKO publication Mujahid, copies of Pahlavi-era press news on MKO, and so forth. The fact that it's been commissioned by IRI doesn't influence its objectivity when it is done in an academic spirit. Like I also said, the Abrahamian's description lacks context and nuance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I told you two times in this page that the PSRI study is the most authoritative study ever published in that it draws upon documents some of them that have not been accessible to any researcher outside Iran, documents like SAVAK's documents, Pahlavi-era press, MKO's own publications, interviews with former members and associates etc and it covers MKO until 2005 unlike that of Abrahamian that only covers until 1989. And since it is an academic and heavily documented study of very high quality, it no longer matters whether it is published in Iran just as an academic study published in US about Al-Qaeda is not discredited for being published in a country that has been at war with Al-Qaeda. Moreover, considering the terrorist nature of MKO for most of its recent history, and its history of terrorist operations inside and against Iran, it makes academic studies by Iranian researchers much more relevant and even credible due to their unique access and exposition to the topic. That's why I think this work must be extensively used throughout the article.

I'm glad you think that the PSRI study is "authoritative", but the bottom line is that it is commissioned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, as you may have noticed, is in direct conflict with the MEK. As such, this needs to be explained and highlighted clearly as it is far from being a neutral source (for obvious reasons). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a link between being commissioned by IRI and not being neutral in the sense of not being objective. It is definitely far richer, more resourceful than Abrahamian's. For example, Abrahamian doesn't concentrate on the members who were purged during the 1976 transformation but PSRI does doing this by citing sources. -Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As above, take it to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I already said, having a separate lead section only for suppression before any segment covering their rich and long history of this organization is problematic first because according to manual of style, segments on background and history come first in any article. Second because this article is rightfully arranged chronologically so suppression must appear in its proper place in their chronology of MKO for each phase of suppression throughout their nuanced history. In defiance of all of the above valid points you restored the suppression segment calling my edit description "without valid reasoning" without explaining why any of what I say is invalid.

The supression section was not in the lead, it was just a section under "Other names". We can place the suppression section somewhere else. I think it's a good idea to organize the article chronologically, but instead this section has been getting deleted without explanation, which should not be. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was in the lead but in a lead section. And since suppression expands over different periods it would be still at odds with the chronological order of the page. It has to be broken down and integrated into relevant segments of the chronology. I see no reason to lump together different cases of suppression and put them out of context. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It is important to outline this, as it is important to outline the persecussion of any group. If you want to develop the context of each case within this section you're welcome to. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no such a thing as persecution but repression. You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction! And again I repeat: the suppression has to be distributed across the segments. Giving context in a separate section will involve replicating a lot of content which is impractical and awkward, whereas they go smoothly in each chapter in the chronology. Other than this clear argument, there are at least two of us who disagree with you. So you don't have consensus for keeping it a separate section. So I'm going to revert you. Should you revert back, you will face a complaint in ANI for disruptive editing. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Your statement "You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction!" explains your POV pushing. Since you are incapable of working on this from a neutral stance, you shouldn't be editing this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1. For the same reason, throwing statements from sources published by IRI or Iranians to a separate section at the the bottom of the article is invalid not just because many articles by IRI/Iranian sources are actually substantiated facts not views, but also because 1) it introduces a bias against the IRI narrative which has been the most relevant party to this topic, 2) because it is not conventional for viewers to have to navigate up and down to view IRI's narrative for each chapter of MKO history. So facts and views by IRI must be integrated across different segments of the article just as we treat those of other sources, parties.

