Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

More false nuclear allegations

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

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

Shedding light on the 5th round of dubious edits

The article recently underwent at least two dubious edits ([4], [5]) which are clarified here:

• "Propaganda campaign" is changed into " Propaganda allegations", while there's no allegation. We are talking about an established fact. "The MEK's Propaganda Machine" (by National Interest), "The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda" (p.167), "Maryam Rajavi — MEK Propaganda Queen — Advertises Her Serives For Iran’s Enemies" (by huffingtonpost), "Facts Vs. Fiction And The MEK’s PR Campaign" (by the Lobelog), "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq" (By RAND), "Q&A: what is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation?" (bt the Guardian), "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK" (by the Guardian) and etc. So, there's no allegation, but a fact!
• The sourced paragraph starting with "the organization has made its propaganda..." was dubiously removed!
• Ivan Sascha Sheehan's analysis was completely removed!
• French Foreign Ministry's condemn of the MEK's propaganda campaign was removed.
• In this edit alone, two complete well sourced paragraph was removed.

I'm not surprised by the edits, and others would not be, too, if they follow our discussions regarding the previous rounds of the edits (such as 'Recent changes need to be checked'). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The “Propaganda” section needs to include the authors claiming that the MEK uses propaganda, and what that propaganda is. There is no need to have 5 different subsections here. This refers to my previous comment about trying too hard to magnify trivial information into significant events.

I’ll include who’s making the claims that the MEK uses propaganda, and what that propaganda is. The section does not need further repeated statements by the same authors.

There seems to be a lot of hostility between the MEK and the IRI, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tabloid platform for amplifying this. The article needs to focus primarily on major historical / political events, as any Wikipedia article about a political party. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Well sourced material should not be erased unless most of the users agree with deletion or material is transferred to the relevant article.Saff V. (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my edits, have explained that the sources and allegations were kept. This has clearly been established in the article, there is no need to go an extra mile repeating material by the same authors in order to smear the group. Wikipedia should not be used as an attack platform.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Despite what Stefka Bulgaria alleges, the dispute is not over whether or not we should pay to the "hostility between the MEK and the IRI". There are some sources saying MEK is a propaganda machine and so on, this is what the section is dealing with. Those well-sourced contents, are giving due weight to the presented views. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In as much as there are duplications - I agree they should be removed/combined. In terms of title - I would try to shoot for something more neutral sounding than propaganda - e.g. "Public diplomacy" or maybe "Outreach efforts" - which we will be able to say in our own voice without questions of whether it should be alleged or not. It is clear the MEK invests significant efforts in outreach (whether this should be labelled as propaganda or not - is a POV issue).Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There are enough independent and reliable sources saying they're pushing propaganda, then there's no problem. Why should they be removed? which guideline let that? Having those sources, there's no neutrality issue. I object any mass change to this section unless there are far more insights by un-invloved users. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The sourced material has not been erased, just reduced while still making the point. Alex-h (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

They were completely removed without discussion, as I pointed in the beginning of the discussion. You're baseless edit was a clear edit warring. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Even though a number of RS support the propaganda, might be it considere as POV issue? @Alex-h:See this edit material was deleted. please be more precise.Saff V. (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Using the title “propaganda campaign” for publishing opinion pieces and having street demonstrations is a NPOV violation. If we were to include a “Propaganda campaign” section for every political group that published their own opinion pieces and did public demonstrations, then we’d have to update most political Wikipedia articles.@Icewhiz: per your suggestions, I’d be fine with either, or we could simply use “Outreach”. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: - I suspect MEK, sources favorable to MEK, and quite possibly neutral sources do not describe this as propaganda. The IRI, and sources hostile to MEK, quite obviously do. When terminology differs between sources, we try to strike a middle ground. Propaganda has become a loaded word in English (possibly following WWII - in the past this was a neutral term - see Ministry of propaganda - but it has become pejorative). Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You're using a false argument accompanied by an original research to avoid a fact. There are various reliable sources saying the groups runs propaganda campaigns and it uses propaganda as a tool. BBC called MEK's blewing the whistle on the alleged nuclear program of Iran as a "propaganda coup". That said, I would accept your argument if there were enough reliable sources saying they don't use propaganda. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Alex-h is never an uninvolved editor. Oh, you two were editing the same subject closely related to our topic. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed Ivan Sascha's work, by the way. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Undiscussed mass removal of contents containing negative points by Steka Bulgaria regarding MEK is still continued. That's questionable and needs to stop somewhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• 1) The article is filled with trivial POV overemphasized to smear the MEK; Wikipedia is not an attack platform.

2) Alleging that Alex-h is “involved” here, when they seem to have just edited the article for the first time (at least since I’ve been involved), is a horrible attempt at discrediting them.

