Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Dispute

Could you please explain on this talk page what you edit war about? Why this text should or should not be included? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Hopefully I'll have the time tomorrow.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. It seems that some kind of sock/meatpuppetry is taking place here. Hence I reverted last edit by suspicious SPA. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see he seems to be removing well sourced information while claiming it's a hoax and providing no evidence of this. He points to this section of a Wikipedia article as evidence, but the setion in no way seems to state that the offer was a hoax. Brustopher (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with this, but at the first glance, first paragraph in the section seems just fine and should be included (although possibly does not deserve a separate section), while 2nd paragraph is not clearly written. It tells about a letter found by BBC, but does not explain what was in the letter. This seems to be about secret negotiations that resulted in nothing and may be not so important in relation to subject of this page. This is possibly undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reading in further depth on the topic[1] I see why TTAC is describing it as a "hoax." It's not exactly a hoax, but it was hardly the most solid of negotiations and can't necessarily even be referred to as an serious offer. If it is to be included the current phrasing seems incorrect. Brustopher (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, there were negotiations, but how exactly they should be mentioned on this page is disputable. Saying that, you are very welcome to improve this yourself, although I feel this is probably undue or a compromise version should be written.My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of this is already explained in detail here, but the brief version is as follows. The U.S. and Iran conducted a series of high-level negotiations during 2003, including a meeting between U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad and Iranian UN ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif on May 3. On May 4, the Swiss government sent the U.S. State Department an unusual one-page memo drafted by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, which presented a "Roadmap" for peace between the U.S. and Iran and made a number of demands on both sides. This memo was not signed or on official diplomatic letterhead, but Guldimann claimed in an attached cover letter that he had developed the proposals in the "Roadmap" after consulting with the Iranian ambassador in Paris—Sadeq Kharrazi—and that it had the support of key players in Iran, including Zarif and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. According to Guldimann, Khamenei "agreed with 85-90% of the paper," although he could not obtain "a precise answer on what exactly the Leader explicitly has agreed." After this "Roadmap" became widely known in 2007, heated critics of the Bush administration, angered by the disastrous situation in Iraq, began using this new information to leap to the highly improbable conclusion that Iran had made a "Grand Bargain" to recognize Israel, pressure Hamas and Hezbollah to abandon acts of terrorism, end support for Palestinian terrorist groups from Iranian soil, and resolve the dispute over its nuclear program (which the "Roadmap" did not address explicitly or in detail, although it included a reference to "full cooperation with IAEA")—only to be frustrated by the Bush administration's march to war. There are, however, numerous reasons why the "Roadmap" cannot be construed as a serious offer.

For starters, it is clear that the proposal originated with Guldimann, an activist ambassador who wanted to be the one to achieve U.S.-Iran rapprochement—not with Iran itself. Guldimann tried to use the Iranian response to his overture as basis for bilateral negotiations between the two countries, but that is not the same thing. This has been confirmed by some of the Iranian participants. For example, in a March 30, 2006 email to Trita Parsi, Zarif refuted the notion that the "Grand Bargain" originated with Iranian officials, stating: "The claims and counter claims about the source of the proposals and motivations of intermediaries remain a mystery for me." Moreover, according to Iran/Iraq expert Michael Rubin "Guldimann told different people different things about the document's origin" while "the Swiss Foreign Ministry refused to back up Guldimann's account." In a striking admission, Guldimann even conceded that the Iranian leadership refused to budge on some 10-15% of the proposals in its own alleged document! But what really destroys the credibility of the "Grand Bargain" is the fact that Khalilzad and Zarif had met just one day prior to Guldimann's supposed diplomatic panacea: As Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's diplomatic correspondent at the time the story broke, asked: "If Iran was serious, why would such an important diplomatic undertaking be transmitted in such a haphazard way through the Swiss ambassador when one of the supposed co-authors was already holding senior-level talks with U.S. officials?"

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has vouched for the seriousness of the "Grand Bargain," thereby misleading credulous journalists into perpetuating the myth that it was real. Beyond the fact that Wilkerson has increasingly become a whackjob known for outrageous claims, such as that the Ghouta chemical attack may have been "an Israeli 'false flag' operation," it is worth noting that he would not have been involved in drafting policy related to the memo in his position as chief of staff. However, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage—a major advocate for dialogue with Iran—was, and recounted that U.S. officials "couldn't determine what was the Iranians' and what was the Swiss ambassador's" and "nothing that we were seeing in this fax was in consonance with what we were hearing face to face."

How is this even related to the MKO? Well, the "Roadmap" demanded a number of concessions from the U.S., including an end to "all sanctions" and threats of regime change, granting Iran "access to peaceful nuclear technology, biotechnology and chemical technology," and the "pursuit" and "repatriation of MKO-members [in Iraq]" to Iran. I removed the section because the first paragraph was redundant, irrelevant, and covered elsewhere in the article—while the second paragraph, on the alleged "Grand Bargain," was only tangentially related to the MKO. I strongly reject the theory that material can never be removed once added to Wikipedia, as I believe the end result of such thinking would be to turn this encyclopedia into a vast cesspool of claims and counter-claims, impossible to navigate by a casual reader with no framework of knowledge. However, if deletion is not an option, the only alternative would be to significantly revise and expand the second paragraph to better reflect the reality of what the "Grand Bargain" actually was. I would rather not embark on such a path, as this material is clearly undue for an article devoted to the MKO, and an expansion would only compound that problem. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are welcome to modify or remove this text, especially since there was no any reasonable objections on this page from another "side" of the dispute. No objections from me. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"For starters, it is clear that the proposal originated with Guldimann, an activist ambassador who wanted to be the one to achieve U.S.-Iran rapprochement—not with Iran itself. "

What you're doing here is engaging in speculation and independent research. This is not a justifiable basis for removing material with credible sources (e.g. BBC). Moreover, posts in iranianforum.com are not credible, and cannot be used as a basis for your proposed removal.SupaEdita (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That does not look convincing at all. You can not just tell: "hey, there is something published in an RS, let's put it here!" One should look at multiple RS and briefly summarize their content. Otherwise, this will be an indiscriminate collection of claims. After looking at this, I tend to agree with Brustopher (that was not a serious offer if an offer at all) and TheTimesAreAChanging (this is something highly complicated which does not belong to this page). And no one is engaging in speculation and independent research. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What TheTimesAreAChanging is doing is Independent Research. For instance: "For starters, it is clear that the proposal originated with Guldimann, an activist ambassador who wanted to be the one to achieve U.S.-Iran rapprochement—not with Iran itself." That is not acceptable grounds for insertion or deletion of content in a WP article. SupaEdita (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is what one Iran expert, Michael Rubin, has to say about the alleged "Grand Bargain": "The paper went nowhere; it was clear to all involved that it was Guldimann's proposal and had little to do with Tehran ... Guldimann's suggestion that the proposal came from Iran was bizarre. The United States and Iran were already deep in dialogue, with British foreign secretary Jack Straw as the high-level intermediary. In 2003, Iran's U.N. ambassador, Mohammad Javad Zarif, met U.S. diplomats Zalmay Khalilzad and Ryan Crocker in Paris and Geneva. Indeed, Khalilzad met Zarif the day before Guldimann delivered his Iranian 'breakthrough.'" WP:Original research does not apply to talk page discussions, and does not override our prerogative to exercise editorial discretion on matters such as due weight and the demonstrable errors of even nominally reliable sources. It most certainly does not apply to allegations directly made by reliable sources such as Rubin. How can you defend the BBC's outdated reporting from 2007 and Wilkerson's highly improbable claims while dismissing all other evidence as "speculation"? Clearly, the version of the facts that has been presented in this article is contested by numerous prominent experts. To ignore that reality and simply attempt to restore the old status quo through continuous edit warring is not a constructive response. If you disagree with the growing consensus supporting deletion, it would be wiser to suggest a compromise version, although first you should try to define why this an important topic that merits significant coverage here. If your goal is simply to bash the United States or to analyze the history of missed opportunities in Iran-United States relations, there are other articles for that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is complete childishness. Stop removing well sourced information. The consensus is agaisnt you and yor political agenda.

