Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

RFC about order of paragraphs in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The RfC is closed for the subject paragraph to appear last. It is a compelling arguement that the lead has a chronological order and placing the paragraph earlier would be out of sequence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the following paragraph containing materials on the terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK terrorist and cult designation of MEK go to the end of the lead or should it be the 2nd paragraph? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The European Union, Canada and the United States formerly listed the MEK as a terrorist organization, but this designation has since been lifted, first by the Council of the European Union in 26 January 2009, by the U.S. government on 21 September 2012, and lastly by the Canadian government on 20 December 2012. The MEK is currently designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq. In June 2004, the U.S. designated the members of the MEK as ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which was expired in 2009 after full sovereignty of Iraq. Many experts various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. An investigation by the European Parliament and the US military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded, finding it "falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.

References
References

Please respond by choosing Second or Last. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Second: As per MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more". The paragraph in question contains the most vital and fresh information on the group, i.e. that MEK is widely believed to be a cult and that MEK is/was designated as a terrorist organization. Moreover, per WP:BETTER, the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable." So, it would be interesting for the readers and hence need to come immediately after the first paragraph. Sending it to the end of the lead seems like giving it the least degree of importance, which does not look logical given the importance of the materials inside the paragraph. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second indeed. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The way this has been presented does not follow WP:NPOV. The MEK's terrorist and cult designation are complex and disputed, this has been discussed in this TP and on the article, but in this RfC it's presented as if this was the group's "nature". @Mhhossein: please remove "containing materials on the terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK" from the header of this RfC (and add it to your vote if you like), editors can read for themselves what the content is about without any additional guidance. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can remove "nature" (you're right in this regard), but there's no problem with the rest. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Last It would be confusing and misleading to readers to have former terrorist designation and cult allegations before first some explanation of how this happened. Alex-h (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second:terrorist designation of MEK and its delisting comes from mass killing and assassinations and actually lobbies which are clues make readers want to learn more. Saff V. (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Clinton administration reported the Los Angeles Times that 'The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami.'" "According to Lord Alex Carlile, the organization was put on the terrorist list 'solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran'."

If the issue is about making readers want to learn more, then it makes more sense to introduce the group's ideology and history first. Being the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that deferred sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government." introduces the history that led to conflict with Ayatollah Khomeini and the following terrorist listing. The terrorist listing did not happen before conflicts with the Khomeini, so presenting a controversial terrorist listing before historical background is a straw man narrative. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead includes the most important points (WP:LEADDD) not just Lord Alex Carlile's words. Also, the killing of six Americans (one reason to be a terrorist designation) have nothing to do with conflicts with the Khomeini.Saff V. (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Another Straw man fallacy, the debate is not about whether the lede should include the most important points, but the order in which information is presented. About the killing of Americans in Iran:"According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran." Other analysts support this." In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International. Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• Last, like it is now. It's a confused enough history without taking it out of order. Leave readers make their own judgment of how things have evolved. Don't make this judgment for them by prioritizing some info over the rest. Jzsj (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Imho that's what their aim seems to have been for a long time though. This has been reported to admins and whatnot, with no results. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Last per Jzsj. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Last: Leave the lead section like it is with the historical chronology of events. Nikoo.Amini (talk)

Some times the importance of the event is more important than the time of happening it, actually such as terrorist designation and delisting.Saff V. (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this was clearly categorized as a terrorist organization by disinterested third parties throughout its history. But the situation seems much more complex, as noted here Jzsj (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj: We know that the group had definitely been designated in the past, by "disinterested third parties", and we know that there are plenty of "disinterested third parties", including experts, confirming the cultish nature of MEK. What confusion do you mean exactly? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

My main point is "throughout its history". The article covers its behavior under several different political situations, and so I question whether the lede should oversimplify the situation. Jzsj (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What complexity regarding the designations do you see throughout the MEK's history? I'll be thankful if you could elaborate on that. Yes, it is largely believed by reliable sources that MEK was desisted as as result of lobbying and paying. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

