Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Undiscussed changes

@Psychonot: Discuss before you make such massive changes in the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed original research and op-ed. Added well-sourced neutrality.--Psychonot (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Psychonot: No, you didn't, I dispute. And per WP:ONUS, since you are the one seeking to include disputed content, you should bring your proposed changes here one by one to achieve consensus. Pahlevun (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As another editor pointed out [7] you are violating WP:OWN by edit-warring with all editors who try to add neutrality to this article, and as such keeping this article in poor form for extended period, as a pro-Iran regime hit-piece against this group. This is not acceptable.--Psychonot (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop making personal remarks and out of context comments. I asked you to propose the changes you want here and adhere to WP:ONUS. Pahlevun (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that changing the sourced content is considered WP:HJ. None of the sources refer to "establishment of a secular democratic republic". ncr-iran.org and mojahedin.org are self-published sources and the BBC link does not refer to what you have changed. Pahlevun (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the three sources for Currently the organization annually holds a rally in France that attracts over 100,000 people, two are op-eds, while you removed a source because "Op-Ed not reliable source". Pahlevun (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The last time Massoud Rajavi took part in an election inside Iran was at a local election in Tehran in 1980, and received 531,943 votes in Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr (electoral district) alone It is not right, the source states that his votes decreased to 375,762 in the run-off. Pahlevun (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

However, the organization is banned in Iran by the regime, and anyone suspected or known to be a member of this organization is immediately arrested. It is not cited in any of the three links you provided. This is your own conclusion and WP:SYNTH. Pahlevun (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You replaced sourced "continuing to conduct violent attacks in Iran" with what just restated above, annually holding rallies in France that attract over 100,000 people without no explanation. Pahlevun (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on People's Mujahedin of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716010642/http://www.ambafrance-ir.org/%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AE-%D8%B3%D8%AE%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%88%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%87-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87 to http://www.ambafrance-ir.org/%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AE-%D8%B3%D8%AE%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%88%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%87-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140717093423/http://cns.miis.edu/stories/071206.htm to http://cns.miis.edu/stories/071206.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927092405/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606084954/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

good faith

Just to say, anyone editing in support of the MKO/MEK/NCRI/PMOI position here should not be assumed to be acting 'in good faith' (see guidelines above) - but exactly the opposite. 80.17.36.33 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to clean up

I've tried to clean up the intro part of the article, but most of my edits were reverted by user Pahlevun. I find that the text as is lacks neutrality. This is the reasoning behind my edits:

1) Restated chronological order: it's just cleaner and reads better

2) Removal of "The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques" to claim "Violent overthrow of Iranian regime: This isn't a neutral statement or reference, so I'd advice avoiding the statement altogether.

3) This claim isn't neutral: "According to a 2009 report published by the Brookings Institution, the organization appears to be undemocratic and lacking popularity"

As tags state, the article lacks neutrality. I'm happy to discuss further. London Hall (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than an "Attempt to clean up", your edit shows that it is an attempt to sweep these things under the rug:

1. That the organization advocates "the violent overthrow" of the Iranian regime by removing a reliable source published by CRC Press's flagship handbooks. It is a neutral statement, though the sources are not required to be neutral, but rather reliable.
2. Lack of popularity of the organization, which had three reliable sources (Brookings Institution, Reuters and the Cengage Learning book).
3. The terrorist designation history of the MEK, by removing the neutral statement (It is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq, and was considered a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom and the European Union until 2008 and 2009 respectively, and by Canada and the United States until 2012.) with the spinned version ("In 2009, the group was removed from the European Union’s terrorist list; and in 2012, the Obama administration delisted the group off the US terrorism list. This was criticized by the Iranian government, who currently designates the group as a terrorist organization and has executed numerous of its members (most notoriously the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners)."
4. chronological order is also an excuse for removing They hailed "His Highness Ayatollah Khomeini as a glorious fighter (Mojahed)" and urged all to remain united behind him against plots by royalists and imperialists, they participated in March 1979 referendum and strongly supported the Iran hostage crisis, had a few candidates in the run-offs, it was unable to win a single seat in the 1980 Iranian legislative election and and initiated a number of bombings and assassinations targeting the clerical leadership with its source published by Duke University Press. (Interestingly what the MEK is trying to erase from its history.)

