Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Recent revert and Canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Munafiqin in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOS:ALTNAME refers to using alternative names, such as alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Note that munafeqin is a name calling, rather than an alternative "name" (they never use it, and it has been solely used by the government literature in Iran) and for example, you don't mention the word 'Cuckservative' in the lead of the article Conservative. I think MOS:WTW is straight enough to state Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint., so I'm still in favor of removing it from the lead. Maybe we can ask for other opinions to resolve the issue? Pahlevun (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun, welcome back. Thanks for the comment, however I think your argument is not guideline-wise. First of all the quote from MOS:ALTNAME just says "these may include..." meaning it may include other things, too. Secondly, munafeqin is a Nickname dubbed by Iranian government (you can see it in independent reliable sources such as McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri and you can certainly find more sources for it). Moreover, "common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead" per MOS:NICKCRUFT. Many reliable sources refer to the fact that the group is referred to as munafeqin by Iranian officials and you're favoring removal of this well established fact from the lead. When it's done by proper attribution, there will be no concern over what you said. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion is resembling wikilawyering and I really hate to quote again, but if you leave the letter and stick to the spirit, MOS:NICKCRUFT that you mentioned, states:

Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical. Example: "Tricky Dick" does not appear in the lead of Richard Nixon, despite being a redirect to that article; this label by his political opponents is covered, with context, in the article body

.

Pahlevun (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That's true only when the appellation is "uncommon or disputed" and Munafiqin is certainly common and nearly undisputed in Iran (at least in governmental literature). You can't compare a label used by political opponents with the one used by a country. Thanks you anyway. Inserting "they are commonly called Munafiqin by Iranian officials has no undue weight or neutrality since it's attributed properly and there are many reliable sources supporting it. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Article issues

Summary of issues

I am going to start a list here of brief summaries of the issues as a starting point and would appreciate any brief descriptions of the issues to square away:

1. Characterization of MEK, such as use of the words militant, terrorist and historical events this edit
2. Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper [1]
3. Integrated sections in keeping with chronological order of the page vs. separate sections this edit
   1. Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
   2. Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK
4. Regrouping of films/series with this edit
5. Wording of the lede, per RfC on this page.
6. Use of the Munafiqin label, per RfC on this page.
7. Use of PSRI as a source - or is that resolved?
8. Any of the other/older issues on this talk page? Other?
9. Article tags: neutrality, undue weight, weasel words.

Is this an accurate summary of the issues? –CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit based upon Expectant of Light's comment below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Add.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been heavily involved in this talk recently so I prefer sitting back and waiting for Mhhossein and Pahlevun (who is not frequently online though) to have their say since they were involved in our past consensus which clearly established one thing: the two sections you named were to remain integrated in other sections in keeping with chronological order of the page, not to stick out as two separate sections which was insisted by Stefka. You can see the relevant discussion here even though it got too long and a little convoluted since my bullet list got broken down by inserted comments. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In response:

1 - Characterization of MEK, such as use of the words militant, terrorist and historical events this edit

• The group was disarmed by the US in 2003, so it's not a "violent militant group" as it's currently being portrayed in the article: "In May 2003, the Washington agencies agreed to direct coalition forces to secure the MeK’s surrender and to disarm the group."

• That seems to be a leap, or perhaps faulty logic. See State Department release dated 2012, including the sections after explaining the delisting. There's no need to respond, I will work on this. My goal right now is just to identify the issues. I will start with this one.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• About the historical events, please refer to the the "Threaded discussion" above.

• Does this encompass your entire issue with historical events? Any way to summarize?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

2 - Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper [2]

• Considering the Iranian Government controls the media in Iran, and they're out to destroy the MEK, if used in the article these sources should be identified as deriving from IRI media as they are not neutral.

3 - Removal of entire sections of content this edit

• As described in first point, the MEK was disarmed in 2003, so it's not a violent militant group.

4 - Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

• There are events there that range from early massacre of the MEK prisoners in Iran to a bombing attempt last month in Paris at a MEK gathering. These have all been in the media, but keep getting removed.

5 - Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK

• As noted in the second point, because the Iranian Government controls the media in Iran, and they're out to destroy the MEK, if used in the article these sources should be identified as deriving from IRI media as they are not neutral.