3) Street demonstrations and publishing opinion pieces do not equate to a “Propaganda campaign”: Try adding a “Propaganda campaign” section on Barak Obama’s presidential campaign for promoting their ideologies and see how far you get.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, there's no attack. Just what reliable sources are saying regarding MEK is reflected, nothing more, nothing less. If you're concerned regarding the neutrality of the article, you can just balance the article by adding counter views. Yes, Alex-h is involved. He had been adding materials in MEK-related articles and his drive-by edit is questionable. Wikipedia doesn't care what equates to a "propaganda campaign" but certainly cares if there are reliable sources saying MEK runs a "propaganda machine". Daniel Benjamin's quote along with other undiscussed mass removals by you were reverted. You need to practice working with other editors holding a different view point and edit warring is not the solution. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is awful if not disgusting. We enjoy the democratic atmosphere of the European countries we live in. Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopedia, let’s leave it that way. I love the work I do on Wikipedia even in the limited time I have. @Mhhossein:, @Saff V.: , your adore for certain groups should not allow you to disrespect others. Everybody has a right to edit on any article in Wikipedia without being censored (WP:CENSOR ). People in courtiers at the bottom of Africa may go to the same church as people in North America do without having common political views, it would be awful to relate them for the sake of our own interests. Alex-h (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h: My response to you is nothing but your own words; "your adore for certain groups should not allow you to disrespect others. Everybody has a right to edit on any article in Wikipedia without being censored (WP:CENSOR )." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, I don't know you and I don't have any background with you , but you started making libelous statements against me. I suggest you stop this. WP:LIBEL Alex-h (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It was you who made libelous statements, i.e. "adore for certain groups". If you don't know me, how do you let yourself make such a comment regarding me?Anyway, that's enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It is better support our opinion by RS. Please review sources including page 160, page 167, page 104, they seem to be natural.Saff V. (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also @Mhhossein: provided much more RS to support propaganda.If problem is any thing except RS, please issue it.Saff V. (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

6th round

• And more edits to be addressed; the first case, is an undiscussed removal of well-sourced/known material alleging the former version was "allegations of disagreement". Moreover, This edit is also removing well sourced material and is even misinterpreting sources. Strictly speaking, the Washington Post does not say Iran's security and intelligence agencies claimed that the MEK had ties with KGB. It's questionable why Alex-h removed the accounts by Vladimir Kuzichkin, Fred Holliday and replaced them with his own misinterpretations. Being a U.S. based historian, Abbas Milani's account is not in a right place. In fact, the user was trying to re-shape the story so that it reads as if ONLY Iran was claiming there had been ties between MEK and KGB. The mass change by Alex-h needs to be discussed here and I'm restoring the former version. (@Vanamonde93: I don't know if you're willing to have inputs here, but would like to remind your quote, notably "little input from outside observers, and administrators" portion.) --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get involved in the content here, both because I haven't the time and because it doesn't help anyone if one of the few uninvolved admins who has actually read through this is no longer able to take administrative action. Here's a few pointers instead. The way in which content is presented depends not just on whether it is verifiable, but on the extent to which reliable sources share a specific view, and on how weighty the sources are. In general, scholarly sources are better than media sources in neutral countries, which are better than media sources in countries involved in a geopolitical conflict. Government-run sources in involved countries are next to useless. With that in mind, per WP:YESPOV, what we report in Wikipedia's voice needs to not only be verifiable, it needs to be supported by the preponderance of reliable sources. Things that the majority of reliable sources do not agree on need to be dealt with using in-text attribution ("according to so-and-so etc"). Fringe points of view need to be excluded entirely. For instance, if the article is discussing supposed propaganda by the MEK; a title such as "propaganda campaign" should only be used if a preponderance of high-quality sources agree that such a campaign exists. The allegations still need to be described even if the sources supporting them are only a substantial minority; and in that case, "propaganda campaign" would no longer be appropriate as a title. I am not in a position to comment on which of these outcomes is appropriate; if you cannot come to an agreement, an RFC is indicated. If you need help framing a neutral RfC that would attract substantial community input, feel free to ping me again. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I could describe my edits in detail (though all that is needed is reading the sources I provided and the ones I removed), but just to follow up on Vanamonde93’s comment, @Mhhossein can you specify, from the sources you’ve re-inserted into the article, what “State-sponsorship” did the MEK receive from Russia/KGB leading up to the Iran Revolution, and according to whom? (I should not have to tell you that this is a big statement about a delicate subject, and that only strong sources that clearly and accurately support this claim will do). Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't say you mass removed the whole well sourced material only because you thought the title was not correct (I don't say the tile is correct though). Also, you did not elaborate on the points I already raised, notably on which part of the Washington Post supports Iran's security and intelligence agencies claimed that the MEK had ties with KGB which you inserted in the article. Needless to mention that there are sources saying MEK received state sponsorship from Gulf nations, notable Saudi Arabia. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And still you fail to address a direct question, but instead make assumptions about why I edited what I edited.

In reply to your Washington Post point: The Washington Post claims it received its information from “…a Western source in close contact with Iran's security and intelligence agencies,” and “A Western intelligence source…” When describing the Russian ties to the MEK, the article only says “according to the sources” – is this the same source in “close contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”? and is the “Western intelligence source” the same source in contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”? Who would have access to such information in 1978 in Iran during those authoritarian years? The 1978 Washington Post article is not clear about any of this.

The statements and sources that I added (and which you have removed) are all from University publications and make clear points:

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.]

About the Vladimir Kuzichkin and Fred Holliday sources I removed, they do not support the claim that the MEK received State-sponsorship from Russia.

