Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

More false nuclear allegations

Unfortunately, I can't edit the article myself. But the section "Iran's nuclear program" abruptly stops in 2012. MEK has made more false allegations of the same nature, including for example the "Lavizan-3" claims that have been debunked publicly. Here are several sources for this.

[1] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [2] [3] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017

Shedding light on the 5th round of dubious edits

The article recently underwent at least two dubious edits ([4], [5]) which are clarified here:

• "Propaganda campaign" is changed into " Propaganda allegations", while there's no allegation. We are talking about an established fact. "The MEK's Propaganda Machine" (by National Interest), "The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda" (p.167), "Maryam Rajavi — MEK Propaganda Queen — Advertises Her Serives For Iran’s Enemies" (by huffingtonpost), "Facts Vs. Fiction And The MEK’s PR Campaign" (by the Lobelog), "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq" (By RAND), "Q&A: what is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation?" (bt the Guardian), "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK" (by the Guardian) and etc. So, there's no allegation, but a fact!
• The sourced paragraph starting with "the organization has made its propaganda..." was dubiously removed!
• Ivan Sascha Sheehan's analysis was completely removed!
• French Foreign Ministry's condemn of the MEK's propaganda campaign was removed.
• In this edit alone, two complete well sourced paragraph was removed.

I'm not surprised by the edits, and others would not be, too, if they follow our discussions regarding the previous rounds of the edits (such as 'Recent changes need to be checked'). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The “Propaganda” section needs to include the authors claiming that the MEK uses propaganda, and what that propaganda is. There is no need to have 5 different subsections here. This refers to my previous comment about trying too hard to magnify trivial information into significant events.

I’ll include who’s making the claims that the MEK uses propaganda, and what that propaganda is. The section does not need further repeated statements by the same authors.

There seems to be a lot of hostility between the MEK and the IRI, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tabloid platform for amplifying this. The article needs to focus primarily on major historical / political events, as any Wikipedia article about a political party. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Well sourced material should not be erased unless most of the users agree with deletion or material is transferred to the relevant article.Saff V. (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my edits, have explained that the sources and allegations were kept. This has clearly been established in the article, there is no need to go an extra mile repeating material by the same authors in order to smear the group. Wikipedia should not be used as an attack platform.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Despite what Stefka Bulgaria alleges, the dispute is not over whether or not we should pay to the "hostility between the MEK and the IRI". There are some sources saying MEK is a propaganda machine and so on, this is what the section is dealing with. Those well-sourced contents, are giving due weight to the presented views. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In as much as there are duplications - I agree they should be removed/combined. In terms of title - I would try to shoot for something more neutral sounding than propaganda - e.g. "Public diplomacy" or maybe "Outreach efforts" - which we will be able to say in our own voice without questions of whether it should be alleged or not. It is clear the MEK invests significant efforts in outreach (whether this should be labelled as propaganda or not - is a POV issue).Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There are enough independent and reliable sources saying they're pushing propaganda, then there's no problem. Why should they be removed? which guideline let that? Having those sources, there's no neutrality issue. I object any mass change to this section unless there are far more insights by un-invloved users. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The sourced material has not been erased, just reduced while still making the point. Alex-h (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

They were completely removed without discussion, as I pointed in the beginning of the discussion. You're baseless edit was a clear edit warring. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Even though a number of RS support the propaganda, might be it considere as POV issue? @Alex-h:See this edit material was deleted. please be more precise.Saff V. (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Using the title “propaganda campaign” for publishing opinion pieces and having street demonstrations is a NPOV violation. If we were to include a “Propaganda campaign” section for every political group that published their own opinion pieces and did public demonstrations, then we’d have to update most political Wikipedia articles.@Icewhiz: per your suggestions, I’d be fine with either, or we could simply use “Outreach”. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: - I suspect MEK, sources favorable to MEK, and quite possibly neutral sources do not describe this as propaganda. The IRI, and sources hostile to MEK, quite obviously do. When terminology differs between sources, we try to strike a middle ground. Propaganda has become a loaded word in English (possibly following WWII - in the past this was a neutral term - see Ministry of propaganda - but it has become pejorative). Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You're using a false argument accompanied by an original research to avoid a fact. There are various reliable sources saying the groups runs propaganda campaigns and it uses propaganda as a tool. BBC called MEK's blewing the whistle on the alleged nuclear program of Iran as a "propaganda coup". That said, I would accept your argument if there were enough reliable sources saying they don't use propaganda. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Alex-h is never an uninvolved editor. Oh, you two were editing the same subject closely related to our topic. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed Ivan Sascha's work, by the way. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Undiscussed mass removal of contents containing negative points by Steka Bulgaria regarding MEK is still continued. That's questionable and needs to stop somewhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• 1) The article is filled with trivial POV overemphasized to smear the MEK; Wikipedia is not an attack platform.

2) Alleging that Alex-h is “involved” here, when they seem to have just edited the article for the first time (at least since I’ve been involved), is a horrible attempt at discrediting them.

3) Street demonstrations and publishing opinion pieces do not equate to a “Propaganda campaign”: Try adding a “Propaganda campaign” section on Barak Obama’s presidential campaign for promoting their ideologies and see how far you get.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, there's no attack. Just what reliable sources are saying regarding MEK is reflected, nothing more, nothing less. If you're concerned regarding the neutrality of the article, you can just balance the article by adding counter views. Yes, Alex-h is involved. He had been adding materials in MEK-related articles and his drive-by edit is questionable. Wikipedia doesn't care what equates to a "propaganda campaign" but certainly cares if there are reliable sources saying MEK runs a "propaganda machine". Daniel Benjamin's quote along with other undiscussed mass removals by you were reverted. You need to practice working with other editors holding a different view point and edit warring is not the solution. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is awful if not disgusting. We enjoy the democratic atmosphere of the European countries we live in. Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopedia, let’s leave it that way. I love the work I do on Wikipedia even in the limited time I have. @Mhhossein:, @Saff V.: , your adore for certain groups should not allow you to disrespect others. Everybody has a right to edit on any article in Wikipedia without being censored (WP:CENSOR ). People in courtiers at the bottom of Africa may go to the same church as people in North America do without having common political views, it would be awful to relate them for the sake of our own interests. Alex-h (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h: My response to you is nothing but your own words; "your adore for certain groups should not allow you to disrespect others. Everybody has a right to edit on any article in Wikipedia without being censored (WP:CENSOR )." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, I don't know you and I don't have any background with you , but you started making libelous statements against me. I suggest you stop this. WP:LIBEL Alex-h (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It was you who made libelous statements, i.e. "adore for certain groups". If you don't know me, how do you let yourself make such a comment regarding me?Anyway, that's enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It is better support our opinion by RS. Please review sources including page 160, page 167, page 104, they seem to be natural.Saff V. (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Also @Mhhossein: provided much more RS to support propaganda.If problem is any thing except RS, please issue it.Saff V. (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

6th round

• And more edits to be addressed; the first case, is an undiscussed removal of well-sourced/known material alleging the former version was "allegations of disagreement". Moreover, This edit is also removing well sourced material and is even misinterpreting sources. Strictly speaking, the Washington Post does not say Iran's security and intelligence agencies claimed that the MEK had ties with KGB. It's questionable why Alex-h removed the accounts by Vladimir Kuzichkin, Fred Holliday and replaced them with his own misinterpretations. Being a U.S. based historian, Abbas Milani's account is not in a right place. In fact, the user was trying to re-shape the story so that it reads as if ONLY Iran was claiming there had been ties between MEK and KGB. The mass change by Alex-h needs to be discussed here and I'm restoring the former version. (@Vanamonde93: I don't know if you're willing to have inputs here, but would like to remind your quote, notably "little input from outside observers, and administrators" portion.) --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get involved in the content here, both because I haven't the time and because it doesn't help anyone if one of the few uninvolved admins who has actually read through this is no longer able to take administrative action. Here's a few pointers instead. The way in which content is presented depends not just on whether it is verifiable, but on the extent to which reliable sources share a specific view, and on how weighty the sources are. In general, scholarly sources are better than media sources in neutral countries, which are better than media sources in countries involved in a geopolitical conflict. Government-run sources in involved countries are next to useless. With that in mind, per WP:YESPOV, what we report in Wikipedia's voice needs to not only be verifiable, it needs to be supported by the preponderance of reliable sources. Things that the majority of reliable sources do not agree on need to be dealt with using in-text attribution ("according to so-and-so etc"). Fringe points of view need to be excluded entirely. For instance, if the article is discussing supposed propaganda by the MEK; a title such as "propaganda campaign" should only be used if a preponderance of high-quality sources agree that such a campaign exists. The allegations still need to be described even if the sources supporting them are only a substantial minority; and in that case, "propaganda campaign" would no longer be appropriate as a title. I am not in a position to comment on which of these outcomes is appropriate; if you cannot come to an agreement, an RFC is indicated. If you need help framing a neutral RfC that would attract substantial community input, feel free to ping me again. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I could describe my edits in detail (though all that is needed is reading the sources I provided and the ones I removed), but just to follow up on Vanamonde93’s comment, @Mhhossein can you specify, from the sources you’ve re-inserted into the article, what “State-sponsorship” did the MEK receive from Russia/KGB leading up to the Iran Revolution, and according to whom? (I should not have to tell you that this is a big statement about a delicate subject, and that only strong sources that clearly and accurately support this claim will do). Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't say you mass removed the whole well sourced material only because you thought the title was not correct (I don't say the tile is correct though). Also, you did not elaborate on the points I already raised, notably on which part of the Washington Post supports Iran's security and intelligence agencies claimed that the MEK had ties with KGB which you inserted in the article. Needless to mention that there are sources saying MEK received state sponsorship from Gulf nations, notable Saudi Arabia. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And still you fail to address a direct question, but instead make assumptions about why I edited what I edited.

