Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Toll

I had tagged the article to see the details of the MEK toll. However, on the second thought I think the former version was better since not only was it shorter, but also these details imbalances the lead and we need to cover the details of the other side, being Iranian people, which makes the lead even larger. So, they can simply be covered in the body but not accompanied by POV words such as "massacre".--Mhhossein ^talk 15:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You requested more information, and this was provided:

• "In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated that “In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of [MEK] members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners massacred in the single year of 1998." You decided you didn't like the information and removed it. This is a factual report by a reliable source, so removing this constitutes disruptive editing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

This is "a factual report by a reliable source, so removing this constitutes disruptive editing." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not it does not for the reasons I've outlined below. You still haven't addressed your removal of this information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you continue to remove this stating in your edit summary that this is a "POV". Why do you consider this a "POV"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See my '15:58, 12 November 2018' comment. Don't push those details into the lead, while you can have them in the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you continue to avoid addressing my question, so I'll put it in bullet form:

1) Why do you consider the following: " In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated that “In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of [MEK] members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners massacred in the single year of 1998."" a POV?

2) Why don't you think that "According to the MEK, over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran." is a better and more official report than the British Parliamentary Committee report cited above?

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You could get the answer by reviewing my first comment in this section: "these details imbalances the lead and we need to cover the details of the other side, being Iranian people...". I did not say which one was better, just less details in the lead. You can take British Parliamentary Committee report to the body, which I think did somedays ago.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet you continue to avoid responding simple/direct questions, so let's start with one at a time: Why do you think that the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom report is POV? Because it "imbalances the lede" since it provides details about when the assassinations took place? (which is information your requested specifically) Why/how is this POV? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Final comment on this. Your case is a real WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT one. Yes, 'imbalances the lead=inserts POV issue'. I've explained regarding my request.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Right... "Yes, it's a POV" is not an explanation of why/how it is a POV. I'll reinsert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

With reference to the he British Parliamentary Committee in lead makes POV issue but in body not.Saff V. (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Referencing the "British Parliamentary Committee in lead" does not create any POV issues, but in an effort to work with you, I'll remove the reference to the British Parliamentary Committee and keep the rest simply because it's a better reference than the previous "According to the MEK..." quote. If this all feels like it's too long, we should move both tolls to the "Overview" section like I've now suggested several times. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Stefka Bulgaria! As a summary of most important contents of article it is essential to mention the Toll briefly and avoid to pointed to details in lead.Saff V. (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein changed it again :-(

I really don't want to edit war anymore, and want us to work together on this. I removed the "British Parliamentary Committee" as requested so that it's shorter. What's the problem now? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience :| He reverted because of details such as year, it doesn't need to mention in lead.Saff V. (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding the year makes it more accurate, and therefore more encyclopaedic; but I'll remove it so we can continue to work together on this. Thanks Saff V. for working with me here, I appreciate it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It is better that I explain my mean asto "details". Althought You are right, some information make the sentense more accurate, is it neccessary that material in detail be written in lead? of course not!Also detail means year, event such as 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, even supporters. Finally I consider this version more briefly than this one, X people were killed and Y people were prisoned by Z instead of X people were killed by Z and Y prisoners were killed (again) by Z (again).Am I clear?Saff V. (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in order to move forward, can you please make the update yourself using the better (British Parliament) source? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Can you work with me on this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, But why do we need extera soure now? The current sources are reliable.Saff V. (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: first you say that " British Parliamentary Committee in lead makes POV issue", so I removed this; then you say that "He reverted because of details such as year, it doesn't need to mention in lead", so I removed this too; then, after you reverted me, I asked you to do it as you best see fit, and now you respond that "it doesn't matter". Do you want to work with me on this or not? The British Parliament is a better source as it's independent, unlike the current "According to the MEK...". Please change it, or I will. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Aha, Thank u to make it clear! I will give it try.Saff V. (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:, Please do not confuse the issues.we discussed the sentence above and you asked me to do it as I best see fit. It must be balanced the casualties of both parties and other reason that I presented above. Another problem is the source that u mentioned. I think the first issue is most important. We have now some source for the sentence. Saff V. (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: you wrote " British Parliamentary Committee in lead makes POV issue", so I removed this; then you wrote that "He reverted because of details such as year, it doesn't need to mention in lead", so I removed this too; then, after you reverted me, I asked you to do it as you best see fit, and then responded that "it doesn't matter". When I pointed this out to you, you said "I will give it a try", but you did not give it atry, and then when I balanced the quote, you reverted it again. I have tried by all means to work together with you here, but you've constantly been unwilling to compromise, despite repeatedly saying that you would. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that you read my comments! Don't accuse me, while you are extremely emphasizing on your own opinions!I repeat again, There is two issue in this edit. The main issue is being balanced the casualties of both parties, you violated the balance in your edit and made the POV issue.First of all, this issue has to remove, but you don't accept while you let me do it as I best see fit.Please don't mix issues together as well as don't get your own way.Saff V. (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Killing of Americans

Note: This sub-section was splited by me after Stefka Bulgaria replied to my comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Right... so we're moving to a different discussion now. As with the Hafte Tir bombing discussion, there are numerous narratives for the killings of Americans as outlined in the article's body:

• "In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International." "Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK." "Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK."