Your statement “Needless to mention that there are sources saying MEK received state sponsorship from Gulf nations, notable Saudi Arabia” does not respond my question, so I’ll ask it again: from the sources you’ve re-inserted into the article, what “State-sponsorship” did the MEK receive from Russia leading up to the Iran Revolution, and according to whom? (please respond the question this time). Alex-h (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delayed response. You already said "The 1978 Washington Post article is not clear about any of this" while you allow yourself to insert "Iran's security and intelligence agencies claimed" into the article. That's a clear misinterpretation. Please be caution about that. By the way, I had answered your question! Whether or not MEK received state sponsorship for Soviet did not justify your mass removals. If we assume there's no source proving there had been such a state support, then you were're not allowed to remove the whole section when you could address the issue by simply altering the section title! --Mhhossein ^talk 04:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: with your knowledge and experience, and as non-involved admin, can you please weight in on Mhhossein’s editing here? There aren’t any sources in the MEK article able to confirm that the MEK received “State Sponsorship” from Russia leading up to the Iranian Revolution; yet, Mhhossein re-inserted this false synthesis into the article and removed reliable sources (and supported text) I added about these allegations. When asked about it here, Mhhossein avoided acknowledging or rectifying this, also avoided commenting on the other reliable sources and backed info he removed. Is this WP:NPOV, or WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR?(or none of these, or a mixture of these)? Alex-h (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Verifiability is a core policy. Asking an editor to be specific about the sources that support a piece of content is a reasonable thing to do, and responding to "what sources support this?" with "what sources support your edits?" isn't helpful. That's something both of you are a guilty of, and I'm not really interested in investigating who has done more of that. That said: Alex-h, the diff you linked has several academic sources. The language used isn't perfect but it's not terrible. Which part of that diff, specifically, do you have a problem with? Are you saying the content isn't supported by the cited sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: , I’m saying that Mhhossein presents these reliable sources and content through a misleading synthesis. The section in question has the subheading “State-sponsorship”, and it contains a lot of text about Russia and the MEK, but none of it supports the claim that the MEK received “State-sponsorship” from Russia.

What reliable sources say, on the other hand, is that during the 1970s, the Iranian security forces accused the MEK of carrying out espionage for Russia (an accusation that the MEK denied):

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• According to Abbas Milani, Sa’adati had met KGB operatives to exchange a file containing information about the Ahmad Moggarrebi case (an Iranian Army general who was executed for espionage for the Soviets by the Shah's regime). [Abbas Milani. Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran (2008). Syracuse University Press]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.]

Mhhossein removed most of this and re-arranged what was remaining to synthesize that the MEK received State sponsorship from Russia, which is just unsupported by the sources. I’ve asked him repeatedly about this, but keep getting WP:ITHT. Alex-h (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h: the content you have listed here on the talk page obviously does not support claims of state sponsorship. However, these are not the only sources added in that diff: there is the Washington Post article, and two journal articles, by Chubin and Kuzichin. Are you suggesting those sources are also not appropriately used? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: , yes, that is correct, these sources are not being appropriately used:

• The Vladimir Kuzichkin source is used for the claim “Kuzichkin says the MEK asked them for arms”. Although I have not been able to verify this in the source given, this still does not support that the MEK received State-sponsorship from Russia (the synthesis that the section suggests).

• The Shahram Chubin source says “there is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country is a real and growing possibility.” First, this is an assumption by the author; second, the MEK was not a Marxist group but its rival group, Peykar, was indeed Marxist; and third, this also does not support that the MEK received State-sponsorship from Russia.

• The 1978 Washington Post article, when describing the Russian ties to the MEK, cites “according to the sources”, but does not say if this is the same source in “close contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”; nor if the “Western intelligence source” is the same “source in contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies” . The distinction is important because “the regime waged its own propaganda campaign” against the MEK, accusing them “of carrying out subversive acts at the behest of their foreign patrons.” There is also the question of who would have access to such information in 1978 in Iran during those authoritarian years there. Since the Washington Post article is not clear about these points, but other (more reliable) sources make clear points that the Iran security forces accused and tried a MEK member for meeting with “KGB operatives to exchange a file containing information about the Ahmad Moggarrebi case”, then this is what I included in the article (along with other University press sources) under the “Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK” section, but Mhhossein reverted this.Alex-h (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h: I just removed your blatant self-interpretation of the sources attributing the MEK-KGB relations only to Iran (which is obviously wrong). Furthermore, you had mass removed well-sourced contents showing MEK-KGB relations only because you thought the title of the section was not accurate. I had restored the long standing version. As I said above, I don't say there are sources supporting claims of state sponsorship by Soviet. For now, I've just reorganized the materials. You need to have competence and elaborate on how you jumped into this self-interpretation. See WP:NPOV, or WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: now that you’ve responded, Mhhossein changed the section title to “Ties with KGB”. The problem with this is that the section still avoids what the reliable sources confirm: principally, that Iran security agencies accused and executed a MEK member for talking to a KGB agent, with the MEK denying the charges.

I previously described how the sources in question were not being appropriately used. Can you now get Mhhossein to explain why he removed the following?:

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.]

