Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Nikoo.Amini's undiscussed mass removals

@Nikoo.Amini: You're advised to discuss your changes on the talk page, before making them. For instance, you removed a whole paragraph claiming the materials was not verified by the source, while the source clearly says on P. 193 that "Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states supported a number of Iranian opposition groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, based in Iraq, and some other opposition figures." In this edit, likewise, you're removing materials cited to a credible source on a baseless allegation, i.e. "unpublished research", while we know the materials is attributed to Polishchuk and that Stanford university's official web page is verifying content. Seems like you're were trying to pave your way for changing the sections/subsections (why?). Please build consensus before making such changes. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

For the book Iran's Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Era, there was no page number, so thank you to include this. For the book Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, I cannot find this quote "By 1978, Western intelligence agencies maintained that the MEK was supported by foreign states, based on evidence of receiving funds from Libya led by Muammar Gaddafi, as well as Iraq, then under control of Ba'athists," Can you say where it is? For the university student research, I will take this to RSN. You also included "On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani" in "State sponsorship", can you explain why? Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikoo.Amini: about to Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, if you cannot find the quote, you have to make a request in TP that other users find it rather than removing the well-sourced material. Also before taking the question to RSN, you removed it by this edit summary "student unpublished research", interesting!Saff V. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain where is the quote in Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards? Also RSN discussion seem to agree with me, so I don't see your point. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein's changes

@Mhhossein: You're advised to discuss your changes on the talk page, before making them. For instance, you removed that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.", and " However, according to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government," both supported by reliable sources. Please build consensus before making such changes. Alex-h (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

1. See WP:Battleground: this talk page is not ground for battle! 2. I did discuss them, see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Changes to the lead. 3. You have restored a defamatory and challenging material regarding a BLP. Wikipedia takes WP:BLP issues seriously and "users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@Mhhossein: 1. You're accusing me of WP:Battleground? but you wrote exactly this to Nikoo.Amini! 2. The edits I've mentioned have nothing to do with Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Changes to the lead, so please respond to what is being asked only. 3. What is "defamatory" about adding "However, according to Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf), Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran as an agent of the Iranian government."? Does the source not say this? Alex-h (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is defamatory because Col. Leo McCloskey is accusing her of defecting to the Iranian government without evident ground.Kazemita1 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the report? In addition, here is the RSN that talk about this: "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf." Stop making false accusations against me without proper evidence. Alex-h (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is the disagreement to add The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alex-h And since when do you honor inquiries from WP:RSN? I was told by RSN that I am allowed to attribute Milani's comment about MEK's connection to KGB. Yet, you reverted it. Now you have the audacity to show another inquiry from them? Either we accept RSN or we do not. There has got to be a code, otherwise no consensus can be reached about anything.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, your RSN post was not properly presented, and I was not the only one to say so. Mhhossein still has not explained his removals, but instead, you both continue to make unfounded accusations against me, such as that I'm adding "defamatory material regarding a BLP" and "not honouring inquiries from RSN." @Vanamonde93: and @El C:, as uninvolved admins that have had some recent interaction here, can you please let me know if this violates WP:Casting aspersions or WP:PA? (Mhhossein or Kazemita1 don't appear to have expressed regret or wanting to rectify their behavior here on in past warnings. It feels like we're going around in circles). Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Constant complaining to admins is not going to help resolve any problem in the long term. Let's talk about the issue at hand, i.e. inquiries from RSN. We need to set some rules in our future inquires from WP:RSN. For example, everyone should respect the outcome of an inquiry if it is from an independent and un-involved editor(s). The votes from involved editors won't count. In order to avoid any "misrepresentation", we can have the other party, i.e. the party who is against the inclusion to compile the question on the noticeboard. If we can agree on something it will help us along the way. That is my proposal; feel free to comment on it. (p.s. All those who thought my inquiry was misrepresented were involved editors who had reverted my edits at least once prior to the inquiry)Kazemita1 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I see mostly a spirited debate, but Kazemita1 could stand to lower the aggression a bit (here and elsewhere). El_C 18:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Noted El_C. With that, User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V., User:Stefka Bulgaria, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h, User:Sa.vakilian, User:Forest90 and User:Nikoo.Amini are encouraged to comment on standards for inquiring the WP:RSN.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History-author By Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.

