Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

RfC about more allegations from former MEK members (2nd RfC)

Withdrawn: it seems most of these were already addressed in a previous RfC

Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

• "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."
• "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."
• "In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As well as this:

• "Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused"."
• "MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."

*"In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies"

• "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime."

Into this?:

Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization. Such accusations include a ban on romantic relationships and control over contact with family. According to a BBC report, "a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid. This RFC seems to have a similar form of the problem reported here by the closing admin. The RFC is proposing the following:

US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

This is while the source reads as such:

There are many other stories.
Children who never forgave their parents for abandoning them. Children who did forgive and are now joyously reunited. Divorcees who have got out of the organisation saying they still love their former spouses who are still in.
In over 25 years of reporting, I have been lied to often enough but, as successive former MEK members told what they had been through, their tears seemed real enough to me.
And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents.
Again, who to believe?

In contrast to what the OP is trying to imply, the source is not saying it as a fact that the UK and US politicians deny these statements. The author, in fact, is trying to portray various probabilities and is not saying which side is right nor he says he did ask the politicians. Actually, to show the doubt, he's asking "Who to believe"? Moreover, regarding the former members he says:

And the former members?
Some are embittered, others just seem broken.

That's why this RFC seems misleading. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've sorted that out for you amending the proposal. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

NO, it's not amended. The source does not say the politicians said such a thing. The biggest problem with the porposal, among other things which I will comprehensively explain in my comment, is that ONE source is cherry picked to push a certain POV. This is source can not be used in face multiple other scholarly works saying actually the opposite. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have amended this for you once again, though I doubt you'll be happy even with quoting the source directly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria You want to have a lengthy quote from one source that opposes the allegations yet you want to summarize all the multiple sources that make that allegations into two sentences. That seems obviously against WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Yes:

  1) Per WP:NOT and NPOV: we are not including claims by current members, so we should not include detailed allegations by former members either.

  2) In the last RfC, Mhhossein argued that these are "major points reported by multiple reliable sources"; but they are not major points. These mostly constitute allegations by random people who have defected the MEK (or claim to have defected from the MEK) and lack any sort of fact-checking, and fact-checking is needed in a controversial article such as this one where there is a misinformation issue.

  3) Per the previously-closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article.

  4) This RfC takes into account the points made and closing remarks in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article" that suggested the final text be longer than the previous proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Yes. I don't know what Mhhossein is talking about here but the BBC is talking about the MEK's internal social policies that some have interpreted as "cultish" characteristics (like requiring members in Iraq to divorce because it was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs and sending their children away because it would be safer for them). It then describes former members saying they participated in public confessions about sexual fantasies, then that

"And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

So the politicians are saying this, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that report which also hints at why we don't need so many redundant allegations all replicating the same cult material. The issue is not this BBC source, the issue is the abundant cult redundancy that needs to be abreviated.

In the previous RFC, Mhhossein wrote that "WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.", but then Mhossein appears to remove the "weight to opposing POVs".

It is worrying to see an editor doing all this to pack the article with allegations that the MEK is a cult while at the same time removing the reports indicating that the Tehran government is trying to designate the MEK as a cult. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it an ANI comment or an RFC one? Also, "So the politicians are saying this"? Where in the source you found that? There's absolutely no factual statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I've now amended the text so it quotes the BBC source directly, so that's been fixed for you. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Read it once again, it seems even more nonsense than before. This is the third time you are proposing misleading proposals for RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Mhhossein just seems unwilling to reach any form of compromise. If we are not including claims from current MeK members, then by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members. We either include both (current and former member claims), or neither. Including both would open a can of worms, while excluding both POV sides solves this problem. The article needs fact-based information from authors such as scholars, not all this POV from COI interviewees. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Who said excluding all the POVs resolves the problem? is a new rule? No, you're certainly wrong. POVs should be used according to their weights.--Mhhossein ^talk 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed, and that NPOV is a problem with these allegations from MEK members. These allegations are coming from people who have vested interests on this topic and could just be making things up. Like Javadi is saying only facts should be in the article, and these are just POV allegations, so all of this can be shorter. Nika2020 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• No; Again! The problematic RFC is repeated-- again. Which parts of the contents are considered to be redundant and why? Likewise, I agree with User:Vice Regent. The RFC is fundamentally against WP:DUE. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes; I think WP:ADVOCACY also applies here. We know that the Iranian regime recruits people that have left the MEK to spread fake information about the MEK (it's in the article!). A mention that former members have protested human right abuses is what we need in the article (per WP:DUE), the rest is a mess of malicious POV quotes. Ypatch (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet what you call "malicious POV" is widely covered in WP:RS and would be therefore WP:DUE for inclusion. Many arguments against the content seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you give some policy reasons for removing content critical of MEK? VR _talk 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