In reply to your Washington Post point: The Washington Post claims it received its information from “…a Western source in close contact with Iran's security and intelligence agencies,” and “A Western intelligence source…” When describing the Russian ties to the MEK, the article only says “according to the sources” – is this the same source in “close contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”? and is the “Western intelligence source” the same source in contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”? Who would have access to such information in 1978 in Iran during those authoritarian years? The 1978 Washington Post article is not clear about any of this.

The statements and sources that I added (and which you have removed) are all from University publications and make clear points:

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.]

About the Vladimir Kuzichkin and Fred Holliday sources I removed, they do not support the claim that the MEK received State-sponsorship from Russia.

Your statement “Needless to mention that there are sources saying MEK received state sponsorship from Gulf nations, notable Saudi Arabia” does not respond my question, so I’ll ask it again: from the sources you’ve re-inserted into the article, what “State-sponsorship” did the MEK receive from Russia leading up to the Iran Revolution, and according to whom? (please respond the question this time). Alex-h (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delayed response. You already said "The 1978 Washington Post article is not clear about any of this" while you allow yourself to insert "Iran's security and intelligence agencies claimed" into the article. That's a clear misinterpretation. Please be caution about that. By the way, I had answered your question! Whether or not MEK received state sponsorship for Soviet did not justify your mass removals. If we assume there's no source proving there had been such a state support, then you were're not allowed to remove the whole section when you could address the issue by simply altering the section title! --Mhhossein ^talk 04:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: with your knowledge and experience, and as non-involved admin, can you please weight in on Mhhossein’s editing here? There aren’t any sources in the MEK article able to confirm that the MEK received “State Sponsorship” from Russia leading up to the Iranian Revolution; yet, Mhhossein re-inserted this false synthesis into the article and removed reliable sources (and supported text) I added about these allegations. When asked about it here, Mhhossein avoided acknowledging or rectifying this, also avoided commenting on the other reliable sources and backed info he removed. Is this WP:NPOV, or WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR?(or none of these, or a mixture of these)? Alex-h (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Verifiability is a core policy. Asking an editor to be specific about the sources that support a piece of content is a reasonable thing to do, and responding to "what sources support this?" with "what sources support your edits?" isn't helpful. That's something both of you are a guilty of, and I'm not really interested in investigating who has done more of that. That said: Alex-h, the diff you linked has several academic sources. The language used isn't perfect but it's not terrible. Which part of that diff, specifically, do you have a problem with? Are you saying the content isn't supported by the cited sources? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: , I’m saying that Mhhossein presents these reliable sources and content through a misleading synthesis. The section in question has the subheading “State-sponsorship”, and it contains a lot of text about Russia and the MEK, but none of it supports the claim that the MEK received “State-sponsorship” from Russia.

What reliable sources say, on the other hand, is that during the 1970s, the Iranian security forces accused the MEK of carrying out espionage for Russia (an accusation that the MEK denied):

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• According to Abbas Milani, Sa’adati had met KGB operatives to exchange a file containing information about the Ahmad Moggarrebi case (an Iranian Army general who was executed for espionage for the Soviets by the Shah's regime). [Abbas Milani. Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran (2008). Syracuse University Press]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.]

Mhhossein removed most of this and re-arranged what was remaining to synthesize that the MEK received State sponsorship from Russia, which is just unsupported by the sources. I’ve asked him repeatedly about this, but keep getting WP:ITHT. Alex-h (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h: the content you have listed here on the talk page obviously does not support claims of state sponsorship. However, these are not the only sources added in that diff: there is the Washington Post article, and two journal articles, by Chubin and Kuzichin. Are you suggesting those sources are also not appropriately used? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: , yes, that is correct, these sources are not being appropriately used:

• The Vladimir Kuzichkin source is used for the claim “Kuzichkin says the MEK asked them for arms”. Although I have not been able to verify this in the source given, this still does not support that the MEK received State-sponsorship from Russia (the synthesis that the section suggests).

• The Shahram Chubin source says “there is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country is a real and growing possibility.” First, this is an assumption by the author; second, the MEK was not a Marxist group but its rival group, Peykar, was indeed Marxist; and third, this also does not support that the MEK received State-sponsorship from Russia.

• The 1978 Washington Post article, when describing the Russian ties to the MEK, cites “according to the sources”, but does not say if this is the same source in “close contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”; nor if the “Western intelligence source” is the same “source in contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies” . The distinction is important because “the regime waged its own propaganda campaign” against the MEK, accusing them “of carrying out subversive acts at the behest of their foreign patrons.” There is also the question of who would have access to such information in 1978 in Iran during those authoritarian years there. Since the Washington Post article is not clear about these points, but other (more reliable) sources make clear points that the Iran security forces accused and tried a MEK member for meeting with “KGB operatives to exchange a file containing information about the Ahmad Moggarrebi case”, then this is what I included in the article (along with other University press sources) under the “Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK” section, but Mhhossein reverted this.Alex-h (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h: I just removed your blatant self-interpretation of the sources attributing the MEK-KGB relations only to Iran (which is obviously wrong). Furthermore, you had mass removed well-sourced contents showing MEK-KGB relations only because you thought the title of the section was not accurate. I had restored the long standing version. As I said above, I don't say there are sources supporting claims of state sponsorship by Soviet. For now, I've just reorganized the materials. You need to have competence and elaborate on how you jumped into this self-interpretation. See WP:NPOV, or WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: now that you’ve responded, Mhhossein changed the section title to “Ties with KGB”. The problem with this is that the section still avoids what the reliable sources confirm: principally, that Iran security agencies accused and executed a MEK member for talking to a KGB agent, with the MEK denying the charges.

I previously described how the sources in question were not being appropriately used. Can you now get Mhhossein to explain why he removed the following?:

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.]

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.]Alex-h (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That I changed the title had nothing to do with the Vanamonde93's comments. This was what you could do instead of mass removing the materials. Moreover, this is the third (forth?) time you're listing these items in this section. What do you mean? You're still adhering to your OWN understanding of the things instead of paying attention to what the reliable sources say. Don't forget that "there were "sufficient evidence" to assume that an alliance between KGB and Iranian Marxists including MEK was real," as per Shahram Chubin's scholarly work. Other sources, which you had removed!!!, also say the same things. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

An this is the third (fourth?) time you fail to respond or look at the sources or explanations given (including the explanation about the Chubin source, which I won't repeat here). So I need to ask again, @Vanamonde93: as an uninvolved admin, is this WP:NPOV, or WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR? (or none of these, or a mixture of these)? Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please soften your language and note that none of your explanations justifies your mass removal. Please avoid making such mass changes without having them discussed on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• I do not have the time to analyze the sources myself at the present moment. Given that accusations of source misuse are being tossed around, I think it's fair to say that passages supporting contentious content should be reproduced here on the talk, properly attributed, so that the source use can be evaluated. Alternatively, Mhhossein, you could email us copies or quotes from the source, so as not to create copyright problems; but I do think we need to be able to explicitly evaluate the content against the source. Of course, the same would apply to contentious content added by other editors, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

We can evaluate the portions of the sources in question explicitly as long as they are accompannied by quotation marks or templates like {{tq|"..."}}. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I appreciate the time you're putting into this. This is what the Chubin source (which I removed, and Mhhossein continues defending here) says:

"There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country is a real and growing possibility.”

The only affirmation made by Chubin here is that there was "sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran", then he says "to assume an alliance with other Marxist groupings". So the alliance with other Marxist groupings is an assumption. Second, the MEK is not a Marxist group, but actually fought against the Marxist breakaway group Peykar (all this already explained in the article and here in the Talk page). So, nothing in this source supports that either the MEK received State sponsorship from Russia, or that the MEK had ties with the KGB, making this a WP:NPOV or WP:CIR problem.

Can you now please get Mhhossein to explain why he removed these reliable sources and statements? I only keep getting WP:ITHT from him, making this process very disruptive! Thanks:

• In 1979, engineer Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati was arrested by Iranian security forces outside the Soviet embassy and charged with spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 173.] [Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press.]

• The MEK claimed that Sa’adati, who was responsible for foreign relations on behalf of the MEK, had only interviewed officials from various nations and organizations, and had been arrested on false charges. Sa’adati also accused the Iranian regime of trying to link MEK operations to the Soviet Union.[Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press. pp. 128–129.] [Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 192–193.

• In 1981 Sa’adati was executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 466–467.] Alex-h (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got a very wrong understanding of Wikipedia if you think other users can/should "get" others do something. Rather, every body have to work in cooperation with the others who possibly hold different POVs. That's why I condemned your POVish mass changes carried out without prior discussion. Anyway, as for the arrest of Sa'dati, it's already mentioned in the article. As for the rest, I'm not sure we have to dedicate such details to Sa'adati in a page which is not on Sa'adati. Though you're free to open an RFC if you think the other materials, i.e. Sa'dati's charge and execution, need to be included here. As for the Marxism, you're not accurate (let me say you're wrong). There are plenty of plenty reliable sources saying MEK is (or at least had been in a period) a Marxist group:

- "The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that..." [6] by Brookings Institution Press.