• "In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assasinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued on April 2006 stated that "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah´s US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran." "Other analysts support this, including director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, claiming that "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience."

• "The MEK also blames a Marxist splinter Peykar for these Americans killed in Iran. While in prison, after learning of these events, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book referring to Peykar as "pseudo-leftists opportunists" whose military operations had killed US citizens in a bid to "challenge" and outmaneuver the "genuine" MEK."

Trying to include only a single narrative while dismissing others from reliable sources is uncyclopaedic and constitutes a NPOV violation, the same with your removal of the "British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom report" (pointed out above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article is already saying Peykar was accused, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This took place during the Schism period, when Peykar had taken over the group, so it is not a separate event (and mostly included IRI targets, which you've removed for some reason). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

They were designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. since "because of the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s and an attempted attack against the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992". Hence, we need to have section dedicated to them. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There are also different narrative as to why the MEK was first designated a terrorist organization:

• "The department under Secretary Madeleine Albright formally designated PMOI’MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) on 8th October 1997. Highlighting the political motivations of the move, the very next day a senior Clinton administration official told the Los Angeles Times, “The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami.

• The Tower Commission Report "cited a letter by an Iranian go-between, Manoucherhr Ghorbanifar, to his U.S. counterpart saying that one of the nine demands of the Iranian regime from the U.S. was the ‘[insurance] of an official announcement terming the Mojaheding-e-Khalq (MEK) as Marxist and terrorist.’ When the deal with Tehran fell through, the Department of State reversed course and began to formally meet with the MEK, even at the height of the organization’s armed resistance against the clerical regime."

• "The MEK’s terrorist designation in the UK and EU was also heavily grounded in similar political and economic considerations. In an interview with the BBC Radio in 2006, the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that the UK designation of MEK was the result of demands made by the Iranian regime."

About the killing of American’s allegation, as explained throughout the article, there’s a dispute that these were attributed to Peykar. If that’s not clear enough, here’s Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.’s report:

• “Background on the Mujahedin,” forwarded under Memorandum from W. Tapley Bennet, Jr. Assistant Secretatry of State for Legislative Affaris, to Rep. Lee Hamilon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe an the Middle East, Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives, December 14 1984. Note that this memo also described the divisions within the MEK that culminated when “a dedicated Marxist Faction … broke away in 1975 and murdered several Mujahedin leaders who preferred to emphasize the Islamic content, as opposed to the Marxist orientation, of the organization…” As noted, the 2005 Country Reports attributed the killing of American advisors in Iran to this breakaway Marxist faction, and contemporaneous media reporting confirmed it as well.

• "The killings of Americans in Iran in the early-to-mi 1970s were the work not of people associated with the MEK, but rather their rivals among dissident elements opposing the Shah. Start with an egregious error in the Department of State’s Country Reports, repeated in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 editions. Of the period after Khomeini took poser in 1979, it says: “The MEK’s ideology… was at odds with the post-revolutionary government, and its original leadership was soon executed by the Khomeini regime.” That the US Government has, for three years at least, been operating under the belief that the MEK’s “original leadership” was alive throughout the 1970s, and put to death by Khomeini’s regime after the 1979 revolution rather than by the Shah’s regime in early 1972, is more than a typo or minor slip. It is a fundamental factual blunde."

• "By the time the killing of Americans in Iran began in 1973 – indeed, more than a year before – many members of the original MEK including all of the founding MEK leadership had been executed or killed by the Shah’s security forces, and Massoud Rajavi was in prison where he would remain until January 1979... The identities of the assassins of American military advisors and contractors in Tehran are known. The Washington Post story on May 11, 1976 reported (p.A9) that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed by firing squad. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh, told a Westerner allowed to see him shortly before his execution that… he personally killed col. Lewis Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner after stopping their … car in 1975.” A UPI story dated November 16, 1976, carried the following day in the Post, reported that the Tehran police had shot and killed Bahram Aram, “the man who masterminded the August slayings” of three Americans working for Rockwell International... Despite the availability of this information, a 1994 Department of State report on the MEK prepared for Congress erred in purpoting to name MEK perpetrators of three of the six killings of Americans that took place from 1973-76. It incorrectly stated that MEK member Reza Reza’i had been arrested and executed for the 1973 murder of Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins. In fact, Rezai had been arrested in 1971 with other leading MEK members, and escaped from prison; government security forces killed him in 1973 in a standoff in Tehran. This same report names “Rahman Vahid Afrakhteh” as the killer of the other two US military officers."