1) the content proposed here to be shortened consist of a handful of unproven claims from people with a conflict of interest (not critical or DUE unless you're trying to fill a controversial article with such content). 2) policy reasons for shortening this content have been given in this RfC: Nika2020 proposed shortening it per NPOV; Ypatch proposed shortening it per WP:ADVOCACY; I proposed shortening it per WP:NOT and NPOV, making a similar case as Ypatch that fact-checking is a basic requirement in a controversial article where there is a misinformation problem (a point also raised by Idealigic). MA Javadi proposed that if "we are not including claims from current MeK members, then by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members". These are all perfectly valid policy reasons to shorten POV from former MEK members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the Stefka Bulgaria et al. are repeatedly failing to address the reality of the reliable sources. I could substantiate that your proposed text is essentially another misleading proposal (I think it's the third time you're doing it and you need to be careful since you need to be responsive at ANI for the fourth). Actually, as opposed to your misleading proposal, "the source does not say the politicians said such a thing". Hahahah, aren't NOT and ADVOCACY referring to the same thing? None of them apply here. As for DUE, "You want to have a lengthy quote from one source that opposes the allegations yet you want to summarize all the multiple sources that make that allegations into two sentences. That seems obviously against WP:UNDUE". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, because the proposed version is trying to use the tone of Wikipedia for an improper conclusion made by an editor from reliable secondary sources. The book used for the first sentence (about ant-like human beings) is edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge, which certainly meets WP:RS criteria. The second is also backed up by another peer-reviewed source (Asian Politics & Policy) even though it is a scholarly source, it is said that the author is an ex-member. For the third sentence that the proposal intends to remove (about sexual controls) there are reliable sources available that assert this part of the "ideological revolution" as facts, not as allegations made by ex-members. If you are unhappy with ex-members, I can bring some content from Ronen Cohen's book on the MEK that I have, The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, which discusses sexual control practices as a fact. Pahlevun (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. As I pointed out above (more than a month ago and to which Stefka never responded), the proposed wording violates WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Stefka Bulgaria: this RfC looks malformed. It seems you are trying to replace some lengthy content in the article by a shorter version. But most of that lengthy content is simply not in the article. I think you need to make a clearer RfC in terms of what exactly you want to remove/replace in the article.VR _talk 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

VR: Recently Mhhossein removed a lot of information that wasn't in the article, to which admin Vanamonde explained that "as I've repeated any number of times, this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here)".

This RfC proposes to do just that: summarize the excessive details while keeping the main points (thus conforming to WP:DUE, as Alex-h pointed out below). You and Mhhossein are entitled to disagree with this proposal, but the majority of voters here are currently in favor of it, so this RfC is perfectly valid. Since WP:BLUDGEONING is an all too common practice in these RfCs (yourself and Mhhossein have already commented a total of 10 times here), if you want to discuss Vanamonde's "summary style" suggestion in more detail, please open a new TP discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, you are misunderstanding my question. The problem here is that your proposal is unclear. The content you want "summarize" simply doesn't exist in the article. For example, you implied the article contains this sentence: Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. But I can not find this sentence or any mention of "erection" anywhere. Why are you trying to remove something that does't exist?VR _talk 14:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regnet, you are correct; it seems I missed these being sorted out in a previous RfC. I have withdrawn the RfC. Thanks for your feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. The RFC does not violate WP:UNDUE because the principal viewpoints are represented. This content is made up of allegations (not facts) from people that have left the MEK. It uses highly POV language violating NPOV. An abbreviation of it is enough to neutrally represent the viewpoints. Alex-h (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Stefka and Alex-h. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, did you read Stefka's comments? He withdrew the RfC.VR _talk 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, can you (or I?) close this RfC as withdrawn so that others may not mistakenly comment on it? (And the fact that folks are blindly voting on a withdrawn RfC is telling...)VR _talk 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I didn't see the small bit of text in the vast amount of text there is here. Yes, that does indeed mean I blindly voted. Banter aside, please keep this kind of nonsense to yourself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, is the above comment not WP:UNCIVIL? Concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND here are legitimate and deserve to be raised.VR _talk 16:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Accusing someone of blindly voting without any form of ground definitely doesn't fit in the civil category either. Treat others as you want to be treated, always assume WP:GOOD FAITH of your fellow editors. I do agree that my conduct just there was not acceptable, but neither was yours, which you could at least accept. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: That first jab was not necessary. No need to dwell over this further. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Content about MEK-related disinformation