The source is missing page number for this claim: "MEK only targets security and government officials". I have asked people to provide page number previously. I guess I will be able to remove it if there is no response in a few days (following the footsteps of the "scapegoat").--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, what do you mean by "following the footsteps of the "scapegoat""? Alex-h (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me know when you have a page number ready.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: the pages are 15 and 28. Best wishes, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Stefka Bulgaria Forgive me for not taking your words, as you have been wrong before (Ervand Abrahamian on MEK only killing government and security forces). Please, provide scan of the corresponding pages.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: You don't have to take my words, you can take the author's words as we did with Abrahamian specifying why the MEK attacked the regime. Since you bring Abrahamian up again, he also said that "The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings in order to limit civilian casualties, which would support the claim that the MEK did not target civilians. This can also be included in the article once it can be edited again. I don't have a scanner, but your local library might. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I would normally push further and ask for the actual image. But the news on Trump's defeat against congress here, is so thrilling that I am going to let is slide.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC about the death tolls in the lead

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

Consensus has been determined that the death tolls should be removed. (non-admin closure) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the death tolls get removed from the lead? I have opened this RFC due to the older discussions (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 9#RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article?, Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body?) related to this RFC, which were all slippery. The last closure comment reads: "There is no prejudice against discussing this further since there was limited participation".--Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Removal of such a well-sourced materials needs more discussion. There are also objections by other users over removing the material ([1], [2]). Notably, I think this drive-by comment, all of a sudden appearing here!, should be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

INFOPLEASE.COM, used to back up the death tolls here, is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Says the guy who added the term, although he was objecting the source severely at the RSN!!! @El C: Can you see the double standard? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added the name/term INFOPLEASE.COM because it was missing. I objected this source at RSN (as did user:Snooganssnoogans) because is not RS for the death toll figures, as such I don't think it should be used to support data placed in the lede of a controversial article. So why are you accusing me of having a "double standard"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You changed the figure from 10,000 to 16,000 so that you can mention MEK causalities, too. It's clearly a double standard; You should not have used such a source if you thought the source was not reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In the diff you provided, I removed the Ploughshares source (which is not RS), and attributed the Qasemi source to INFOPLEASE.COM (which the author himself uses as source, using the figure of 16,000, which the author himself also uses). In other words, the closest thing we have to RS about casualties in Iran is INFOPLEASE.COM (which is not a reliable source). Then I attributed the MEK death tolls to themselves as presented in the Kenneth Katzman book. Because I don't think INFOPLEASE.COM is a reliable source, and because the MEK death tolls are attributed to info by the MEK, I opened a RfC to have this removed from the lede and left in the body as this seemed to be the WP:NPOV WP:RS thing to do. So how is that "clearly a double standard"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• No: There's no reason to remove such an important and well-sourced history of the MEK from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: I see no reason to remove such a big portion of the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: It is an important point as well as supported by plenty of RS determining obviously group's position against I.R.I. point asks to "summarize the most important points".Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes this is already in the article, and it is not supported by reliable sources, so has no place in the lead section. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So lets remove every thing in the lead which is already in the body. See MOS:LEAD. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not addressing the problem, which is that the sources to support these numbers are not reliable. Alex-h (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. In principle, I think that the death toll of the MEK/IRI is extremely interesting and would generally support lede inclusion. In practice, however, it seems this is simply not discussed by reliable sources - we are sourcing IRI deaths to "According to infoplease.com". We are sourcing MEK casulties to MEK claims. We don't have independent reliable secondary sources discuss the MEK/IRI death toll as a whole. Since this is not discussed extensively in RSes, it is WP:UNDUE for the lead (as we follow weight in RSes - which is in this case absent (perhaps since it is hard to estimate?) - and not editorial opinion (e.g. I see this as something I'd like to have in the lede - if there were sources backing this up)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Also add in the body of the text, where this occurs again, that this is an estimate. It's difficult to get accurate estimates on material like this from one source reporting, and that source on one side of the issue. I suggest retaining mention in the lede of a large number of MEC casualties in the 1981 demonstration, which seems credible, but with no numerical estimate. Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Whereas I agree that the death tolls are important information, the sources to back the data in this instance are not reliable. When we get more reliable sources, these should be included back in the lede. In the meantime, we should not put information in the lede of controversial nature that isn't backed up by anything less than reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: With all respect, the whole mess is actually created by Stefka Bulgaria himself. He added the the causalities of the MEK group at the expense of inserting the infoplease figure. He should answer why he added the source while he thought it was not reliable? Note the wording on the toll details were completely different before Stefka Bulgaria's intervention. "...more than 10,000", is supported by reliable sources (for instance doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, hold on, all I did was properly attribute the figure for the death tolls to INFOPLEASE.COM, which is what the (already included) Piazza source attributed the data to, correct? How is that creating a "whole mess"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Responded above. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I second that @Stefka Bulgaria: I searched through Piazza's peer reviewed article and nowhere did it cite infoplease.com. --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Piazza's paper cites Iran-Times.com as source, which is not RS in any shape or form, leaving only INFOPLEASE.COM, which is also not RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per Icewhiz. Also I like how Stefka is still being used as the scapegoat after 1-2 years, lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No It is an important issue to understand the nature of MEK. This make a clear difference between MEK and the other opposition of Islamic Republic.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: So far the only argument was that there is no reliable source for the death trolls. However, Piazza's paper is published in a peer reviewed journal and it clearly talks about the number of Iranian citizens killed by MEK.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Pizza paper cites Iran-Times.com as source, which is not RS, leaving INFOPLEASE.COM as the closest thing we have to confirming these figures, which also does not qualify as RS. If I'm not mistaken, there aren't any other sources confirming these figure, making them unsupported by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: The paper in the DOMES journal is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal paper and the reviewers have definitely evaluated its sources. The publisher is also academic. It has the highest standards of the RS in WP. Taha (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)::