• "Even though the murderers of the Americans were known to US security agencies dating back to the mid-1970s, when the Western press reported that nine members of the breakaway Marxist faction had been caught and executed after having confessed to the killings, the 2006 Country Reports, issued in April 2007, made a curious assertion not included before or since: 'Despite US efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group’s role in these illegal acts.'"

• "The real assassins of Americans in Iran, including Vaid Afrakhteh and Bahram Aram, were part of a faction that emerged from the remnants of the MEK following the execution and imprisonment of many leading MEK members in 1972, and ultimately split away entirely (and violently) in 1975. This group adopted a more secular, extremist and doctrinaire leftist identity; they were not committed to Islam as a defining interest. Known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (for “Marxist-Leninist”) and later as the “Iranian People’s Strugglers for the Working Class (Peykar)”, the group had ties to George Habash and the PFLP. The MEK split, which originated in 1972 and became widely apparent by 1975, was real. On May 7, 1975, Sharif-Vaqefi was killed in an operation planned by the leaders of the Marxist splinter group, including both Havid Afrahteh and Bahram Aram, as well as Tagui Shahram."

These events all took place during the Schism period, where this information is contextualized chronologically. Creating a separate “Assassinations and bombings against the U.S.” is misleading as it tries to convey there was an “anti-American campaign” by the MEK (something Mhhossein has pushed in the past), when there wasn’t one; also violates WP:CFORK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Either we do chrono, or we do by type - not a mix. The more important events should be in the chrono. If any of these killing were relevant or cited as relevant when the US designatd MEK as a FTO - then we can mention that briefly next to the designation event. No need for separate "American killing" section. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, they were designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. since "because of the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s and an attempted attack against the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992". Hence, we need to have section dedicated to them. Assassinations section without those targeting Americans is just flawed. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, you are ignoring the provided RS concerning the MEK terrorist listing by the US and Europe, Peykar's take over the organization during the 1970s, and Bloomfield's report stating that the MEK were not even involved in this. This information needs to be included, but it also needs to be contextualized, providing the sequence of events and different viewpoints as they unfolded, and that's what the Schism section does. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

All the materials I inserted were backed by reliable and scholarly sources. Include Bloomfield's report somewhere besides other stuff, but we'll not censor MEK's history only because of Bloomfield's report, since there are multiple reliable sources against it. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, Assassinations were committed about American by MEK is a brilliant subject (as sources say 1,2,3 and 4 and etc), so it is necessary to devote one section or subsection to assassinations as to American. Also these sentences "Between 1973 and 1975, the Marxist-Leninist MEK increased their armed operations in Iran. In 1973 they engaged in two street battles with Tehran police. On 19 April 1974..." was removed by Stefka Bulgaria, there are two violations, at first, the edit summary has no connection with removing sentences and then why does he remove the well-sourced material?Saff V. (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

1) "Between 1973 and 1975, the Marxist-Leninist MEK increased their armed operations in Iran. In 1973 they engaged in two street battles with Tehran police. On 19 April 1974..." is currently in the article. 2) I agree we should not censor anything here, though information needs to be presented in context, backed by RS, and all narratives need to be included. 3) Creating a separate section for this is WP:CONTENTFORKING, pushes a false POV (that American's were particularly targeted by the MEK, when that was not the case), and breaks the article's chronological outline. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

MEK killed more Iranians, Iraqis, and possibly several other nationalities that Americans. Having a focused section on Americans (specifically!), killed in Iran by MEK, is clearly POVish and UNDUE - American blood isn't redder than other blood.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