I am restarting the discussion above, that hinges on the content added here by Stefka Bulgaria and removed by Mhhossein. The discussion above has become unconstructive. Here's a few things everyone needs to keep in mind to keep round 2 productive: 1) Editors seeking to include content need to establish consensus for it. 2) Source reliability, not POV, is what matters for establishing due weight; reliable sources should not be discounted for their POV, but nor should unreliable sources be included just to provide a "balancing" POV. 3) Opinion pieces and other primary sources generally ought to be avoided; they may be acceptable only when the authors are authorities in their fields, and even then not always. So, with that in mind, if there is content about MEK-related disinformation that anyone seeks to include, please post those pieces here, but only if the sourcing for that content meets the criteria I've listed above. And if the reliability of the source isn't clear, please explain why you think it is reliable and worthy of inclusion when posting the source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, for the sake of collaboration, and without assuming any wrongdoing on your part, I would like you to describe your objections to the content below, without reference to any previous comments made by anybody. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Had I not been here to collaborate, I would not reply to the queries. Though I am ready to keep on the job, why should I repeat my self over and over? I have already explained these things multiple times. Do you think it would be helpful to do it once again? Competence is required specially for such a challenging subject.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, I think it would be helpful for you to do it once again, which is why I am asking you to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

OK Vanamonde, I will do it. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamone93: I have not ignored Mhhossein's answers. He says the information he removed was "dubious and repeated materials"[1] from ""MEK-sympathetic sources"[2]. I am providing here the information Mhhossein removed once again, and @Mhhossein: with honestly the best collaborative spirit I can give, I ask you again to please indicate which source here are "MEK-sympathetic", or "dubious", or "repeated", and explain why. I will provide an explanation next to each about why I can't understand your removal.

1 “On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”" (These are two opinion articles by Ivan Sascha Sheehan and J. Adam Ereli, both seem authorities in their fields.)

2 "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage." (There is no information in the article about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands or pressuring other Iranians to conduct espionage there)

3 "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants." (There is no information in the article about Iran government financing a campaign to undermine MEK through politicians or public servants)

4 "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda." (No information in the article about Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) continuing its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda).

5 "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.” (No information in the article about about Iran regime spending millions of dollars to portray the MEK as a group without popular support)

6 "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades". (Mhhossein, You say "the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere", but the only quote in the article I have found about this is that "The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) cracked down on MEK activity, carrying out what a US Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Report referred to as "psychological warfare"". The information about the committee emerging as a think tank and its historical pursuit of taking "the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades" is not in the article.)

7 "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran". (No information in the article about Komite's reporting on MEK achievements).

8 "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran" (No information in the article about the Komite's report recommending focus on MEK activities and supporters in Iranian jailhouses or about the regime executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran) Idealigic (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Please notice that Competence is required. Responding to your repetitive questions has already wasted my time and I hope this would be the final time. I repeat my explanations (I will gradually respond all of the items and please wait so that I am done):

1- A work by Sheehan is already used in the page saying "There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." This is saying pretty much the same thing as the disputed content. Moreover, it's more general and is supported by a reliable source so we don't need opinionated pieces. As for Ereli is a MEK sympathetic author. That's why his work is not a suitable inclusion for balancing the page. See this and this to know about how MEK sympathetic the source is. For instance "...In contrast to Katzman, J. Adam Ereli, another MEK panelist..." and "The Thursday appearance on the panel won’t be the first time that Ereli has participated in one of MEK’s events. In July, 2014, Ereli appeared at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a coalition whose sole purpose is supporting the MEK, and praised the NCRI."

2, 3 & 4- These items are already covered by the article. Briefly, these quote say MOIS targets MEK members and try to demonize them. Now check out the page:

• "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group,"
• "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations"
• "The Iranian regime is concerned about MEK activities in Iran, and MEK supporters are a major target of Iran's internal security apparatus and its campaign of assassinating opponents abroad."
• "Yonah Alexander has stated that Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents have conducted "intelligence gathering, disinformation, and subversive operations against individual regime opponents and opposition governments. [...] According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution"
• "A December 2012 report by the US library of Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK". MOIS has also been known to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK"
• "The report also said that officials of the Iranian regime place pressure on Western countries to ban the MEK in order to "destabilise the organisation and demonise the MEK in the host country and thus end their political and social activities"
• "A report named "People's Mojahedin of Iran" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said that "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign, which is also carried out through former opponents of the regime."

Please check out People's Mujahedin of Iran § Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK and People's Mujahedin of Iran § Disinformation through recruited MEK members. You see, the paper is already overwhelmed with these MOIS-is-targeting-MEK allegations. I will start a clean up! Also, please don't say mentioning Netherland is making a difference. I will respond to the rest very soon.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Next items:

5- Firstly, why do you think the opinion of Rafizadeh should be included? Secondly, the page already includes closely similar items such as "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign.." and "The report also said that officials of the Iranian regime place pressure on Western countries to ban the MEK in order to "destabilise the organisation and demonise the MEK in the host country and thus end their political and social activities."

6, 7 & 8- Yes "psychological warfare" is already included in the page. But for more details on the so-called committee (or Komite) I say, accorindg to Cohen, the only source regarding these allegations is MEK itself. So, adding a huge amount of details on a matter solely claimed by MEK is not logical. Specill sine Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". So, what do you think? Did you find any other reliable sources saying something the so-called Komite and its report? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93:: Some of the responses by Mhhossein here do not address that he is removing specified counter viewpoints and other information from reliable sources not mentioned in the article.