Raise your points here on any of the abovementioned issues, gain consensus and then apply them. Do not restore your version without proper discussion because that would be WP:UCR. –Pahlevun (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pahlevun please don’t accuse me of attempting to “sweep things under the rug”, the article has obvious NPOV issues, and with the recent Iranian protests, there seem to be political interests involved here ([8], [9], [10]). Wikipedia should not be used to smear or to promote (or to express opinions). Don’t you agree that some of the statements in the article (and sources) are obviously biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hall (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC) About your points:

1. That the organization advocates "the violent overthrow": If the source is not neutral, then it’s not a reliable source. 2. Lack of popularity of the organization, which had three reliable sources:

• Brookings Institution source : has numerous problematic (NPOV) statements (for instance, describing the organization as a “U.S. proxy” against the Iranian regime).

• Reuters source  : Statement taken from “Iran analysts”, not Reuters: “But any indication that the United States backs the MEK’s goal of regime change in Tehran would confirm suspicions among hard-liners in Iran that the United States seeks the Iranian government’s overthrow, and increase hostility between Tehran and Washington, Iran analysts said. (which, as hinted in the article, could be part of the Iranian regime).
• Terrorism and Homeland Security source : “Some analysts state it still remains unpopular among Iranians.” An actual survey would be needed to determine this. “Some analysts” is a NPOV statement, as other analysts may not agree

Can you tell me what is “spinned” (I suppose you mean flawed?) about this?: “In 2009, the group was removed from the European Union’s terrorist list; and in 2012, the Obama administration delisted the group off the US terrorism list. This was criticized by the Iranian government, who currently designates the group as a terrorist organization and has executed numerous of its members (most notoriously the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners).”

4. They hailed "His Highness Ayatollah Khomeini as a glorious fighter (Mojahed)" and urged all to remain united behind him against plots by royalists and imperialists, they participated in March 1979 referendum and strongly supported the Iran hostage crisis, had a few candidates in the run-offs, it was unable to win a single seat in the 1980 Iranian legislative election and initiated a number of bombings and assassinations targeting the clerical leadership.

Doesn’t this read biased to you? Doesn’t the source you’re using to support this read as a biased source to you? It includes other statements such as “Under the Pahlavi monarchy, state autonomy brought not institutional strength but social isolation; and weakness and vulnerability to the revolution. Under the Islamic Republic, state dependence on particular classes has created social foundations for the regime; and such foundations have, in turn, created strength and durability.”

Doesn’t that read as propaganda in favor of the Islamic regime? As noted, the article has obvious NPOV issues. I’m fine with continuing to debate the neutrality of the sources used in the article, but we should only include them (and the statements they support) once consensus has been reached that they are indeed neutral and unbiased references/statements. London Hall (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me what is “spinned” (I suppose you mean flawed?) about this?: “In 2009, the group was removed from the European Union’s terrorist list; and in 2012, the Obama administration delisted the group off the US terrorism list. This was criticized by the Iranian government, who currently designates the group as a terrorist organization and has executed numerous of its members (most notoriously the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners).” Sure! With replacing this spinned version with the nuetral one: 1. The fact that currently two sovereign countries (Iran and Iraq) consider this organization terrorist is neglected. 2. The fact that Canada and the UK considered this organization terrorist for years is neglected. 3. Its terrorist designation by Iran is deliberately connected to the 1988 mass executions, neglecting the fact that the organization had been considered terrorist before 1979 and since 1981 (seven years before the executions) 4. Its terrorist designation by the U.S. is summerized to "in 2012, the Obama administration delisted the group off the US terrorism list", neglecting the fact that the organization was considered terrorist for more than 15 years during three different administrations from both two major U.S. parties. If the source is not neutral, then it’s not a reliable source. I don't believe that these sources are biased, however, even if they were, you were still obviously wrong, because Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Discussing bias of the sources to whether include them or not is not an option, only reliability matters. Pahlevun (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that currently two sovereign countries (Iran and Iraq) consider this organization terrorist is neglected.: The intro as is does mention that the Iranian regime considers the group a terrorist organization (nevertheless, is that so surprising considering that the group constitutes the Iranian regime's main political opposition?). ...You were still obviously wrong, because Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: WP:RS also says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," which is not the case with the outlined references. Discussing bias of the sources to whether include them or not is not an option, only reliability matters.: yes it is an option and an obligation. Wikipedia aims to be a neutral source of information, and this article contains numerous sources that are biased and therefore unreliable. London Hall (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You omit to respond my argument. Stop reverting and just read what I wrote again, because if you did, you would'nt have said that the sources "biased and therefore unreliable". That's just a wrong conclusion. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Pahlevun (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You omit to respond my argument.: I have addressed your argument, and concerning WP:RELIABLE I've noted that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Considering the subject in question (and the NPOV issues the article has), WP:NEUTRAL needs addressing: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias." London Hall (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You have not responded on any of the four points: About your 4 points, please have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization This is a clean, specific, and neutral example of a Wiki article that has managed to solve the issue surrounding NPOV of a political organization previously designated as terrorist. I propose we use the same format so that we may solve NPOV issues here (at least in the lead section). London Hall (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV and Weasel words