E.g., the designation "terrorist organization" would not apply to its efforts to overthrow the Shah. Jzsj (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

E.g., "The Clinton administration reported the Los Angeles Times that 'The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami.'" "According to Lord Alex Carlile, the organization was put on the terrorist list 'solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran'." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You're sticking to those "according to"s and ignoring established facts such as "The US state department, which decides which groups to include on the list of designated terrorist organisations, points to a long and bloody history."[1]. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Terrorism is "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence". The US State Department definitions of terror would not likely include the bloody behavior of the US during the Vietnam war, but then whoever said that they speak as a neutral observer. Jzsj (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I was writing in response to Stefka Bulgaria's comments saying MEK was listed solely to attract the view of Iran. As for our discussion; that "terrorist organization would not apply to its efforts to overthrow the Shah" is not adding to complexity of the issue. Just report the reliable sources! nothing more, nothing less. It's a fact that they were once designated as terrorists and are still so. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj: Also, can I know why you think the materials on the cultish nature of the group should be sent to the end? Does it have complexities? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We have two designations being discussed at once here: "terrorist" and "cultish". My response as to "terrorist" is above. As to the second designation, read how "cult" is defined in Wikipedia: it's not at all a clear idea. Then to go one step further and say "cultish" is to recede more into obfuscation, and so the question arises "Why does one want to say this, and not just let the facts speak for themselves?" Jzsj (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I was expecting to receive a policy-wise argument, not an Original Research. It's almost an established fact that they're a cult. I don't say, reliable sources say:

Many experts various scholarly works, media outlets, UNHCR, HRW and the governments of the United States and France have described it as a cult built around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.

--Mhhossein ^talk 12:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Last. I think leaving this in chrono order makes sense before moving over to designations (which for this group - have flipped quite a bit around. 15 years ago (post 9/11, Iraq war) most the world designated them as terrorist - and now most of the world (Iran and Iraq being the exceptions) do not. Has anything actually changed (besides moving out of the Iraq)? The politics of the day are less important than the history). In addition, I want to make the general note that the lead is too long - per MOS:LEADLENGTH it should be a paragraph shorter - a bit of pruning/condensing (of all lede content) is needed. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second: The paragraph would be better for the readers satisfying the MOS:LEADORDER. ML ⁹¹¹ 12:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Last: The MEK's terrorist designation derived from conflicts with the IRI, so some context is needed prior to this paragraph. Presenting information without some context is deceiving (specially considering the IRI's involvement in the group's terrorist designation in the West). The MEK's history and relations with the IRI is complex and difficult as it is, and cherrypicking order of narrative violates NPOV. The lede should be presented chronologically and neutrally as events unfolded. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Second: It's a vital info. Like others I concur it's attractive for the readers to know.Forest90 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Last: Chrono order (like it is now). Moving paragraphs around distorts events. Barca (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References
References

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.

Mhhossein has contested this close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Page is under restriction

@BarcrMac:, As you got some warning as to Page restriction in your TP, I have to notice that your edit is against page's new situation, so, please revert your revert.

In addition, the latimes does not support the MEK became known for its female-led military during their time in Iraq, it was written that Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In other words, we can't understand from Latimes article how long time MEK became known for its female-led military. Also this sentence:In 1985, Maryam Rajavi was made joint leader of the MEK is duplicated and it is the same as the first sentence of the paragraph: On 27 January 1985, Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. Do you get my mean?Saff V. (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, self-reverted. Now the LA Times quote: " Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003." this should be something that can go into the article, or is there an objection with this too? Barca (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert! after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 doesn't mean during their time in Iraq, does it?Saff V. (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you please read my message again? I'm asking to quote directly what the LA Time says. Barca (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. you can quote directly!Saff V. (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fund raising