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.]Alex-h (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That I changed the title had nothing to do with the Vanamonde93's comments. This was what you could do instead of mass removing the materials. Moreover, this is the third (forth?) time you're listing these items in this section. What do you mean? You're still adhering to your OWN understanding of the things instead of paying attention to what the reliable sources say. Don't forget that "there were "sufficient evidence" to assume that an alliance between KGB and Iranian Marxists including MEK was real," as per Shahram Chubin's scholarly work. Other sources, which you had removed!!!, also say the same things. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

An this is the third (fourth?) time you fail to respond or look at the sources or explanations given (including the explanation about the Chubin source, which I won't repeat here). So I need to ask again, @Vanamonde93: as an uninvolved admin, is this WP:NPOV, or WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR? (or none of these, or a mixture of these)? Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please soften your language and note that none of your explanations justifies your mass removal. Please avoid making such mass changes without having them discussed on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• I do not have the time to analyze the sources myself at the present moment. Given that accusations of source misuse are being tossed around, I think it's fair to say that passages supporting contentious content should be reproduced here on the talk, properly attributed, so that the source use can be evaluated. Alternatively, Mhhossein, you could email us copies or quotes from the source, so as not to create copyright problems; but I do think we need to be able to explicitly evaluate the content against the source. Of course, the same would apply to contentious content added by other editors, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

We can evaluate the portions of the sources in question explicitly as long as they are accompannied by quotation marks or templates like {{tq|"..."}}. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I appreciate the time you're putting into this. This is what the Chubin source (which I removed, and Mhhossein continues defending here) says:

"There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country is a real and growing possibility.”

The only affirmation made by Chubin here is that there was "sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran", then he says "to assume an alliance with other Marxist groupings". So the alliance with other Marxist groupings is an assumption. Second, the MEK is not a Marxist group, but actually fought against the Marxist breakaway group Peykar (all this already explained in the article and here in the Talk page). So, nothing in this source supports that either the MEK received State sponsorship from Russia, or that the MEK had ties with the KGB, making this a WP:NPOV or WP:CIR problem.

Can you now please get Mhhossein to explain why he removed these reliable sources and statements? I only keep getting WP:ITHT from him, making this process very disruptive! Thanks:

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.] Alex-h (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got a very wrong understanding of Wikipedia if you think other users can/should "get" others do something. Rather, every body have to work in cooperation with the others who possibly hold different POVs. That's why I condemned your POVish mass changes carried out without prior discussion. Anyway, as for the arrest of Sa'dati, it's already mentioned in the article. As for the rest, I'm not sure we have to dedicate such details to Sa'adati in a page which is not on Sa'adati. Though you're free to open an RFC if you think the other materials, i.e. Sa'dati's charge and execution, need to be included here. As for the Marxism, you're not accurate (let me say you're wrong). There are plenty of plenty reliable sources saying MEK is (or at least had been in a period) a Marxist group:

- "The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that..." [6] by Brookings Institution Press.

- "...Self-styled "Islamic-Marxists," the MEK also targeted Americans in the '70s..." [7]

- " Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, the MEK has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group." [8] by CRC Press.

- "It was a group that propounded an ideology that mixed Islamism and Marxism." [9]

- "A militant Islamic Marxist or Islamic Socialist organization..." [10] by Financial Times Press.

- "Its ideology was developed from a combination of Marxist and militant Islamic theories." [11] by Routledge

Moreover, I wonder why you have not quoted the whole sentence:

. There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility."

You can see Chubin has described Mujahedin as a Marxist group. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, we've been through enough TP discussions already ([12], [13], etc.) to be able to establish from RSs that the MEK are Islamic, and Peykar are Marxist, and you knew this already (not interested in continuing this debate, just look at the RSs in the links if you still have any doubts). Btw, you still haven't answered Alex-h's points here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus over what you allege that's why the info box does not feature the group's ideology. Alex-h's point are answered multiple times; Chubin work, as I quoted, explicitly mentions MEK as the groups allied with Soviet. @Stefka Bulgaria: Don't re-insert this POV title unless you can prove there is a real misinformation campaign against MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not interested in revisiting that debate, RSs speak for themselves. About "Misinformation" campaign title, please read the RSs in the section "the regime waged its own propaganda campaign against both the Mojahedin..." (Abrahamian, 1989, pg. 143), etc. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - from what I see of of the sources so far, it seems they support that Iran accuses MEK (or MEK operatives) of being under Soviet influence, and that this assessment was reported (whether via Iranian sources or American (e.g. CIA) - unclear) by American media (WaPo) in the late 70s. What I find lacking in this entire discussion so far - is more recent sources. Old intel estimates and accusations should have fairly little weight. Do we have any recent source - say post-1990 - that is more explicit here? Much of the Russian cold-war stuff is in the open now, you'd think someone would publish something more concrete here regarding Soviet meddling in pre-revolution Iran. Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked through the sources and researched online. There is some stuff about the Soviet Union meddling in Iran, but cannot find anything else linking the MEK to Russia beyond what's been presented here.