1.- source by Sacha Sheehan

disputed content: “In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

Mhhossein says that he removed the information by Sacha Sheehan because there is already another source by this author in the article that says “There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK". However, John Thompson’s testimony that Iran is trying to get other countries to label the MEK “as a terrorist cult” provides a specific counter viewpoint to the whole “MEK cult” debate, which is something that is not in the article or in the excerpt examples Mhhossein provided (and also something that Mhhossein has consistently challenged in this talk page).

2.- This point does not need to be discussed further.

3.- source by General Intelligence and Security Service, Ministry of Interior and kingdom Relations

disputed content: “Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light.”

The excerpt examples Mhhossein provided talk about MOIS and VAVAK recruiting former MEK members to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK, but there is nothing about the Iranian intelligence services running a campaign against the MEK that involves politicians and public servants.

4.- This point does not need to be discussed further.

5.- source by Arab News

disputed content:“Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and president of the International American Council, described the “paranoia with which the Iranian regime officials constantly speak about the group at home, including the most recent appeal to the French president by Hassan Rouhani, in which he blamed the MEK for its role in the unrest that has engulfed Iran over the past eight years. “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added.”

By removing Rafizadeh’s testimony that the Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to portray the MEK as a group without popular support, Mhhossein is omitting an important counter view to the (painstaking) “MEK is unpopular” debate (a counter view that is not in the excerpt examples Mhhossein provided)

6.7.8.- source by Ronen Cohen

If Mhhossein’s problem with this information was that “adding a huge amount of details on a matter solely claimed by MEK is not logical”, then shouldn’t he have shortened or edited the text instead of removing it all?

I am making a legitimate effort to read carefully and acknowledge Mhhossein’s responses, but some of these lack a valid explanation for removing essential information that is not in the article, that has been central to talk page RFCs, and that comes from reliable sources (or authorities in their fields). Idealigic (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You will need an RfC or equivalent to establish consensus for this material, because I'm not seeing anything above besides a disagreement about how much detail is needed, which is entirely a content matter and not a conduct matter. As an aside, and as I've repeated any number of times, this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Can you stop over repeating those long quote? This has turned the whole talkpage into a real mess. #1- Are you struggling over "Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult"? This is already included (in different wordings, e.g "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies...")! #2 Isn't it already said here: "MOIS has also been known to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK"? #5 I still believe this does not need to be included for the reasons I said. Also, you did not say why you think Rafizadeh’s comment merits inclusion (also conisder the sourcing!). Moreover, the key points by major authorities regarding MEK's popularity inside and outside Iran is included in "Perception" section. #6,7 & 8: You were trying to Wikivoice a huge amount of MEK's POVs while Cohen is casting doubt over the so-called report by saying "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department." I asked you to find another reliable source given the this fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: can we agree shortening POV in the article instead of bloating it with details? Idealigic (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As per DUE sometimes we need to expand and sometimes we need to shorten the some certain portions of text. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we can edit according to DUE by covering the major points without bloating the article with details; which I think is what's being proposed here. I support the summary style approach . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Says the guy who "bloated" the page with unnecessary details. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm willing to make modifications to my editing based on feedback. It would be good for the article and the collaborative process if you were too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka, I've been offering to collaborate with you (and others) for a while now. But even the smallest edits I make (for example formatting sentences) keep getting reverted. Are you actually serious about your offer to collaborate this time?VR _talk 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent Are you in agreement with Vanamonde's suggestion to trim the article through summary style? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I also support fixing article issues through summary style editing. Alex-h (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I proposed a very long time ago that this article should contain summaries over various topics and the details of those topics should be expanded out in articles that are more narrowly focused (e.g. History of the People's Mujahedin of Iran).

Also, Stefka Bulgaria, can you respond to my question here[3] when you get the chance?VR _talk 02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

VR: The history of this article shows efforts are done to change the history of MEK. It's by pretended these are for following a so-called "summary style", which is not right. Vanamonde never supported such a bogus style, I believe he's favoring the DUE version. Stefka Bulgaria's definition of summary (which he shows at the RFCs) is totally against WP:DUE, that's what I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: if you recall, I offered to help in that proposal, and just like here, Mhhossein refused my help. By the way, it wasn't me who proposed a summary style to fix the excessive detail and POV in the article, it was Vanamonde. Despite Mhhossein being against this, a couple of other editors here support this approach. If you support this approach too (I can't tell by your response), then we can work on cleaning the article together. Please let me know (I'll respond to your other question now). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Please review my comment. Moreover, Stefka Bulgaria's so-called "summary style" clearly undermines WP:UNDUE. Hence, I would not label his offer as "help". Summarizing should not remove crucial points. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I never proposed removing crucial points, I proposed summarising the different allegations that are all talking about the same events. We don't need each author's/source's POV about a particular event, a summary of what the majority sources are saying is plenty. That approach does not undermine WP:UNDUE, and I think it's in line with what Vanamonde93 is also suggesting. Vice regent: do you want to work on this together? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have in the past tried many "compromise" wordings, so that should be evidence that yes I want to work on this together. Also your and Mhhossein's positions are not that far apart. He wants UNDUE to not be undermined and you seem to agree. The question is how much is everyone willing to compromise? VR _talk 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@VR: I suggest you look at this fresh example of that so-called "summary" style. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Operation Shining Sun