Guys do you think "Fund raising" is an appropriate title for the section mostly dealing with illegal activities of MEK such as money laundering? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It is an obvious paradox. How about illegal Fundraising? Saff V. (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There are various different cases there, not all illegal, so "Fund raising" is fine. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The section is mostly dealing with the illegal fund laundering networks of MEK so the title needs to change. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section also includes lots of hearsay from Netjang Society and other unverified sources. Let's keep it NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any fair objections against changing the title into something showing their illegal activities as per reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I repeat, this section includes lots of hearsay say from Netjang society and other similar unreliable sources. Using quotes such as "According to four anonymous Iranians claiming to be ex-MEK members" and presenting it in Wiki voice as verified info is WP:OR: , and there's quite of bit of this here (as well as throughout the article as a whole). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Haft-e Tir Bombing

This incident is inserted under 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' section while there are numerous non-Iranian sources saying MEK did the bombing (such as those mentioned by Kazemita1), among the sources are a report by the U.S. Department of State. I think it should be relocated to a more suitable section such as 'Assassinations'. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are plethora of independent evidence besides US Department of State declaration that you mentioned above that find MEK responsible for this bombing:

• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1:So this is not just an allegation by Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See Hafte Tir bombing. There are different suspects, including "speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP." Barca (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The article you mentioned is under construction(Wikipedia is not a reliable source :) ). That said, I think it should be easy to find out which opinions on this matter are fringe and which ones are prevalent based on the sources we will be finding in the days to come. So far I have found the following independent reliable sources backing the idea that MEK committed the bombing:

• The Guardian: In 1981, in a series of attacks, it killed 74 senior officials, including 27 MPs
• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.
• US Department of State: "In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier's office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials."

--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there have been trials, executions, and plenty of accused, including Iranian officials (who also blamed the MEK). In so many words, lots of suspects:

• “A Kermanshah tribunal executed four "Iraqi agents" for the incident, and a tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. Iran's security forces blamed the United States and "internal mercenaries".

• "According to a Reuters dispatch in the New York Times on June 30, 1981, "the authorities initially blamed the 'Great Satan' (the US)." Ervand Abrahamian noted that the Islamic Republic "also suspected 'SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime." According to The Times, the Nationalist Equality Party claimed credit for the attack. The pro-Soviet Tudeh part was also suspected. According to The Times "a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack". Within days, the regime changed story and blamed the MEK."

• "According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular."

• “According to The Times, the Nationalist Equality Party claimed credit for the attack, and that "a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack."

• "According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP."Barca (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Those old sources should not be given much weight as per WP:AGE MATTERS, since they don't cover the recent findings and developments. Almost all of the recent sources put the finger towards MEK. There are always some minor viewpoints which should be given the due weight. The sources you suggested are either old or minor. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Right... so we shouldn't use records of people accused, tried, and executed over this incident (also groups claiming responsibility) because the sources are old? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I was careful not to say "use" though you interpreted it as such. Those old sources should not be given much when making decision, though they can be mentioned according to their weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources describe the sequence of events, including the IRI eventually putting blame on the MEK (which is far from being "evidence", specially considering the major disinformation campaign by the IRI against this group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You're tryring to pretend that only IRI sources are saying MEK did the bombing. NO, there are plenty of fresh academic sources also saying MEK did it. So, your argument is not applicable here. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a WEIGHT issue, as the policy demand, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...or Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. If we ignore Abrahamian and his work, is there any author who beleveis that IRP leaders were in charge of bombing? How about Forqan group, is not a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority? this report of guardian and RAND Corporation support that MEK is responsible for bombing.Saff V. (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just like everything else in this article, there are different sources saying different things. We just include what the RS say, as events unfolded, and aim for a NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me ask for the last time; Do you have any fair objection against having recent academic sources as a base for deciding whether or not Haft-e Tir Bombing was carried out MEK? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This does not change what previous sources have said about this incident including who the IRI blamed, who claimed responsibility, and who was executed on account of this event. In conjunction, what can be confirmed for certain is that the IRI blamed the MEK for this incident, but that many others were also suspected, including IRP leaders (see Barca's sources above) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

So, that MEK did the bombing is not merely an allegation by Iran! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