RSs from 1990s onward, this is what's available:

• Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press. (removed by Mhhossein)
• Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran
• Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press (removed by Mhhossein)
• Kuzichkin, Vladimir (1990), Inside the KGB: Myth and Reality

The 1990 Vladimir Kuzichkin source is mainly being used for the following: "Kuzichkin says the MEK asked them for arms". All other sources support the narrative that Iran security agencies monitored a document exchange between Sa'adati and a Russian agent, which led to Sa'adati being arrested and executed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If more recent (post-1990) sources are only treating the Sa'adati affair - then we should stick to that and naught else. We wouldn't want to base 2003 invasion of Iraq on reporting of contemporary US intelligence (I believe that that known unknowns and unknown unknowns would end up with us reporting on widespread WMDs in Iraq prior to 2003 if we were to use contemporary sources). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll comment on the sources, ASAP. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria: Why did you remove the sentence saying MEK was provided with "with radio stations and printing presses"? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Per NPOV. Borrowing printing press and radio station is a long stretch to "Ties to Foreign actors". I will provide further context to that section shortly. In the meantime, would you care to comment on the sources about the Russian ties (I think you've been asked about these enough times now), or are we done with that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There would be no POV imbalance if what YOU call "borrowing" is RETURNED to the section. Reliable sources should not be used selectively. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What you're doing is repetitive WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Vanamonde made already clear that RSs should be used accordingly, so if we have a section titled "State sponsorship", "Ties to KGB", "Ties to foreign actors", etc., then what we include in those sections should clearly and objectively refer to and support those claims. If they don't, then they can be moved to a more appropriate heading, if there is a more appropriate heading.

Adding random information such as that the MEK used (or borrowed, or gained access to, or whatever) printing and radio services from other political groups to support a claim to "Ties to foreign actors" is WP:SYNTH. To put it a different way, it would be absurd to include a section called "Ties to foreign actors" to every political group in Wikipedia that used things like radio stations or printing services from other political groups. I don't know why you'd think the MEK should be the exemption, but it's not.

Similarly, affirming in Wiki voice that the MEK had "Ties with the KGB" or received "State sponsorship from Russia", when RSs confirm this allegation derived from Sa'adati's arrest and execution by Iranian security forces, is also clear and basic WP:SYNTH. Btw, using all-CAPITALS in Wikipedia is often seen as shouting. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be frank, your language hinders the consensus building process. It's so simple to accuse others with random charges, but trying to collaborate with others is not that easy. I suggest you to leave the former and adhere to latter. I do emphasize that sources should be used accordingly and think that they used "radio stations and printing presses" of foreign actors is closely in accordance with the section. It's not random information. Using radio stations of other groups is certainly indicative of their ties with the groups, specially since the author of the source has mentioned it while discussing the MEK's ties and their close relations with foreign actors. There are enough sources supporting "Ties with the KGB" (already used in the text) and I didn't say "State sponsorship from Russia" is real. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

1) You inserted material about Russia under "State sponsorship" section

2) You keep dodging the RSs provided, which is WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

3) As pointed out by Icewhiz, RSs linking MEK to Russia concern the Sa'adati arrest.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

More bad faith accusations by Stefka Bulgaria, nothing new. Read my comments under the sources (wait). I just restored a POVish mass change into the stable version and then made some changes. So, be serious and polite and don't repeat the baseless accusations, please. Icewhize's comment, though is not a criteria, has a major if. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Moving the Sa'adati events to "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" based on analysis of sources and Icewhiz's suggestions. Alex-h (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus over that. We have not addressed the sources yet. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

1) You've had two weeks to "address the sources", but you have not. Take your time, and when you're ready, you may open a RfC. Until then, the majority here agree that post-90s sources that look at Russia and the MEK refer to the incident with Sa'adati, which involves "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK"

2) Diff that you included edits involving Russia under "State Sponsorship", which is obviously not supported and SYNTH involving NPOV violation, speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for 2 weeks (the figure I believe is not accurate) is not the guarantee to make unilateral changes and mass removin well-sourced materials without having built consensus. The above discussions are mixed with a clear double standard; while rather old sources are used to write lots of the materials in the article, it's said here that "more recent sources" should be used. As for the materials in question regarding MEK-KGB links; There are two points: 1) Was MEK-KGB real? 2) If yes, are the sources only pay to Sa'adati's affair? According to the sources, the answer to the first question is YES and to the second one is NO (see the below list). Some users are trying to show that Sa'adati affair is purely the POV of Iranian government and is just an allegation. The sources, however, are saying something else:

• Historian Abbas Milani says, as a fact, that "simultaneously it [MEK] adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB." Further, he mentiones Sadadati, without saying he was merely charged by Iran. He has described the incident with more depth here.
• Fred Halliday adds that "their [KGB] attempts to establish links with the Mujahedin-i Khalq guerrillas collapsed when Saadati, their contact in the organization, was arrested and subsequently executed by the new regime."
• In his "Islamist, Marxist, Terrorist", Amir Taheri, writes that "the MEK, with KGB help, engaged in a campaign against the Shah," an statement which was emphasized in his other work, "France Tries to Score Points With Iran."
• Furthermore, MEK is said to have been founded by the help of KGB. I don't say, DTIC's report say! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

All of the above sources are rather new, let alone this 1978 Washington Post article saying, according to Western intelligence sources, "the tie-in with the Soviet intelligence agency KGB largely relates to weapons supply, techniques, electronic training, some funding and general support." That said, and by addressing the reliable sources, saying MEK-KGB is an "allegation" by Iran is just a bizarre argument. I'm restoring some of the materials from the stable version and added some more info on MEK-KGB links using the sources mentioned above. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Milani sources: you've mixed two very different sources here. The first, a Nationalinterest commentary piece that uses terms such as "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists", is far from being a RS. The second, a published book, treats ties with Russia as part of the Sa'adati incident, which is already included in the article.