Upon a closer inspection, I have found that there are a number of vague and biased references in the article that are creating some NPOV issues. Some of these references are presented as academic works, but most are hardly academic, and seem to be coming from authors with bias against the subject of the article. There are also references being used to support WP:WEASEL statements that are not in the actual references. For instance, here' s my analysis for the "Propaganda campaign" section, which seems to be one of the most obvious biased sections in the article:

• “From the very beginning, the MEK pursued a dual strategy of using armed struggle and propaganda to achieve its goals, and its proliftic international propaganda machine has been successful in misleading a considerable portion of the Western media since the 1980s… ” and its proliftic international propaganda machine has been successful in misleading a considerable portion of the Western media since the 1980s.

The Wilfried reference cannot be considered a reliable source; contains phrases such as "Using its clever and prolific propaganda machine..."; "To win the Western public over to its side, and to present itself as an alternative to the current Iranian government, the MEK works incessantly to portray the Islamic Republic in a negative light, focusing, for instance, on Iran's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction."

• “In order to buy legitimacy, MEK sometimes combines the features of the leaflet and the extended interview with purchasing usually full page, thus expensive ad space for their propaganda in major-circulation newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Washington Times. Christopher C. Harmon and Randall G. Bowdish describe the advertisements as "well-designed" and "distinctive"”

Providing interviews on Western media outlets (which is what the book describes) does not equate to a propaganda campaign.

• “The organization is active on social media, most notably Twitter. It runs an isolated cluster of apparently "full-time activists" and spambots, which interact only with each other. The cluster makes efforts to position itself as an organisation of human rights defenders. However, these efforts are rarely reciprocated, signaling their insularity.”

It doesn't say this on the cited reference, it says this: “They engage with an entirely separate and isolated media ecology, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran, Mohajedin.org, Maryam-Rajavi.com, Hambastegi Meli, Iran News Update, and Iran Efshagari. All of these accounts are openly or semi-openly affiliated with the MEK, criticize Iran’s human rights record aggressively, and advocate openly for regime change. The vast majority of pro-MEK Twitter users are on the periphery of the wider network and interact only with other MEK users. High-influence MEK users interact with individuals in the International Human Rights segment on a semi-regular basis through targeted tweets or the use of human rights-related hashtags.”

• “According to digital research by the UK-based Small Media Foundation, the cluster's "dependence on automated bots to disseminate information demonstrates that although the MEK is taking social media sites seriously as a platform for broadcasting news and propaganda, they lack the supporter network necessary to make a significant impact within the Iranian Twittersphere. As a result, the MEK is making use of automated bots to artificially inflate its follower count, and create an illusion of influence amongst Iranian Twitter users".

The reference used to support this statement is published on Storify, which does not meet Wikipedia’s requirement for a reliable reference.