The paper cites Iran-Times.com as the source for the death toll data. In other words, Iran-Times.com is where the death toll figures is coming from. You are basically advocating the inclusion of important data taken from Iran-Times.com in the lede section of a controversial article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• No Given that now there is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal paper for the claim. Plus, the killings are among defining characteristics of the Mujahedin, which justifies it being in the lead section. Taha (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Piazza paper cites Iran-Times.com for the source of this data, and the Qasemi book cites INFOPLEASE.COM. If we were attributing death tolls to another Wikipedia article, such as the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014-present), we would never use INFOPLEASE.COM or Iran-Times.com as the source for death toll figures (particularly to be included in the lede section) so why should we do so here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: Would you please write your comments to the editors of the DOMES journal? If they admit that the author and academic reviewers have made a mistake, I will agree with you. My experience is that the editors of reputable academic journals are quite responsible and will get back to you very quickly. Taha (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Taha & Kazemita1: In the case you're not aware of old discussions; Stefka Bulgaria tried to dismiss Iran-times.com by accusing to be "Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media", while it was found to be "founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran-Times.com is not RS, whether founded in Washington DC or wherever, and neither is INFOPLEASE.COM. These are the two sources available for the death toll figures. We wouldn't use them as sources for death tolls in other political articles, so using them here violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: By repeating over and over that Iran-Times.com is not reliable you can't dispute the reliability of the DOMES journal paper. This is so obvious for me that I requested an intervention to end this discussion and save users' time WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran. Taha (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources is a big deal - the paper reads Finally, the US. Senate became outwardly cool towards the Mojahedin in passing an official statement attacking the MKO as a “terrorist organization,” criticizing its role in the 1979 hostage crisis and relationship with Iraq, and stating that the Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile. - attributing this to a US Senate stmt, and not making this claim itself. Furthermore, the fact we have have difficulty finding sources with estimates (contrast this with the PKK/Turkey where estimates abound) - indicates UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Icewhiz: This issue can be easily resolved. Let's send an email to the author and the editor and ask them about the sources of their claims plus more clarifications on the subject. Taha (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The author is not making any claims. He is quoting a US senate resolution (which would seem possibly to be cited to Iran Times, but that is besides the point) - with quote marks.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• No - Clearly relevant, this is an important information supported by what it seems reliable, secondary source already in our article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• comment. @User:Stefka Bulgaria @User:Icewhiz Regarding your discussion on the source used by Piazza, in Wikipedia we do not perform original research. We simply determine if the source is reliable or not which in this case we are talking about a peer reviewed academic journal. Digging into how the author came up with his findings is beyond Wikipedia. Things would be very difficult if we the editors were to do research on every claim that every source makes and dig into what reference each source uses for its claims. For example, one could ask about Ronen Cohen's claim in his article where he states that MEK only targets "security and government related" figures and not the ordinary civilians. The situation is even worse in this case because Cohen does not even cite any references for his claim! @User:El_C your input on this is policy is appreciated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Piazza is quoting a US senate resolution (in the context of a prior US congress proceeding) - he did not find anything - he quoted, placing this in quotation marks and attributing to the US senate, in the context of MEK-US relations in the 90s.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Kazemita1: In a previous TP discussion, Mhhossein said "I was reviewing the source used for the material, Abrahamian (1989) p.220, and I think the content is not sourced to a reliable source. Abrahamian has used questionable sources 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London as the source for his content making it unreliable for being used here."[3] And I quote (further) "I don't know if it's really necessary to repeat that per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.""[4]. We ended up not using Abrahamian data's because it was taken from unreliable sources. How is it different here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to closely examine the sources of our reliable sources each and every time — unless they are in conflict with other reliable sources. Even then, we should be gauging the academic consensus. Which is to say, we're meant to act more as historiographers and less as historians outright. El_C 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Icewhiz: Concurring with El_C above, your previous discussions with Mhhossein does not create a new policy. Your approach to secondary academic sources is an anti-pattern. Unless you provide a contradicting source with the same level of reliability, the reliability of the DOMES paper is unaffected. Taha (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with El_C - however in this case the article says the US senate said this (in quotation marks) - it doesn't say so itself in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Per Jzsj and Icewhiz. These are only estimates and UNDUE (and this is blamed on Stefka somehow, lol) Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Some people were seeking for an academic source providing us with a figure which can be safely used here. My quick search brought up [5] and [6], both saying MEK's armed conflict against Iran left more than 10,000 Iranian people dead. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Taha: Did you see my sources? They don't need attribution and can be used without saying "according to Senate". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Undue estimates. Filer also seems to contradict their own words here in order to accommodate a WP:POVNAMING, which makes this RfC proposal the more flawed. MA Javadi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• There are three independent reliable sources so far that mention the number of Iranian people killed by MEK:

1. Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Volume 1, By Peter Chalk, page 508. Linke available here.

2. Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East by Christian Kaunert et al

3. Piazza, J. A. (1994). The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile. Digest of Middle East Studies, 3(4), 9–43.

I thought this RfC was that Piazza was quoting an unreliable source? I read the Encyclopedia of Terrorism source and it says "The MEK vigorously criticized the move and subsequently announced the initiation of armed campaign against Tehran that by 2011 had left more than 10,000 people dead." But in the People's Mujahedin page I see that the group "put down their arms in 2003"? MA Javadi (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MA Javadi: They are not contradictory! MEK agreed to put down their arm, but made armed acts later. Just like how Iraq attacked Iran after United Nations Security Council Resolution 598.

Thanks, but which armed acts they have made since 2003? MA Javadi (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

MEK is mentioned by two US officials in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists that occurred between 2010 and 2012. But you are probably right that the number 10000 is probably based on MEK's terrorist acts prior to 2003. Nevertheless, "By 2011" includes "prior to 2003". We could certainly use meticulous editors like yourself in this article as there are many loose claims currently. Take for example the statement "MEK only targets government and security officials" for which sources never accompanied a single reference.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the NBC news source the same source described in the article as "On February 9, 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."? MA Javadi (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you are looking at a different section: "In 2012, US officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists". But like I said, that is beside the point. "By 2011" includes "prior to 2003".--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am looking at a different section, but it seems to be the same NBC article, and sorry to say but it's not beside the point. If the MEK "put down their arms in 2003", the accusations of the killing of Iranian scientists "has never been backed up with evidence", and this source say death tolls account to 2011, then this seems like a WP:UNDUE source. MA Javadi (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "evidence"? If you mean independent and reliable sources, then NBC is one of them. I quote the title of their article for your review "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News".--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"On February 9, 2012, Larijani alleged to NBC-TV News that the Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting."[7] MA Javadi (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I never recall asking you to take Larijani's words. Instead, I am inviting you to embrace what is mentioned by US officials.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We need to embrace what all sources say (not just our preferred sources). NBC source also say "A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” so it is a difficult assertion. In Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists the MEK is mentioned as suspect, not as confirmed responsible. MA Javadi (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The third official mentioned in the NBC article is neutral, saying I neither deny nor confirm. As a matter of fact, NBC's conclusion on the matter is quite clear as the title reads Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes This is already in the article, though in my view it should be removed completely since the sources are not reliable. Particularly when we are talking about the opposition to the Iranian government. This article is already full of flawed allegations and misinformation. Let's not make it worse. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• No it is an important well sourced information that should be in the lead. I don't see any reason for whitewashing this well-sourced fact about a terrorist group.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• No keep the statistics. It's really important and also is historical.Forest90 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment saying that this is "important and historical" information is a Straw man fallacy since this is not what the discussion here is about. Rather, this discussion is about whether the sources supporting the data are reliable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, these death tolls are not "well sourced", specially for the lead of the article. For the text in the body, add that this is an estimate per Jzsj. Barca (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Barca: Please see [8] and [9] both saying MEK killed more than 10,000 Iranian people. Do think they're not reliable? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is what the sources are saying:

• Encyclopedia of Terrorism: "The MeK vigorously criticized the move and subsequently announced the initiation of an armed campaign against Tehran that by 2011 had left more than 10,000 dead."

This source does not make clear if the dead also include MEK members. It also makes the WP:UNDUE claim that the death tolls account to 2011 (when the MEK were disarmed in 2003 by the US).

• Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East: "In the course of the internal power struggle in the early years of the Islamic Republic, the regime and the MEK engaged in a bloody conflict, leaving more than 10,000 Iranians dead."

Like the previous source, this source does not make clear if the dead also included MEK members (who were also Iranians). Although they can be discussed in the body (along with other sources offering other estimates), neither source can reliably be used to confirm death toll data in the lede of the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Per Jzsj, the death tolls are not "well sourced", why should we give so much attention, to content that is not reliable? Sunnaz (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit request

I'm doing bot work related to US State Department URLs of which this article has a bunch that need changing/saving. Would it be possible to cut and paste the full article text at User:GreenC/testcases/test replacing the current article. Hope this can be done before the protection expires on the 27th, so I don't have to re-bot the page after live edits start up again. -- GreenC 00:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @GreenC: this page is not protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok got it in time, thanks for the ping Xaosflux -- GreenC 17:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Change doi-broken-date=2018-11-06 to doi-broken-date=2019-06-02 since it is still dead (I am verifying all the 2018 ones) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 June 2019

@El C: The lead features a sentence on cult designation of MEK, supported by various high quality sources (see the sources in Designation as a cult and also this one saying "Many experts" describe them as a Cult.) The sentence in the lead is awkwardly counter balanced by a full-of-quote sentence cited to 'European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran':

An investigation by the European Parliament and the US military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded: “the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.