Michael Rubin is not a credible source on the issue. He is a "resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute", which was one of the prime movers for making a case for war against Iraq. A link to http://www.meforum.org offering the opinion of a neoconservative is not a justification for removing a large well-sourced section SupaEdita (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The draft of the grand bargain proposal created by Iran's negotiator, Mohammad Zarif, is here: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20070429_iran-memo-red.pdf More on the grand bargain proposal: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/irans-proposal-for-a-grand-bargain/?_r=0 SupaEdita (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You've yet to explain what any of this has to do with the MKO, or why this discussion isn't as massively undue/irrelevant as it appears. And, no, the consensus of three out of the four editors who have left comments here is not against me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Quickly looking at links by SupaEdita above (pdf, blog, etc.), I am not convinced at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, by conceding that the proposal was not Iranian in origin—but that the Iranians may have responded or made edits to it—SupaEdita is moving the goalpost. This does not, however, solve the fundamental problem of giving massively undue weight to something which manifestly was not seriously considered by either side, and which is also completely off-topic for an article about the MKO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The alleged Grand Bargain Offer is a topic of major discussion, and significant importance is attached to it in the history of Iran-US relations. Moreoever, one of the key elements of the alleged Grand Bargain Offer was Iran's request that the US disband and disarm the MKO. That makes it highly relevant to the topic of the page. Now whether this was "something which manifestly was not seriously considered by either side" is not an established fact. It's certainly a claim made by some sources, but other credible sources, including the New York Times and the BBC, say that the offer came from the highest levels of the Iranian government. Given credible sources supporting this point of view, and given the alleged offer included a demand to disband the MKO, I would say it deserves at least this short mention in the article. SupaEdita (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that in my latest edit, I've changed the original section to address the concerns you and TTAC have expressed about the veracity of some of the claims. I've prefaced the "negotiations between Tehran and Washington" with "alleged", and mentioned the POV of the skeptics of this account, to make clear that there is controversy over the historicity of the Grand Bargain. SupaEdita (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dorpater: Read the discussion here and actually comment before reverting again. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen any further discussion since I asked Dorpater to discuss matters here (the deletions are indeed explained here), so the above discussion I'm assuming still has consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean everyone but one person agreeing, FYI. Three vs one in support of a position is stretching the meaning of consensus. By all means join the discussion and provide your input. If you side with the three, that would be a stronger case for consensus. SupaEdita (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

One person ignoring that everyone else is in agreement on something is not some total vacuum of consensus where anything goes. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Three hold a position. I am aware of this, and I hold a different position. I have explained why I disagree with the three. There's no ignoring happening here, there's simply me disagreeing, for stated reasons. As it is, the original content was deleted without consensus. We don't need consensus to restore the original content, since the original change happened without consensus. We need consensus to make this removal permanent. Otherwise, any group could delete content amid disagreement, and then claim that unless there's consensus to restore it, it should remain removed. As I've suggested several times, perhaps others, like yourself, could review the content, and weigh in. Three vs one is not consensus. But four vs one starts getting closer to it. Five vs one arguably is, etc. So please restore the content until this issue is resolved.

Please also note that I have made many edits to address the concerns of TTAC about the original content. Instead of modifying my version, the reaction by TTAC has always been the same: revert my edit, and often with contrived justifications, like the claim that I used the term 'neocons' (I did not - I used the term 'neoconservatives', and even this, TTAC objects to, because they claim it will influence the reader, as if their job is to censor completely accurate information if it might lead the reader to reach conclusions TTAC considers wrong).

Also please note that I've also removed the mention of the term 'neoconservatives'. Nothing so far has satisfied TTAC or MyVeryBestWishes. Please don't make 'consensus' the standard for reverting this change that was originally made without consensus.SupaEdita (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Two against one can make a consensus, so the three of them have indeed established a consensus. "We need consensus" is ideally neutral to whether we keep or remove material, but in practice we usually need consensus to keep debated material. If you want more editors' views, try WP:DRN. And per WP:BRD, it's actually normal for content to be removed while it's being discussed.

The core of TTAC's issue is that the sourced material at Iran–United_States_relations#Alleged_.22Grand_Bargain.22_proposal rather clearly indicates that the offer was a hoax by a Swiss diplomat and that the sources you cited were mistaken. If you seriously want me to weigh in: the material you're adding sounds like a politically biased conspiracy theory using outdated sources that were duped by a proven hoax. As much as I enjoyed bashing Bush back in the day and as much as I'll still personally blame the Bush administration for a variety of today's problems, even I have to admit that the sources you cite are outdated and limited, and that there's no reason to believe that Iran made any offer. Pretending that the information here was just a suggestion by "one commentator" while taking the clearly mistaken reports at face value is in no way addressing the core issue that the material you are adding is a hoax. In fact, it seems rather disingenuous. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please direct me to where in that page that you've linked, it implies that "two against one can make a consensus", because that is a rather odd assertion to make, considering by definition consensus means all parties agreeing.

I am still waiting for you to show me which source that TTAC has provided proves that the offer was a "hoax". SupaEdita (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The third opinion page assumes that a third opinion is all that's necessary to reach a consensus. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." The Washington Post article that you cited in an attempted revision (as just "a commentator") was written by a former advocate of the Grand Bargain myth. This other source Says "The grand bargain was a fantasy."

Also, there is the Rubin source. Your concerns of reliability over that source would be more valid if a former advocate of the Grand Bargain myth didn't later agree with Rubin. Then there's still the issue that outside of his work with the AEI, he's otherwise trusted by the likes of Yale and Johns Hopkins. While I would not accept something he says in isolation, if additional sources agree with him, he's reliable.

And there's still the problems that the material is WP:UNDUE. The grand bargain only touched on the MKO in one small piece and was not focused on them or their history. It's about as appropriate to include here as it would be at the article Weapon of mass destruction. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus also says "nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". When I have outstanding legitimate concerns about the deletion of a section, that had not been responded to in the Talk section, I can't see how you can say there is a "consensus" for the section's removal.