The IRI narrative is biased, how can it not be? As the supression section confirms, the IRI currently executes anyone in Iran that's associated to the MEK. How is that for a bias? This differs greatly from diassociated press and academics, and the distinction needs to be made just as it's made across all articles on Wikipedia dealing with similar issues. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not biased, when it is citing facts about an organization that is also accused by non-Iranian sources and several dozen defectors of the same wrongdoings. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Use the "non-Iranian" sources then, or Take it to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no non-Iranian source as comprehensive, rich and detailed as PRSI. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I said Jame Piazza's description that "MEK worked towards the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated" at least as written borders on fringe considering that it doesn't take into account different phases of MKO which involves among other things, bloody suppression of their Muslim members and brutal suppression of Kurds by the support of Saddam Hussein which starkly belies the above unqualified rosy description. That's why I think this statement must also not feature in the lead but moved to the body in a proper context which explains these have been the original goals of the organization before their 1976 transformation. You don't want to sell a despotic terrorist cult with a history of terrorism, cooperation with former dictator of Iraq, and political bribery as champions of freedom and equality! --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly like Piazza's article, I just used it when Mhhossein used it to outline how many people had been killed by the MEK. Again, you didn't seem to mind the source there... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The death toll appears cited by other sources. Three citations provided. That's why I didn't object to that. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet, you didnt' remove this source there, but you want to remove it here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't remove it there because that one piece of info is verified by other sources whereas the POV in question is not, making it fringe. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To resume, we need to use reliable sources to clean up this article; there's no other way. When using IRI sources, as when using MEK sources, it needs to be described clearly in the article as these are sources pushing a POV. If we use certain sources to describe certain aspects of the organization, such as Abrahamian, then we also need to be able to use them for other aspects (which you, Pahlevun, and Mhhosein don't seem willing to do - and that needs to change). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not yet concentrated on other segments of the article. And like I said my concern with Abrahaminan was context not whether Abrahamian must be used in the body with proper context. I think ever since 1975 the organization has been clearly embracing questionable conduct including purge of its Muslim members, and post-1979 siding with Saddam, murder of ordinary citizens, suppression of minorities in Iraq and transformation to a one-man cult. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoting from neutral and reliable sources, that's all that's important here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So does context as well as PSRI study which is a far richer source than your favorite. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: Yes, I am. I think creating sections named "Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran" and "Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK" is an attempt to make sections that reflect a single POV and that will lead to an unencyclopedic forking and Wikipedia is not intended for this. So I moved the content to the relevant sections, the way it was before. Pahlevun (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I also saw no reason for singling them out into separate sections when all other POVs are integrated across the article. But I don't know what to do with Stekfa's reverts. I'm going to report him in ANI if he repeats this behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, Pahlevun, and Mhhossein: What is established by now is that Stefka doesn't have a consensus for creating a separate section for government suppression. This is my last comment on why this section is undue. Therefore I removed this section. He had already reverted this section several times. Repeating this disruptive trend will land him on ANI. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: I see that I Pahlevun was also objecting some of those materials. Hence I urge him to review WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Also, I see that Bulgaria was asking you on several occasions to take the disputed sources to RSN, whilst it is him who should carry the BURDEN of demonstrating the verifiability by introducing a reliable source. Further restoring of the disputed content is edit warring against 3 editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Munafiqin in the lead

@Pahlevun: Could you elaborate on this? Is it not a widely used term in Iran? Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the word is expressing a contentious opinion subject to words to watch (with respect to its derogatory meaning). Such words are better to be avoided unless they are used by reliable sources, in which case in-text attribution is proper. Pahlevun (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

And which sources were not reliable do you think? Moreover, "commonly called by Iranian officials" was added as "in-text attribution". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: for attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the sources as unreliable, I believe the first sentence of the lead is not a place to reflect that POV (which is covered already in the 'names' section), per WP:LABEL. That's it. Pahlevun (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Thanks for your opinion in the earlier section. Do you think "hypocrites" is really contentious given that MKO worked with the enemies of Iran and that they claimed to be Islamic only after the 1979 revolution whereas they had denounced Islam in 1976? --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion doesn't count here. The question is not that the MEK deserves to be called as such or not, the question is whether a Wikipedia article about them should mention such a label in the lead or not. Pahlevun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The truth is this label has become official and normal in Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun and Expectant of Light: Firstly, Wikipedia articles should include all major POVs in accordance to their weight. According to WP:LEAD, "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and it should be in a "style with a neutral point of view." Moreover, MOS:ALTNAME says that "alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." That said, a major POV and a common title widely used in Iran is removed from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This POV must be added to the lead. However it seems difficult to verify that this title is used by both government and people. But attributing it to the government is beyond dispute. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)