I can go on, but lets sort this out first. Please comment/contribute; alternatively, I'll update the article accordingly. London Hall (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. Note the Iranian regime (and regime controlled media in Iran) views MEK in a highly negative fashion (MEK being on of the regular "bogeymen" in coverage, regularly assigned blame for various woes). This sometimes seeps into non-Iranian coverage (in proper sources - attributed back to the Iranian regime) - however we should be careful to attribute such negative statements here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Various sections in this article read more like a smear piece against the group than an Wikipedia article. I also agree that the Iranian regime is concerned about this group, see for example:[11], [12],[13], etc., so we need to be careful no to let that influence the article. London Hall (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wilfried reference cannot be considered a reliable source. For your information, actually it is reliable according to WP:RS, because it meets all three criteria. It is a scholarly peer reviewed piece (The piece of work itself, check) written by Wilfried Buchta, an expert (The creator of the work, check), and is a joint publication of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, both distinguished research institutes (The publisher of the work, check). Go ask WP:RSN. Providing interviews on Western media outlets (which is what the book describes) does not equate to a propaganda campaign. Well, the source, which is again reliable (a scholarly peer reviewed work written by two experts, published by Brookings Institution Press), does use the term "propaganda campaign" and dedicates a whole chapter to the propaganda campaign of PMOI, discussing how these advertorials ("interviews"), serve as a tool for propaganda. You have no excuse to remove it. It doesn't say this on the cited reference. It does say so (page 33): "Such activities reflect the MEK’s efforts to position itself as an organisation of human rights defenders (users frequently share posts describing human rights-focused rallies in the diaspora40). However, these efforts are rarely reciprocated, and consequently the MEK cluster is the most densely connected one in our entire network (signaling insularity)." And the work of Small Media Foundation, which has conducted many research projects on Iranian Twittersphere, is used as reference (number 26) for the latter source, and is reliable as well. Aditionally, you have removed another reliable source using the term "propaganda campaign" (World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era published by Routledge) with no explanation. Removal of any of these reliable sources without prior discussion leading to an evident consensus is WP:UCR. Pahlevun (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wilfried reference cannot be considered a reliable source : “Peer-reviewed” is a term that can be manipulated, and this is an example of such instance. Something that has been properly academically scrutinized cannot include statements such as: "Using its clever and prolific propaganda machine..." There is an obvious bias and use of Weasel words here, and if we want to fix the article’s NPOV issues, it’s best to avoid this rhetoric altogether. Providing interviews on Western media outlets (which is what the book describes) does not equate to a propaganda campaign.  : What I’m saying about this is that weasel words are being used (again) to manipulate what the report says, which is actually this:“The organization is active on social media, most notably Twitter. It runs an isolated cluster of apparently "full-time activists" and spambots, which interact only with each other. The cluster makes efforts to position itself as an organisation of human rights defenders. However, these efforts are rarely reciprocated, signaling their insularity.” About removing “World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era published by Routledge), it’s not the reference what’s causing the issue, but the way it’s being manipulated to include another Weasel statement. The author does not claim that PMOI is running any type of propaganda campaign, but the statement using this as source does. London Hall (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The author does not claim that PMOI is running any type of propaganda campaign It does: "Aside from its operations inside Iran, MEK has run a global propaganda campaign since 2000. MEK has an extensive overseas support structure". it’s best to avoid this rhetoric altogether. No, it's not, because as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Pahlevun (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from its operations inside Iran, MEK has run a global propaganda campaign since 2000. MEK has an extensive overseas support structure.: I'm fine to include that as written, without spinning the text. Also noted that the book includes a passage that is almost identical to the intro of this article, but doesn't include the word "violent overthrow of the current regime in Iran" - why cherry pick? As noted above, WP:RS also says that "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." As pointed out above, these sources in question are biased in favour of the Iranian regime, and therefore against this (its opposition) group. London Hall (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

these sources in question are biased in favour of the Iranian regime, and therefore against this (its opposition) group. Not a useful argument in a discussion. I don't care if they are in favor of the Iranian regime or against it and I'm done explaining to you that bias and reliability are not connected. To simply say that works published by reputable sources like Reuters, CRC Press, Cengage Learning and Brookings Institution are "biased in favour of the Iranian regime" does not make them unreliable. Any doubts about reliability of the sources? Go to the WP:RSN. And for your information, this is quote from The Counterterrorism Handbook (2016) "Aims/goals: • MEK aims for the violent overthrow of the Iranian government, with the group's ideology swinging all over the map." Pahlevun (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To simply say that works published by reputable sources like Reuters, CRC Press, Cengage Learning and Brookings Institution are "biased in favour of the Iranian regime" does not make them unreliable. First, considering that the subject of the article represents the Iranian regime's main opposition, then references with bias in favour of the Iranian regime would make references unreliable, don't you think? Second, I didn't say that Reuters or CRC Press are biased in favour of the Iranian regime, I said that what they've published is being spinned here, creating WP:NPOV issues (see the article's tags). On the other hand, there are references here that are clearly biased in favour of the Iranian regime and out to smear this group, which makes them unreliable because they're biased, and are being used to support biased statements. Wikipedia aims to be a neutral source of information, and it's obvious the article has WP:NPOV issues, why not fix them? London Hall (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

considering that the subject of the article represents the Iranian regime's main opposition, this is your personal opinion, which i'm not going to discuss because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. ...then references with bias in favour of the Iranian regime would make references unreliable, don't you think? No, I don't, because WP:RS doesn't say so, but vice versa. I said that what they've published is being spinned here, creating WP:NPOV issues. The exact text being referenced in Reuters and CRC Press sources is available in the article. How are they spinned, exactly? Be clear and name them. Pahlevun (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion: I don't know why you keep suggesting that this is my personal opinion when I have provided various sources that specifically describe the MEK as the Iranian Regime's main opposition (and "main reasons for concern"): etc. WP:RS doesn't say so: Explaining it to you differently: For example, if we had sources deriving from Israel advocates being used to describe the Palestinian conflict Wiki pages, don't you think this would create serious NPOV issues? This is what's happening in this article, hence the NPOV issues, which need addressing. How are they spinned, exactly?: The line in question is this: "Some analysts state it still remains unpopular among Iranians". In the Reuters article, these are described as "Iran analysts," a source that may well derive from the Iranian Regime. This is NPOV, not factual data, and other sources do claim different: Yet, I would also refrain from including the claim that the group "is popular within Iranians" in the article for the same NPOV reasons. London Hall (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