6 - Regrouping of films/series with this edit

• As above.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of these comments don't make sense to me based upon the nature of the desired edits. So, I just plugged along based upon review of the diffs. Please see User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran‎. Where there are gray boxes, I have comments. And, there are other places where I still have work to do... or questions to get started. Feel free to comment there. Please sign your comments, questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to Stefka's responses

See workpage at User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran

I shall respond one by one and presently only to his first, third and fifth bullets: As for MEK being a militant organization. According to the RAND study, they’ve been disarmed in 2004. However the MEK has since formed close alliance with Neocon war-hawks who advocate overthrow of IRI and its replacement by MEK! MEK was delisted by Hilary Clinton an Iran hawk [3] in 2012, and is supported by the “bomb Iran” John Bolton [4] and Trump administration in general! They’ve been also allied with Israel and assassinated Iranian scientists on Mossad’s behalf! [5]. According to Anthony H. Cordesman, by 1999 the campaign occasionally used "terrorist violence". Given these facts and many others that I don't care to cite, they remain a militant terrorist cult! What kind of future service do you really think US hawks expect from a militant terrorist cult other than helping them in case there’s a chance for violent overthrow of IRI by war or proxy war? MEK was disarmed sure but not by Iran but by US. So in case there’s a war on Iran it is likely that they will be armed to fight against Iran. War and terror is their only job and profession! They are not a mere political group and have little support even in the Iranian diaspora to survive as a peaceful political opposition. Read People's Mujahedin of Iran#Propaganda campaign and People's Mujahedin of Iran#Fraud and money laundering to see in what great criminal lengths they have gone to buy popularity as a legitimate political group but have only failed. As for IRI’s attitude towards MEK, it has declared amnesty for MEK’s rank and file that escape the organization. This is verifiable by Iranian sources and is confirmed by the RAND corporation’s study which is not btw a very neutral source as the study has been funded by US state and defense department. Many of these defectors have formed NGOs around the world and in Iran to expose MEK’s dark inner workings. They tell stories of suffering, repression and enslavement by MEK. An example is Nejat Society. These need be mentioned in the page, although they've been only briefly mentioned already in the People's Mujahedin of Iran#Designation as a cult by some academic sources. Given all the above dark facts, I think "a terrorist cult" is the most accurate and fair description for the group. The cult designation is heavily supported by more than a dozen academic and other sources and is beyond consensus and therefore a hard fact! --Expectant of Light (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC) I am happy to come in and tackle these issues if I can work on them one-by-one. The key thing that I need help with is whether the list of issues looks complete above. I am starting this page User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Sure! I just added an issue to your draft page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC) We should avoid using the Iranian's regime labeling of this opposition group as a "terrorist cult". The US disarming of MEK in Iraq had more to do with inner post-occupation Iraqi dynamics (and trying to avoid a conflict with Iran from newly occupied Iraq which was (and is?) a big mess) - than anything intrinsic about MEK. Certainly MEK, as a group, has its issues - however it is a viable opposition group which outside state actors engage with at times.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Copying this to the first section of User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) There are over a dozen RSs that state MKO is terrorist and a cult, which only proves Iran government's view is not biased. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Copying this to the first section of User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran.

Rather than having two sets of conversations going, collapsing this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Observations

I am also starting this list:

1. There are attempts to make many sweeping changes in one edit that are known contentious edits by Stefka. This is a problem.
2. There is no explanation by Stefka on the talk page when making those edits. See WP:BRD. Starting the RfC's, though, is a very good step.
3. There are differences of opinion about historical events. Perhaps there is a way to explain the differing viewpoints and what are the prevailing opinions from the international community?
4. There is too much conversation that has become personal and veers off-point. It's better to be very specific about the requested edits and reasons for the edits.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Add to #2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In Response:

• 1 - I try to include the reasons of my edits on the summaries.

My point here is, please break down your edits so that you're not making a lot of sweeping changes at once, particularly if they are not agreed-upon edits. If you break things down to tackle things one-at-a-time, and are open to suggestions, you might have better luck. Doing it the way you're doing it right now is surely a recipe for having your edits reverted. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There are sweeping changes that include so much POV pushing by Pahlevun, Expectant of Light, and Mhhossein here that I've responded the same way (including Expectant of Light admitting above that he reverted me without actually reading what I included). Anyhow, I'll follow your advice. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2 - I tend not to bring things to the Talk page because nobody else except the same 3 reverting editors tend to take part in the debate. Now that there are others involved, hopefully we can have a more productive conversation here.