MEK clearly targeted American people and interests in a certain period of its terror acts, the sources show it. As for the other nationalities, they can have their separate sections if there are reliable sources covering them. So, making a well sourced section is not UNDUE, nor it's POVish, rather removing it is a clear censoring of MEK's history. No one have prohibited making sections for the assassination of the Iraqis, for example, if there are sources for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has been removed or "censored". Rather, information is organised chronologically in accordance to the article's historical outline and contextualised as events unfolded backed by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think the article should be written by cherry picked contents of the sources? You were told this by other users, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT wont make RS go away. In response to your message, I'm not cherry picking anything. Add whatever you want as long as it follows the article's chronological order, it isn't UNDUE-ish or POV-ish, and it's backed up by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Honestly, It is a censore certainly to nominate the American assassinations in the subsection (history/Schism), while it is supported by RS. I don't beleive that American blood isn't redder than other blood, as to any nationality killed by MEK , all of them are more appropriate to be adressed in assassinations part as well as it is nothing to do with giving undue weight. We have a section about MEK assassinations in the article, but the material about American assassinations was written in history part that I consider it as undue weight.Saff V. (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The assassinations are explained chronologically in the History section and there's already a List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran article; nothing has been censored and we haven't violated WP:CONTENTFORKING. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You were trying to play the "chronological" scenario in the lead, too, but I should tell you that this is just a self made argument by you which we don't have to act based on. Moreover, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject." So, don't use it as an argument to avoid that well-sourced section.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of sources

Can anyone look at the bizarre removal of sources from the article. Some of them were already talked about in this page and the user is still keeping on edit war. See this topic regarding Jametown (just an example).--Mhhossein ^talk 17:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @Mhhossein:, @Saff V.: - mass reverting back in questionable sources is a no-go here. - e.g. - returning an opinion piece in balkanpost (diff) for unattributed use is clear inappropriate. You've also restored a few blogs - which is clearly not OK as well. We should be working together to improve sourcing quality. @Stefka Bulgaria: provided a clear editing rationale for each of his reverts. Saying "Reverted mass removal of sources (most of them are reliable, let's d it one by one)" (so admitting some are not reliable) or " no, they're reliable enough" is not an appropriate way to address a challenge. Suggestion - could someone fill out a list below for each challenged source? Stefka could list his objections, and I expect a policy based rationale from Mhhossein and Saff V. on the retention of each source they disagree with Stefka with. Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No, Stefka Bulgaria did not "list his objections". He made mass removals while he were told by you not to. If you're trying to resolve the issue, this is not the solution. Don't side with him and be neutral. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You were so hasty at making the defense and did not respond to my policy based objection. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Could we please address the contested sources one by one on the talk page? I'm not siding with anyone. Some of Stefka's challenges are correct (and to his credit - he stated his objections in a clear edit summary - as opposed to the summaries in the blanket reverts) - e.g. the oped in balkanpost should not be used unattributed. Others possibly less so. However if you are just going to revert back and forth - instead of discussing them one by one on talk - this will go no where good. Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, mass removals "will go no where good". You say "some of Stefka's challenges are correct", which means some of them are not. You say "he stated his objections in a clear edit summary" and it's clearly siding with him, while YOU IGNORED MY OPENING OF THIS TOPIC, showing you're not, can't be, neutral to this discussion. That said, I'm completely open to discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not against to remove unreliable sources but such as edit needs discussion as well as collecting other user's opinion, just attaching "Removing more fringe sources including NoVinite.com, Jamestown, Haper's Magazine blog, KTB.org, HuffPost blog, etc." as edit summery is not enough.@Icewhiz: it is better to help Stefka to learn editting in this way (avoid to edit relying just on his own opinion) rather than absolving him.Saff V. (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

www.novinite.com (Sofia news agency reporting on Bulgarian units sent to camp Ashraf - but not covering what the camp is about) - I'm uncertain on the reliability of this outlet - however it simply does not support the content it is reffing (it doesn't even mention MEK). It takes two to tango here - instead of blanket reverting - reverting selectively the sources you think should remain would be a way forward. Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

list of challenged sources (and uses):