I described Kessler as 'just "a commentator"' because I didn't know a better way to describe him. A pundit? A writer? I didn't know he formerly believed in Iran making a Grand Bargain offer. In the Washington Post article, he doesn't explicitly say that the Grand Bargain Offer didn't originate in Iran. He stated that it was communicated by the Swiss, but on the question of origination, he does not stake a position either way. He provides various perspectives, and concludes that it wasn't a "serious offer". In any case, you claimed that it's a "proven hoax". A "proven hoax"! The exclamation mark is because there is such a wide divergence between citing the opinion of Kessler, and a handful of other sources, who either either think the offer was not serious, or that it originated from the Swiss ambassador, and the notion that it's proven to be hoax. May I remind you that there are sources that believe the offer was real? So far we have conflicting opinions, and no conclusive proof either way. I have to say that I find your use of the term "myth" and "proven hoax" to border on intellectually dishonest, unless I'm overlooking some evidence for it being a "proven hoax" and "myth" that you've provided. SupaEdita (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Kessler is the Washington Post's former diplomatic correspondent and an expert on nuclear proliferation, particularly with regard to Iran, thus it would be disingenuous to dismiss his work as mere "punditry".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any trivialising connotations of "punditry". If it indeed connotes that, I'm happy to refrain from describing Kessler's commentary using that term. I'm still waiting for you to address the rest of my comments. I'd point out that in the current situation, there is no clear consensus or even a strong case for the section being removed, with several of my points outstanding. I would like to reinsert the section, barring consensus on its removal. Do you have objections to temporary restoration, pending the conclusion of this discussion? SupaEdita (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You've just been informed by an admin that this discussion constitutes a solid consensus for removal. That means it's time for you to drop the stick.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've explained why the admin is incorrect on the characterization. I'm still waiting for a response. It's time for you to address my comments, instead of trying to ram through your position with appeals to authority. SupaEdita (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This probably reflects far worse on me than anyone else, but I just discovered SupaEdita's unsuccessful attempt to elicit support from like-minded meatpuppets on Reddit. Tsk, tsk!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on People's Mujahedin of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5io7JDsaA?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2Flibrary%2Fpubs%2Frn%2F2002-03%2F03rn43.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn43.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711015754/http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm to http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82738.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hjs.byteart.com/stories.asp?id=401
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/EDITORIAL/112040004

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Logo Fix

The logo was updated to the correct version. The date on the previous logo does not match the official logo used on the organization website.Carpe765 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pahlevun, the logo you have uploaded contains the incorrect date. I have uploaded the correct logo used by the organization, which can be seen on their website. Carpe765 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carpe765: I did not upload the logo. Pahlevun (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

NLA Infobox

Pahlevun, this subject does not constitute a dedicated infobox. It is a small aspect of the article and gives undue weight. Reliable sources do not refer to the organization as this name. Carpe765 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It does, because "The Mojahedin's identity resided in the proclaimed militancy". MKO's armed wing was established in 1971 and has been active for most of its lifetime. See The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research and Encyclopedia of Terrorism for instance, as reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun, thanks for responding and taking the time to point out those books. However, these three books do not change that a dedicated infobox gives undue weight. In addition to being outdated (1995, 2007, 2011), the first book does not even mention National Liberation Army of Iran. Please keep in mind that removing the infobox is not removing mention of NLA from the article entirely. Carpe765 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The first source indicates that it is not undue weight, because MKO's armed activity is a very important part of its essence. The infobox provides useful information and is not a "name mention": a.Conflicts participated b.Flag c.Leaders d.Years active e.Allies. I don't see any problems with the sources cited, they are regarded reliable by Wikipedia's content guideline. If you have any questions regarding the sources, please ask WP:RSN. Pahlevun (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun, three books do not give weight. It is not a widely supported aspect. Undue weight also pertains to balancing. The NLA infobox is considered disproportionate to its overall significance to the article topic. Infoboxes are not intended to be created for every aspect of an article. Please keep in mind that removing the infobox is not removing the NLA section from the article. Carpe765 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is. There are tons of reliable sources supporting the fact that MKO is a highly militarized organization, and the infobox summarizes key features of its activity, providing useful information listed above to the reader. Pahlevun (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Pahlevun, since we have not reached a solution, I invite other editors of this article to weigh in. Carpe765 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You did not make a counter-argument for what I said. We cannot remove reliable content providing useful information simply because you think it is "undue weight". You are free to tage it with a Template:Undue weight or invite others to comment, but remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy to vote, you should make reasons. Pahlevun (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pahlevun, continuing to add and expand this infobox is giving undue weight. This subject does not constitute a dedicated infobox. Carpe765 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It clearly does, the sources are speaking. Pahlevun (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Pahlevun, that's your personal opinion, that does not make it the final decision to keep it. There are more important aspects of this article then the information you added to an infobox. This does not mean an infobox should be created for every aspect of this article. Carpe765 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already explained why the infobox is useful above, but you don't make reasons and repeat your own "personal opinion" over and over again. That organization is highly militarized and has been involved in several conflicts since 1970s, and its armed wing is a very part of it according to reliable sources. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Pahlevun (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

PMK & the Israel/Palestine Controversy

In the beginning, PMK used to criticize the Pahlavi regime for allying with Israel and South Africa [Abrahamian p. 98]; even calling them 'racist' states and demanding cancellation of all political and economic agreements with them[Abrahamian p. 185]. The Central Cadre established contact with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), by sending emissaries to Paris, Dubai, and Qatar to meet PLO officials. In one occasion, seven leading members of PMK spent several months in the PLO camps in Jordan and Lebanon[Abrahamian p. 127]. On August 3rd 1972, they bombed the Jordanian embassy as a means to revenge King Hussein's unleashing his troops on the PLO in 1970. [Abrahamian p. 140]

Yet, they teamed up with Israel to conduct terrorist operations against the Iranian people as a means to revenge the Iranian regime.[2][3]

I can see this was added by user:Kazemita1 back in 2014. This does indicate links with PLO and verbal criticism of Israel. Alleged relations with Israel in regard to the nuclear program are described in the proper section in the article already.GreyShark (dibra) 21:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: The content was incorporated into related sections. Pahlevun (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Pahlevun please discuss here on the Talk Page before making large edits to the page. Your editing is aggressive and you continue to do so without explanation of your changes. By doing this you are not allowing other editors to help. Carpe765 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and those editors who really want to "help", tend to make reasons, not just removing content and accusing other users of "Disruptive Editing". Pahlevun (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User Pahlevun is making continuous edits based on very biased sources intended to discredit the organization and to dis inform the public. Over the course of past month numerous edits have made a monster out of the organization that is the main opposition to the Iranian government. This is wrong and shouldn't continue. He with the help of another user Denarivs are blocking any attempts to neutralize the texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickRovinsky (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC) NickRovinsky (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop commenting on users and assume good faith, I will not tolerate such remarks again. If you have any arguments, bring it with you. Pahlevun (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User Pahlevun, We are all contributing to the page. But adding biased, one sided and un verified sources, like papers written by some students is misinforming the public and may well be part of the disinformation campaign run by the Iranian regime against its opposition groups. Almost 90% of the sources used are of this nature. This is called vandalism and must be stopped.NickRovinsky (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You have to be specific and name the "papers written by some students" that are "misinforming the public and may well be part of the disinformation campaign run by the Iranian regime against its opposition groups" or your remarks would be regarded baseless. Pahlevun (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