That seems to be taking things on bad faith. I am not seeing a complete inability to hear what you are saying, but I am seeing some points about how to best approach things. You seem to have a tendency for force major edit changes and then get mad that people aren't agreeing with these edits. That is directly against the BRD/Consensus-building approaches to editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't get mad. What I have tried to do is engage in a civilized debate about why certain information is being excluded from the article. This can be verified above on this Talk page. What I have gotten instead (before today) is stone-walling by the same 3 editors who keep pushing an IRI-POV.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• 3 - I think we should follow reliable sources for figuring out historical events. IRI-run media is biased in this topic, so cannot be considered reliable here (so if used, we should identify them as such).
• 4 - Agreed, I try to keep off bickering and name calling, but this is not coming from me.

You can only control yourself. The more you adopt a professional tone, perhaps the more that you will receive a professional tone. If not, with a bit of time, please ask others to not make issues personal, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have asked others, and have not made this personal. In fact, it has been the opposite, where Expectant of Light has resorted to name calling. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In general, these comments are disheartening, Stefka... based on other things I've said in the past and here and other people have said to you. I underlined one part above. I am not sure how much you are listening or wanting to listen about how to be more effective editing. But, let's take things one at a time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion and vote regarding sources

There is a discussion and voting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

PSRI Study

@Expectant of Light: Please refrain from adding the work published by PSRI. It is not scholarly and subject to WP:RS. Pahlevun (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: It is scholarly as I have said earlier. It is in fact one of the most authoritative works on the group drawing upon unique sources of information such as SAVAK documents. The PSRI has been founded by Abdollah Shahbazi a well-known historian. Two reviews have also been written in Iran about the book as far as I know. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light: How do you know it's founded by Shahbazi? I could not find such a thing on the website. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: These are some of the sources that mention this. [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was positive I posted this message here. So sorry that I missed this: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson: That discussion is in vain. There are just some users whom you pinged. There are not broad views as we have in RSN. Every source need to be addressed case by case. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is posted here as well. There is still time for others to vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No' (posting here since it seems some are questioning the other discussion). The writers behind the site are not entirely clear- it is described as an enthusiast site. Furthermore, it is based inside of Iran where freely writing about the opposition is not possible due to lack of freedom of speech. Abdollah Shahbazi, who seems to be loosely associated with this site, actually illustrates the point as he was - arrested for publishing a book about land issues (a subject not nearly as dangerous as MEK, to say the least).Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't already and would like to vote on the use of Iranian sources and PSRI, please vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources. It is perfectly acceptable to open the vote at a Wikiproject page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 July 2018

The fourth paragraph needs some copy editing for grammar, capitalization, and removing WP:DUPLINKs.

From:

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. But After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to MEK's refusal to take part in constitution referendum of the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government. MEK declared armed revolt against the Islamic Republic targeting key Iranian official figures, as in bombing of Islamic Republic Party and Prime Minister's office bombing, attacking low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards and ordinary citizens who supported the new government. As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979.

to

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini's forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. But after the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to MEK's refusal to take part in a constitutional referendum for the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office in the new government. MEK declared armed revolt against the Islamic Republic and targeted key Iranian official figures, with the bombing of the Islamic Republic Party and bombing the Prime Minister's office, attacking low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government. As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979. 

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Comment - looks good to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

   Done Fish+Karate 12:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 August 2018

Please change this sentence in 2003 French arrests:

Police found plenty of cash in their offices, $1.38 million in $100 notes and 150,000 euros.

to this sentence, which has a better source and is reworded based upon the content of the source:

Police found $1.3 million in $100 bills in cash in their offices.

References

Thanks! –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is based upon a discussion here to see if a better source could be found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Luk ^talk 23:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Could you please add this Category to this Article [[Category:National Council of Resistance of Iran]] Déjà vu • ✉ 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @DejaVu: this page is no longer protected, you may edit it directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC about Munafiqin label

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.