- "...Self-styled "Islamic-Marxists," the MEK also targeted Americans in the '70s..." [7]

- " Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, the MEK has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group." [8] by CRC Press.

- "It was a group that propounded an ideology that mixed Islamism and Marxism." [9]

- "A militant Islamic Marxist or Islamic Socialist organization..." [10] by Financial Times Press.

- "Its ideology was developed from a combination of Marxist and militant Islamic theories." [11] by Routledge

Moreover, I wonder why you have not quoted the whole sentence:

. There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility."

You can see Chubin has described Mujahedin as a Marxist group. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, we've been through enough TP discussions already ([12], [13], etc.) to be able to establish from RSs that the MEK are Islamic, and Peykar are Marxist, and you knew this already (not interested in continuing this debate, just look at the RSs in the links if you still have any doubts). Btw, you still haven't answered Alex-h's points here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus over what you allege that's why the info box does not feature the group's ideology. Alex-h's point are answered multiple times; Chubin work, as I quoted, explicitly mentions MEK as the groups allied with Soviet. @Stefka Bulgaria: Don't re-insert this POV title unless you can prove there is a real misinformation campaign against MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not interested in revisiting that debate, RSs speak for themselves. About "Misinformation" campaign title, please read the RSs in the section "the regime waged its own propaganda campaign against both the Mojahedin..." (Abrahamian, 1989, pg. 143), etc. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - from what I see of of the sources so far, it seems they support that Iran accuses MEK (or MEK operatives) of being under Soviet influence, and that this assessment was reported (whether via Iranian sources or American (e.g. CIA) - unclear) by American media (WaPo) in the late 70s. What I find lacking in this entire discussion so far - is more recent sources. Old intel estimates and accusations should have fairly little weight. Do we have any recent source - say post-1990 - that is more explicit here? Much of the Russian cold-war stuff is in the open now, you'd think someone would publish something more concrete here regarding Soviet meddling in pre-revolution Iran. Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked through the sources and researched online. There is some stuff about the Soviet Union meddling in Iran, but cannot find anything else linking the MEK to Russia beyond what's been presented here.

RSs from 1990s onward, this is what's available:

• Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (2018). Postrevolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook. Syracuse University Press. (removed by Mhhossein)
• Milani, Abbas (2008). Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran
• Abrahamian, Ervand (1999). Tortured Confessions. University of California Press (removed by Mhhossein)
• Kuzichkin, Vladimir (1990), Inside the KGB: Myth and Reality

The 1990 Vladimir Kuzichkin source is mainly being used for the following: "Kuzichkin says the MEK asked them for arms". All other sources support the narrative that Iran security agencies monitored a document exchange between Sa'adati and a Russian agent, which led to Sa'adati being arrested and executed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If more recent (post-1990) sources are only treating the Sa'adati affair - then we should stick to that and naught else. We wouldn't want to base 2003 invasion of Iraq on reporting of contemporary US intelligence (I believe that that known unknowns and unknown unknowns would end up with us reporting on widespread WMDs in Iraq prior to 2003 if we were to use contemporary sources). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll comment on the sources, ASAP. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria: Why did you remove the sentence saying MEK was provided with "with radio stations and printing presses"? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Per NPOV. Borrowing printing press and radio station is a long stretch to "Ties to Foreign actors". I will provide further context to that section shortly. In the meantime, would you care to comment on the sources about the Russian ties (I think you've been asked about these enough times now), or are we done with that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There would be no POV imbalance if what YOU call "borrowing" is RETURNED to the section. Reliable sources should not be used selectively. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What you're doing is repetitive WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Vanamonde made already clear that RSs should be used accordingly, so if we have a section titled "State sponsorship", "Ties to KGB", "Ties to foreign actors", etc., then what we include in those sections should clearly and objectively refer to and support those claims. If they don't, then they can be moved to a more appropriate heading, if there is a more appropriate heading.

Adding random information such as that the MEK used (or borrowed, or gained access to, or whatever) printing and radio services from other political groups to support a claim to "Ties to foreign actors" is WP:SYNTH. To put it a different way, it would be absurd to include a section called "Ties to foreign actors" to every political group in Wikipedia that used things like radio stations or printing services from other political groups. I don't know why you'd think the MEK should be the exemption, but it's not.

Similarly, affirming in Wiki voice that the MEK had "Ties with the KGB" or received "State sponsorship from Russia", when RSs confirm this allegation derived from Sa'adati's arrest and execution by Iranian security forces, is also clear and basic WP:SYNTH. Btw, using all-CAPITALS in Wikipedia is often seen as shouting. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be frank, your language hinders the consensus building process. It's so simple to accuse others with random charges, but trying to collaborate with others is not that easy. I suggest you to leave the former and adhere to latter. I do emphasize that sources should be used accordingly and think that they used "radio stations and printing presses" of foreign actors is closely in accordance with the section. It's not random information. Using radio stations of other groups is certainly indicative of their ties with the groups, specially since the author of the source has mentioned it while discussing the MEK's ties and their close relations with foreign actors. There are enough sources supporting "Ties with the KGB" (already used in the text) and I didn't say "State sponsorship from Russia" is real. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

1) You inserted material about Russia under "State sponsorship" section

2) You keep dodging the RSs provided, which is WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

3) As pointed out by Icewhiz, RSs linking MEK to Russia concern the Sa'adati arrest.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

More bad faith accusations by Stefka Bulgaria, nothing new. Read my comments under the sources (wait). I just restored a POVish mass change into the stable version and then made some changes. So, be serious and polite and don't repeat the baseless accusations, please. Icewhize's comment, though is not a criteria, has a major if. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Moving the Sa'adati events to "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" based on analysis of sources and Icewhiz's suggestions. Alex-h (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus over that. We have not addressed the sources yet. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

1) You've had two weeks to "address the sources", but you have not. Take your time, and when you're ready, you may open a RfC. Until then, the majority here agree that post-90s sources that look at Russia and the MEK refer to the incident with Sa'adati, which involves "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK"

2) Diff that you included edits involving Russia under "State Sponsorship", which is obviously not supported and SYNTH involving NPOV violation, speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for 2 weeks (the figure I believe is not accurate) is not the guarantee to make unilateral changes and mass removin well-sourced materials without having built consensus. The above discussions are mixed with a clear double standard; while rather old sources are used to write lots of the materials in the article, it's said here that "more recent sources" should be used. As for the materials in question regarding MEK-KGB links; There are two points: 1) Was MEK-KGB real? 2) If yes, are the sources only pay to Sa'adati's affair? According to the sources, the answer to the first question is YES and to the second one is NO (see the below list). Some users are trying to show that Sa'adati affair is purely the POV of Iranian government and is just an allegation. The sources, however, are saying something else:

• Historian Abbas Milani says, as a fact, that "simultaneously it [MEK] adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB." Further, he mentiones Sadadati, without saying he was merely charged by Iran. He has described the incident with more depth here.
• Fred Halliday adds that "their [KGB] attempts to establish links with the Mujahedin-i Khalq guerrillas collapsed when Saadati, their contact in the organization, was arrested and subsequently executed by the new regime."
• In his "Islamist, Marxist, Terrorist", Amir Taheri, writes that "the MEK, with KGB help, engaged in a campaign against the Shah," an statement which was emphasized in his other work, "France Tries to Score Points With Iran."
• Furthermore, MEK is said to have been founded by the help of KGB. I don't say, DTIC's report say! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

All of the above sources are rather new, let alone this 1978 Washington Post article saying, according to Western intelligence sources, "the tie-in with the Soviet intelligence agency KGB largely relates to weapons supply, techniques, electronic training, some funding and general support." That said, and by addressing the reliable sources, saying MEK-KGB is an "allegation" by Iran is just a bizarre argument. I'm restoring some of the materials from the stable version and added some more info on MEK-KGB links using the sources mentioned above. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Milani sources: you've mixed two very different sources here. The first, a Nationalinterest commentary piece that uses terms such as "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists", is far from being a RS. The second, a published book, treats ties with Russia as part of the Sa'adati incident, which is already included in the article.

• The Fred Halliday source: also treats ties to Russia as part of the Sa'adati incident, which is already included in the article.

• The Amir Taheri source: is an opinion piece, unusable to establish fact.

• DTIC source: Considering the extensive amount of RSs that describe how the MEK was founded, this is the only one that alleges the MEK was "founded with initial funding assistance from the KGB" (and that's all the PDF says about the KGB), which makes this WP:UNDUE and inapt to establish a significant and complex historical claim.

• The Washington Post source: We've already discussed extensively why it's not suitable.

Find a few RSs that clearly articulate how the MEK was tied to the KGB (beyond the Sa'adati event), and then try again. Until then, RSs are treating this as part of the Sa'adati incident, which is already included in the article (along with the RSs that support it). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to act based on what YOU think about the sources (I think you were told by an admin about this at RSN). You're objecting of scholarly works using such a reasoning technique is not constructive.

Milani is a credible historian and his work is reliable and "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists" does not prove it's not reliable.

Be it opinion piece or not, Amir Taheri is an expert in Iran affairs. "His writings focus on the Middle East affairs and topics related to islamic terrorism".