1. Used to source HQ location, other supporting ref.
2. Used to source location (Iran & Iraq) - possibly dated? Aren't MEK out of Iraq?
3. Used to source name and being a militant organization - other supporting refs.
4. Used to support Geneva convention designation of MEK personnel in Iraq - other supporting refs.
5. Used to source "According to infoplease.com, more than 16,000 Iranian people have been killed by the MEK since 1979." Other supporting refs.
6. Used to support operations in Iraq. Other supporting refs.
7. Used for attributed stmt: " In 2005, the U.S. think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the MEK had 10,000 members, one-third to one-half of whom were fighters"
8. Used for attributed stmt: "Reports by The Military Balance in 2003 and 2004, as well as BMI Research's 2008 report estimate MEK's armed wing strength 6,000–8,000 and its political wing around 3,000, thus a total 9,000–11,000 membership" (other supporting refs, but I'm guessing the other one is the other report (a tad SYNTHY here - a ref should go on each part)
9. Used to support events in the 70s against US targets. Other supporting refs (though did not check for possible ref synth - not sure they all support all the information).
10. Used to ref " working on the Ibex system".
11. additional ref on assassinations.
12. Ref for George Cave.
13. "driving the Left underground in Iran. Hundreds of MEK supporters and members were killed from 1979 to 1981, and some 3,000 were arrested."
14. "U.S. troops later posted guards at its bases."
15. US bombing MEK camps.
16. "The MEK compound outside Fallujah became known as Camp Fallujah and sits adjacent to the other major base in Fallujah, Forward Operating Base Dreamland. Captured MEK members were kept at Camp Ashraf, about 100 kilometers west of the Iranian border and 60 kilometers north of Baghdad".
17. Used for camp Ashraf details (from my check - this only supports the Bulgarian army being sent there - but not the rest of the paragraph).
18. In 2013 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty published diaries of a Kyrgyz student based in Prague who was recruited to travel to Paris for a MEK rally, in which most of the "protesters" were like her.
19. Before the operation, FBI has reportedly long suspected that the MEK used "false visas, false passports, or fake political asylum travel documents".
20. According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular."
21. Relations with NAMIR..
22. Used to support French cult designation.]
23. cult - Rick Alan Ross, American deprogrammer and cult specialist
24. cult - Ahmad Sadri, Iranian-born sociologist
25. cult - Mahan Abedin, of the Jamestown Foundation
26. addition ref for terrorist by post-2003 Iraqi gvmt.
27. Terrorist Canada (out of date, other more current supporting ref). ,
28. In April 2012, Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command had trained MEK operatives at a secret site in Nevada from 2005 to 2009. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site until President Barack Obama took office in 2009.
29. The National Council of Resistance of Iran has rejected allegations of Hersh.
30. National Iranian American Council rejects the idea, citing that the organization was listed since the United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations was established in 1997 and it was also listed on Patterns of Global Terrorism report prior to 1997.
31. The Insider (Persian: نفوذی, romanized: Nofoozi): 2008 feature film directed by Ahmad Kaveri and starring Amir Jafari as an MEK defector who returns to Iran in 2004.

Now. Can we please discuss these one by one?Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• So Mhhossein and Saff V. have complained about including the Ervand Abrahamian source published in a University press, but reverted the removal of several self-published sources/blogs? Right.... The article subject is controversial enough, so we need to avoid controversial sources. Here's my review:

1) "Balkan Post opinion piece": Fails WP:RS
2) "Globalsecurity.org": Fails WP:RS; often engages in conspiracy theories and WP:FRINGE that lack sufficient editor oversight.
3) "CFR.org": Self-published Think Tank that lacks rigorous fact checking
4) "CFR.org": Self-published Think Tank that lacks rigorous fact checking
5) "Ploughshares report': Fails WP:RS
6) "CFR.org": Self-published Think Tank that lacks rigorous fact checking
7) "CFR.org": Self-published Think Tank that lacks rigorous fact checking
8) "CFR.org": Self-published Think Tank that lacks rigorous fact checking
9) "Jamestown": Another self-published Think Tank
10) "The Harpers blog": Blog
11) "Strategic Culture": Removed dead source of another self-published Think Tank
12) "George Cave": Removed dead source
13) "TKB.org": Page not found
14) "CFR.org": Self-published Think Tank that lacks rigorous fact checking
15) "Huff post blog": Fails WP:RS
16) "Globalsecurity.org": Fails WP:RS; often engages in conspiracy theories and WP:FRINGE that lack sufficient editor oversight.
17) "Novinite.com": Fails WP:RS
18) "RadioFreeEurope": Fails WP:RS
19) "The Iran Brief": Seriously??
20) "auto20": Deadlink
21) "Khonsari, Mehrdad": Unpublished thesis
22) "Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Développement international": Deadlink
23) "Mehr News Agency": Fails WP:RS
24) "Inter Press Serice": Fails WP:RS
25) "Jamestown": Another self-published Think Tank
26) "Iranian Diplomacy": Fails WP:RS
27) "RadioFreeEurope": Fails WP:RS
28) "Alternet": Fails WP:RS
29) "mepc.org": Self-published organization
30) "ukprogressive.co.uk": Fails WP:RS
31) "MSNBCMedia": Deadlink
32) "NIAC Facts Sheet": Self-published organization
33) "CiCinema": Fails WP:RS

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, @Saff V.: - please provide a justification for including each of the above. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
References