@Idealigic: At first you removed the "Operation Shining sun" from the body and the infobox, alleging the source was not reliable. Now, after I have found a reliable source for that, you claim it's not enough. Please explain why there should be more than one source for that? I see your edits are becoming tendentious. You have recently reverted a user without explaining why! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You tried to use this theglobepost link to put in the lead that the MEK was involved in a battle. If you insist that this is a reliable source for this, my suggestion is that you ask at RSN and see what they will say there about that. Then you used another source that looks more reliable (I cannot access it though), and I reverted you with edit summary "One source for to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight." You also have removed single reliable sources claiming "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources", as such if you want to put in the article that the MEK took part in a battle, you need "multiple high-quality sources". And if you think this means my editing is "tendentious", then this would mean your editing is also tendentious, and werent you blocked for tendentious editing in April? Upon request, I can provide more ways in which I think your editing has been tendentious, if tendentious editing is what you really want to discuss. Idealigic (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Idealigic. I've submitted the RfC below taking note of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This straw man fallacy mixed with a battleground language won't be an improvement to this discussion. It's hopeless to see the portion of your comment saying MEK's participation in the operation is an exceptional claim. Cohen's scholarly work, which you removed, is just reliable enough for this. @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Should I really find more than one source saying MEK started "Operation Shining Sun" against Iran? The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Can you show me where your scholarly source supports your assertion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Sure, you can see it in P. 5 "In the document, which was exposed after Operation Shining Sun which took place in April 1988 and probably referred to that operation as well, the Komite’s advice to their leadership...". The context is on the MEK's activities against Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I did see that quote, but I don't buy it, sorry. The source is not explicitly saying the MEK initiated that, and if it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly, then you should be able to find a source making it explicit without trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in that source says that the MEK were involved in Operation Shining Sun. Ypatch (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The users supporting pro-MEK POVs here are well aware of the operation. They know it well. Yes, "it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly." I could find more sources [4] and [5]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have provided those sources upfront, instead of the one you did...I can verify the first, I don't have access to the second. @Idealigic and Stefka Bulgaria: I think the onus is now on you to say why you oppose the inclusion of this content. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The second source mentions “Operation Bright Sun” (a different name) on page 22.VR _talk 02:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Can I insert it into the article? It's well verified by, at least, three reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent: Yes, both “Operation Bright Sun” and "Operation shining sun" are the translations for the original title of the operation, i.e. "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Well, the content was objected to by Idealigic before, so you've to give them a chance to respond. If they continue to remain active but do not engage here, then yes, you may reinstate that content. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein removed a reliable source from the article with the edit summary "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources")". Now Mhhossein wants to add in the lead "Operation Sunshine", but this looks to be supported by one reliable source. Can somebody explain why WP:EXCEPTIONAL can be applied in some instances, but not for others? If "Operation Sunshine" is to be added in the lead and infobox, shouldn't it "require multiple high-quality sources"?Idealigic (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Simply because it's not an exceptional claim. I could show, at least, three sources for that. Vanamonde: Just see he has never followed our comments and still says there's only ONE source. Moreover, Idealigic objection is not substantiated. Time to insert the material? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Cohen source does not say the MEK were in "Operation Sunshine", the Piazza source says "Operation Bright Sun", and the Buchan source is the only source that mentions (only once) "Operation Shining Sun". If there is consensus that one mention in one source is enough to put something in the lead and infobox, then why not the other information that Mhhossein removed? Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). Your objections are becoming some sort of stone-walling. Vanamonde: Insights please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic is asking a reasonable question, not "stone-walling". I think a good compromise would be to add “Operation Bright Sun” in the body for now, and if more sources are found, then we can also add this in the lead. I will use the Piazza article Mhhossein provided since it's the source with the most detail and put this information in the corresponding section. But since we are adding this, I also think the information Mhhossein removed should be put back. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic and MA Javadi: "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). So, this source should be counted. I will insert it back into the info box and the body if you fail to raise a reasonable objection for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Words "bright" and "shining" have the same meaning. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I worked on the (body) section about this information which had big problems such as certain things not being in the source and copy-right violations. I have added "operation Bright Sun" in the title of the section (Operation Bright Sun, Operation 40 Stars, and Operation Mersad) and in the section itself. I used mainly the Piazza scholarly article that Mhhossein provided here since it's the source with the most detail. I also removed "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses" based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL since, like Mhhossein in their edit here, I have not been able to find other sources to prove this information is supported in other sources except this one. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are those copyright violations and/or non-verified contents? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• @idealigic: You were asking for more sources on MEK's operation shining Sun. Now, you have removed those reliable sources from the article. Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think I may have made as mistake there. I wanted to remove your original research that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same (this is not in the sources, it's your own claim). I think we should be faithful to the sources. Maybe something like "Piazza called this operation bright sun", and others called it "shining sun"? we need to be careful that the dates match though. Additionally, you added the Ronen Cohen source and the Piazza source in the lead section supporting Shining Sun. Vanmonde told you that Cohen did not explicitly say the MEK initiated Shining Sun, and Piazza says Bright Sun, so please remove these two sources from the lead section since they don't match with what you are trying to say. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is more than clear that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same. Don't say that excuse again. Actually, "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" !!! Vanamonde correctly asked to find another source explicitly saying MEK launched the operation, and I did. Are there further reasons behind your removal of the reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't question that in your mind you see things in a particular way, but we don't follow that. No matter how many "!!!" exclamations you use, we follow the reliable sources. I suggested one solution that follows the information in the sources, so I am waiting for your answer why you don't think this is a good proposition. Idealigic (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So I am going to restore those reliable sources if you have no guideline based explanations for your removal of sources which lies against your own claim.--Mhhossein ^talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we be faithful to the sources and quote what is in each one instead of coming to our own conclusions about what they mean? Idealigic (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary since we're not making a conclusion ("the sky is blue"). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making your own conclusion that "Operation bright sun" and "Operation shining sun" are the same. I don't think there is anything wrong with being faithful to the information in the sources. Idealigic (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have partly restored my own removal per your notice of my mistake of removing this from the article, and attributed "Bright sun" to Piazza since he is the only source using this name "The operation was named "Shining Sun" and according to James Piazza, "Operation Bright Sun". "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added." If you think we should restore your version without attributions to Piazza, then maybe best to start a rfc. Idealigic (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Do you want me to report your edit which was inserted unilaterally in a partial manner without building consensus? You have inserted your own version without reaching a compromise. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In this edit I removed some text from the article by mistake (I wanted to remove that Operation Bright sun and Shining sun are the same thing, something not supported by the sources). When I realised my mistake, I self reverted most of the edit, and attributed "Operation Bright sun" to Piazza since that's the source using this name. Did I breach the article's restrictions? I can self revert my last edit if so. Idealigic (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not concerned by those edits with respect to the article's restrictions, but if other editors believe that change was unnecessary, you should self-revert before discussing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: You have not responded to this since 1 month ago. See how baseless your objection was. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I that OR noticeboard post, why didn't you mention the option of attributing to the author? wouldn't that have been a more fair representation of the debate we are having? Idealigic (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: You have already violated the page restriction and still you avoid reverting yourself despite being told by Vanamonde and the outcome of the OR noticeboard discussion. I had put the link the our discussion so it was fair enough. @Vanamonde: Would you please review his recent violation (check my '06:04, 4 November 2020' comment please)? --Mhhossein ^talk 22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This is quickly climbing the list of the silliest conflicts on Wikipedia; but if you still cannot come to a consensus about this, Idealigic, please self revert to the last stable version and open an RfC for the changes you want. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem with self-reverting, but I can't remember what was the last stable version. What exactly do you want me to put in the article? Idealigic (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow the comments. You should remove the unnecessary attribution and leave the citation. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Idealigic (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Need Update