DTIC is not alone; DTIC source supports the point that MEK has received support from KGB. WaPo has repeated this support claim. Btw, WaPo source has no problem and there's no consensus over ignoring it.

Why did you remove Vladimir Kuzichkin's accounts? How about Chubin's?

Despite the sources, it's very strange your're trying to show MEK had ZERO links to KGB !!! When did you remove the whole section and just leave the narration of the story favored by MEK? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The book by Abbas Milani (Stanford Professor) should be quite reliable in this matter. The guy has no dog in this fight and is a renowned scholar.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

1) We are acting based on policy:WP:RS and WP:DUE.

2) I'm not objecting scholarly works, I'm objecting opinion pieces being used to establish facts, which is against policy.

3) DTIC is the only source (from a great number of available RS) that alleges the MEK was "founded with initial funding assistance from the KGB", which falls under WP:UNDUE.

4) Chubin source: this was already explained; "There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country is a real and growing possibility" cannot by used as fact to confirm that the MEK had ties with the KGB.

5) Vladimir Kuzichkin source: this was also already explained, having meetings with Kuzichkin is a long stretch to making a claim that the MEK had ties with the KGB. Meeting with an oganization member does not equate to there being "ties" between both parties. If there had been political/military/etc. cooperation between both parties, and the RSs clearly outlined this, then that would be a different story. Find such RSs and then try again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia. You, as a person may disagree with them of course. However, your personal disagreement and related discussions, as valuable as they may be, counts only as original research and is not allowed in Wikipedia.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1: You hit the nail on the head. Just imagine, at first he removed the well-sourced title because he thought the title of the infamous NyTimes source was not enough. I added another source saying MEK "...are often referred to as the cult of Rajavi...". To our surprise, he removed once again only because "We already have one"!!! Isn't that signaling something? On the KGB-MEK tie, already proved by the sources, he's blanking the section based on his own Original Research. WaPost clearly says the two groups had ties. Yes, it uses the word "tie". Chubin believes that it can be assumed Soviet-MEK tie was real and I had reported this assumption (unlike what Stefka Bulgaria alleged, I did not report it as fact and used "assume" in my wording.) Vladimir Kuzichkin says in his book that Vladimir Fisenko was in charge of direct communication with the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces cannot be SYNTHed to support as fact that the MEK had ties with the KGB, which the section is misleadingly insinuating. About the RSs that are available (no commentary articles, but University-press publishers), they are treating ties with Russia as part of the Sa’adati incident. There is also a majority consensus in this TP to treat the available RSs as part of the Sa’adati incident, which is already included in the article. You are welcome to open a RfC if you want others to get involved. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about? It's just your imagination that reliable sources only pay to Sa'adati incident. There's no Synth; every single source is talking about MEK-KGB tie. Washington Post article says, according to Western intelligence sources, "the tie-in with the Soviet intelligence agency KGB largely relates to weapons supply, techniques, electronic training, some funding and general support." You've started another wave of edit warring against multiple users. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:WP:SYNTH happens when "a conclusion is not explicitly stated by the source". Which is clearly not the case here as the quotes are almost copy/pasted from the sources; to the level that I had asked for trimming them previously!--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my previous statement about the Washington Post article: "when describing the Russian ties to the MEK, the article cites “according to the sources”, but does not say if this is the same source in “close contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies”; nor if the “Western intelligence source” is the same “source in contact with Iran’s security and intelligence agencies” ."

This is the statement by Icewhiz: "If more recent (post-1990) sources are only treating the Sa'adati affair - then we should stick to that and naught else."

This is the statement by Vanamonde: "The way in which content is presented depends not just on whether it is verifiable, but on the extent to which reliable sources share a specific view, and on how weighty the sources are. In general, scholarly sources are better than media sources in neutral countries, which are better than media sources in countries involved in a geopolitical conflict. Government-run sources in involved countries are next to useless."

This is the statement by Stefka Bulgaria: "Opinion pieces cannot be SYNTHed to support as fact that the MEK had ties with the KGB, which the section is misleadingly insinuating."

Stefka, Icewhiz, and myself are for excluding opinion and outdated sources and sticking to the reliable sources that refer to the connection with Russia as part of Sa'adati's arrest. Mhhossein and Kazemita1 are for using the opinion pieces and Washington Post article to include a "Ties to KGB" section. That is 3 against 2. Alex-h (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Concur in regards to WaPo. WaPo is generally an excellent source - however using a 1978 WaPo story on what unnamed sources told them at the time - is very deep in WP:PRIMARYNEWS turf. We wouldn't use WaPo for WMDs (or lack thereof) in Iraq circa 2002-3 - and this isn't because WaPo is a bad source (to the contrary - it is gold standard jounralism) - but because WP:AGE MATTERS, and at the time reporting can not account for subsequent developments. I will also note that using this university class paper by 2nd Lt. Connor Norris who was studying in the University of Military Intelligence - is not a reasonable source. This seems to be an undergraduate program of some sort. DTIC contains all public army documents - including term papers - attribution here should be to "according to DTIC". Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body?

The consensus is to move the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) to the body. The consensus is weak because of the limited participation. There is no prejudice against discussing this further since there was limited participation.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• A new RfC has started at #RFC about the death tolls in the lead. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC) This: "According to infoplease.com, more than 16,000 Iranian people have been killed by the MEK since 1979.According to the MEK, over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran."

• Yes: per User:S Marshall's previous RfC closing remarks, and because of the ambiguity from sources supporting these stats, and because the lede needs to be shortened. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Per which consensus did you make this change? It's a clear sign of edit warring by you. Respect other editors before making such edits since there's no consensus over the removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I started this thread over 2 weeks ago. You had plenty of time to add to this. Even with your protest, you're still not contributing to the debate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, also stop making this into a Battleground with baseless accusations, try focusing on saying whatever you want to say about the content instead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

2, 20 or 200 weeks does not matter since we had talked about this issue here and notably since there's a closed RFC on this which ended to "no consensus". When I have not commented on this RFC, it means that nothing had changed. Now, know that my idea is what I said before, so there's still no consensus and try to build consensus instead of edit warring. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: The proposal makes sense. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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

• Cunard: I would not consider the last drive-by comment. "makes sense"? is that even a guideline or something? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No I hope it's not too late. But I think it is a useful information. Why removing it?Forest90 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I closed the proposal as successful since there was no explicit opposition to the proposal after over 30 days. I support the new, better advertised RfC at #RFC about the death tolls in the lead to discuss this further. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

Stefka Bulgaria deleted my whole section from the Article. I'm discussing with he/she on his/her talk page.Forest90 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Forest90: You'd better discuss the dispute on the article talk page, so that active users editing the page see and get involved. As for the sexual abuse section, I think the mass removal was not fair. Some portions need to be altered though, but should not be removed. You can use [14], [15] and [16] for your the section. Stefka Bulgaria OWNS the article has removed another section against multiple users (see above), although there are reliable sources admitting MEK-KGB links. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, in this source, Jason Rezaeian is referring to "the few who were able to escape" from MEK as saying they were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused and tortured." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be regarded as 'sexual abuse', but "former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein. Thanks for participating in my subject. I'll try to change my passage mistake to correct one, and I will use from your guides.Forest90 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In the matter of MEK's sexual abuse, there is plethora of independent reliable sources. Take for example this recent Gaurdian article or this New York Times or this Washington Post article. As such I am voting for it to have a separate section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian work, notably, is a Long Read and it was removed by a single click of Stefka Bulgaria! The Guardian describes the long reads as: "A long read takes real time to develop, research, edit and produce. Every article in The Guardian’s Long Read is the result of months, and sometimes even years, of work. We give our writers the time and space to uncover every detail needed so they can tell important, complex stories with the thoroughness they deserve. We believe our investment in the Long Read is always worth it – and we hope you do too." Admins should consider this removal I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Why using allegations from ex-MEK members in this article is a bad idea:

• The MEK has been one of the main disinformation targets of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inside and outside Iran, for the last 30 years.

• Being their main political opposition, the IRI systematically imprisons, tortures, and executes MEK members and supporters.

• Some MEK members are kidnapped and tortured by the IRI in order to provide public testimony to demonize the MEK. Others are extorted into demonizing the MEK in exchange of saving the lives of loved ones living in Iran.

• The IRI currently runs a major disinformation campaign in the West, which also include disinformation and demonization of the MEK: “The campaign [against the MEK] involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen.”

• Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca wrote the following report for ISJ:

"In December 2009, the EP-Iran delegation invited a "former PMOI member from Camp Ashraf Iraq, Ms Batool Soltani and gave her the floor to speak out against and demonize the PMOI. At the en of the debate, MPE Geoffrey Van Orden, a senior British Conservative, criticized the event: "I am not a fan of the PMOI, but I have a nose for Government-sponsored propaganda and I regret this Delegation is becoming a tool for Tehran's misinformation.""

"During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran after she left Iraq and sent back to Ashraf "at the behest of the Quds (Jerusalem) Force - a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, as an agent of the Iranian government.""