I should emphasize that 'Friends of a Free Iran "advocates on behalf of the People's Mujahedin" [10] and is just described as "a mouthpiece for the MEK". The sentence is also copied verbatim in the body! I suggest removing this sentence from the lead since the source is highly MEK-sympathetic, hence as you said, is problematic and gives a highly UNDUE weight to a claim. Mhhossein ^talk 12:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss the NPOV here (I'd even be willing to start a new TP discussion about the "cult" allegations against the group), but Spiegel Online recently lost a lawsuit for defaming the MEK [11][12], so that's not the best source to support your claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It doesn't matter if I agree. You need to demonstrate that there is consensus for this particular removal — for all content-related changes, in general. When it comes to protected edit requests, there are no shortcuts. El_C 13:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I remember some time ago I had requested for the inclusion of "divorce decree" and "sexual fantasy confessions". The response by some editors was that the article already has included cult-like behaviors. Now, people are asking for removal of the very same content, i.e. cult-like behavior of MEK. That is classic censorship.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone asked to have the "cult" allegations removed from the article. Rather, what was pointed out is that the article mentions allegations of "cult", "divorce", "sexual censorship", and "marriage" repeatedly throughout the article (let us not forget this article is about the IRI's main political opposition, and that the MEK has been a target of a long-running disinformation campaign by the IRI). Rather than spread all over the article, there should be a section dedicated to criticisms of the organization, and that would not be censoring anything and, may even bring some much needed NPOV to the article. I'll work on a proposal about this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Do I have a wrong understanding of the policy saying "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," means objected materials should be included only if there's consensus over them? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to include — this is longstanding text. In this case, there needs to be consensus for the removal. El_C 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Long standing? It was included just sometime before the recent waves of lockings...and we know 'long standing' is not a policy or guideline. I provided a policy based argument against inclusion of the poorly sourced material in the lead while it's quite clear that Stefka Bulgaria et al. do not have to participate discussion with their desired version locked. To be frank, this strategy is just a frictional procedure. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that I didn't want to participate in discussion. In fact, I proposed it in my last comment here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment had nothing to with my objection against inclusion of poorly sourced materials into the lead. Also, Dedication of a whole section to criticisms adds to violation of NPOV. Although, you can propose it elsewhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no policy or guideline that I know of that directs admins how to interpret protected edit requests. You want to make an edit, I put the threshold of consensus before I, myself, am willing to make that edit at your behalf. Which is my prerogative. Feel free to resubmit the protected edit request for another admin to attend to, if you're not satisfied with how I answered it. I'm giving you that option. You have to demonstrate it does not represent longstanding text for me to consider doing anything. El_C 20:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C: I understand that you need to reassure the edit should be backed by consensus which is why I'm actively editing this talk page opening various discussion topics from time to time. The edit was inserted into the lead on 30 April 2019. Do you find it longstanding? Also, please notice that I tried to emphasize how MEK-sympathetic the cited source was. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Spiegel Online recently lost a lawsuit for publishing smearing false allegations against the MEK [13][14], so that's not an appropriate source to support your claims that this is a sympathetic source. Moreover, the People'S Mojahedin of Iran Mission Report is published by L'Harmattan, European Parliament, Friends of a Free Iran, which constitutes a secondary reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the next edit (April 30) is yours — why did you allow it to stand at the time? At any rate, if it isn't very recent, I'm not inclined to remove it myself. Removing it and making sure it has consensus for inclusion should have been done at the time. I am not inclined to edit something that had the page been unprotected would likely get reverted. So, yeah, please figure out what the consensus is regarding this (maybe yet another RfC) first. El_C 11:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C: The edit slipped through my eyes and I would certainly remove the content if I had witnessed that, given the MEK-sympathetic source cited. Needless to say that it was later objected by Saff V.. I'm sure you're did not mean to, but your comment is keeping the revert opportunity reserved for Stefka Bulgaria et al. by reading "...not inclined to edit something that had the page been unprotected would likely get reverted" while presuming I won't revert. RFCs in this page has become so frustrating and complicated! --Mhhossein ^talk 07:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process is what it is, there's not much I can do about that. Nor am I, myself, able to account for things slipping through the cracks. I'm just not comfortable ruling on editing disputes by fiat — I don't think you'd be able to find an admin who is. El_C 09:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I also don't think it would be good for the lead to include a content whose sources is 'Free of a free Iran' group, which is "closely allied to the NCRI" (considered synonymous as MEK by many experts). As mentioned above, it is just described as "a mouthpiece for the MEK." Is there any objection against the removal of such a MEK-sympathetic source from the lead?Saff V. (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we can definitively view the NCRI, and by extension FoFi, as an MEK-sympathetic source. My issue, as the uninvolved admin, lies with ruling on editing disputes that go outside maintenance or possible BLP violations. While objections to the removal need, in any case, to be well thought out, I am in no rush to make a decision, especially as I remain in somewhat uncomfortable terrain. I've strutted the line between administrative intervention and content here enough to make myself feel uneasy — if there are objections to me continuing here in that capacity, I promise to seriously weigh them. El_C 09:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No objection on my side, on the contrary. You're very much appreciated here, El_C. Even though I may not fully agree with some of the verdicts, assistance from an experienced admin such as yourself has been needed in this TP for a long time, and I trust your conclusions, whichever they may be (also shoutout to Icewhiz, who has too been very helpful mediating in this TP). I just ask that we properly evaluate both sides of an argument before going ahead with a change. Thanks, and kudos for helping to untangle this big mess. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Would you please assess the consensus in this thread? I see no objection against removing those lines from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a NPOV issue if there is a "cult" allegation in the lead without a counter-argument. This is what the source I found says:

In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has been found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the US military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of intelligence (MOI).