First, considering that the subject of the article represents the Iranian regime's main opposition, then references with bias in favour of the Iranian regime would make references unreliable, don't you think? I'll respond in detail when I have more time, but to keep things brief: no. That's not how things work. That is not how the reliable sources policy works. Please read WP:BIASED. A sources (especially a source like bloody Reuters) doesn't become unreliable simply because you think it discloses a POV. Also it is ridiculous to say that the reliable source describe the MEK as Iran's main opposition, on the grounds that any source that is in any way critical of the MEK (Even if it's reuters) isn't a reliable source. Brustopher (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A sources (especially a source like bloody Reuters) doesn't become unreliable simply because you think it discloses a POV.: I didn't say that. For the rest, I really don't understand what you're trying to say. London Hall (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Thank you for your clarification, but I think London Hall is just making excuses to remove whatever wants. For instance, see this edit because "Not in references. Replaced with better references", when I added the quote to show that the reliable source actually mentions this, London Hall makes the same edit because its "Less biased than what was there before". P.S.: I have filed SPI report here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12. Pahlevun (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why emotions are running so high; all I've done is present a debate for proposed changes of the article's NPOV issues. As I've written to you on my Talk page, I'm happy to have a though-out discussion about the article's issues here. London Hall (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC request as this is becoming a bit comical

This article comes across as having some obvious WP:NPOV and Weasel word issues. I've tried to clean up a couple of sections, but this seems to upset user:Pahlevun, who appears to have monopolized the article. I've tried to take the debate to the article's Talk page, but consensus hasn't been reached with user Pahlevun (though user:Icewhiz did support proposed changes). I think that at this point we need another neutral editor to have a look at this. What I've found, basically, is that:

1) Biased references are being used to support biased statements (these biased references often seem to be connected to the Iranian regime. As Icewhiz pointed out: Note the Iranian regime (and regime controlled media in Iran) views MEK in a highly negative fashion (MEK being on of the regular "bogeymen" in coverage, regularly assigned blame for various woes). This sometimes seeps into non-Iranian coverage (in proper sources - attributed back to the Iranian regime) - however we should be careful to attribute such negative statements here

2) Other references are being used to support negative statements that are not in the references themselves (see discussion above).

I've tried to discuss this with user:Pahlevun (see above), but he/she has opted to open an SPI case against me instead. London Hall (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The "biased references" in question that London Hall "tried to clean up" and are from "regime controlled media in Iran" or "attributed back to the Iranian regime", are the following:

• Frank Bolz, Jr., Kenneth J. Dudonis, David P. Schulz (2016). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques. Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations (4 ed.). CRC Press. p. 459. ISBN 1439846685. Aims/goals: • MEK aims for the violent overthrow of the Iranian government, with the group's ideology swinging all over the map.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jonathan R. White (2011). Terrorism and Homeland Security (7 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 371. ISBN 1133171184.
• "Toppling Tehran". Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran. Brookings Institution. 2009. p. 164. ISBN 9780815703792. The group itself also appears to be undemocratic and enjoys little popularity in Iran itself. It has no political base in the country, although it appears to have an operational presence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), "Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group", Reuters, retrieved 20 July 2017, The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.
• Buchta, Wilfried (2000), Who rules Iran?: the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, p. 112, ISBN 0-944029-39-6
• "Advertising: The People's Mujahideen e Khalq", The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda, Brookings Institution Press, 2018, p. 166, ISBN 9780815732198 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• Cordesman, Anthony H., ed. (1999), Iraq and the War of Sanctions: Conventional Threats and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 160, ISBN 9780275965280, The MEK directs a worldwide campaign against the Iranian government that stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence.
• Ciment, James, ed. (2015), "Directory of Terrorist Groups and Individuals: Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)", World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, Routledge, p. 859, ISBN 9781317451525, Aside from its operations inside Iran, MEK has run a global propaganda campaign since 2000. MEK has an extensive overseas support structure.
• "Diary Of An MKO Rent-A-Crowd Demonstrator", RFE/RL, 30 June 2013, retrieved 24 November 2016
• Michael Rubin (7 July 2013), "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult", Commentary, retrieved 24 December 2016