Batool Soltani is one of the interviewed ex-MEK members whose allegations are currently included in the Wiki page. Considering the aforementioned, particularly the disinformation campaign against the MEK through extorted ex-members, this article should adhere to quoting reliable analysts in reliable publications only. Note that I'm not objecting sources like the Guardian, just the parts that involves testimonies by ex-members (which has been a recurring issue also in other sections of this article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

None of what you said can be a reason for removal of well-sourced and well-attributed sentences. OF course, if there's a source saying the sexual abuse claims are part of those campaigns, you can certainly use them. But, no, we don't censor those materials because there's an alleged disinformation campaign. Testimonies by ex-members, as far as they're attributed to the ex-members, are totally OK specially since there are reliable and high quality sources like the Guardian publishing "long-read" type works. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If Guardian, New York Times or Washington post are publishing the interview material, it means they are endorsing it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that because the sexual abuse is true as to former members, we don't consider any material or section about it in the article, while it can stand based on mentioned independent sources above.Saff V. (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: would the following source be better suited to back up the statement?:

Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca reported that ::::"During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how [former MEK member] Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran… as an agent of the Iranian government."

It's better in the sense that it probably passes WP:V (as Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca seems to be associated with the ISJ NGO, and it is on their website). However I would question whether it is WP:DUE - this is ISJ's about - described as a "informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition". I would prefer to see an independent secondary source referring to what ISJ said - as opposed to using ISJ directly. Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References
References

MEK online soldiers

Guys, this would be interesting to know that MEK has a 1,000-1,500 member online army promoting MEK's propaganda (see [17]). It's not far from imagination if they choose Wikipedia as their target. Moreover, this fact, that they have on-line soldiers, should be included in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are more sources show they are promoting propaganda:

• "The MEK's Propaganda Machine" (by National Interest)
• "The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda" (p.167)
• "Maryam Rajavi — MEK Propaganda Queen — Advertises Her Serives For Iran’s Enemies" (by huffingtonpost)
• "Facts Vs. Fiction And The MEK’s PR Campaign" (by the Lobelog)
• "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq" (By RAND)
• "Q&A: what is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation?" (bt the Guardian)
• "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK" (by the Guardian)

Can the above well sourced facts be a ground for removal of portions of the article? Should we remove MEK's claim since MEK has propaganda machine? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like speculation regarding Wikipedia editors? You should present such evidence at an appropriate forum - not here - and if it is based off on a hunch - it probably won't go far. Regarding the 1,000-1,500 strong twitter army that al-Monitor is reporting on responses to - [18] - it seems to be coming from - this AJ piece which says ""Overall I would say that several thousand accounts are managed by about 1,000-1,500 MEK members," former MEK member, Hassan Heyrani, told The Listening Post. "It was all very well organised and there were clear instructions about what needed to be done." - so - AJ is not stating this as fact but making an attributed statement. It might be worthwhile adding briefly to the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz in adding it briefly to the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1 and Icewhiz: Thanks for the insight. Do you have any suggestions for the text to be added? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How is diff? Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It was awful to be frank. You showed to be good at using "alleged" and using attribution whenever needed, but ignored the portion of the source saying "...an alleged Iranian propaganda operation...". Moreover, you made a clear synthesis by adding a completely irrelevant material to this page. What's going on? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the awfulness. However, I disagree what you removed was SYNTH as AJ itself starts with: "Last month, Google, Facebook and Twitter announced the shutdown of pages and accounts they say were linked to Iran. While the effectiveness of Iran's online disinformation networks is far from established, the Islamic Republic has now joined Russia in the popular consciousness as another government using the internet to destabilise its adversaries.[19] - the very first paragraph - so this is clearly relevant. I indeed cited this background information to Reuters (as opposed to AJ) - as Reuters is generally a better source than AJ and in this case was more in-depth - however the Reuters citation is not neccessary for the sentence of - "Following the shut down of Facebook and Twitter accounts linked to an Iranian propaganda campaign" - which is fully supported by aforementioned quote from AJ.Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant that is not a background to MEK's campaign. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

AJ seems to think that IRI and MEK's twitter/Facebook activities are related (or, rather, opposed to one another). Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Was the background a relevant info to MEK's campaign? I doubt if we should have due to SYNTH concerns.Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: How do you say "AJ seems to think" as such? @Saff V.: Thanks for the insight, neither do I. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well AJ itself starts with "Last month, Google, Facebook and Twitter announced the shutdown of pages and accounts they say were linked to Iran. While the effectiveness of Iran's online disinformation networks is far from established, the Islamic Republic has now joined Russia in the popular consciousness as another government using the internet to destabilise its adversaries." before saying "Meanwhile, a widespread campaign of social media manipulation by actors who are opposed to the government in Tehran..." - so Al Jazeera is making the connection between the two. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Following A, Al-Jazeera said B" is not a connection to resolve the SYNTH issue. I would support if that alleged Iranian campaign was against MEK or if the two had a meaningful connection. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, I have to notice that the current wording reads like the campaigns were against each other while the source doesn't say Iran campaign was against MEK.Saff V. (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Icewhiz's edits were balanced and neutral, which is a breath of fresh air here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

‎Intelligence and misinformation - SYNTH?

@Kazemita1: - in regards to this blanket revert - could you please outline your concerns for each paragraph you reverted? I will note that off the bat I support your removal of Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca's comments (the last paragraph in the diff) as it is not reliably sourced. However some other paragraphs you removed (e.g. the preceding one on " false testimonies against the MEK") - seem to be OK (not SYNTH, what seems to be proper sourcing). If you could outline your objection here, and/or alternatively return bits removed in the blanket revert you do not find problematical, that would further resolving this edit. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Although Kazemita1 is pinged, let me elaborate on it;

• This portion was laready used elsewhere, hence I removed it.
• This portion is suffering from SYNTH issue! What does "The Islamic Republic of Iran currently runs an alleged disinformation campaign in the West" have to do with MEK?
• The sentence "he Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap..." is severely problematic; None of the sources [20] and [21] are supporting the alleged "...into providing false testimonies against the MEK". Moreover, advocacy sources such as [22] and un-attributed claims of MEK members are used to conclude a fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I second what Mhhossein just said. From where I am standing, Stefka is editing a bit carelessly. Aside from the items that Mhhossein already mentioned, take for example, his inclusion of Washington Examiner as a source. The paper is barely out of its tabloid mode and is certainly not suitable for a sensitive article like this.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The edits provide well backed-up evidence that the IRI is working with a big disinformation campaign in the West, and that the MEK is a big part of that disinformation campaign. Then you've both removed the following The 1987 Tower Commission Report cited a letter by Manouchehr Ghorbanifar saying that one of the demands by the Iranian regime for the release of American hostages in Lebanon was an “official announcement terming the Mujahedin-e Khalq Marxist and terrorist.”, which is in no way, shape or form SYNTH. Kazemita1, if you think Washing Examiner needs to be taken to RSN, then, by all means go ahead. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid the burden of proof is on you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Please respond to the points I raised and before pushing the revert button, I suggest you to search for "Manucher Ghorbanifar" and you'll see what's on. As for the IRI campaign against MEK, you're synthesizing 2 sources to reach a conclusion supported by none of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree this is Synth, and the sources do seem reliable. Alex-h (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pure disagreement does not suffice. You need to discuss your points using guidelines and policies. See WP:SYNTH for more information and read my previous comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: About your points:

• 1st point: I’ll attribute to the author and add bit more context, so that there is no confusion (let me know if I should add more here, there is more to add actually).
• 2nd point: Contextualizing that the IRI is launching disinformation campaign in the West provides just that, context to the disinformation campaign the IRI is launching against the MEK in the West.
• 3rd point: I’ll fix as requested. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being clear, but this source does not support the "known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members". This is a clear misinterpretation of the cited source. Moreover, why have you used a first hand report by an advocacy group to conclude such a challenging fact? Same is true for this opinionated piece (see the "opinion" in the right hand corner of Khamenei) which you used to conclude a fact! Moreover, "Contextualizing that the IRI is launching disinformation campaign" should not be carried out via SYNTH. None of the sources used as context, say there's such a campaign against MEK, which is not allowed as per WP:OR. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to note that the source is just an opinion!As well as amnesty does not support mentioned material, In other words, it can not be used to have a fact. Also I agree that stefeka mixed the material of that two sources which not connect to the subject,so SYNTH is true.Saff V. (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:, your mentioned sentence in the edit summary is so far from existence one in the article. Would you bring a sentence which u used it from that google book?Saff V. (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., your English is difficult to understand. All I can tell you is that both sources are reliable, and the text was taken from the sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I try to be more clear, in this edit you mentioned this sentence from Amnesty "Those who dare to seek truth and justice have faced relentless harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as torture and other ill-treatment" which is nothing to do with "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families", sentence u added to article. So I ask u to provide the sentence or material that u picked up from another source. I know both of them are RS, but SYNTH is probable.Saff V. (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"For 30 years, families of victims have been denied the right to bury their loved ones and mourn their loss. Those who dare to seek truth and justice have faced relentless harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as torture and other ill-treatment."

