Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Identifying allegations by former MEK members

The current article has many allegations by former MEK members, some of which are being presented in Wiki voice (despite the fact that they're as reliable as allegations by current MEK members). In the same way we have a section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK", it would be clearer for readers to understand allegations by former MEK members under a proper heading (I propose something along the lines of "Allegations by MEK defectors"). Moreover, per WP:NPOV, if we have allegations by MEK defectors in the article, then we can also consider a section that includes allegations by non-defectors (as long as they're covered in WP:RS). Any objections? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not only do I think your suggestion is not backed by WP:NPOV, but also this policy prohibits gathering POVs of one party in under a same section. Instead I suggest merging 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' into the article. This way, no counter section would be needed! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely which policy says that attributing statements to a particular group doesn't conform to WP:NPOV? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Attribution is required, but your suggestion is in fact calling undue attention to certain POVs. See WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..." Also see Wikipedia:Criticism. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How is this "undue attention" when there are so many quotes by former MEK members in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mhhossein's suggestion which gives balanced weight to the article. Most of the time member of MEK or IRI official presented quotes following the event(s), it is more balanced gathering opposite and positive opinions under the event rather than creating sections such as "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" OR "allegations by former MEK members".Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

We already have a section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK"; we have this because allegations by the IRI about the MEK need to be identified on account of the nature of the press in Iran (as one would with the press in countries like North Korea, etc., where the press is pretty much controlled by the State). Per NPOV, if we are identifying allegations by the IRI, we need to identify allegations by MEK members, and as of yet, I'm not seeing a reasonable argument not to do this. Based on the high number of allegations by former MEK members in the article, this is WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I think the section on IRI allegations against MEK calls for undue attention to certain POVs and hence should be merged into the article, if anything is to be done, unless those POVs are counter balanced under that section. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What on earth does the nature of the press in Iran have to do with the material of "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section which referred to non-Iranian sources?Saff V. (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would caution strongly against sectioning the article by POV, rather than by subject. It's been tried elsewhere; it tends to turn into an NPOV disaster. However, contentious opinions, and/or opinions that are not from reliable sources but from involved parties, should always be used only with in-text attribution. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that conflicts can arise from organizing certain sections through POV, but the problem I'm finding in this particular instance with the allegations of former MEK members in the article is that, without exception, they all consist of consistent defamatory allegations that aren't backed up by anything else except their own statements. Also taking into consideration that there is a Disinformation through recruited MEK members, I feel that spreading these allegations throughout the article helps create an inaccurate narrative (one where we have arguments presented by expert scholars, and countered by defamatory allegations of former MEK members). I think this fails our encyclopedic endeavours, but if nobody else thinks this is problematic, we'll just let this be. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you want to say with "I'm finding in this particular instance with the allegations of former MEK members in the article is that, without exception, they all consist of consistent defamatory allegations that aren't backed up by anything else except their own statements."?Saff V. (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: That quote is pretty self-explanatory. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Sectioning based on POV is often easier than any other method, but it is a really bad idea. In this case, if the allegations are made only by the Iranian government and its outlets, and not repeated/reported by independent RS, then they shouldn't be in the article; if they have been reported on by reliable sources, then surely those sources also comment on the allegations? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your feedback. These are some of the statements by former MEK members currently in the article that I find to be problematic:

• Maryam Rajavi has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."

• According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."

• According to former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, "[l]ooking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ideological opportunism within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs".

Except for the last statement (which derives from a chapter in a book written by former MEK member Masoud Banisadr), the sources don't comment on the allegations themselves. I think that if journalists here were commenting on these allegations, then that would be safe to include. Instead, what we are including are the allegations themselves, which are not backed by any source or evidence. These are paired up throughout the article with the research of respected scholars, so we seem to be treating them equally, but they are really not equal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well that's not ideal (in that it would have been easier if the sources had analysed the quotes) but it is what it is. Given their independence I don't see anything policy-wise that's egregious enough for an uninvolved admin to take a stand on; you folks are going to have to sort that out through normal consensus building. But, I'd still recommend that you don't make an "allegations" section. I have never seen one of those work well. The quotes need to be worked into whatever subject they are related to; and if they are unrelated to everything else in the article, then you need to look at either adding context or removing the quotes. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde. Based on this, can anyone else here argue why these quotes shouldn't be removed from the article? I find that these three quotes by former members are unrelated to anything else in the page, and that all they do is push a POV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

why unrelated? Each of them is affiliated to an important event and describe MEK's strategy toward them such as Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Sept. 11 by vital members of the group.Saff V. (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's discuss one at a time:

• According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."