Hello. There are 2 [needs update] tag. can someone do it? Ghazaalch (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find that information in the source provided so I replaced it with what was provided instead. It should be fixed. Thanks for bringing this to attention Ghazaalch.VR _talk 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you VR. There are also some citation needed tag which I don't know what should be done about them.Ghazaalch (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, ok I've started. The best thing to do is just find references rather than remove the material.VR _talk 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you VR. Could you name some neutral reliable sources which could be used improving this article? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Works_cited is a good list. Among that list, the RAND report seems to be latest and comprehensive. Abrahamian's "The Iranian Mojahedin" is sympathetic to the MEK but still accurate and scholarly.VR _talk 11:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein please also answer this

@Mhhossein: also please explain why you have removed:

1 "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division" (You say "it promoting the POV of MEK. Who says it was heavy?". The author is saying "heavy", so why do you think it's promoting the POV of MEK?)

2"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment. (No information in the article about Kerand and Eslamabad being 'liberated' from regime's troops)

3"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.” (MEK and Jassim's testimonies about this are not in the article)

4"In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018." (I read [6] your answer about this but still can't understand why you think this should not be in the article)

5 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government." (are you now saying you removed this by mistake and this can be put back in the article?)

6 You restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses."[7], which is supported by one source, with edit summary "is not an exceptional claim- it's not a big deal". Can you please explain when WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applied and when is not? Idealigic (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: can you please say when you plan to respond? Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to be snarky, Idealigic, but when do you plan to respond to my questions to you? I pinged you in a question on Nov 1,[8] then I reminded you again on Nov 10,[9]. No problem if you got busy, but give others the same consideration. Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:DEADLINE.VR _talk 21:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@VR: Voting in a RFC (where I have already explained my vote and also where I'm not interested in engaging in bludgeoning behavior) is one thing, and removing information from the article is another very different thing. @Mhhossein:, can you please respond to the 6 points in this section? Thank you kindly. Idealigic (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, your comment in question advocated removing certain content from the lead and Mhhossein is also advocating removing content from the article. Both Idealigic and Mhhossein need to answer questions clearly about content they don't want in the article.VR _talk 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: do you consider these also to be unnecessary details, or should Mhhossein answer for these edits he did? Idealigic (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not taking a position on any specific content; rather, I'm making a general observation that the article covers allegations and counter-allegations in far too much detail. Which ones are removed or kept is for talk page discussion to determine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: but what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did to the article, like here for example? Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, ping him again, maybe he missed the first one. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Idealigic: I wonder you are saying "what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did". It's nonesense. Just look at the level of my contributions:

1:- The level of causalities is already covered. Given those details, I don't know why an extra descriptive phrase should be included. It hurts the NPOV of the page, I believe.

2:- "Liberation" is a ridiculous word scare quote in this context. Were those cities captured by Iran and then liberated by MEK? Of course not. LOL! By the, this comment shows you need to take 'Wikipedia:Competence is required' very seriously. Islamabad-e Gharb is already mentioned (is it not similar to Eslamabad?). So, you can add the name Karand to "It seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb."

3:- The Iraqi official's claims are cited to Rjavi! ("Rajavi makes statement. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 0835 GMT. 19 June, 1988. and Chemical Warfare Denied. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 1344 GMT. 19 June, 1988.") Moreover, AFAIS, this claim goes against thoes of '"The Combination of Iraqi offensives and Western intervention force Iran to accept a cease-fire: September 1987 to March 1989" (PDF). The Lessons of Modern War – Volume II: Iran–Iraq War. Center for Strategic and International Studies.' and 'Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.'

I will respond the rest very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, thanks for responding, but please stop making allusions to CIR here. If there are competence issues severe enough that something needs to be done about them, please ask for assistance from uninvolved administrators. And I'll save you some time by telling you there's no substantive competence issues here, just battleground mentalities and a lack of commitment to NPOV. Idealigic, please respond to Mhhossein's comments about the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: 1:- In the article the level of casualties are given as a quote from Rajavi, "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added. The report in dispute is saying the MEK inflicted "heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division". The difference is that this is a report by something other than Rajavi's account, but you first said you removed it because it was "promoting the POV of MEK", and now you say "The level of casualties is already covered." I don't wish to engage in battleground behavior, but the report in dispute seems like a reliable account by a reliable source that provides information from something other than Rajavi's words (which can be interpreted as just a primary source).

2:- "Liberated" is the word used by the neutral and reliable source, not by me. What we have in the article now is that the MEK "seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb", and you seem to be ok with that POV, but when we add a different POV from another reliable source you remove it saying it's a "scare quote". We could have both POVs in the article, wouldn't that would make things more NPOV?

3:- Why is it wrong to add an account by the MEK leadership in an article about the MEK? The MEK are making the claim that “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”, why are they not entitled to present their version of the event? Idealigic (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

1:- I realized, on the second thought, that the phrase "heavy" is the author's POV but I still am not seeing in your comments why an extra descriptive should be added. So you think Rajavi's account should be replaced by Omar Al-Hassan's?

2:- No, as I said "liberated" is a scare quote and should not be used. Moreover, I explained how it's meaning is not matching the context. Moreover, I have no idea about that longstanding text (did I say it's a scare quote? I does not seem to be such, I think).

3:- Who said you can't use the Rajavi's account? The only issue is that you can't use them as a fact (it should be used in an attributed manner). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

1:- "Inflicting casualties" could mean 1 or 2 people. "Inflicting heavy casualties" means many people. This one word provides better description, why would you want to leave it out? I would use both Rajavi's and Omar Al-Hassan's account - "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division, which according to Masoud Rajavi resulted in the killing of 2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment captured"

2:- Where does it say that "liberated" is a "scare quote"? One source is saying "seized and razed to the ground", and the other source is saying "liberated". We have two reliable sources saying two different things. Why not include both POVs (in an attributed manner)?