User Pahlevun-Removal of the designation- You are breaching the Wikipedia rules by adding extra weight on the writer of an article that is using an un-identified source, making an extra ordinary allegation against the organization, when introducing the writer as "Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh".NickRovinsky (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you are not mentioning "papers written by some students" that are "part of the disinformation campaign run by the Iranian regime", because there is not any. You should make reasons to support your claim, not just throwing accusations. Considering that you have recently joined Wikipedia, I highly reccomend you to read Wikipedia:Five pillars to get familiar with it. Pahlevun (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

MEK's presence in Iraq

I've taken a look at the text's portrayal of the MEK's presence in Iraq. The earlier version seemed rather opinionated and slanted against the MEK. It said the decision was viewed as "treason by the vast majority of Iranians". That's an author's personal opinion. In Iran under the current dictatorship, I think it'd be safe to say that by and large people can't express their opinions freely without repercussions. Please note the article points out that many thousands were executed in Iran for expressing support for the MEK. I've tried to give it a more factual take, since the MEK's movement to Iraq was intertwined with their 'peace plan' which was accepted by the former Iraqi government and which gained international support from MPs and political parties around the world that sought to bring an end to the Iran-Iraq war. I've included several references, including a link to the Council of Europe resolution adopted endorsing this peace plan. But to be honest I feel a lot more work needs to be done to fix this section of the text and I'm open to any positive changes that would better reflect the facts and tidy up the text. btw, since I'm new to Wikipedia's editing methods, please bear with me if I make too many minor edits. If that's a problem, please someone let me know. Thanks. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The amendments I added (explained above) were deleted without any reason provided. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we keep our feelings and opinions for ourselves, and the reliable sources may speak. Your change was simply replacing the summary of MEK's history in 1980s, as published by Oxford University Press, a highly reliable scholarly peer reviewed work, with a synthesis of material published by mickey mouse outlets. That's not acceptable, especially in the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (linked to on the Council's website) is not what could be described as "mickey mouse" outlet. In any case the allegation that the MEK's move was seen as "treason by the vast majority of Iranians" is simply that - it's an allegation. It's not possible to gauge the public opinion of the MEK inside Iran under the current theocracy that executes people for speaking in favour of the group. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The EU resolution states:

by similarly supporting the action of all Iranians opposed to the war, and especially that of the Iranian National Council of Resistance which is demanding the end of hostilities between the two countries and a negotiated settlement of the conflict

1. First of all, it is mentioning National Council of Resistance of Iran, not MEK. The NCRI in 1980s, is not the same as the NCRI today.
2. It does not imply that "The PMOI’s peace plan in 1983 received the backing of more than 5,000 political parties and MPs and personalities internationally and the Iranian population", what you have added to the article.

The rest of the sources are "mickey mouse" and content is clearly synthesis. Pahlevun (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

MEK Victim of Disinformation Campaign

This section is very essential not to be deleted, since over 80% of the information on the main article are in reality part of the dis information campaign initiated by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in order to discredit the MEK/PMOI which is its main opposition, seeking a democratic and secular republic. Hence the fair approach will be to give some heads up to any reader to know the information provided is offering a negative view on the organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#cite_note-34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickRovinsky (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Crowd renting

I've deleted the section called crowd renting. It has nothing to do with the history of an organisation established more than 51 years ago and considered to me Iranian regime's main foe. The sources quoted were very dubious. One was Kenneth R. Timmerman who is open about his opposition to the MEK. (He had been quote twice but in different internet pages. The other is identified on the link as a Kyrgyz student. That's not representative of mainstream opinions. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. I attributed the content to the sources. Pahlevun (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but just saying that a source is reliable doesn't mean it is so. The source article is written by an author who has repeatedly and publicly voiced opposition to the MEK. The other is, according to the source itself, written by a student from Kyrgyzstan. I wouldn't in good conscience be able to accept that as a valid source for a controversial argument about a group which is known to be the main target of the Iranian regime's slander. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia accepts works published by independent sources with an editorial oversight like FrontPage Magazine, Free Republic or RFE/RL, even if their author is against a particular cause. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you still have any problem with the sources, bring your concern to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Removal of the content attributed to reliable sources would be reverted. Pahlevun (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)st

This is from Page 115 of "Breaking the Stalemate" (2015) by distinguished scholars & researchers Cheryl Benard, Austin Long, Angel Rabasa and Eli Sugarman: "Third, the organization is able to mobilize substantial support internationally. Its annual rally in Paris attracts thousands of participants every year, including major public figures. Its detractors explain this attendance through the financial incentives it alleges the participants receive and the expensive machinery of preparation (multiple bus convoys ferrying attendees from other European cities and countries, rent of a huge hall, perfect choreography of the day-long event and glamorous speakers) but even assuming this is correct, this hardly diminishes the impressiveness of the group’s financial and logistical abilities, both of which are critical to effective political action. Moreover, it is unlikely that such large numbers of people would attend the rather exhausting day-long rally if they did not feel sincerely supportive of the group, or that all of the highly distinguished American and European dignitaries would compromise their reputations and subject themselves to the borderline slanderous vituperation of their critics if their support of the MEK cause were not sincerely meant. Given their biographies, positions and financial success in life, the accusation that all of these people can be bought for an airline ticket to Paris and a speaker’s honorarium seems implausible." These scholars & researchers have evaluated and rejected the crowd-renting charge against the MEK. The alternative sources presented by Pahlevun were a Kyrgyz student and Kenneth R. Timmerman (who has openly declared his opposition to the MEK). I believe this section, which seems extremely slanted against the MEK, does not merit to be included on Wikipedia's more general biography of the MEK. I am therefore deleting the section once again. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that's an argument, despite your wrong conclusion on content removal. The book you qouted, is written by someone who is suspected to be linked to MEK financially and published by her own organization, which seeks to improve outcomes of development aid investments. So, even it may be considered scholarly (I'm not really sure), it is not regarded peer reviewed for sure and is not the best source. But, it could be added to the article, as a commentary attributed to the writer(s?). However it is not a reason to remove the section. I restore the section and add the source you provided. Pahlevun (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The book has been written by three current and former RAND researchers and scholars and a former Foreign Affairs Officer at the U.S. Department of State. The sources provided to the contrary are a 'student' and a person who has publicly declared his opposition to the MEK, hence the section is not warranted. Furthermore, since the book I quoted is written by 4 authors, not one, the claim that the person may be "linked to the MEK" is not valid for degrading the source. I notice Pahlevun put up an FT.com link to an article making an accusation against one of the 4 authors. That accusation was looked at and rejected by the courts, and here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/11/austrian-court-lifts-bank-account-freeze-for-ex-us-diplomat-zalmay-khalilzad.html I'll be deleting the section again. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