• The Fred Halliday source: also treats ties to Russia as part of the Sa'adati incident, which is already included in the article.

• The Amir Taheri source: is an opinion piece, unusable to establish fact.

• DTIC source: Considering the extensive amount of RSs that describe how the MEK was founded, this is the only one that alleges the MEK was "founded with initial funding assistance from the KGB" (and that's all the PDF says about the KGB), which makes this WP:UNDUE and inapt to establish a significant and complex historical claim.

• The Washington Post source: We've already discussed extensively why it's not suitable.

Find a few RSs that clearly articulate how the MEK was tied to the KGB (beyond the Sa'adati event), and then try again. Until then, RSs are treating this as part of the Sa'adati incident, which is already included in the article (along with the RSs that support it). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to act based on what YOU think about the sources (I think you were told by an admin about this at RSN). You're objecting of scholarly works using such a reasoning technique is not constructive.

Milani is a credible historian and his work is reliable and "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists" does not prove it's not reliable.

Be it opinion piece or not, Amir Taheri is an expert in Iran affairs. "His writings focus on the Middle East affairs and topics related to islamic terrorism".

DTIC is not alone; DTIC source supports the point that MEK has received support from KGB. WaPo has repeated this support claim. Btw, WaPo source has no problem and there's no consensus over ignoring it.

Why did you remove Vladimir Kuzichkin's accounts? How about Chubin's?

Despite the sources, it's very strange your're trying to show MEK had ZERO links to KGB !!! When did you remove the whole section and just leave the narration of the story favored by MEK? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The book by Abbas Milani (Stanford Professor) should be quite reliable in this matter. The guy has no dog in this fight and is a renowned scholar.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

1) We are acting based on policy:WP:RS and WP:DUE.

2) I'm not objecting scholarly works, I'm objecting opinion pieces being used to establish facts, which is against policy.

3) DTIC is the only source (from a great number of available RS) that alleges the MEK was "founded with initial funding assistance from the KGB", which falls under WP:UNDUE.

4) Chubin source: this was already explained; "There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country is a real and growing possibility" cannot by used as fact to confirm that the MEK had ties with the KGB.

5) Vladimir Kuzichkin source: this was also already explained, having meetings with Kuzichkin is a long stretch to making a claim that the MEK had ties with the KGB. Meeting with an oganization member does not equate to there being "ties" between both parties. If there had been political/military/etc. cooperation between both parties, and the RSs clearly outlined this, then that would be a different story. Find such RSs and then try again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia. You, as a person may disagree with them of course. However, your personal disagreement and related discussions, as valuable as they may be, counts only as original research and is not allowed in Wikipedia.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1: You hit the nail on the head. Just imagine, at first he removed the well-sourced title because he thought the title of the infamous NyTimes source was not enough. I added another source saying MEK "...are often referred to as the cult of Rajavi...". To our surprise, he removed once again only because "We already have one"!!! Isn't that signaling something? On the KGB-MEK tie, already proved by the sources, he's blanking the section based on his own Original Research. WaPost clearly says the two groups had ties. Yes, it uses the word "tie". Chubin believes that it can be assumed Soviet-MEK tie was real and I had reported this assumption (unlike what Stefka Bulgaria alleged, I did not report it as fact and used "assume" in my wording.) Vladimir Kuzichkin says in his book that Vladimir Fisenko was in charge of direct communication with the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces cannot be SYNTHed to support as fact that the MEK had ties with the KGB, which the section is misleadingly insinuating. About the RSs that are available (no commentary articles, but University-press publishers), they are treating ties with Russia as part of the Sa’adati incident. There is also a majority consensus in this TP to treat the available RSs as part of the Sa’adati incident, which is already included in the article. You are welcome to open a RfC if you want others to get involved. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about? It's just your imagination that reliable sources only pay to Sa'adati incident. There's no Synth; every single source is talking about MEK-KGB tie. Washington Post article says, according to Western intelligence sources, "the tie-in with the Soviet intelligence agency KGB largely relates to weapons supply, techniques, electronic training, some funding and general support." You've started another wave of edit warring against multiple users. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:WP:SYNTH happens when "a conclusion is not explicitly stated by the source". Which is clearly not the case here as the quotes are almost copy/pasted from the sources; to the level that I had asked for trimming them previously!--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my previous statement about the Washington Post article: "when describing the Russian ties to the MEK, the article cites “according to the sources”, but does not say if this is the same source in “close contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”; nor if the “Western intelligence source” is the same “source in contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies” ."

This is the statement by Icewhiz: "If more recent (post-1990) sources are only treating the Sa'adati affair - then we should stick to that and naught else."