@Icewhiz:Thanks for your efforts.Why CFR is considered as Self-published source, while cfr is the USA office and material asto MEK?Saff V. (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would see CFR as self-published - I will note that these are coming from CFR's website (as opposed to a more thorough published report). I also looked at RSN - and haven't seen cfr.org (Council on Foreign Relations) discussed. Foreign Affairs is clearly a RS - but I am frankly unsure regarding their website (obviously lower quality - but possibly still usable). I would however appreciate if you could address Stefka Bulgaria's challenges one by one - I'm sure we'll be able to agree on some of them (e.g. blogs) to toss out (and in some cases - this doesn't even affect the text). AlterNet is listed as a no-no in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources and GlobalSecurity was not received well in the last RSN discussions - [1][2][3]. In short - if you could list the items in the list above you agree with, items you aren't sure about, and items you oppose (and why!) - it will help us going forward.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: The problem largely stems from the very fact that the removal was solely based on personal opinion of Stefka Bulgaria, not consensus. Guy's describing this behavior as exercising confirmation bias was accurate, in my opinion. For instance, Stefka Bulgaria previously removed Jamestown source on a bizarre ground and he was told at the time that Jamestown was reliable per an RSN discussion and that there was a general discussion regarding Think Tanks, which does not endorse the current removal. He repeated the same removal. Isn't it signaling something? On the other hand, Icewhiz, pretending to be neutral here, condemns the reverts and endorses the undiscossed mass removal of the sources. Progress gets even harder...However, I'm willing to take out unreliable sources after discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria provided a rationale for each one. Please provide a counter-rationale for each one you want to keep. The RSN discussions you linked to (from 2007 and 2008) on Jamestown and think tanks in general are not conclusive. Your previous challenge of this removal - is an indication of your disagreement - but not of consensus either way. In short - please provide a list with a clear policy rationale for each of the challenged bits. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Rationale? Is "Fails WP:RS" rationale? Then I say, they're reliable per WP:RS. I'm ready to respond to true rationals. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not objecting the review of the sources. Rather I'm saying we can't remove sources solely based on "Fails WP:RS". Why they fail "WP:RS"? Having authored many GAs, I'm certainly familiar with what a reliable source constitutes. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a list of sources above - some are clear fails (e.g. AlterNet per multiple RSN discussions). Could you please address each source in a list? Are you asserting all of them are appropriate? If so, that is clearly not tenable.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I produce my list but It is importatnt that some of sources are not RS, so they have to be removed. In other hand some material remane without sources (such as number19 source) and I suggest that insted of removing material, attach Citation needed tag.

1) "Balkan Post opinion piece": it doesn't seem be RS, but the next source (Tirana Times) doesn't support the material
2) "Globalsecurity.org": it doesn't seem be RS
3) "CFR.org": as I discussed above, it is RS
4) "CFR.org": as I discussed above, it is RS
5) "Ploughshares report': NOT to be RS
6) "CFR.org": as I discussed above, it is RS
7) "CFR.org": as I discussed above, it is RS
8) "CFR.org": dead link
9) "Jamestown": Per this disscusion is RS
10) "The Harpers blog": Blog
11) "Strategic Culture": the link doesn't work
12) "George Cave": the link doesn't work
13) "TKB.org": the link doesn't work
14) "CFR.org": as I discussed above, it is RS
15) "Huff post blog": blog, not be RS
16) "Globalsecurity.org": I have no idea
17) "Novinite.com": not be RS (the news without specific author or refrences)
18) "RadioFreeEurope": the news agency with specific author seems to be RS
19) "The Iran Brief": not be RS
20) "auto20": the link doesn't work
21) "Khonsari, Mehrdad": to be RS
22) "Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Développement international": Deadlink
23) "Mehr News Agency": the news agency with specific author seems to be RS
24) "Inter Press Serice": the news agency with specific author seems to be RS
25) "Jamestown": the link doesn't work
26) "Iranian Diplomacy": NOT be RS
27) "RadioFreeEurope": the news agency with specific author seems to be RS
28) "Alternet": I have no idea
29) "mepc.org": a report authored by specific author with ref seems to be RS
30) "ukprogressive.co.uk": not to be RS, the author is member of MEK
31) "MSNBCMedia": Deadlink
32) "NIAC Facts Sheet": I have no idea
33) "CiCinema": I have no idea Saff V. (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I am only addressing the ones you are asserting are RS (mostly ignoring - "no idea" for now (with the exception of those whom I do have a clear view of)) -