My point was to just demonstrate a counterargument for what you said. An author supporting/opposing a group or even with a possible conflict of interest on the subject may be used asa source, that's not an issue here in Wikipedia, IF the content is attributed to a source which is verifiable and reliable. Because While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral. The source is simply self-published, as it is published by the organization headed by the first author and thus not peer reviewed. However I added your source to the article to make it balanced. That does not mean that it is a perfect source or it presents a fact. You cannot remove the section because it is both verifiable and worth mentioning. Pahlevun (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

the student from Kyrgyzstan? was that a joke I didn't understand? I am willing to believe this as I am just here wondering about the link to French judiciary court. I found that Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Crowd renting cannot be considered to be an integral part of the explanation about Iran's largest opposition group with a 51-year history. Quoting a student from Kyrgyzstan is not a valid source. The other source, as pointed out repeated in the talk section above, is by Kenneth Timmerman who has publicly announced his opposition to the MEK. They're just not reliable on such an irrelevant issue which seems to be more about demonizing the group than about explaining the group's history. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Removed the paragraph "In 2012, the MEK were accused by the Iranian government and US officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, of being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service.[37][126][127] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[128] The MEK denied any involvement in the assassinations and the existence of any alliance with Israel." in the section "Iran's nuclear programme" as it is already mentioned in the section "MEK Victim of Disinformation Campaign" together with the official rejection of these accusations by the Iranian coalition, NCRI (that includes MEK), which was published by the NBC News as the official response to their story. One alternative is to move the relevant text from "MEK Victim of Disinformation Campaign" section to "Iran's nuclear programme" section. TheDreamBoat (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User Denarivs and Pahlevun, are deleting any information on this article that offers a neutral view on the organization. The entire article is filled with disinformation that is unjust and unfair. The attempt to provide a different view on any of the allegations made has been erased by both users, which shows that they have an agenda to abuse Wikipedia and to disinform the public. Your actions are illegal and will only make Wikipedia a misinformation platform for the Iranian government.NickRovinsky (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The changes made to the original article by user Pahlevun are completely biased and with intention to demonize the organization that is known and introduced by various independent sources as the main opposition to the ruling elite in Iran. The sources, like a paper by Aaron Schwartz that relies on outdated sources, are not a proper source to discredit the organization. In general using the neutral point of view makes the use of such sources absolutely against the Wikipedia rules.

Many editors have previously warned "Pahlevun" and his colleague "Denarivs" for the aggressive, biased and unfair edits they have been making over the course of the past two and half months, but they have continued with the work and the obvious agenda.NickRovinsky (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be working on cleaning up the lead, to adhere to MOS:LEAD. Some of this information isn't necessary to include or could be moved to the body, as the lead should be a concise overview. It may take me some time to work through this. Tigereconomy (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

All you did is just removing well-sourced material. Pahlevun (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun, as I mentioned above, some of the information in the lead isn't necessary to include or could be moved to the body. The lead should be a quick summary, and many of these details are already discussed in article body or could be moved there. It will take some time to work through this section. --Tigereconomy (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Before you remove anything, you should explain why it is not "necessary". If there is a consensus, then we change it. Pahlevun (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun, thank you for your response. A common issue among articles is notability (WP:N). The "designated “terrorist organization” by Iran" is not widely discussed across reliable sources, and for this reason, the sentence was removed. Additionally, the source provided is outdated. The former listing by EU, Canada and the US are mentioned because there is a significant amount of reliable sources covering this. I hope this helped to clarify.Tigereconomy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:N is not right, the guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic [=MKO] should have its own article. The Iranian designation is definitly worth mentioning in the lead, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and there is no reason for the source to be outdated, the designation has not changed ever since. Pahlevun (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The current lead is very slanted against the MEK. It states: "The group has no popular base of support inside Iran". This is very biased indeed. Here's a source which challenges that argument: Page 115 of "Breaking the Stalemate" (2015) by distinguished scholars & researchers Cheryl Benard, Austin Long, Angel Rabasa and Eli Sugarman: "In the course of the anti-regime demonstrations in 2009, many MEK supporters were arrested, and some were later executed. The official indictments that led to the executions of three MEK supporters in 2010 and 2011 – Messer Ali Saremi, Mohammad Ja’far Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Aghaei – contained no allegations of violent acts. Rather, they were accused of providing news and reports on the domestic situation for MEK TV, recruiting members, raising funds for the organization, and organizing anti-government protests. In addition to those who were executed, others died due to mistreatment and lack of medical treatment in prison." Their research states that many MEK supporters were arrested, thus it's safe to say that they do have a base of support in Iran. Additionally, one cannot really gauge the level of support the MEK currently have in Iran because people in that country are not free to express their opinion, and a simple public declaration of support for the group can end a person up in jail, facing torture or even execution. As such I am deleting that reference. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the source does not support your claim. Plus, even if it did, it is not a reliable as Brookings Institution work. Pahlevun (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The accusation that Iraq has designated the group on its terrorist list doesn't have a citation so I'm not convinced it's accurate, and in any case it's not the most relevant point to warrant it's inclusion at line two of group's introduction. I'll be deleting it at the top. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It has a citation, see People's Mujahedin of Iran#Designation as a terrorist organization. Pahlevun (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

At first glance I noticed one of the sources cited is part of Iran's state-run media (http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/). Secondly as mentioned above, Iraq's viewpoint about the MEK should not be in the second sentence of an article introducing Iran's largest opposition group. It's an Iranian issue, not an Iraqi one. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you want to prove? Iranian Diplomacy is not a state-run media, and even if it were, there is no problem with it. Note that the other source is Time magazine and the fact is unquestionable. The point is actually worth mentioning because the group has been stationed in Iraq for more than two decades and still is active there. Pahlevun (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

and In general edits by user "Pahlevun" seem to focus on an effort to label the MEK with various nasty adjectives, rather than facts. This is against Wikipedia's practice. The section about MEK supporting the hostage taking is inaccurate and has been denied by various sources. The same paragraph blames the MEK for waging war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, although other sources in this page refer the same period as a period of terror against opponents of the Islamic Republic.TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you please stop commenting on me and provide "various sources" for "MEK supporting the hostage taking is inaccurate"? Because they actually did support it and even condemned release of the American hostages.

Following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, the MEK participated physically at the site by assisting in defending it from attack. The MEK also offered strong political support for the hostage-taking action

— Mark Edmond Clark (2016), "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq", in David Gold (ed.), Terrornomics, Routledge, p. 66–67, ISBN 1317045904

The MEK endorsed the taking of American embassy personnel hostage in 1979 and subsequently condemned Khomeini's decision to release the hostages in January of 1981

— Hitha Prabhakar (2012), Black Market Billions: How Organized Retail Crime Funds Global Terrorists, FT Press, p. 262, ISBN 9780132180245

Well, it is hard to not mention you because your edits only depicts MEK as terrorist, cult or a violent group, which is not true because many courts have look at this and finally rejected these issues by rejecting the terror label on the group. With regards to the Hostage taking, Professor Ivan Sascha Sheehan Writes in (*) "If observers today want to assign to the MEK a measure of enduring opprobrium for an alleged organized role in directing the 1979 Embassy takeover and perpetuating the hostage crisis, they must not only overcome evidence to the contrary, but offer a historically credible narrative." *ISBN 978-0-615-78384-0, Bloomfield Book, The Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK Shackled By A Twisted History, Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr. / Foreword by Professor Ivan Sascha Sheehan