3:- So you are now ok to add Rajavi's account if we attribute it to him? Idealigic (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I see you are active in other talk page discussions, so could you please also respond to the points here? (it has been more than 2 weeks since you don't respond about points 4,5,and 6). Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic, number 6 does not seem like an exceptional claim and is covered by multiple WP:RS. It is mentioned explicitly here and here, and alluded to here. Are there any sources that dispute it?VR _talk 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

1: We don't need to stress on the causalities more than enough. Rjavi's account is enough I think and it should be attributed as it is now. In any case, we have to counterbalance it with the claims/denial of the Iranian side, if there's any. Of course, you can say much more details in the page dedicated to the operation.

2: "Liberated" is a scare quote in the source (see the wiki page for scare quote). Check it out. Is "seized and razed to the ground" a scare quote too? I don't think so. But this is not the only problem since I explained how the usage of word "liberation" would be awkward in this context (nothing was liberated by MEK in that operation simply because MEK had no control over the area before the operation).

3: The source for the Iraqi official statement is "Rajavi makes statement. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 0835 GMT. 19 June, 1988. and Chemical Warfare Denied. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 1344 GMT. 19 June, 1988." We can as Vanamonde if he can kindly say this can be attributed to Rajavi. Moreover, I could not find this statement by the Iraqi official in other sources.

4: I have explained here that the EU sanction should be inserted briefly with counterviews. For instance Iran has denied the role of the Iranian diplomat and this Reuters source describes the move as being "symbolic".

5: I said I had no objection against its inclusion. But does it add something untold? Check it before inclusion.

6: Responded by Vice regent.

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: can I insert point 5 and point 3 (in attributed manner) back to the article? Also Mhhossein is saying that he removed point 4 because it "should instead be inserted briefly with counterviews". Couldn't he have just done that himself instead of removing that information? Idealigic (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to build consensus before adding new things. What are your proposals? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic, a specific proposal incorporating Mhhossein's responses would help. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: here it is my specific proposal.

3 "while according to Massud Rajavi, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”.

4 "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities involving an Iranian diplomat who is said to have been involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

5 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

If you you agree with this proposal, then i will add this to the article, and if not, please let me know your counter-proposition. Idealigic (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. I think the following need to be resolved:

3. Where's that "while" coming from? I think it's an example of editorializing. Also, I'm not sure if it can be attributed to Rajavi (Vanamonde didn't respond to my query).

4. It is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Your version is wikivoicing the allegation that Iran was involved in terrorist activities. Also, denial from the Iranian party should be added. I would suggest something like "In 2019, EU placed sanctions against on two Iranian individuals and an Iranian intelligence unit over alleged attacks against MEK in Europe. Iran denied any involvement saying these are accusations aimed at damaging EU-Iran relations."

5. Take care of that "while" (MOS:EDITORIAL). Can you say what the source says?

--Mhhossein ^talk 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I have given a specific proposal incorporating Mhhossein's responses, like you said I should do. I also asked Mhhossein to give his proposal if he didn't like mine, but he didn't give a proposal, he just keeps rejecting my proposal. Idealigic (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I think you're both being rather difficult, but if he doesn't agree, and no one else will respond, start an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic in case of #4, Mhhossein specifically gives you a counter proposal, so why are you saying but he didn't give a proposal?

And Mhhossein, in #5 of Idealigic's proposal he is not using the word "while" (he uses it in #3 not #5). Can you give a counter proposal to #5, Mhhossein?VR _talk 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: In fact it's not a matter of disagreement. I gave a specific proposal (#4) and am ready to reach a compromise over it. I don't know why Idealigic alleges I had not given him my suggestion! As for #3, there's a concern over a synthetic contrast as a result of using "while". Also, I am not sure if the attribution used in #3 is correct. Idealigic fails to reply to these. As for #5, it was my fault, I mistakenly thought there was a "while" there, but thanks to VR's point there is no concern with #5. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Removal of well-sourced content

This removal is reverted since the table is already categorizing the content as "other designations". For the benefit of the users, Australian consolidated list include "all persons and entities who are subject to targeted financial sanctions under Australian sanctions law" and are subject the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Also, this source clearly says "The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Neither Australia or the United Nation has designated the MEK a terrorist organization (or anything similar). Without resorting to WP:OR, please explain how the text you added in Designation as a terrorist organization fits in that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Those countries are not being introduced as designating MEK. You can see the table uses a different qualifier for these items. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: That's exactly the reason why I removed it from that section: those statements have nothing to do with the MEK being designated as a terrorist group. We can add the MEK being placed in a "Consolidated list" by Australia and the United Nations saying the "MEK was involved in terrorist activities" in another section; those statements are misleading where they currently are. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean a subsection of the current section "Designation as a terrorist organization"?VR _talk 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no "designation" here; yet this was added to "Dessignation as a terrorist organization". This obviously does not belong to that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The table is clearly detaining the designation. What's your suggestion? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)