• I see there's a hot discussion. I did not see any of the sources say "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families." I am not experienced but think that Amnesty international is better get used carefully. We should at least use it with full attribution. In this case it does not say "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to...". I see that although this is reverted back in the article several times ([23], [24], [25], [26]). @Stefka Bulgaria: Take it easy man!Forest90 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

About a recent edit by Stefka

A few days ago Stefka removed a whole section on the basis that User:Icewhiz agrees with him in doing so. While, I might accept some of the sources in that section are not strong enough, I see mainstream media and academic sources there. I therefore would love to know Icewhiz's opinion on whether the book by Stanford professor Abbas Milani, Washington post and wall street journal count as reliable source. I appreciate the input. I ask this so we can avoid future disputes.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Milani is piece in National Interest, not a book. However, it is an expert view that can be used attributed. Taheri in WSJ seems like an oped - and given Amir Taheri's record with alleged fabrication I would leave it out. WaPo is generally the best you can get in journalism, however in this case this source is WP:PRIMARYNEWS - conveying an anonymous intel estimate from the period. The removed section also contains a student (2nd lt. officer) term paper hosted on DTIC which is not a source we should be using. Of the bunch - Milani is usable as an opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool User:Icewhiz. Please, kindly state your opinion about the two journals in that piece, i.e. journal of international security and middle east studies.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Do you endorse the removal of the whole section? Vladimir Kuzichkin's memories and Halliday's points are removed, too. (Also pinging Saff V. to see his points on this). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There were serious problems in that section, however I will state that in general I am opposed to blanket reverts - if we all want to compromise here - smaller steps and detailed rationales for each bit are better. As for the two sources queried -

1. Chubin in journal of international security - the source I think is reliable, though dated - 1982 - and WP:AGE MATTERS here (we would prefer a source looking book - not a 1982 looking at the (then) current and future). It is also misrepresented. It actually reads: "There is sufficient evidence of widespread Soviet activity in Iran to assume that an alliance with other Marxist groupings in the country (including the Fedayin and parts of the Mujahedin, and Peykar and other offshoots) is a real and growing possibility." while we were saying ""sufficient evidence" to assume that an alliance between Soviet and Iranian Marxists including MEK was real.". Chubin was referring to parts of MEK (not MEK as a whole) and further more says this is an assumption of a real and growing possibility - so he is warning of a possible future threat (in 1982) of an alliance between Soviets and parts of MEK.
2. International Journal of Middle East Studies - this - is a biased source IIRC, however you are attributing it to the author - Fred Halliday. A bigger issue is that it is a book review (book reviews are generally the equivelant of an op-ed in academic journals - if it is a 3-4 page review (or shorter) and titled "review" - it is generally not peer reviewed), and I think it is describing what is written in the reviewed book - Vladimir Kuzichkin, "inside the KGB: myth and reality"; Louise d'Estrange Fawcett, "Iran and the Cold War: the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946. Generally quoting the work itself is better than the review. If we are using the book review - then it needs to be "according to Halliday a book by Kuzichkin says". Or perhaps take it on faith Halliday properly summarized the book (iffy - but probably OK). I think you can include this, however you need to change the attribution

Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: in this edit, Kazemita1 added (in Wiki voice) that the MEK has ties with the KGB; however, there isn’t a single reliable source in the section that confirms this. The only source mentioning KGB is this commentary piece in the National Interest. Is this correct? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Milani should be attributed. Chubin should be removed - he is warning in 1982 of a future possible threat.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: but isn't the Milani article an op-ed? thought we had agreed to avoid op-eds altogether here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It is in the commentary section - so I'd assume it is an op-ed. Milani is, however, an expert in the field. I'm not sure what we agreed (if at all) in the past on op-eds. Note that Milani himself connects the whole thing to Saadati - "Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran.". I would say that "adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB" (in the article) was/is a very selective quotation of Milani. We also have Milani anyway in the "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati". I would say that the proposed "Ties to KGB" section is redundant with the "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" - as the sources there (ignoring Chubin who is warning in 1982 of a possible future threat - useless) - are all referring to Sa’adati.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I merged "Ties to KGB" to "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati". I removed Chubin as he is in 1982 warning of a (then) future threat. I removed Milani (who was very selectively quoted) as he was already present cited from Syracuse University Press book (where he has a page or so on the Sa’adati affair) - which is a better source than an op-ed in the National Interest. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz. I simply copy pasted your own words (and here) to the KGB section. I am surprised you removed it. --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Read what I said again. Chubin is reliable for saying Chubin thought (in 1982) there was a future threat - however this source is useless as it is a past assessment of a future (as of yet unrealized) threat. I retained Halliday. I removed Milani from National Interest as we have in the " Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" a published academic book - book page 467 - by Milani covering Sa’adati/KGB in greater detail - a much better source. Note that you misrepresented Milani in National Interest - quoting a single sentence out of context (the rest of the paragraph relating to Sa’adati). Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:you believe in the source failed in reliability, while as WP:AEIS, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources and this source is a review of the book (secondary sources). As well as if it is a biased source IIRC, is the reliability violated? Which policy say so? The neutrality would be controlled by users.Saff V. (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I answered above - book reviews in journals are generally considered to be op-eds (I'm not sure where to quote policy from - I'm sure however this has been discussed elsewhere) - book reviews are generally not peer reviewed and are the opinion of the reviewer (this is different from a journal article which would be peer reviewed). The best course of action would be to quote the reviewed book directly. I will note that in my merger edit above - I retained Halliday's quote/description of Kuzichkin - I just moved it from "Ties to KGB" to "Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati". Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the URL you posted in your last edit. It is from a book the reliability of which is established. It is helpful for the "Ties to KGB" section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in the sources provided confirm that the MEK had ties with the KGB. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@IceWhiz, Saff V. and Kazemita: This book review is "refereed" (check the source info) and hence should be given more weight than non-peer reviewed sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's in the LSE wrapper (which is not a RS). It doesn't appear in the journal itself - [27]. It's quite unlikely a short book review (in the midst of a bunch of other book reviews by other authors) was peer reviewed. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about. When Cheryl Benrard's biased book can be attributed and included in the article, a book review by another can certainly be included in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: That's clearly saying the work is refereed. What do you mean by LSE wrapper so it's unreliable? IJMES is a peer-reviewed academic journal and that seems more logical to act based on the available facts (such as the journal being peer-reviewed) than assumptions. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The page you are referring to wasn't published by the journal. LSE is hosting a freebie copy of the review (which is possible in various circumstances) - and added a page of its own in the beginning - so you're reliant on whomever in LSE filled this out (a secretary, bored IT person, the author themselves, etc.) - and the refereed tick might just be there since it was in a journal (which generally is so - but usually not for book reviews). Regardless - what we really should be doing here - is citing the actual book and not a book review of the book. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to rely on what is clearly known, i.e. the fact that "IJMES is a peer-reviewed academic journal" and I still can't understand why an article from an reliable and peer-reviewed journal should not be used. Though I can understand attribution might be needed. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, please stop edit warring about the KGB allegations. There aren't any reliable sources that are connecting the two. Alex-h (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The "attribution" phenomenon

Suppose a source is deemed unreliable. I do not think we are allowed to use it by simply attributing it. This is very much like bypassing Wikipedia's core policy WP:RS. It essentially defeats the whole purpose of why we distinguish reliable and non-reliable sources. I can tell you that starting this will open a new can of worms. I mean any discussion we had so far on reliability of sources could be undermined. Anyone can add pretty much any source by simply attributing it. Keep that in mind--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: I agree that we should only use reliable sources here. We already established that blogs/opinion pieces should not be used in this article. The question then is if the book "Breaking the Stalemate", written by reputable authors and published by Metis Analytics, falls in to the same category of unreliable sources. Like Icewhiz, I have not been able to find much about the publisher; does this mean the source is unreliable? On that same point, why are we keeping infoplease.com as source for death tolls? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: You seem to have missed my last comment here, so pinging you again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamian's quote on "targeting only government and security"

I do not have access to Abrahamian's book. Kindly, place a link here to the claim that MEK only targets government and security folks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I just read through the page and it was nothing like it claimed to be. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird assertion

In the lead, it asserts that Bloomfeld confirms MEK only targets security and governmental forces of IRI. I do not own the book. However, I find it very difficult to believe if Bloomfeld said so given his statements in this interview:

They [MEK} are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iranians and a campaign of bombings, assassinations, and military attacks, as well as collusion with Iraq.

As such I am asking for people who have access to the book to check on it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Having access to the book is not a concern here, given the weight of this unique POV allegedly found in the mentioned book. I'm trying to say that, even if the book actually says this, lead of such an article is not a suitable place for giving weight to the claim. I would not object adding a line to the body though, if there was such a thing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Iran-interlink is not RS; stop using it as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just post the scan of the page from the book that supports your claim. It should not be that difficult unless of course you are wrong; just like you were wrong about Abrahamian p. 208.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you would presume I need to scan pages for you to check. Stop asking for this. Amazon, JSTOR, and your local library are some options for you to explore, this is not my job. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin by Stevenson

I got a hold of this book today. To begin with how biased this book is, the author dedicates the book to Maryam Rajavi and other "brothers & sisters" in MEK:

This book is dedicated to Maryam Rajavi and countless other sisters and brothers of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran with whom I have had the privilege to work and campaign. Their self-sacrifice and the self-sacrifice of the PMOI over decades has been an inspiration.