In addition, the BBC did a three episode documentary in 2009 called "Iran and the West" recounting the relation between Iran and the West from 1979 to 2009. In there senior Iranian officials like Rafiqhdoost says that its was student supporting Islamic republic Party were responsible for the hostage taking at the U.S. Embassy. The documentary does not even mention the MEK being involved and neither does Rafiqhdoost. In fact, Tehran celebrate this event yearly as a victory for the Islamic Revolution, which the MEK will hardly support at any time. So I think I have a standing from more reliable sources that refutes the idea of MEK supporting the hostage crisisTheDreamBoat (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The article does not "Blame" anyone for anything, it is just stating a "fact" acknowledged by the scholarly peer reviewed source cited, which is a handful of pile. Pahlevun (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Fraud and money laundering

I've deleted the United Kingdom sub-section in the "Fraud and money laundering" section. It makes factually incorrect charges against a group that is currently active. The source quoted in the IBT article has clearly written at the top of the article that it is an opinion piece (not a news item). The second source Terrornomics is again an opinion analysis and not based on any court evidence, however that source actually makes the allegation quoting the Iran-Interlink website whose stated purpose is to work to bring an end to the MEK. That's in no way balanced. In any case, the UK dropped all charges so the sub-section is irrelevant. Though I feel this whole "Fraud and money laundering" section perhaps ought to be deleted entirely given the slanted nature. I'll look more closely at it. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

All these sources are considered reliable sources. Terrornomics is a scholarly peer reviewed work published by the renowned Routledge, as well as RAND corporation's policy conundrum. You cannot remove them, but you can add your content if there is reliable source for it. Pahlevun (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You may argue that the sources are reliable, while I would argue that they are not. In any case the more important factor is that the whole allegation is out of date because the UK never actually pursued the case and the charges were dropped against Iran Aid. No court of law has validated the financial charges being made here against the MEK, thus it is unethical to make this a section of Wikipedia's explanation about the group. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is just invalid and the sources are reliable. Feel free to ask Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ethics does not work here, but Wikipedia:Verifiability does, because "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Your removal would be reverted. Pahlevun (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This section is based primarily on a single source. A single source is not enough to verify exceptional claims. Accuracy and neutrality is disputed because only a single source is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcomer1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore the sub-section related to France does not warrant inclusion either since as reported by Reuters on 17 September 2014 "all charges of money laundering and fraud" were dropped against the group. So when the section as it's written accuses the group of money laundering and fraud it is wrong to put up a sub-section related to France regarding a case that was thrown out by the courts. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The section does not judge wether they were guilty or not, it is just asserting facts and this is how an encyclopedia should be. Pahlevun (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact is that France's prosecuting judge dropped all charges against the group and admitted that there was never a case. So the sub-section shouldn't be there or else it will just confuse Wikipedia's readers. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

the juge d'instruction dropped the case? But after 11 years? Any court case is notable that takes that long to close. What was the name of this case? Elinruby (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what has been written in the article. We put it there and let the reader decide. I have no objection to moving it to the section People's Mujahedin of Iran#2003 French arrest, however it should not be removed from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The section should be rewritten. It only gives information based on a minority view and does not provide all the facts.Citieslife (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the majority view then? It is citing multiple sources. Pahlevun (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, a section header called "Fraud and money laundering" on the MEK's biography certainly implies to a first-time reader that the group was probably involved in some sort of financial wrong-doing. In light of that, it's very important to look objectively at the facts. By 'facts' I mean actual court verdicts confirming any allegation. For starters the 'France' sub-section should be entirely removed since Reuters reported on 17 September 2014 "all charges of money laundering and fraud" were dropped against the MEK. Is far as I know the courts in the UK dropped the case against Iran Aid, and furthermore they never took up a case against the MEK itself. I will check to see what other outside sources are available. Please bear in mind that media articles that were published prior to the actual outcome of a court inquiry may have factually incorrect and disproven claims. In any case, I think the entire "Fraud and money laundering" section should be removed entirely given the automatic assumption of guilt that is associated with the title for new readers. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Paid advocacy

This section causes more harm than good to Wikipedia. None of the sources quoted actually state that the MEK itself paid any money to the U.S. officials mentioned. In fact, the Washington Post source quoted has specifically included a statement by the MEK's spokesperson that they “have not asked anyone in the United States to advocate for them, nor do they have any agents or lobbyists in that country”. One of the sources quoted is actually writtein in the form of an op-ed (commentary) article. It's stating opinions, not facts. It is inappropriate and a violation of the Wikipedia regulations to make financial charges against living persons, as had been done in this section which had listed the names of top former officials who allegedly received money from the MEK. In fact the U.S. Treasury dropped it's investigation into whether any U.S. law was broken in these officials receiving speaker's fees to give speeches, some of which did support the MEK. Given that the U.S. Treasury dropped the case, the allegations stated in the section were outdated and inappropriate false charges against living people - a violation of Wiki rules, hence why I deleted the section. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources cited and it is not a case of BLP. Which expression in the article do you object in specific? Pahlevun (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this section is two-fold: 1 - It says the MEK has paid these individuals money. I looked at all the sources quoted (regardless of their actual credibility) and all of them state at some point in the article that if speaker's fees had been paid it was done by Iranian-American associations (not the MEK). So naming a series of high-profile officials and accusing them of getting money from the MEK in breach of some law is unacceptable given that these people are still alive. Furthermore the U.S. Treasury dropped it's investigation so none of the charges claimed against these officials stand. The other problem with this section is the fact that it mis-portrays a simple act: some top former officials accept speaker's fees to speak at conferences. That's not exactly something new. All sorts of former officials get all sorts of speaker's fees to address events. But this is not deserving of an entire section in the biography of Iran's main opposition group. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Marxist

The MEK itself stipulates that it's not Marxist. As such Wikipedia shouldn't refer to the group as Marxist not least in the first sentence of the biography. I have deleted the reference. Further changes may be needed throughout the text. The MEK is the main member group in the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and their biography of the group states is available here. Furthermore this article by the NCRI's Ali Safavi published by the Huffington Post specifically includes a quote from MEK leader Massoud Rajavi rejecting the Marxist charge. He explains that the charge Islamic-Marxist, first brought up by the Shah's regime, was meant to demonize the group. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The word could be removed from the first sentence, but not from the whole article. Pahlevun (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I had not deleted the word Marxist from the entire article since each sentence ought to be evaluated on its merits. But certainly is should not be there in the first sentence or the info box since that would imply that the organisation (which is still in existence) also accepts this, which it does not. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the description removal, but I believe it should remain in the infobox. No reliable scholarly source says that the organization is no more Islamic Marxist, and stopping to openly call themselves so does not mean that they are not so. See Abrahamian and Barker's works as an example. Pahlevun (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

wot. I can't prove you aren't a blue cow but that doesn't mean that you are. Eleven years is a very long time. Was there a garde à vue? I am not suggesting that the length proves anything in particular but it's notable in and of itself Elinruby (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This is completely wrong and the MEK, as well as a vast number of outside independent sources describe the group as Marxist. Denarivs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Just saying it's wrong is no argument. The fact is that I've sourced the specific public quotes of the MEK's leader rejecting that their group believes in Marxism. And he has explained the fundamental differences in ideology between Muslims (who believe in God) and Marxists (who don't). It's not right to put in the infobox or in header of the article that the group believes in Marxism, when their leader has plainly and publicly said that they don't. I also notice that Denarivs has stated above (albeit without any source) that the MEK themselves have described the group as Marxist. I've never seen any statement by the MEK making such as a claim, whereas their spokespersons have written a great many public articles rejecting the Marxist charge. Obviously the Iranian regime stands to benefit by calling their main opposition group Marxists and non-believers and claiming that the group is at war with Islam and at war with God. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

MEK may claim many things:

The MEK now claims to have abandoned its revolutionary ideology in favor of liberal democracy. However, its leadership cannot present any track record to substantiate a capability or intention to be democratic.