---

Munafiqin ("hypocrites") is a common term used by Iranian officials in reference to MEK. Should the lead contain a sentence saying 'MEK is commonly called by Iranian officials as Munafiqin'? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it should include the sentence. The lead should be a summary of the article. This fact is supported by many independent reliable sources such as and the term is widely used by many Iranian people, officials and media. Moreover, there are sources saying that term is the group's nickname; See McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri. MOS:NICKCRUFT allows using "common nicknames" in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. This is a derogatory term that the Iranian regime uses to describe a group it outlawed. Coverage of the use of this derogatory term in English is fairly scant, and we should not give UNDUE weight to the opinions of a repressive regime and the media outlets it controls inside Iran - coverage of the term outside Iran is limited to sources explaining what the Iranian's regime-controlled media/officials mean when they say this derogatory term. We wouldn't use terminology from Pravda nicknames in the lede of various capitalist and democratic systems (we would end up with many uses of "repressive", "oppressive", "pigs", etc.). Same here. There might be scope to cover various euphemisms used by the Iranian regime in Media of Iran, Communications in Iran, Censorship in Iran, Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran - there certainly is quite a bit of such euphemism for various groups/countries.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that the comment is meant to mislead the readers. Fortunately, your loosely related comment seems pretty much contradictory (dubious?) if someone searches the term online and none of the sources I cited are Iranian or related to that. "Coverage of the use of this derogatory term in English is fairly scant"??? I provided numerous academic and reliable sources for this fact (that they are called as such by Iranian officials) and it's interesting for me you did not see them. Are McGill, WashintonPost, Memri ande etc controlled from/by Iran? Maybe... --Mhhossein ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The 3 sources you provided.... The first is an Islamic book trust publication on Imam Khomeini: Life, Thought and Legacy - in which this is a one-liner on Mek. The second Iran under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals) - says that Khomeini attacked the Mujahedin and called them Munafiqin in a one-liner. The 3rd I can't see online. It is certainly verifiable that the Iranian regime uses this derogatory term - however coverage is for the most part limited to explanations of what the Iranian regime means when it uses this non-standard term - as it is not obvious to those not familiar with the discourse and unique language constructs used by the Iranian regime to refer to various groups supposedly opposed to the Islamic revolution.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Getting even more interesting...I provided 8 sources in whole, not 3, and there are certainly more source if one searches for it. This case is very simple; Numerous reliable sources are saying A (whose POV has a significant weight with regard to B) calls B as 'CCC'. Now, why should this well-established fact (B being called as 'CCC' by A) get omitted from the lead? Munaifiqin shows Iran's view and direction towards MEK and the reader has the right to know this major point.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I referred to the 3 sources in this RFC. I added another one from the Center for Human Rights in Iran saying this is a derogatory term. There are derogatory terms for many groups, races, religions, etc. - we do not add them typically to the lede - as it is simply WP:UNDUE. Passing WP:V is not sufficient for inclusion. In this particular instance - the "Munafiqin" term is only useful if you are reading a speech or direct copy (or the Persian itself) of Iranian media - it is not used by any non-Iranian source - except when such a source is quoting an Islamic Republic source or when referring to what Islamic Republic say/use.Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Whether Iranian media are controlled or not doesn't factor in at all. We are stating what Iranian government says about the hypocrites who ended up allying themselves with the biggest imperialist powers after all throughout their existence they had claimed they were fighting against imperialism! The page content itself listing all sorts of crimes and felonies by MEK inside Iran and Europe just adds credibility to Iran's description of this vile terrorist cult. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Should we add "imperialists" or Great Satan to the lede of United States per coverage in Iranian regime controlled sources?Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we should not. The comparison is basically wrong. MEK is originated from Iran and was essentially an Iranian party later turned against Iran. Iran's view on US is not comparable with Iran's view on MEK, the latter being much more noteworthy. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No The MEK worked together with the Islamic Republic of Iran during the Iran Revolution. There then was a disagreement between both political groups, which led to the MEK being banned from running for political elections. As a result, there was a major protest throughout Iran, which led to many MEK sympathizers being imprisoned and executed. The MEK retaliated by targetting the IRI, which led to the IRI targeting the MEK. The IRI has since tried to demolish this group in any way possible, including using Iran-controlled media to discredit and smear the group. These sources using the derogatory term "hypocrites" is a reflection of this. Such sources are also curently embedded throughout the article, which need to be identified as the views of IRI-controlled media as these are not neutral sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Be realistic. Are McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri controlled by Iran? I don't think so. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stefka's comment like that of Icewhize is off-topic but its inaccuracy need pointed out. Ayatollah Khomeini always maintained a critical, reserved approach towards MEK before and after the revolution. And after their 1975 bloody ideological coup, the clerics totally severed their relations with the group. And since most of their leaders were arrested and imprisoned by SAVAK by 1978, and since Ayatollah Khomeini wanted the revolution to be non-violent, MEK could play little to no role in advance of the revolution. When some MEK leaders were released in November 1978 release of political prisoners by the Shah, the revolution was already there. Most that they contributed was guerilla combats during the last two days of the revolution which was not very significant because the army had already lost motive to continue repression and it declared neutrality immediately after facing violence. And MEK were haplessly trying to jump in the bandwagon of the Islamic revolution during this short interval by claiming that the 1975 atheist coup was only the work of a bunch of "opportunist rogue elements" in the organization and given their years of experience with propaganda they could make a lot of followings from among Iranian youth, mostly late-teenagers who knew little about the MEK's dark past! --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No: It's a derogatory term used in IRI propaganda, thus it has no place on Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In which case, "People's Mujahedeen of Iran" is also a propaganda since MEK fought against their own people in Saddam's war against Iran. So I believe we should also remove that from their name since it's been a propaganda term ever since the 1979 revolution! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really, "People's Mujahedeen of Iran" is their official name which they chose. This is not the case with "Munafiqin", which is just a derogatory term made by the IRI. Also, they didn't fight against their own people, but the regime, major difference. Let's not turn this into a political discussion btw. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh! So ISIS was also not fighting Iraqis but only the Iraqi government even though they murdered thousands of Iraqi citizens during the war. Are you even serious? "Munafiqin" is also just as official in Iran as is their hypocritical name. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Comparing ISIS to Mujahedeen, great... I'm not gonna have this off-topic discussion here, write to my mail if you long for a political discussion (a mature and calm one that is). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The comparison is indeed great since they basically did the same thing. Fighting a government and murdering thousands of citizens in the process and deliberately so only to scare citizens from supporting the government they were fighting against! Likewise both organizations recruited their members from young volunteers who would basically have their brains handed to their megalomaniac top leaders! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light, your views seem to reflect IRI media, but this has no place on Wikipedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What a great argument! If that's valid, then your views also reflect MEK propaganda so they have no place here! But wait! They do provided that you respect the guidelines and have consensus for your views. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No this is not lede material. Is it an important thing to know about the organization? No, not really, especially since this is English. The information can be included under "Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK". --Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you realize the IRI views section is exactly the edit for which Stefka had no consensus and has been on ANI for? Please see the last comments above the PSRI section in the talk page. I'm reverting Stefka's recent edit as per consensus reached in that talkpage. Btw, the Munafiqin description must be used as per reasons I and Mhhossein provided. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(S)he did not belong on ANI-- it was clearly a content dispute, and if it weren't for that post I wouldn't be here. I am able to gather info and come to decisions on my own. Thanks for your suggestions though. It doesn't look like consensus is likely to agree with you on this one.--Calthinus (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(S)he did because of his repetitive reverts against consensus in the talkpage discussion above. As for this dispute, I shall not remind WP:NOTDEMOCRACY to a moderator I believe. We are not casting votes. We are discussing the dispute. Unless each side of the dispute can respond to counter arguments they can't claim they have policy-based consensus. So please go ahead and tell us why a major POV about a terrorist cult up to its neck deep in crime and fraud must not be mentioned in the lead. Thanks! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a specific word used by the IRI. Doesn't matter how much crime and fraud they've done, it's a term in Persian that is meaningless to an Anglophone audience, while explaining its meaning is not interesting to them either. Actually, if you want to talk about the crime and fraud, putting tangents about this slur is taking away from that. --Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But just as with MEK's Persian name, we consider adding the translation and context for its significance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As this discussion clearly demonstrates, it will require explanation. The lede should give space to aspects of the topic as per their importance. It will end up with too much space. Sorry. My vote is no.--Calthinus (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• No this is not lede material. It takes too much explanation to clarify the complex history of this organization so as to explain the designation in the lede section. Discussion of the designation should take its place among other controversy in the body of the article, with the space given it carefully measured. I'm not for US interference in Iran, but to call this organization hypocritical seems a gross oversimplification. Jzsj (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per Pahlevun ([11], [12]) and Icewhiz. As a side note, I concur with HistoryofIran and Stefka Bulgaria that Expectant of Light's increasingly hysterical bludgeoning of this talk page with unsourced personal commentary has gone way beyond the pale and raises serious concerns about that user's basic WP:COMPETENCE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have sources for what I say about history of MKO. Ervand Abrahamian and a Iranian study that we've been discussing. I can provide quotations but I have to use screenshots or write transcript of them since I have a screenshot copy of the first and the latter is in Persian and needs translation. But, I concede, there's no consensus for inclusion of "munafiqin" so I don't comment on this anymore. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No to inclusion in the lead (for the reasons I mentioned before). [+Yes to mentioning that in the body (Other names and History sections), because usage of the term has been subject to analyses by numerous scholarly sources and conveys a important part of MEK's perception in Iran]. Pahlevun (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per Pahlevun, inclusion in the article text should be sufficient. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No summoned by bot - SNOW - just like we wouldn't include derogatory names for ethnic groups in their ledes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: MEK is not an ethnic group. Pahlevun (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. We shouldn't include insulting terms for any group, ethnic, racial, or political. Maybe a better analogy would be to prevent people from including the insulting term for liberals "libtards" or "snowflake" in the liberalism article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 3 August 2018 (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.