As sources outline above, it was an allegation by Iran, as it there were other allegations made (including against the US and the IRI), none of which were ever verified through evidence, with other groups claiming responsibility and several people being taken to court and executed because of this incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The question is simple; Should we ignore the numerous fresh academic sources saying MEK was the perpetrator? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We should not ignore any of the sources, specially those that confirm executions and groups claiming responsibility for this incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly why we should not say it's just an Iranian allegation. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

RSs say that this was an allegation by the IRI, so that's difficult to dismiss. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Aren't we already in a Viscious circle? There are plenty of fresh and academic sources (see some of them) saying MEK did the bombing and you're showing some old sources saying Iran alleged the MEK to be the perpetrator. I'm saying we should not give the readers the impression that it was only an Iranian allegation (because it's clearly against what those academic sources say). @El C: Would you please assess the consensus here? should the Haft-e Tir bombing fall under 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' section to make the readers think it's merely an allegation by Iran? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point. The overarching description should follow that. El_C 17:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, lets use all available sources to construct the narrative, with newer sources as focal point. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Heshmat Alavi

@Kazemita1: In this edit, you reverted the following back into the article with the edit summary "It is related to MEK, in that it shows the impact of its propaganda campaign":

"Media outlets that have published the writings of "Heshmat Alavi" include Forbes, The Diplomat, The Hill, The Daily Caller, The Federalist and the English edition of Al Arabiya's website. One article of "Alavi" published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran. Since the article's publication, Twitter has suspended the "Heshmat Alavi" account, and the writings in the name of "Heshmat Alavi" were removed from The Diplomat and Forbes' website. A website purported to be a personal blog of "Heshmat Alavi" published a post with counterclaims."

However, this text refers specifically to Heshmat Alavi, and not the MEK (even if Alavi ran a "propaganda campaign", the text you presented here is not linked to the MEK in any way). Could you please explain or self-revert? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Heshmat Alavi is a creation by MEK. What do you mean by "the text you presented here is not linked to the MEK in any way"? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

it might be useful that the washington post reported that On Sunday, the Intercept published an investigation into Heshmat Alavi,a rabid supporter of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a controversial Iranian opposition group.Saff V. (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are sources saying that Heshmat Alavi is a "creation of the MEK", then we should include that in the article, along with anything else that's in relation to the MEK. The quote mentioned above, however, is not related to the MEK, so it has no place in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Mostly all the sources on Alavi mention MEK is being behind. Anything directly related to the MEK's creation may be added, as long as the wp:size allows. I can show sources if you like. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the MEK, so anything in relation to the MEK should be included. Where Alavi published is not related to the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's simple, MEK's creation had been promoting MEK's propaganda! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What MEK propaganda was published in the outlets mentioned above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If Massoud Rajavi was instead of Heshmat Alavi, is not an article published by him related to MEK? In other hand, Please pay attention to these sources, he is a fictional persona that reportedly was created by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) by by aljazeera and other sources like, farsnews, presstv. Saff V. (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but can't understand what you're trying to say. Can you please answer my question? What MEK propaganda was published in the outlets mentioned above? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Are we done here? If nobody answers my question, I'll presume we're in accordance that no MEK propaganda was published on the named outlets. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

One article of "Alavi" published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran.So It is clear Alavi as a creation by MEK was going to encourage Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran. It is MEK propaganda!Saff V. (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not even a logical question. It's quite clear that MEK's creation promotes MEK's propaganda, which is anything against Iran. So what? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The question is a simple one: What "MEK propaganda" was published in the outlets mentioned above? @El C: if opposing camps refuse to answer simple/direct questions, what happens then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if SaffV provided such an answer — is that not the case? El_C 20:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry, but I can't seem to see it. How is an article published on Forbes that doesn't mention the MEK related to the MEK? What about the other news outlets mentioned here? how are they linked/related to the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought this was settled already. Anyway, what matters is what reliable sources say. It is not our role to investigate these sources further. El_C 17:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

[2] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [3] [4] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