This is the statement by Vanamonde: "The way in which content is presented depends not just on whether it is verifiable, but on the extent to which reliable sources share a specific view, and on how weighty the sources are. In general, scholarly sources are better than media sources in neutral countries, which are better than media sources in countries involved in a geopolitical conflict. Government-run sources in involved countries are next to useless."

This is the statement by Stefka Bulgaria: "Opinion pieces cannot be SYNTHed to support as fact that the MEK had ties with the KGB, which the section is misleadingly insinuating."

Stefka, Icewhiz, and myself are for excluding opinion and outdated sources and sticking to the reliable sources that refer to the connection with Russia as part of Sa'adati's arrest. Mhhossein and Kazemita1 are for using the opinion pieces and Washington Post article to include a "Ties to KGB" section. That is 3 against 2. Alex-h (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Concur in regards to WaPo. WaPo is generally an excellent source - however using a 1978 WaPo story on what unnamed sources told them at the time - is very deep in WP:PRIMARYNEWS turf. We wouldn't use WaPo for WMDs (or lack thereof) in Iraq circa 2002-3 - and this isn't because WaPo is a bad source (to the contrary - it is gold standard jounralism) - but because WP:AGE MATTERS, and at the time reporting can not account for subsequent developments. I will also note that using this university class paper by 2nd Lt. Connor Norris who was studying in the University of Military Intelligence - is not a reasonable source. This seems to be an undergraduate program of some sort. DTIC contains all public army documents - including term papers - attribution here should be to "according to DTIC". Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes: The proposal makes sense. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

Stefka Bulgaria deleted my whole section from the Article. I'm discussing with he/she on his/her talk page.Forest90 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Forest90: You'd better discuss the dispute on the article talk page, so that active users editing the page see and get involved. As for the sexual abuse section, I think the mass removal was not fair. Some portions need to be altered though, but should not be removed. You can use [14], [15] and [16] for your the section. Stefka Bulgaria OWNS the article has removed another section against multiple users (see above), although there are reliable sources admitting MEK-KGB links. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, in this source, Jason Rezaeian is referring to "the few who were able to escape" from MEK as saying they were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be regarded as 'sexual abuse', but "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein. Thanks for participating in my subject. I'll try to change my passage mistake to correct one, and I will use from your guides.Forest90 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In the matter of MEK's sexual abuse, there is plethora of independent reliable sources. Take for example this recent Gaurdian article or this New York Times or this Washington Post article. As such I am voting for it to have a separate section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian work, notably, is a Long Read and it was removed by a single click of Stefka Bulgaria! The Guardian describes the long reads as: "A long read takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve. We believe our investment in the Long Read is always worth it – and we hope you do too." Admins should consider this removal I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Why using allegations from ex-MEK members in this article is a bad idea:

• The MEK has been one of the main disinformation targets of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inside and outside Iran, for the last 30 years.

• Being their main political opposition, the IRI systematically imprisons, tortures, and executes MEK members and supporters.

• Some MEK members are kidnapped and tortured by the IRI in order to provide public testimony to demonize the MEK. Others are extorted into demonizing the MEK in exchange of saving the lives of loved ones living in Iran.

• The IRI currently runs a major disinformation campaign in the West, which also include disinformation and demonization of the MEK: “The campaign [against the MEK] involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen.”

• Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca wrote the following report for ISJ:

"In December 2009, the EP-Iran delegation invited a "former PMOI member from Camp Ashraf Iraq, Ms Batool Soltani and gave her the floor to speak out against and demonize the PMOI. At the en of the debate, MPE Geoffrey Van Orden, a senior British Conservative, criticized the event: "I am not a fan of the PMOI, but I have a nose for Government-sponsored propaganda and I regret this Delegation is becoming a tool for Tehran's misinformation.""

"During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran after she left Iraq and sent back to Ashraf "at the behest of the Quds (Jerusalem) Force - a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as an agent of the Iranian government.""

Batool Soltani is one of the interviewed ex-MEK members whose allegations are currently included in the Wiki page. Considering the aforementioned, particularly the disinformation campaign against the MEK through extorted ex-members, this article should adhere to quoting reliable analysts in reliable publications only. Note that I'm not objecting sources like the Guardian, just the parts that involves testimonies by ex-members (which has been a recurring issue also in other sections of this article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

None of what you said can be a reason for removal of well-sourced and well-attributed sentences. OF course, if there's a source saying the sexual abuse claims are part of those campaigns, you can certainly use them. But, no, we don't censor those materials because there's an alleged disinformation campaign. Testimonies by ex-members, as far as they're attributed to the ex-members, are totally OK specially since there are reliable and high quality sources like the Guardian publishing "long-read" type works. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If Guardian, New York Times or Washington post are publishing the interview material, it means they are endorsing it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that because the sexual abuse is true as to former members, we don't consider any material or section about it in the article, while it can stand based on mentioned independent sources above.Saff V. (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: would the following source be better suited to back up the statement?:

Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca reported that ::::"During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how [former MEK member] Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran… as an agent of the Iranian government."