Hamilton and Rendell

This NYT source clearly says that "For more than a year, prominent former American officials have been giving well-paid speeches in support of an Iranian opposition group that is fighting to reverse its 15-year-old designation by the State Department as a terrorist organization" and that "Mr. Rendell, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he had given seven or eight speeches since July calling for the M.E.K. to be taken off the terrorist list and estimated that he had been paid a total of $150,000 or $160,000." As for Hamilton, yes, the source does not say he admitted paid speech. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Rendell says he was paid by "Iranian-American supporters of the M.E.K., not from the group itself" - and that he was merely paid for his appearances at a speaking venue - not for the contents of his speech. The article has a general stmt - not directed at any individual. When naming individuals - it merely specifies they received fees for speaking engagements or other contributions - but not that they were paid to support (in fact - most of the named individuals say they merely asserted their opinion). Furthermore, payments are specified to have come not quite from MEK. Note that this is rather serious BLP stuff -our text was accusing, without any basis in the source, individuals of receiving funds from a (at the time) designated terror org - which would be a crime in the US (and probably is criminal in Iran should they visit there).Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what source you are checking, but the above source certainly said Rendell "had been paid a total of $150,000 or $160,000" for his "seven or eight speeches since July". So, "he was merely paid for his appearances at a speaking venue" is not accurate. Who Rendell thought was doing the payment is another issue which you can add if you think it makes the text more neutral. I think this source is more frank by saying "Many of the American supporters, though not all, accepted fees of $15,000 to $30,000 to give speeches to the group, as well as travel expenses to attend M.E.K. rallies in Paris. Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said in March that he had been paid a total of $150,000 to $160,000." Read about Rendell here, where it says "he had a long phone call with one of the group’s representatives." --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Give it a look: "The former Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, has accepted more than $150,000 in speaking fees at events in support of the MEK's unbanning."[13]--Mhhossein ^talk 17:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Paid to speak at an event (the event promoting unbanning MEK) - such a speaking fee does not mean he was paid to support MEK. I am entirely sure Rendell will (and has - as have others) asserted that he was merely paid to show up, but the speech was entirely his own.... You, I, and the astute reader may not believe this, but we do not draw inferences ourselves.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I can understand how important BLP is. But the Guardian source, I already provided, is saying he admitted being paid in exchange for speaking in support of MEK. So, it was not merely showing up. Am I missing something? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are missing a "for" in the Guardian. The Guardian sentence has two unconnected clauses - a. He accepted speaking fees at events, and b. the events were pro-MEK. To say he was paid to support MEK is SYNTH, and to say he was paid by MEK (as opposed to pro-MEK orgs/individuals) is OR.Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the NYT piece clearly says Rendell admitted speaking "for the M.E.K. to be taken off the terrorist list". I think it's safe enough to label this long phrase as "support", given the fact that the events were aimed at removing the group from the terrorists list. That said, there would be no SYNTH concern. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You can say he spoke in support. You can also say he was paid for speaking by Iranian expat groups/individuals that are supportive of MEK. What you can't say is that he was paid by MEK itself (as the funds did not come directly from them) or that he was paid for support. Most readers will connect the dots - but we can not do so ourselves.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. However, the sentence would be more accurate if we say, 'he was paid by who he said were groups/individuals that were supportive of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

collection of sources

To confirm some claims nominated in the article and make the fair decision for edits, I have collected following sources and hope to be useful:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Saff V. (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, but some of them like 9 and 7 are already used. Btw, among others, this one was really something. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist organization

The table in this part doesn't have column and row data. In other words, the typical table has a column and a row of data but this information in the tabla is not categorized. I try to give it better categorization but I couldn't succeed. I was wondering if anyone would give it try? Saff V. (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: You can see how everything happened here. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)