— Mark Edmond Clark (2016), "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq", in David Gold (ed.), Terrornomics, Routledge, p. 66–68, ISBN 1317045904

—Pahlevun (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist organization

The section "Designation as a terrorist organization" is seriously wrong and misleading in its current form. The first sentence says "The countries and organizations below have officially listed MEK as a terrorist organization". It then proceeds to list the U.S., UK, EU, Canada, Australia and the UN, whereas in fact the MEK is not considered a terrorist organisation by any of them. The other countries mentioned are Iran and Iraq. Iran is itself described by the U.S. State Department as the world's "top state sponsor of terrorism". The regime obviously labels its outlawed opposition force as terrorists, but then again the French Resistance to Hitler and the American revolutionaries were all labelled terrorists by the regimes they were up against. Iraq's current government is closely allied with Iran's regime, but I've not seen any official 'terrorist list' published by their foreign or interior ministries. The U.S., UK and EU were all ordered by the courts in their countries to de-list the group. In fact there were over 20 court decisions in total, all of which found no evidence to classify the group as terrorists, and in all cases the MEK was de-listed. The UN's list mainly focuses on groups related to ISIS and Al-Qaida, but it has never included the MEK on its list. The Canadian list mirrors the U.S., so once the U.S. de-listed the group, so did Canada. Australia's list is updated every three years. The latest list published at the end of 2016 does not include the MEK. In fact, when the MEK was first put on the U.S. blacklist, a senior Clinton administration official told the Los Angeles Times at the time, "The inclusion of the People's Mujahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammed Khatami.” In an interview with BBC in 2006, Jack Straw, then British foreign secretary, admitted that the MEK was blacklisted upon a request by the Iranian regime as a concession to the mullahs. In 2012, the Spanish ambassador to Tehran acknowledged that including the MEK on the list of terrorist groups by the European Union was decided in negotiation with the Iranian regime. In any case, all these countries have now obeyed their courts and de-listed the group. The French courts were even more damning of their government's appeasement of the Iranian regime and said specifically that the MEK's actions fall in the category of legitimate armed resistance to tyranny rather terrorism. I therefore find this entire section wholly biased and suggest that it be struck off. References to the original U.S. and EU blacklisting (which the MEK contends was part of their appeasement policy towards Tehran) and the subsequent decision by the courts in those countries to reject the charge deserve mention in the article in an appropriate manner but not in a way which implies that numerous countries consider the group to be terrorists. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That does not change a thin in Wikipedia. Such tables are very common. See Hezbollah#Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Designation as a terrorist organisation as example. Pahlevun (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how it does not "change a thing" to state that these countries have officially listed the MEK as a terrorist organisation whereas they haven't. Your revert without actually addressing the content of my point is unruly. It is wrong to knowingly make a false claim. Those countries listed in the chart DO NOT list the MEK as a terrorist organisation. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

They formerly did and it is cited in the article. Pahlevun (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your version of the text says these countries have officially listed the MEK as a terrorist organization. And yet you acknowledge here in the Talk Page that this was "formerly" the case. That's a very stark contradiction. There's no logic to your case of keeping an outdated and factually incorrect chart on the page. It would perhaps be more logical if I were to add a list of all those countries that don't list the MEK as a terrorist organization today (i.e. every country minus Iran) and give that precedence given that the information is more up to date. I've already mentioned several times that the countries de-listed the group because the courts looked at the evidence and ruled that they were not terrorists. Reverting back to that factually bogus chart once again would signal to me an intent to carry out vandalism. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda campaign

This section seems biased and negatively slanted against the MEK. I just deleted a sentence which said the MEK's "proliftic international propaganda machine has been successful in misleading a considerable portion of the Western media since the 1980s." This is clearly a person's personal point of view and it is certainly not neutral. The claim that they are "misleading" people automatically has a negative connotation and should not be presented as fact. This section ought to be seriously amended or if need be deleted entirely. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't do that. It is a scholarly peer reviewed piece and joint publication of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Bring your concern to WP:RSN. Pahlevun (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but one person's point of view does not qualify for such a negatively slanted text to be included in the article. Saying someone is "misleading" people is by default a negative statement against them. It doesn't qualify as an automatic fact. Saleh Hamedi (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That certain person is an expert and this is his academic finding which is scholarly peer reviewed and jointly published by distinguished research institutes, that means something here in Wikipedia: It is reliable. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability for further information. I think I'm done explaining this. If you have any other objections, ask WP:RSN. Pahlevun (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully think that your explanation does not hold. One can argue that your large edits and massive content removal on arbitrary basis is "text added clearly bad faith or to otherwise disruptive", and should be removed per Vandalism provision. There are research from scholar on MEK that reject what seems to be your perceived narrative of the organisation as "Marxist", "Terrorist" and a "cult". You cannot remove them in order to have the page reflect your narrative and deny readers a fair reading on this subject.TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

“That certain person is an expert” is your personal opinion, Pahlevun, and does not give any more weight to that source over others. This is also an issue of Undue weight. The source in question is of minority view and does not represent the majority view. Citieslife (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Denarivs, you reverted my edit without explanation. I removed the information from the propaganda section that is based solely on one source. This is not enough to verify. Citieslife (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there are multiple sources for this section. I think that's good enough! Denarivs (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo

According to the Article's website date of establishment was 1344 not 1322. I cannot fix this due to locked article. This is the correct logo.Gharouni ^Talk 13:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead Clean

The lead needs to be revised to follow Wikipedias guidelines (MOS:LEAD). There are NPOV issues that should be addressed. I will add the appropriate template at the top of the page. DirectAttrition (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not enough. You need to be specific about what NPOV issues exist, or the tag would be deemed spurious. El_C 22:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail is given on some specific aspects. In addition, some of the information in the lead is not included in the body of the article, giving undue weight to those items. I feel the information included in the lead could be summarized better and written more from a neutral point of view. DirectAttrition (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "some of the information"? Pahlevun (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Material in the lead, particularly historical information, does provide balanced view points. Extra details are not necessary to include in the lead because it is intended to be a summary. DirectAttrition (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pahlevun, I noticed Wikipedia:Don't hijack references is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. I feel a revert of the entire edit and without prior discussion was not warranted. DirectAttrition (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and find out about it. Pahlevun (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Good Article about MEK