—Pahlevun (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not what I claimed. However, if you'd like a list of the references that I'm suggesting are biased or being used to support biased statements in the article, I'll dig them up. I'm a bit busy now but will do it shortly. London Hall (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting comments from neutral editors

On the note of this request, user: Pahlevun seems to have taken a hold of not only this article but also all articles relating to the Iranian regime political parties and its oppositions. This type of involvement is making it difficult to work further on these articles. I don’t have the time right now to go through all the POV references/statements in this particular article, but below I’ve listed a few. Requesting that (uninvolved / unbiased) editors vote to support or decline addressing issues here. Thanks:

1) In order to buy legitimacy, MEK sometimes combines the features of the leaflet and the extended interview with purchasing usually full page, thus expensive ad space for their propaganda in major-circulation newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Washington Times. Harmon and Bowdish describe the advertisements as "well-designed" and "distinctive".[176]

Comment: There are some publications used as references in the article (such as this one by the Brookings Institution Press) that don’t only have a one-sided POV, but seem to go out of the way to exaggeratedly smear the group. Last year in the the news there were reports that certain Iran Regime's backed organizations were funding Western academia, including the Brookings Institution receiving $225,000 for "Iran-related analysis, briefings and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work." I suspect there is a connection here as the current Iran Regime sees the MEK as its main opposition, and may be out to smear the group through such publications in the West.

2) In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[194]

Comment: Could not find this in source. Instead, it claims that the Iranian regime tortured a suspected MEK member.

3) According to the official Iran newspaper, in August 2012, a number of MEK members detained by the Syrian government confessed that the MEK is training militants on Turkish soil near the border with Syria. The report also said they cooperate foreign-backed militants in Syria through the Jordanian borders and are stationed at a base called ‘Hanif’, which is "disguised as a hospital".[144]

Comment: Biased source.

4) In August 2013, Qassem Al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government.[146]

Comment: Biased source.

5) In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[195]

Comment: Biased source. There is more that can be included here, but I want to investigate further into the Iran Regime funding of Western academia to see if this reveals anything further. In the meantime, thanks for your input regarding the above. London Hall (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment @London Hall: Please consider rephrasing this RfC to comply with WP:RfC - specifically Statement should be neutral and brief. This RfC seems more like a lengthy summary of a dispute between editors... Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment London Hall clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy, and has ignored attempts to explain it. Simply because a source takes a negative opinion of the subject matter of the article, doesn't automatically make it an unreliable source. Please read WP:BIASED for further information. If what you were suggesting was true, it would be close to impossible to write a Wikipedia article about ISIS, because any source critical of them would become an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brustopher (talk • contribs)

References

Request for comments on article’s NPOV

The article has NPOV issues. A lot of it seems to be coming from manipulation of references, for instance:

* “In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[194]”

The Amnesty International statement actual says the contrary, that the Iranian regime tortured a suspected MEK member.

In other instances, sources funded by the Iranian Regime are being used. This creates NPOV issues as the Iranian Regime considers this group one of its main political threats. The following was published by the Brookings Institution, who receives funds to publish on behalf of the Iranian Regime:

* “Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution.[184]”

Proposing cleaning up the article and removing references funded by the Iranian Regime as these will have an inevitable bias against this group. One particular editor has monopolized the article and won’t anyone edit it, so requesting feedback from neutral editors. Support / Oppose ? London Hall (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The source, clearly says in the BACKGROUND INFORMATION (page 1): "Amnesty International continues to receive reports of human rights violations carried out by the PMOI against its own members. However, Amnesty International opposes the forced return to Iran of all those who may face human rights violations". So, this is not a "manipulation". The other source you objected is reliable per WP:RS. Pahlevun (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone has pointed out in the past, you're cherry picking information here. This report in particular is about a PMOI member getting captured in Turkey and sent to Iran for execution. There are a number of reports from Amnesty International disclosing torture and execution of PMOI prisoners by the Iranian Regime - why not include this information? The group currently represents one if the Iranian Regime's main concerns, shouldn't this be more evident on the page? London Hall (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that your hounding behaviour is constructive. Anyway, if by "cherry picking", you mean 'selecting relevant information and not selecting irrelevant information', this is what we are supposed to do. You can add "reports from Amnesty International disclosing torture and execution of PMOI prisoners by the Iranian Regime" to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where it belongs. That section, however, is about human rights record of the MEK. Pahlevun (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Duplicate Article