That aside, the book is simply a series of interviews with MEK members. As a result, the book is at best a primary source (and not even a reliable one). It therefore cannot serve as a source for the following assertion in this Wiki article:

"Other analysts state that MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions"

I am uploading the table of contents here for your review.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Book written by Scottish politician Struan Stevenson and published by Birlinn. So far, what's been included from this book has come from the author and not those interviewed (though you don't seem to mind those former MEK members interviewed in the Guardian article? ) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you do us all a favor and post the scan of the corresponding page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, WP:RSN came up with this verdict. As such I am going to remove it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Hey @Sa.vakilian: a user is persistently edit warring to send the paragraph on MEK being designated as terrorist organization to the end of the lead. He's grounding his POVish changes on your edits. In the case you don't know, I should add that this change was discussed and I provided enough explanation why it was not consistent with the trend of other articles (see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 6 and search for "Boko Haram" in the text). That's why I'm asking you to restore this version while keeping your recent additions. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I rearranged the lead based on the aforementioned discussion. However, I do not think it is a POV change. I mean both of the orders are neutral. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Seyyed for the intervention. But it certainly matters whether or not the terrorism designation is in 2nd or last paragraph (that's why he was trying to send it to the end of the lead). In this case, the state is in second paragraph as is in multiple similar articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian:, I agree with your reasoning concerning the article's lede, which presents the information chronologically, and I also agree it's not a POV change, so I will restore it based on that merit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let's revert it to the former order and solve the problem on the talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's solve the disagreement. This is Mhhossein's claim why the terrorist designation should be placed towards the top of the lede section:

"See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram where designation as terrorist identity is mentioned in the second paragraph"

One of the differences between those articles and the MEK article, is that the MEK forms part of the "Organizations formerly designated as terrorist" category.

Here is a list of Organizations formerly designated as terrorist (the category the MEK belongs to), where the terrorist designation is not even mentioned in the lede section:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Nepal_(Maoist_Centre)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Alliance
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_African_National_Union
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAPO
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Congress_of_Democrats
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Co-operative_Party

Also, considering there are plenty of RSs that describe in detail that “The inclusion of [the terrorist designation of] the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami." this would make it a controversial terrorist designation, which gives reason to either place it towards the bottom or remove it from the lede altogether (as the other examples above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Words to watch

@Stefka Bulgaria: I think you are putting TOO much energy in this article so that you even ignore clear points. For instance, you were, in a non-stop manner ( [28] and [29]) pushing an opinion piece into the article to conclude a fact, although I told multiple times not to do that (see my comment), among others). Now, you're again edit warring against me to use a loaded word. i.e. 'however', although WP:EDITORIAL prohibits using this. To our surprise, your edit summary reads "4) “However” is not a loaded word"!!! Is however supported by the sources used? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, I think you ignore a lot of clear points in this article, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the RSs and what they say, and this should be the focus here. Now that we've established that opinion pieces should not be used in this article, then we should focus on whatever else needs fixing. About using the word "However", the guideline you provided says "Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." So, is "however" here "implying a relationship where none exists"? Aren't both statements talking about the same thing (cult designation)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"however" is "unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." Don't use it anymore, unless if the used sources are supporting "however". --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "however" is not used properly. Where did we establish not to use "opinion peices"?Saff V. (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ties to KGB

@Stefka Bulgaria and Kazemita1: You are making many reverts on this case. I invite you to discuss it.Forest90 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @ Kazemita1 to opening related discussion in RSN, but I think that main problem is not Milani source.Saff V. (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The verdict is out and it seems like using Abbas Milani source(s) are ok. If anyone wants to ask about Chubin's source, you are more than welcome to do so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

As a side point, @Stefka Bulgaria: would deny anyone related to this article from getting involved in his WP:RSN inquiries like this one, but he did not honor his own words and started unrelated material to my inquiry. Just an observation.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been already a discussion about this already, why did you open a new one and ignored what was said on the last one? Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC about the death tolls in the lead

Should the death tolls get removed from the lead? I have opened this RFC due to the older discussions (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 9#RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article?, Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Should we place the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) in the body?) related to this RFC, which were all slippery. The last closure comment reads: "There is no prejudice against discussing this further since there was limited participation".--Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Removal of such a well-sourced materials needs more discussion. There are also objections by other users over removing the material ([30], [31]). Notably, I think this drive-by comment, all of a sudden appearing here!, should be ignored. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

INFOPLEASE.COM, used to back up the death tolls here, is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Says the guy who added the term, although he was objecting the source severely at the RSN!!! @El C: Can you see the double standard? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added the name/term INFOPLEASE.COM because it was missing. I objected this source at RSN (as did user:Snooganssnoogans) because is not RS for the death toll figures, as such I don't think it should be used to support data placed in the lede of a controversial article. So why are you accusing me of having a "double standard"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You changed the figure from 10,000 to 16,000 so that you can mention MEK causalities, too. It's clearly a double standard; You should not have used such a source if you thought the source was not reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In the diff you provided, I removed the Ploughshares source (which is not RS), and attributed the Qasemi source to INFOPLEASE.COM (which the author himself uses as source, using the figure of 16,000, which the author himself also uses). In other words, the closest thing we have to RS about casualties in Iran is INFOPLEASE.COM (which is not a reliable source). Then I attributed the MEK death tolls to themselves as presented in the Kenneth Katzman book. Because I don't think INFOPLEASE.COM is a reliable source, and because the MEK death tolls are attributed to info by the MEK, I opened a RfC to have this removed from the lede and left in the body as this seemed to be the WP:NPOV WP:RS thing to do. So how is that "clearly a double standard"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• No: There's no reason to remove such an important and well-sourced history of the MEK from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: I see no reason to remove such a big portion of the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• No: It is an important point as well as supported by plenty of RS determining obviously group's position against I.R.I. point asks to "summarize the most important points".Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes this is already in the article, and it is not supported by reliable sources, so has no place in the lead section. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So lets remove every thing in the lead which is already in the body. See MOS:LEAD. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not addressing the problem, which is that the sources to support these numbers are not reliable. Alex-h (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. In principle, I think that the death toll of the MEK/IRI is extremely interesting and would generally support lede inclusion. In practice, however, it seems this is simply not discussed by reliable sources - we are sourcing IRI deaths to "According to infoplease.com". We are sourcing MEK casulties to MEK claims. We don't have independent reliable secondary sources discuss the MEK/IRI death toll as a whole. Since this is not discussed extensively in RSes, it is WP:UNDUE for the lead (as we follow weight in RSes - which is in this case absent (perhaps since it is hard to estimate?) - and not editorial opinion (e.g. I see this as something I'd like to have in the lede - if there were sources backing this up)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Also add in the body of the text, where this occurs again, that this is an estimate. It's difficult to get accurate estimates on material like this from one source reporting, and that source on one side of the issue. I suggest retaining mention in the lede of a large number of MEC casualties in the 1981 demonstration, which seems credible, but with no numerical estimate. Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Whereas I agree that the death tolls are important information, the sources to back the data in this instance are not reliable. When we get more reliable sources, these should be included back in the lede. In the meantime, we should not put information in the lede of controversial nature that isn't backed up by anything less than reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: With all respect, the whole mess is actually created by Stefka Bulgaria himself. He added the the causalities of the MEK group at the expense of inserting the infoplease figure. He should answer why he added the source while he thought it was not reliable? Note the wording on the toll details were completely different before Stefka Bulgaria's intervention. "...more than 10,000", is supported by reliable sources (for instance doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, hold on, all I did was properly attribute the figure for the death tolls to INFOPLEASE.COM, which is what the (already included) Piazza source attributed the data to, correct? How is that creating a "whole mess"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Responded above. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I second that @Stefka Bulgaria: I searched through Piazza's peer reviewed article and nowhere did it cite infoplease.com. --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Piazza's paper cites Iran-Times.com as source, which is not RS in any shape or form, leaving only INFOPLEASE.COM, which is also not RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per Icewhiz. Also I like how Stefka is still being used as the scapegoat after 1-2 years, lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No It is an important issue to understand the nature of MEK. This make a clear difference between MEK and the other opposition of Islamic Republic.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: So far the only argument was that there is no reliable source for the death trolls. However, Piazza's paper is published in a peer reviewed journal and it clearly talks about the number of Iranian citizens killed by MEK.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Pizza paper cites Iran-Times.com as source, which is not RS, leaving INFOPLEASE.COM as the closest thing we have to confirming these figures, which also does not qualify as RS. If I'm not mistaken, there aren't any other sources confirming these figure, making them unsupported by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: The paper in the DOMES journal is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal paper and the reviewers have definitely evaluated its sources. The publisher is also academic. It has the highest standards of the RS in WP. Taha (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)::

The paper cites Iran-Times.com as the source for the death toll data. In other words, Iran-Times.com is where the death toll figures is coming from. You are basically advocating the inclusion of important data taken from Iran-Times.com in the lede section of a controversial article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• No Given that now there is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal paper for the claim. Plus, the killings are among defining characteristics of the Mujahedin, which justifies it being in the lead section. Taha (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Piazza paper cites Iran-Times.com for the source of this data, and the Qasemi book cites INFOPLEASE.COM. If we were attributing death tolls to another Wikipedia article, such as the American-led intervention in Iraq (2014-present), we would never use INFOPLEASE.COM or Iran-Times.com as the source for death toll figures (particularly to be included in the lede section) so why should we do so here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Stefka Bulgaria: Would you please write your comments to the editors of the DOMES journal? If they admit that the author and academic reviewers have made a mistake, I will agree with you. My experience is that the editors of reputable academic journals are quite responsible and will get back to you very quickly. Taha (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protected for 4 days