Breaking the Stalemate

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Metis Analytics is directed by Cheryl Benard, so you're asking to use a self-published source. Worse than before, your source is never neutral. Cheryl Benard is the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, who represented MEK. I don't think having a counter argument for the lead is bad, but your suggestion is far below the sourcing standards. I don't know how long we should keep that MEK friendly source in the lead.Saff V. (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, there is a recent trend in some media publications to accuse Donald Trump (and the Republican Party) of being "unpopular" and having a "Cult personality" and a "propaganda machine" (which are carbon-copy allegations against the MEK: [15], [16], [17], [18], etc). Yet, we don't include those allegations in relevant Wiki articles (even less in the lede sections). Why should it be different with this political group? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Saff V.. Yes, the source provided by Stefka Bulgaria is not only self-published, but also MEK-sympathetic. As for Trump, YES, we would certainly add that to the lead of Donald Trump, if likewise MEK there were sources saying "many experts" believe they're a Cult! I still don't see any valid objection on your part against removing that content. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? a quick google search produced many for me: The Cult of Trump, by "One of America’s leading experts in cults", A CULT EXPERT FINDS FAMILIAR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR IN TRUMP'S GOP, Expert: Trump’s GOP Behaves Like A Religious Cult, Inside the CULT of Trump: President supporters 'like brainwashed sect members'... "an expert has sensationally claimed.", etc. etc... These are all carbon-copy allegations as the ones presented here against the MEK, yet we wouldn't include this in the GOP or Donald Trump articles (least in the lede). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"Cult" is used a lot by the Iranian regime to discredit the MEK. We should either include both sides of the argument, or neither. Alex-h (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your arguments are totally irrelevant. We're not discussing whether or not Iran has labeled them as Cult, since we have various high quality and independent sources at hand calling MEK "Cult". If you want to avoid the removal of that content, you need to find a high quality and independent source having a counter view. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't include this sort of allegation in the lede (or body) of political articles such as those of Donald Trump or GOP, even though the allegations are word for word the same. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they're not the same. Comments by "experts" and known analysts are welcomed, specially when they're backed by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion has nothing to do with other articles. The reliability of source determine which material have to be kept or removed.Saff V. (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, you haven't read the link titles I provided above then, the "cult" allegations are identical as the ones presented here, and I can even look for more if that doesn't satisfy. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That you try to downgrade the comments by "many experts" and analysts, would never be satisfying. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Why Trump's article does not talk about "Cult" allegations, is just tangentially related to this discussion. You were expected to say why those materials sourced by FoFi, a known MEK-sympathetic source, should not get removed from the lead of this article, which you failed to comment on. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Now, after 8 days, we have comments from different users here, with no fair objection over removal of a challenging sentence in the lead which was sourced by FoFi, a known MEK-sympathetic source. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I have learned about the MEK cultish tendencies years before adding this article to my watchlist — and I learned this from sources which are openly hostile to the Islamic regime. For whatever that's worth (I suspect not much). El_C 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There are sources that make this claim, as there are sources making the same claims about other political figures such as Donald Trump or the Republican Party (as noted above with links), but these articles don't include those claims (least in the lede). Is there a particular reason why we'd include "cult" allegations in the lede here and not (at all) in other political articles? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We really don't care why editors of Donald Trump don't include these things, though you can go to the talk page of the mentioned article and ask your question. That stuff has nothing to do with the current discussion which is on removal such a MEK-friendly source. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea why you repeatedly compare a BLP with this article. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I'm already aware of your stance here, what I was hoping was to get El_C's feedback. Btw, the Republican Party is not a BLP. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: about the text in the lede you'd like to remove, it is also attributed to the US military. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the sourcing is problematic, not the content. I don't have anything to add here when you're ignoring input by an un-involved admin here saying the source is MEK-sympathetic. Your repeated reverts after these discussions is nothing but edit war. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

​ Sorry for asking again. Would you please assess my initial request once again? Many comments have been exchanged and enough thoughts are inserted (I think so). Do you see any fair objections against removing the disputed content from the lead which is supported by a MEK-Sympathetic source? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I would rather you take it to RSN to determine the veracity of that source by outside contributors, than make a comment one way or another. But I will say this: if the 2ndry source is deemed to be subpar, then even if it is attributed to authoritative primary sources, the reliability (and by extension verifiability) of these authorities would come into question. El_C 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