LONG MARCH OF THE YELLOW JACKETS: HOW A ONE-TIME TERRORIST GROUP PREVAILED ON CAPITOL HILL BY ALI GHARIB AND ELI CLIFTON

Another mention:

[4] Kerry's remarks to Albania re MEK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.56.92 (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Ownership and edit-warring

Looking at the history of this article, it seems pretty clear that one editor is reverting anything he doesn't like, and this situation has gone on for some time. The reasons for keeping this troubled article in its current state seem rather thin. --Pete (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hired Hecklers (MEK)

Hi User:Skyring. You removed Kenneth R. Timmerman's article because it was not a reliable source. I checked the Free Republic link and found that it is originally published on FrontPage Magazine. [5] Is it OK for you to replace the source or you still think it would be unreliable? Pahlevun (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks to be more of the same. We can't use blogs and discussion boards for an encyclopaedia. We need reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not when it is attributed to the author who is an expert. (WP:NEWSBLOG) I filed for comment at Reliable sources noticeboard. Pahlevun (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG covers blogs published by news outlets. Creating a blog and calling it a news outlet is not the same. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Tehran attacks

I removed the Tehran Twin Attacks paragraph because the "suspected involvement of other actors, including MEK" is not verified by multiple reliable sources. Please see WP:RS for more information. BulkData (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle, which is regarded a reliable source here in Wikipedia, wrote that some observers suspected MEK involvement, citing the organization's denial. That's all included in the article (i.e. statement of facts) and there's no problem with verification or reliability. Pahlevun (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This would have to be verified by multiple reliable sources, otherwise undue weight is being given to a minority view. This is not covered by multiple mainstream sources. BulkData (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No need for multiple sources when the source states a fact. You have to prove that there are reliable sources stating that "No observer suspected MEK involvement", in order to claim that this is a minority view. Pahlevun (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

On 19 August 2003, MEK bombed the United Nations compound in Iraq, prompting UN withdrawal from the country.[119]

19 August 2003: MEK bombed the United Nations compound in Iraq, prompting UN withdrawal from the country.[119]

The above line is false: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Hotel_bombing 2602:306:32FF:A550:4862:2E30:380:184F (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide more specifics on the change you are requesting? Also, can you please provide additional sources to verify this? LPW22 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Brookings Institution report

Adding words such as "previous" and using past tense, when the date is already mentioned means suggesting that the source is no more valid, thus a judgmental language pushing POV. Plus, the group is listed as a proxy by the source and using the words "proxy for gathering intelligence" is narrowing down the role to one specific area, as well as pushing a POV, presenting a quote as the conclusion. The source reads:

Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence.

–Pahlevun (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pahlevun because this was a previous study from 8 years ago, that does not necessarily mean this study represents the majority view currently. The prominence of its placement within the lead gives undue weight to this one study. I have moved the information to Status among Iranian opposition. DirectAttrition (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That does not mean it is invalid today either. It is still the majority view and I can provide you dozens of reliable sources on this. For instance:

Showing a unanimity rare among Iranians, anecdotal information gleaned from both ordinary Iranians living inside Iran and abroad and from Iran analysts strongly indicates that the 'Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group has no significant popular support inside Iran. To the extent that Iranian respondents are familiar with the MEK they express severe dislike for this group, primarily due to its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. All Iranians queried tended to disbelieve the MEK's expressed allegiance to the ideals of human rights and democracy, with even hardened Iranian oppositionists and persecuted religious minorities such as the Iranian Baha'i saying they would prefer the current Iranian government to an MEK-affiliated one. Many Iranian respondents believe that any indication of USG support for the MEK would seriously harm USG popularity among ordinary Iranians, even among those Iranians who oppose the current Iranian government, would fuel anti-American sentiment, and would likely empower Iranian hardliners.

— USDOS - US Department of State: Iranian popular attitudes towards the MEK. May 2011

The MEK, which is based in Paris, remains unpopular in Iran because of its support for the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.

— The Guardian, 22 April 2014

The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran-Iraq war.

— Jonathan R. White, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage Learning, p. 239, ISBN 9781305633773 published in 2016

The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.

— Reuters, 16 January 2017

...MEK, a fringe Iranian opposition group extremely unpopular in Iran. They fought alongside Saddam Hussain against Iran in the eight-year war in the 1980s.

— The Guardian, 3 February 2017

—It is not undue as you can see, and it should be mentioned in the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of the 2017 Tehran Twin Attacks

The consensus is against the inclusion of the section. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Should the following section be included in this article?

Following the 2017 Tehran twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini and ISIL's claim of responsibility, some observers suspected the involvement of different actors, including MEK. The organization denied that the group was involved.[6] BulkData (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• No It is poorly worded, "some observers", etc. For me, it makes it much more difficult to understand what I am reading when a sentence does not make sense after removing what is between the commas. I understand you are using it as a pause, but when I scan it what I see is "ISIL's claim of responsibility including MEK" Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: The wording can be changed to an alternative version, if there's no problem with including it. I think is worth mentioning, reliable sources have wrote about this.

This is published by the The New York Times:

In many M.E.K. attacks, members would take cyanide when cornered... Some Iranian analysts suggested that the M.E.K. may have been connected to the Wednesday assaults, partly because of the targets: M.E.K. leaders had said Ayatollah Khomeini’s tomb would be among their first. The use of a female attacker and cyanide pill to commit suicide also smacked of the M.E.K.’s past practices.

“This is not to say that the attack was an M.E.K. operation,” said Rasool Nafisi, an Iranian-American scholar, “but it is fair to say that the group’s ‘expertise’ might have been utilized in training those terrorists who targeted Iran.”

The group condemned the attacks, denied involvement and accused Iran’s leaders of having secretly welcomed them. Maryam Rajavi, president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said online that Ayatollah Khamenei was “trying to switch the place of murderer and the victim and portray the central banker of terrorism as a victim.”

—Pahlevun (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, it should not be included. While the NY Times has included this, this does not justify its inclusion. The information is unconfirmed speculation by one individual, which is confusing to readers. Furthermore, this exceptional claim is not supported by several mainstream news sources, in contrast to the prevailing view of the international community on ISIS responsibility. LPW22 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no "claim" here to be exceptional, nor it is presented as a fact. It is reporting existance of an analysis several reliable media outlets have found worth mentioning (no matter how much baseless/silly it would be, there are advocates for this view). This "one individual" includes Hamidreza Taraghi [7], Abdollah Shahbazi [8], Shabbir Hassanally [9], Rasool Nafisi [10], Massoud Khodabandeh [11], Patrick Henningsen [12] among others. Pahlevun (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on People's Mujahedin of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119012003/http://www.nci.org/06nci/01/02.htm to http://www.nci.org/06nci/01/02.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn43.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.military-heroes.com/lewis_lee_hawkins.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713054026/http://www.iran-democracy.com/Maryam-Rajavi/ to http://www.iran-democracy.com/Maryam-Rajavi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620060931/http://ncr-iran.org/images/stories/advertising/ep%20report-with%20cover.pdf to http://ncr-iran.org/images/stories/advertising/ep%20report-with%20cover.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060302080112/http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm to http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)