There is a duplicate version of this article at Mojahedin-e Khalgh that should probably be merged soon. It is somewhat biased and heavily relies on one book by Ervand Abrahamian, but there is a lot of text and maybe something useful can be found in there.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't seem like there's that much that can necessarily be salvaged from that article, and I don't really see why it should be kept up any longer. Its probably best that any info be added by someone who's directly read the Abrahamian book rather than taking that article with its talk of "attractive and voluptuous women" at face value. I'm going to blank and redirect the duplicate article, and if anyone thinks there's anything useful to add to this article from it they can feel free to do so. --Brustopher (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for split of MKE from the Islamic Revolution

As far as I know, the particular reason for banishment of MEK from Iranian politics has been their decision to boycott the constitutional referendum which instituted the Islamic Republic. This is mentioned in opening paragraph of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran but not in the lead. It should! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should, as it begins to describe why/what/when of the conflicts between the Iranian clerics and the MEK. This was one of the first documented events (from a series of events) that marked the fallout between the MEK and Khomeini:

• "The Mojahedin also refused to participate in the referendum held in December to ratify the constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts, even when Khomeini had called upon all good Muslims to vote ‘yes’. This was the first crucial issue on which the Mojahedin openly defied Khomeini." (Abrahamian, 1989:197)

Number of killed by MEK

The figure 16,000 is mentioned in "Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East" which seems to be reliable enough. However, I checked other sources; this one says: "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict," and the other one says: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians”" --Mhhossein ^talk 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, it does not come across as a figure that can be verified:

• Qasemi source is referencing directly from infoplease.com, which is not a reliable source.
• Ploughshares source should not be used in this article as it has been linked to the current government in Iran, who seem out to suppress this group

As per the Piazza source, an interesting article, though not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. If we do include Piazza's figure, we should provide the context of the quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. You need to review many of the guidelines, WP:BIASED among others. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The book published by Springer is alone reliable enough to cite it as a fact. @Stefka Bulgaria: The book is a Secondary source subject to scholarly peer review (and thus, reliable for Wikipedia), if you think that the phrase is not supported by a reliable source, why don't you contact the publisher, instead of questioning the merits of the publisher in Wikipedia, which has an established policy towards such sources? Pahlevun (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the Springer publication that's the issue, but the infoplease.com site it used to draw this figure from (as outlined by others at WP:RSN). Regardless, some interesting info there that I'll include in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

@Stefka Bulgaria: You think you can add anything with a reliable source to the lead? Well, then read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for once because you are mistaken. You think that you are the only one who rules that something important and the other thing is not? You have mentioned 'Khomeini' three times in the lead. Maybe you should consider mentioning Saddam Hussein? Pahlevun (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I can add anything with realiable sources in the lead; what I've included there is important and gives the reader a concice overview on how/why/when. I didn't "rule" it to be important, Abrahamian (1989) did. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Abrahamian wrote 307 of pages 29 years ago and you ruled that this sentence is important to be in the lead. The book was written. Why don't you use the sentence The organization, being a political one, naturally tends to mystify and romanticize its past, as well as to gloss over such embarrassments as shifts in day-to-day policy that is in the introduction? Because you pick cherries out of the sources. You see, Khomeini turned against the People's Mujahedin of Iran, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government is a made-up sentence by you. MEK members ran in two elections (Iranian Constitutional Convention election, 1979 and Iranian legislative election, 1980) to no avail. Let the lead be written with a consensus-building procedure. Pahlevun (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, it resumes the organization's why/when/how. We currently have a quote from a think tank in the lead claiming the organization is undemocratic and lacks popularity, despite many reliable sources from scholars arguing that the organization constitutes Iran's most active opposition group (Katzman 2001, etc.) You are deliverately removing factual and important information quoted direcdtly from reliable sources. This constitutes disruptive editing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are omitting to answer my question and my call for a consensus-building procedure. The lead is no place to quote sources, it is a place for summary of its most important contents. Brookings report was moved to the proper section in the body. So should Katzman's quote, and any other. Pahlevun (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been consensus at WP:RSN concerning the types of sources that would be adequate for use in this article. As already pointed out, this source being used in the lead more than qualifies. The statement resumes how/why/when the organization came to prominence, and why the conflict began with the Iranian government (unlike the text you've suggested). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria and Pahlevun: Someone please tell me why we need to have an almost 3 line long POV of Abrahamian in the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't. It is already in the body and we don't use phrases such as "according to" in the lead. If it is the mainstream view, we put it in the lead. If it is view of a scholar, it belongs to the body, not the lead. Same goes for Katzman's quote. Pahlevun (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead is removing the sentences with a source, and working on drafting a neutral-worded summary for the article's most important contents. Let's just go for mentioning facts and avoid using quotes (like "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant"). Pahlevun (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. However, I think the quoted material is not against fact and just needs to be reworded to show that, among other factors, Rajavi’s ideology made Khomeini turn against him. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the lead needs to introduce what/why/when/who. In other words, the MEK's ideals when the organization started, how it differed this from the Khomeini government, why it fell out with Khomeini, and the subsequent differences between these two political groups. Without this, this article is a strawman. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't own the article and what you say is not an important factor. Editors work based on the built consensus here, what you need to understand. Your version is really POVish. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