New wave of edit war

@El C: Hi, I understand that there are various disputed issues in this article and that adds to the complexity of the things going on here. However, I'd like to let you know that Stefka Bulgaria is trying to ignite a new wave of edit war, probably with the hope you lock the article based on their desired version. See his recent reverts please. I have not done any more moves, although I believe most of the edits should be reverted back as I explained here and here. After doing numerous reverts (even 6 times in less than 24 hrs), the mentioned user is bold enough to carry out more and more. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd be locking the article again, I may use other sanctions. I haven't decided yet on the scope or severity of these. Anyway, I'm only counting 3 reverts — how did you arrive at six? But regardless, that's still a problem. Unfortunately, I don't have discretionary sanctions to work with, so my hands are rather tied. But I am considering applying 1RR and a forced bold, revert, discuss cycle or consensus required to the article, just by fiat, because I feel that the time for being purely bold has long passed. If there are objections or questions regarding such an approach, I will consider them presently. The point is: we don't really need Arbitration enforcement if participants agree on a modality that mimics DS. What do everyone say? El_C 15:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I support, and in favour of either bold, revert, discuss cycle or consensus required: whichever will prevent the article from being overwhelmed with edits that have not been determined by consensus. The problem I'm foreseeing is that consensus will also be difficult to be reached: there is a pattern of a set of editors voting one way, and another set of editors voting a different way, creating walls of text that go nowhere. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• On my part, I support any actions stopping the edit warrers and request for giving warnings to the users doing this fresh edit war. I just wonder how the user making reverts against consensus is calling for bold, revert, discuss cycle! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A warning has already been issued. But with one revert per 24 hours, the number of reverts will greatly decrease. With consensus required (disclaimer: I'm the one who wrote WP:CRP), it will decrease even further. It won't mean the end of bold edits necessarily, but once a bold edit is reverted, consensus for it will have to be attained before it can be re-added again. El_C 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That's good, would it be good if we begin with 1RR to see the result? If a more severe provision would be needed, as per your own evaluation, CRP will be welcomed, too. Meanwhile, is there anyway to boost the consensus building process or to reassure that users are really willing to build consensus (instead of merely keeping on commenting and hence making the consensus building difficult)? See the RFCs of this page! Thanks for issuing warnings. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, there's too many participants involved for 1RR to be effective on its own. I'm not sure what can be done about the RfCs becoming lengthy and entangled, however. If both sides choose to obstruct, than nothing will happen and the article will remain in stasis. But going back and fourth on the mainspace is not tenable, that much is apparent. El_C 11:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, I support anything you think would help the current situation, which is cooled down now, thanks for your interventions. As for the RFCs, I think their closures should only be carried out by experienced users/admins (just a humble opinion!). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@El_C I really appreciate you for efforts to solve disputes. In fact, I support "a forced bold, revert, discuss cycle or consensus required to the article" strongly although it takes more time. In the other hands, I am against 1RR, I think that is not helpful for the article full of disputable material.Saff V. (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I also support El_C's proposition. Alex-h (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., per your objection, which at first glance I have missed, I have removed 1RR from the page notice. We can try with just consensus required, for now, and add further restrictions as needed. El_C 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Please keep in mind that just like reversion of new additions requires consensus under the provision before being reintroduced — so does reversion of new removals (of longstanding text), which also requires consensus before being reintroduced. Please make sure you acquaint yourself with the concept. Feel free to pose any questions. As mentioned, I just happen to be the one who wrote WP:CRP, so I'm pretty qualified to answer these. Granted, it may be a bit confusing at first, but once you grasp it, it is pretty basic and straightforward. El_C 16:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C: What should be done for clueless reverts? There are some users here making occasional edits mostly being retaliatory reverts with no clear explanation. The mentioned users have poor participation in TP discussions and appear up in heated back and forths! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Those users who fail to substantiate their objections, will be viewed as tendentious — which is to say, harshly. El_C 16:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C:For me, it becomes complicated when you tell Mhhossein to take this edit to RSN before removing it, and Mhhossein skips that and just removes it! Why are we asking for a non-involved admin advice if we are only going to take it when it suits us? Alex-h (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What can I say? Would I like editors to subscribe to my advise? Sure. Are they compelled to do so? They are not. El_C 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C's advice had a determining if (see the comment). The secondary source is really "subpar" since it's a self-published source by an author close to MEK!. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

New restriction now in effect

By unanimous agreement by all participants in the above discussion (and most active participants who edit the article regularly), I have added Template:Editnotices/Page/People's Mujahedin of Iran to the page notice. It is now in effect. Hopefully, this will be enough to curtail the chronic edit warring suffered by this article. Please do your best to try to compromise, or probably nothing will happen and the article will just remain in stasis. Good luck, everybody! El_C 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Opt-out statement

For now, I'm no longer editing any article within the scope of Iranian politics, especially in regards to the recent "Heshmat Alavi" controversy. I don't know if I can handle it properly, and I'm not sure I can get into this topic for long time. Anyway, I don't want to be involved in the conflict, dispute and controversy anymore. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)