It's better in the sense that it probably passes WP:V (as Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca seems to be associated with the ISJ NGO, and it is on their website). However I would question whether it is WP:DUE - this is ISJ's about - described as a "informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition". I would prefer to see an independent secondary source referring to what ISJ said - as opposed to using ISJ directly. Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References
References

MEK online soldiers

Guys, this would be interesting to know that MEK has a 1,000-1,500 member online army promoting MEK's propaganda (see [17]). It's not far from imagination if they choose Wikipedia as their target. Moreover, this fact, that they have on-line soldiers, should be included in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are more sources show they are promoting propaganda:

• "The MEK's Propaganda Machine" (by National Interest)
• "The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda" (p.167)
• "Maryam Rajavi — MEK Propaganda Queen — Advertises Her Serives For Iran’s Enemies" (by huffingtonpost)
• "Facts Vs. Fiction And The MEK’s PR Campaign" (by the Lobelog)
• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq" (By RAND)
• "Q&A: what is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation?" (bt the Guardian)
• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK" (by the Guardian)

Can the above well sourced facts be a ground for removal of portions of the article? Should we remove MEK's claim since MEK has propaganda machine? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like speculation regarding Wikipedia editors? You should present such evidence at an appropriate forum - not here - and if it is based off on a hunch - it probably won't go far. Regarding the 1,000-1,500 strong twitter army that al-Monitor is reporting on responses to - [18] - it seems to be coming from - this AJ piece which says ""Overall I would say that several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members," former MEK member, Hassan Heyrani, told The Listening Post. "It was all very well organised and there were clear instructions about what needed to be done." - so - AJ is not stating this as fact but making an attributed statement. It might be worthwhile adding briefly to the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz in adding it briefly to the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1 and Icewhiz: Thanks for the insight. Do you have any suggestions for the text to be added? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How is diff? Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It was awful to be frank. You showed to be good at using "alleged" and using attribution whenever needed, but ignored the portion of the source saying "...an alleged Iranian propaganda operation...". Moreover, you made a clear synthesis by adding a completely irrelevant material to this page. What's going on? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the awfulness. However, I disagree what you removed was SYNTH as AJ itself starts with: "Last month, Google, Facebook and Twitter announced the shutdown of pages and accounts they say were linked to Iran. While the effectiveness of Iran's online disinformation networks is far from established, the Islamic Republic has now joined Russia in the popular consciousness as another government using the internet to destabilise its adversaries.[19] - the very first paragraph - so this is clearly relevant. I indeed cited this background information to Reuters (as opposed to AJ) - as Reuters is generally a better source than AJ and in this case was more in-depth - however the Reuters citation is not neccessary for the sentence of - "Following the shut down of Facebook and Twitter accounts linked to an Iranian propaganda campaign" - which is fully supported by aforementioned quote from AJ.Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant that is not a background to MEK's campaign. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

AJ seems to think that IRI and MEK's twitter/Facebook activities are related (or, rather, opposed to one another). Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Was the background a relevant info to MEK's campaign? I doubt if we should have due to SYNTH concerns.Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: How do you say "AJ seems to think" as such? @Saff V.: Thanks for the insight, neither do I. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well AJ itself starts with "Last month, Google, Facebook and Twitter announced the shutdown of pages and accounts they say were linked to Iran. While the effectiveness of Iran's online disinformation networks is far from established, the Islamic Republic has now joined Russia in the popular consciousness as another government using the internet to destabilise its adversaries." before saying "Meanwhile, a widespread campaign of social media manipulation by actors who are opposed to the government in Tehran..." - so Al Jazeera is making the connection between the two. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Following A, Al-Jazeera said B" is not a connection to resolve the SYNTH issue. I would support if that alleged Iranian campaign was against MEK or if the two had a meaningful connection. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, I have to notice that the current wording reads like the campaigns were against each other while the source doesn't say Iran campaign was against MEK.Saff V. (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Icewhiz's edits were balanced and neutral, which is a breath of fresh air here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

‎Intelligence and misinformation - SYNTH?

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

Although Kazemita1 is pinged, let me elaborate on it;

• This portion was laready used elsewhere, hence I removed it.
• This portion is suffering from SYNTH issue! What does "The Islamic Republic of Iran currently runs an alleged disinformation campaign in the West" have to do with MEK?
• The sentence "he Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap..." is severely problematic; None of the sources [20] and [21] are supporting the alleged "...into providing false testimonies against the MEK". Moreover, advocacy sources such as [22] and un-attributed claims of MEK members are used to conclude a fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mhhossein: About your points:

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

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

About a recent edit by Stefka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's in the LSE wrapper (which is not a RS). It doesn't appear in the journal itself - [23]. It's quite unlikely a short book review (in the midst of a bunch of other book reviews by other authors) was peer reviewed. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The "attribution" phenomenon

Suppose a source is deemed unreliable. I do not think we are allowed to use it by simply attributing it. This is very much like bypassing Wikipedia's core policy WP:RS. It essentially defeats the whole purpose of why we distinguish reliable and non-reliable sources. I can tell you that starting this will open a new can of worms. I mean any discussion we had so far on reliability of sources could be undermined. Anyone can add pretty much any source by simply attributing it. Keep that in mind--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamian's quote on "targeting only government and security"

I do not have access to Abrahamian's book. Kindly, place a link here to the claim that MEK only targets government and security folks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)