1. CFR (3,4,6,7,8,14) - certainly OK for attributed stmts. I was unable to find a RSN discussion. I do think American think tanks (mainline ones) are "generally OK" for basic facts - but I'm not sure how this would play in RSN.
2. Jamestown - I don't see consensus (either way) in the linked RSN discussion (which is also very old). My position is similar to CFR (Surely OK for attributed, not sure how this would play in RSN).
3. RadioFreeEurope (18/27) - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - generally not bad, but this is a US propaganda source. See RSN which seems pretty negative. For (18) this is possibly OK as an attributed stmt. For (27) it is not attributed.
4. Khonsari, Mehrdad - this is a PHD thesis in London School of Economics and Political Science. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties." - so OK, but use with care.
5. Mehr News Agency (23) - I am fairly certain that due to ownership by the "Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization" and lack of press freedom in Iran that this will fail RSN more strongly than RadioFreeEurope (but it hasn't been discussed). The stmt itself is attributed however. I don't think our presentation of Rick Alan Ross (a "deprogrammer") as a scholar is neutral per most presentations of Ross.
6. Inter Press Service (24) - I haven't seen anything definitive in RSN. It is a very BIASED news service. However as this is an attributed stmt to Ahmad Sadri (who unlike Ross - is a scholar) - this should be OK.
7. Alternet (28) - (no idea) - per RSN - definitely not a RS.
8. Gareth Porter on MEPC (20) - I would not see this as a RS. The author is WP:FRINGE and this is self published. However - this is moot - as after I examined the source - it simply does not support "The National Council of Resistance of Iran has rejected allegations of Hersh" - as it isn't there.
9. NIAC Facts Sheet (listed as no idea) - not a RS, however it is being for an attributed stmt from National Iranian American Council - for which specifically it is. The question is whether NIAC is DUE.

@Saff V.: I accept Khonsari, Mehrdad and Ahmad Sadri (via IPS). I think CFR and Jamestown might be worthwhile discussions in RSN. Your feedback on my replies for the rest? Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

OMG, the prize winner journalist is described as Fringe! Btw, take a look at Middle East Policy Council. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

..and CFR is listed as the fifth most cited Think Tank in 2015. Things are getting more interesting! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Porter does not contain text supporting the content. As for CFR - there is a case to be made at RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I still don't think Ahmad Sadri qualifies, but we can discuss after we've figured out what we're taking to RSN and what we're simply removing from the article. So far we're taking CFR and Jamestown to RSN. Anything else? . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Are we done here? if Mhhossein and Saff V. don't want to discuss this further, then I'll remove the agreed sources/statements and take the remaining to RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: - I suggest you repeat your redaction - with the exception of CFR, Jamestown, Khonsari, IPS (Sadri). I suggest you take CFR and Jamestown to RSN (a discussion worth having there in any event - impacts other articles - and I don't see one in the archives). Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no disagrement for your above reply, It is true to remove unreliable sources but I defenetly disagree to remove material which linked to unreliable sources. Give some time to reviewe such material in reliable sources.It is not against the wikipedia's essay.Saff V. (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way (except when this involves a BLP or something obviously not sourceable elsewhere ) on whether to cn and remove in a month or remove now. You can also restore the information in the future with a source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

In controversial articles we don't keep information unless it's properly sourced, why should it be different here? I'll remove the discussed references and text relating to BLP or obviously not sourceable elsewhere. I'll place "citation needed" tag to everything else. In a month's time, if references haven't been provided for these, I'll remove the text as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I've started the process and will send a revised update soon. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no one who wants to keep unsourced material, but as wikipedia's essay the only solution is not to delete unsorced material.Stefka Bulgaria Can I aske u to provide your all edits about this matter here?Saff V. (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I found out that some material in article is supported by Porter 1 and 2. So there is no obstructive element to pass RSN with this source.Saff V. (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Second round of Assessment of unreliable sources

Based on the above discussion, here is a list of sources that are to be removed for failing WP:RS. The list also outlines some sources that will be taken to WP:RSN and others that will kept (both marked):