As already mentioned, the edits I've included are direct quotes from reliable sources as confirmed at WP:RSN. I'm not interesting in bickering, just interested in cleaning up the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Failed verifications and cherry picking

@Stefka Bulgaria:

1. You have mentioned the source pages 212 and 206 from Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?, while the book is only 137 pages. If you are not fixing it, I will remove the content.
2. You have selectively neglected the part of the source you didn't like to mention, here and here I have fixed that. Do not pick cherries out of the sources. And read WP:INTEGRITY.
3. Quote the passage including a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad, which I'm not finding on the source. That's sourced on page 4, which is in the chapter 'Iran: Relations With Key Central Asian States' (a version is here). If you are not fixing it, you may face being accused of using Wikipedia:Fictitious references.

–Pahlevun (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:

1. Ok, will look into this first thing tomorrow. It'll be sorted out in the next 24hrs, thanks.
2. I am not cherry picking; on the contrary, reading the reliable sources it seems there are a lot of interesting and important facts that have been ommited from the article; I'm trying to fix that.
3. I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'll have more time. Thanks for pointing it out. Good night

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let me get this straight: You picked The Pahlavi regime, in suppressing the PMOI, had claimed that it was a ‘Marxist conspiracy’ hiding behind the veil of Islam from page 2, and put it along with Historian Ervand Abrahamian observed that the Iranian regime was also “eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims. from page 101 to make an impression that the source considers it a baseless name-calling. On the contrary, what Abrahamian is implying on pages 100–101 is that the MEK is influenced by Marxism, but avoided to identify as such for some reason. If you are here to contribute, avoid such attitude or you may have the same fate that previous users who came here to "fix" this article had. Pahlevun (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Threats are unnecessary. If you have an issue with an edit, let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. I'll now work on the issues raised accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: in the words of Abrahamian:

"Although the Mojahedin were consciously influenced by Marxism both modern and classical, they vehemently denied being Marxists; indeed, they denied even being socialists. Three consideration prompted this denial: first, the Mojahedin sincerely believed that human beings had a spiritual dimension – a soul, and afterlife, and an inherent drive to seek God – a notion which could not be reconciled with Marxist philosophy. As the organization argued the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy." (Abrahamian, 1989:100)

"The Mojahedin felt that the average man in the street associated Marxism, as well as liberalism and socialism, with other ‘isms’ imported from the West. As Rajavi admitted years later, the organization avoided the socialist label because such a term conjured up the public mind images of atheism, materialism, and Westernism. For exactly the same reasons, the regime was eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims. One Mojahedin leader declared at his trial: “This regime claims that we are confused and misguided ignoramuses who mix Marxism with Islam. In fact, this regime that claims to be concerned about the purity of Islam is solely concerned in smearing us and sowing dissension among the opposition." (Abrahamian, 1989:101)

I don't know why this info is not in the article, but it needs to be included. I'll start working on this as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I simply asked for the quotes of the sources that failed verification, and the burden of proof lies with you, because you added the content to the article. It is crystal clear that I have checked Abrahamian's book, so what's the point of quoting it? My objection was to your improper synthesis of pages 2 and 101 that differed from the context that was discussed in pages 100–101. Pahlevun (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Abrahamian's quote speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Did you find "a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad" in the cited source? What do you think regarding the so-called Abrahamian's POV in the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:. No, I didn't. And if the user who added this content to the article is not fixing it I would think this is forging sources. Pahlevun (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither did I and we don't to wait for the fix. Why should we keep such a forgery? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We should not. The forgery is going to the next level. Look at this edit, that says In 2017, Roghayeh Azizi Mirmahaleh was granted asylum in Canada for fears she would be executed if returned to Iran on account of her connections to the MEK. When you look at the source cited, you would see that she was given a "temporary residency permit" for two years, not asylum. And that "She had been detained at the immigration detention centre" and "Last month, a Canadian immigration officer decided it would be safe to send her back to Iran." Pahlevun (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The edits I've included are direct quotes from reliable sources as confirmed at WP:RSN. I'm not interesting in bickering, just interested in cleaning up the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the sources you forged is no "bickering", and you should be responsible for what you add to the article. Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)