In the meantime, I expect participating editors to work hard at reaching consensus. Maybe launch a separate RfC about this? I'm not sure taking it to RSN was the right call, since unless I'm missing something, it isn't that the source is necessarily deemed unreliable per se., but rather, as Icewhiz notes above, using the book itself as a reference may be preferable to the book review about it. I think we are all in agreement that we should limit speculation to the utmost. Thoughts? El_C 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein started a RfC about the death tolls, but the current consensus as closed by User:Cunard is to "move the death tolls (on both sides, currently in the lede) to the body.". Also, about the Milani source, as you've pointed out per Icewhiz's closing remarks, we are already using the book which is preferred than the commentary piece. We can discuss these further, perhaps open a new RfC, but as of now this is the consensus for both edits. So on that basis could you please undo Kazemita1's last two edits on the article as they don't reflect current consensus? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it's always the wrong version which is against consensus that I end up protecting. What can I do? Bad luck. Sorry, I'm not sure that RfC was closed appropriately, since there were only two participants in it. Anyway, for me to revert a fully-protected article, first I gotta see where the consensus is regarding these edits — the main reason why I drafted this section. We can have two RfCs or expand on the current one. Hopefully, the protection will be a factor in motivating discussion intensively. Please be concise in detailing your preferences. El_C 01:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. We have already explored the KGB allegations in depth:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#6th_round
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#About_a_recent_edit_by_Stefka

This was Icewhiz's closing remarks about this: "Read what I said again. Chubin is reliable for saying Chubin thought (in 1982) there was a future threat - however this source is useless as it is a past assessment of a future (as of yet unrealized) threat. I retained Halliday. I removed Milani from National Interest as we have in the " Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" a published academic book - book page 467 - by Milani covering Sa’adati/KGB in greater detail - a much better source." This seems perfectly fine, so what's the counter-argument to this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I'm also against undue speculation. Yes, that's a fair question. El_C 02:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C:First of all, I had already excluded Chubin in my last edits, so mentioning Icewhiz's comments here is irrelevant. In my final edits I only used Abbas Milani for KGB ties. The question is whether you find Abbas Milani reliable for saying there was a tie between MEK and KGB. WP:RSN's verdict was that there is no issue with reliability and I do not think anybody has an issue with that. I specifically mentioned in my inquiry in WP:RSN, that people are concerned with the source, i.e. "Natioanl Interest", and the independent responder in WP:RSN saw the edit I was referring to and yet agreed with it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

One more point; Icewhiz is not disputing Abbas Milani. He is just saying why use "The National Interest" when we have "Eminent Persians" and why create a new subsection titled "Ties to KGB" when we describe the ties in "execution of Sa'adati". In other words, he is not disputing the existence of the tie. In my humble opinion, adding two lines of text is not undue.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing clear consensus at RSN — because, some editors have been arguing that you've misrepresented the material there. If I'm understanding correctly, they are arguing that the issue is WP:SYNTH rather than the reliability of the respective source/s. El_C 04:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Those users are the ones who revert my edits on this article(Alex-h, Icewhiz and Stefka). The whole point of WP:RSN is to have independent users who do not have a dog in the fight comment on the disputed content.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is what WP:SYNTH says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources

I literally quoted Abbas Milani on the topic of MEK having ties to KGB. It does not get any more explicit than that.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Milani in an academic book is much preferred to Milani in an oped. Furthermore, your quotation of the op-ed is very-very selective (WP:CHERRYPICKING) - the context of this sentence is important - "Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran." - Milani writes a short intro on Moscow ties - and goes on to expand with Saadati (and in the more detailed book - he does the same). In the oped - Milani isn't discussing ties other than Saadati - he is discussing Saadati. By not including this context, our text (for some very odd reason split into a KGB section and a Sa'adati section) - implies this was something other than the well-known Saadati affair. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is absolutely not cherry-picking. Milani is mentions MEK explicitly (and not Sa'adati alone) when he is talking about ties to Moscow and KGB:

After the revolution, MEK was amongst the most stalwart supporters of the clerical regime. It grew in number and stature rapidly, soon becoming the most formidable organization in the country. The MEK used its increasing power to pressure the government into increasingly radical action—from more summary trials and executions to the occupation of the American embassy. Simultaneously it adopted close ties with Moscow, and particularly with the KGB. One of its leaders, named Saadati, was arrested while passing to the KGB a counterespionage file the group had taken when it attacked the Shah’s secret-police offices. In return, the kgb promised to give the MEK a full list of CIA agents in Iran. [32]

The pronoun it comes right after MEK before Sa'adati is mentioned.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It speaks of close ties with the KGB, but only refers to Sa'adati as having had any contact with them. As a user who is less than familiar with this, it is difficult to tell if what the source mentions goes beyond that Sa'adati-KGB relationship. El_C 13:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And the Sa'adati/Russia incident is already in the article, using the Milani source (the published book, not the op-ed). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In my latest edit I made sure what Milani calls "ties to KGB" is clearly defined and is limited to the three meetings with Sa'adati. There were other sources, however, for this section such as Vladimir Kuzichkin's account as well as a Washington Post piece as seen in this edit that elaborated more on the ties between KGB and MEK. I conceded to a middle ground solution by excluding them in hopes for an agreement. Apparently, that method no longer works in Wikipedia.Kazemita1 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Both those sources have also been analysed in depth in this TP showing why they were not suitable to support this (just as with the Milani op-ed). "Consensus does not need to be unanimous for something to be deemed unreliably-sourced or undue." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The only problem with your argument is that you cannot have consensus against Wikipedia core policies such as WP:RS. I encourage @El C: to start a new inquiry in the WP:RSN and ask independent contributors to comment on whether this edit satisfies reliability and/or due weight.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not gonna do that. The discussion has been split enough times. Just try to stay focused on what is being said right here. Consensus or lack thereof will determine where we go from here. El_C 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Based on the discussions, users who have been actively involved in the talk page and contributed to the page itself are divided into two camps:

• Camp #1 are pro adding a new section titled "Ties to KGB" who are (User:Kazemita1, User:Mhhossein, User:Saff V.)
• Camp #2 are against adding a separate section with the above title who are (User:Stefka Bulgaria, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h)

There were two other users named User:Sa.vakilian & User:Forest90 whose opinion on this matter I am not aware of.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, the version before the dispute should probably be the one up while this gets sorted. But you seem to be missing the point: in that instance, DRN might be a better way to go than RSN, because the latter has a narrow mandate which is focused on reliability, which again, I'm not sure is the case here. El_C 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C:I opened a case in WP:DRN per your recommendation. I am just curious how you determine which camp to favor. I mean how is consensus determined? Previously, folks in camp 2 used to count votes as shown in this revert.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved through persuasion of both currently-participating and outside editors who have yet to participate. It is not a vote count. El_C 07:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a relief.--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 and Sa.vakilian have not participated in this discussion, yet they've been pinged here. Why didn't Kazemita1 also ping @Nikoo.Amini:? I presume it's because Nikoo.Amini voted against Kazemita1's side on the previous RfC? Opening a new discussion elsewhere will create another mess since this has been discussed at length in this TP (several times). I asked for Kazemita1 to provide a counter-argument, and I presume Kazemita1 has? @El C:, you had a look at Kazemita's counter-argument? what do you make of it? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is in reference to what? There are a lot of arguments and counter-arguments here. El_C 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: in reference to what I wrote at the beginning of this section, about Icewhiz's closing remarks concerning this discussion: "Chubin is reliable for saying Chubin thought (in 1982) there was a future threat - however this source is useless as it is a past assessment of a future (as of yet unrealized) threat. I retained Halliday. I removed Milani from National Interest as we have in the " Execution of Mohammad-Reza Sa’adati" a published academic book - book page 467 - by Milani covering Sa’adati/KGB in greater detail - a much better source." I wrote that this seems perfectly fine to me, and asked about Kazemita1's counter-argument(who then provided it). Since you're an uninvolved administrator, it would be good to know what you think about Kazemita1's counter-argument to Icewhiz's closing remarks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I already responded to that particular exchange. But I'm not familiar enough with the material to expand beyond that at this time. El_C 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First things first. I pinged Sa.vakilian and Forest90 in a discussion related to editing the article. I did not ping Nikoo.Amini because she was not involved in the article; not at least since I joined editing it recently. As for my counter-argument with that closing remark here is what I am saying. The fact that Abbas Milani said something during an interview does not make it unreliable. Abbas Milani is a scholar whose words can be used in Wikipedia even if said during an interview or what you may call an Op-Ed. And don't take my words for it. Even Icewhiz once said this. The point you are missing here is that there is enough evidence here, beyond the Sa'adati incident that deserves a separate sub-section. Now, the subsection's title could be something different like "Ties to Soviet Union" or "Interactions with Soviet Union". What I am saying in brief is that reducing these interactions to just the three meetings of MEK with KGB is simply undermining historical facts. --Kazemita1 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Every source that's available about this has been analyzed (reliable and not reliable). The two Milani sources (the oped and book) refer to the Russian connections regarding Saadati, which is already in the Wikipedia page supported by the (preferred) book reference. We can keep playing this WP:IDHT game if you like, but this is the bottom line. Alex-h (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources when we are talking about the broader level connection, i.e. the connection to Soviets (as opposed to just the KGB). Moreover, the sources discussed here that were refuted for the "ties to KGB" might well be used for "interactions with the Soviet Union". I will come up with a proposal in a day. I hope we can all wait.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)