1) "Balkan Post opinion piece": Fails WP:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2) "Globalsecurity.org": Fails WP:RS; often engages in conspiracy theories and WP:FRINGE that lack sufficient editor oversight.
3) "CFR.org": (to be taken to RSN)
4) "CFR.org": (to be taken to RSN)
5) "Ploughshares report': Fails WP:RS as sponsored content
6) "CFR.org": (to be taken to RSN)
7) "CFR.org": (to be taken to RSN)
8) "CFR.org": (to be taken to RSN)
9) "Jamestown": (to be taken to RSN)
10) "The Harpers blog": Blogs do not qualify for RS, specially in controversial articles
11) "Strategic Culture": Dead link
12) "George Cave": Dead link
13) "TKB.org": Dead link
14) "CFR.org": (to be taken to RSN)
15) "Huff post blog": Blogs do not qualify for RS, specially in controversial articles
16) "Globalsecurity.org": Fails WP:RS; often engages in conspiracy theories and WP:FRINGE that lack sufficient editor oversight.
17) "Novinite.com": Fails WP:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
18) "RadioFreeEurope": (include as attributed statement)
19) "The Iran Brief": Fails WP:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
20) "auto20": Deadlink
21) "Khonsari, Mehrdad": (include as attributed statement)
22) "Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Développement international": Deadlink
23) "Mehr News Agency": Fails WP:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
24) "Inter Press Serice": (include as attributed statement)
25) "Jamestown": Another (to be taken to RSN)
26) "Iranian Diplomacy": Fails WP:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
27) "RadioFreeEurope": Not attributed statement
28) "Alternet": Fails:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
29) "mepc.org": (to be taken to RSN)
30) "ukprogressive.co.uk": Fails:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
31) "MSNBCMedia": Deadlink
32) "NIAC Facts Sheet": NIAC is UNDUE
33) "CiCinema": Fails:RS = No reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Which consensus? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been encouraged to participate in discussing the reliability of these sources, but have chosen not to. You need to provide a counter-rationale for each one you want to keep, otherwise I'll simply remove them and take the remaining to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You were hasty for making this section amid the previous immature one. Don't twist the facts, since I have commented on the above sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What?? Either discuss the reliability of the sources above or I'll just remove them for failing WP:RSN. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Dead link" or simply "fails WP:RS" are not suitable arguments for removal of the sources. You need to make policy-wise comments. Then I can simply say they're reliable per WP:RS. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to address the list of sources one by one (as you demanded in your edit summary!) and defend the sources you'd like to keep, just like I have done above (I have added more than just "Fails:RS"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll certainly do this when you address them policy-wise one by one. "UNDUE", "not attributed" and etc has nothing to do with reliability.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have assessed the sources; in order to move forward, I ask that you do the same, and we can then come to an agreement based on both assessments. If you don't want to do this, you don't have to, I'm just trying to work collaboratively with you and avoid edit warring. Thank you for your cooperation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• We have discussed this. Without a clear rationale of why a source is reliable - it goes. We don't presume sources are reliable - it's the other way around - WP:ONUS is on those who want to use a source. Stefka Bulgaria provided a rationale for each and every source above. Other editors (myself and Saff V.) weighed in (rebutting in some cases and in some cases strengthening the arguement). Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No, there had not been enough discussions on this and I don't see clear rationale being provided. As I said, I'll certainly do the WP:ONUS if there are true arguments regarding the reliability of the sources. As I said, "UNDUE", "not attributed" and etc has nothing to do with reliability. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Most of the uses are proper under Wikipedia policy - opinions stated and cited as opinion and statements of fact allowed as statements of fact. There is no rule that reliable sources must agree with what an editor asserts to be fact, or else be removed. Collect (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Collect: Your "what an editor asserts to be fact" was, in my opinion, an emphasize on the editor's exercise of Confirmation bias, which he's told on multiple occasions. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: - first of all - outside editors are needed here - welcome. I do however implore you to be specific. Some sources - e.g. AlterNet - have a very strong consensus at RSN against their use. In other cases we have op-eds that are being used unattributed for facts. If you could be specific (examining each one - including what's in it, and how it is used) - as opposed to making a general stmt - that would be helpful. Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Mhhossein, do you really want to go there? Beyond your argument in the discussion below that we should label Black people in an image as "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" based on your own personal assessment and an attack piece by a fringe political opposition site, you've tried to include the following smearing POV into the article:

1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)
3. "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."
4. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)

You (and Saff V., who oddly enough have worked on over 300 pages together) have made false accusations against me several times now trying to get me sanctioned for cleaning up some of the POV:[4][5] [6] [7] [8], [9], [10], etc.

POV-pushing at the MEK page also used to involve user:EoL, who was blocked for "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East" and sockpupetry.

You have been previously warned about having strong POV and being particularly hard of hearing, and have a habit of reporting other editors that disagree with you, being part of more than a few reports at ANI: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]) and also have a habit of casting aspersions [26][27].

So I suggest you cease campaigning trying to get me blocked for trying to clean up some of the horrible POV in this article, and focus on the discussions themselves. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I seriously warn you against harassing me by pasting my old ANI edits and topics, most of which led to warnings to other parties. Did the above links have anything to do with our current discussion? Campaigning is another false accusation I warn you against. Focus on the discussions themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is incredible, I cannot understand why this disscusion is started while we were disscusing this ithe n upper section here.Icewhiz provided some conclusion and suggestions here but in parallel and same time Stefka Bulgaria peresented another conclusion.This problem confused opinions of users!Saff V. (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)