What is the context of this (rather sweeping) allegation by a former MEK member? Why is this in the article when it isn't supported by any other qualified source? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This saying belongs to the former member of the MEK's central council (not only a simple member) as well as shows the strategy of MEK toward the united state. The thinking of a member of the MEK's central council impacts the strategy of the group. In other hands, NYT is enough, there is no need for other sources. I suggest that this sentence There were celebrations at all the Mujahedeen camps on Sept. 11, add to the article following mentioned sentence.Saff V. (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., you're saying that this single (unverified) claim "the MEK 'called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America.'" by a former MEK member "shows the strategy of MEK toward the united state[s]"? @Vanamonde93: this is why it's difficult to fix WP:NPOV problems in this article. I think SMcCandlish's observations on the last ANI case you closed said it best, but there's little else I can do here beyond pointing out what looks to me like obvious WP:GAMING. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is the saying of member of the MEK's central council (not only a simple member) supported by NYT unverified? I think that it suits for "View on the United States" section and related. Just the attribution is needed, according to NYT ... Saff V. (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the claim comes from a former MEK member, and not the NYT, and it isn't backed by any other reliable journalist/commentator/scholar beyond this single claim by a former MEK member; yet, you are trying to argue that this single sweeping allegation "shows the strategy of MEK toward the united state[s]". That is the definition of WP:OR "that seems to at least border on character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand why you're displeased with this, but this specific incident is too close to a genuine content disagreement for me to intervene. I would recommend an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: To put it another way, if for example a former member of the Trump administration said that Donald Trump described "some atrocious event in Iran" as "God's revenge on Iran", would adding this text on Donald Trump's Wikipedia page be justified by saying "shows the strategy of Donald Trump towards Iran" ? (which seems to be the equivalent of Saff V.'s argument here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 

The logical equivalent, perhaps; but the fact is that there isn't a hard-and-fast rule about "allegations from disgruntled former members of an organization". It becomes a question of due weight, and it needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis; who was the person? How widely were his allegations reported? Does anyone else back them up? Who thought they were significant? etc. As such they are a matter of editorial judgement, and not something I will take a stand on as an administrator. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In terms of wp:DUEWEIGHT, this involves a single allegation by a single former member. Having said that, I understand your stance as an uninvolved admin here, and will pursue this at dispute resolutions or RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Context in sources

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

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

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

RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede

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

---

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

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

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. :

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

Struan Stevenson:

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3]

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

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

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

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

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

  Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge

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

  Terrornomics by Routledge

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

  Living in hell

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

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

What you are you searching for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronen Cohen:

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

Dilip Hiro :

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

Ervand Abrahamian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

Civilian death numbers in the lead

Based on what I see in the conclusions, Slkr does not advise one way or another. Why did you remove it @Stefka Bulgaria:?--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What did I remove what from the lede? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-insertion of repeated text

@Sa.vakilian: I removed the following text from the article (because it's already repeated in the article):

• "According to infoplease.com, more than 16,000 people have been killed in attacks by the MEK since 1979.

You then re-inserted this back into the article. Why did you re-insert it if it's already repeated in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Defining longstanding text for this article

Because this article is edited actively, I propose that longstanding text would be about a month. Either way, let's see if we can get consensus for whatever it is participants wish it to be. Opening the floor for comments... El_C 19:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 month. Your help here is greatly appreciated, El_C, thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Hope that does not count as following Stefka around!--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, It would certainly be useful to define "longstanding".Saff V. (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Barca (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about including the MEK's current principles

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

---

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[10]

Also, Why not adding the following:

"The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[11]

"Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[12]

"...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.

"the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"[13]

"Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[14]

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

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

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

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

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

We should not include it, since as I said earlier in this discussion, the proposal is against some other reliable sources. For instance, the proposal describes the MEK as being "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are sources calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin" [15]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kazemita1 - I see you added the letter and the description from this source - [16], but I don't see the letter in that source. How did you connect the image you included to that description? Barca (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

@El C: Kazemita1 included this image ([17]) based on an unpublished source ([18]). Does an unpublished document count as a reliable source in Wikipedia? Barca (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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