NLA

@Mhhossein: In this edit, you seem to have removed that the NLA was active from 1987 to 2003. What sources confirm that the NLA has been active beyond the ceasefire agreement? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think you mean this one where I just elaborated my point by saying "Ceasefire agreement does not mean they're not armed no longer." In fact, there should be a source confirming they were not active beyond the agreement. For instance, see Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and search for "MEK". --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a strawman response since whether they are "armed" is not in discussion here. You removed that the NLA was active from 1987 to 2003, so please provide some RSs that verify the NLA is still active, otherwise please self-revert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, "whether they are "armed" is not in discussion here" and I'll revert if you provide a reliable source saying MEK had armed activities only between 1987 - 2003 and they did no armed activities afterwards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read my posts again. We're discussing the NLAs period of activity. Are you saying the NLA has still been active beyond 2003? If so, you need to provide some RSs that confirm this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"US. military leaders in Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with the MKO in April 2003 that allowed it to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces."[5]. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein added in the article that the NLA (the MEK's military wing) has been active since the MEK's 2003 ceasefire agreement. However, the only source Mhhossein has provided to back up that statement is the one he included above, which doesn't mention the NLA but says that the MEK were allowed to keep weapons after the ceasefire agreement. I find that this is problematic because allowing the MEK to keep weapons is not the same as the NLA continuing to be active. Could you please weight in? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: well, you are free to revert that edit — then it would be up to Mhhossein to establish the required consensus for it. That's how this works. Slow but (hopefully) steady. El_C 22:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, think I'm starting to get the hang of this, slow but steady... thanks! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Please note that I just restored the long standing version of the article which was recently changed by the IP without building consensus. So, it's up to Stefka Bulgaria to build a consensus for changing the long standing version. The only source Stefka Bulgaria relies on is the sources saying the made a ceasfeire agreement in Iraq which it does not mean they were no longer active. For example, MEK is among the suspects of the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The MEK (along with other groups) is suspected of being behind the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, but that's not confirmed and does not mention the NLA anywhere. It's quite simple, if the NLA has been active beyond 2003, then there should be RSs supporting this, but there aren't. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the other version can be up in the meantime, if it is, in fact, the longstanding version. But regardless of which version is up in the interim, indeed, there needs to be supporting evidence that the NLA remains active (in some capacity, at least). Key word is substantiate. El_C 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I already restored the longstanding version. Stefka Bulgaria's comment was not, let's say, accurate when he said I had inserted something in the box while I had just restored the longstanding version. Anyway, do you think MEK's agreement with U.S. is an indication of the group becoming inactive? I don't think so. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about the MEK as a whole, though, we're talking about the status of its military wing, which, speaking for myself, I have no idea about. Again, both sides should work on substantiating. El_C 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand your advice on substantiating and I'm pretty much ready to accept the sources saying NLA was inactive after 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein added in the article] that the NLA was been active since 2003, but has not provided any evidence to back this up. Is this correct? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not. Can you please be accurate when talking about others' edits? After this comment, which was misleading, you're now saying I have "added in the article that the NLA was been active since 2003," which is not true! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you need to provide a reference saying that the NLA has been active beyond 2003. Do you have a reference? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The branch had been active since 1987 and there's no reliable source saying it got inactive at a certain point. So, you need to find a reliable source saying the group was inactive after 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The MEK signed a ceasefire agreement in 2003; plenty of sources covering this:

• In April 2003, US forces signed a cease-fire agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the MEK.Israeli National News

• The MEK/NLA subsequently signed a cease fire letter on April 15, 2003. The Guardian

• In the aftermath of the war in Iraq and on or around 15 April 2003, Coalition forces signed an agreement of “mutual understanding and coordination” with the PMOI in Iraq. The Economist

Since the 2003 ceasefire agreement, there haven't been any recorded incidents involving the NLA. As such, if you make a claim that the NLA has been active after 2003, then it's on you to provide such evidence. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that "mutual" agreement between MEK and U.S. Note that the agreement "allowed it [MEK] to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US. forces."[6] In fact, they agreed not to make operations against U.S. and it does not mean they were completely inactive since then. There are some cases where MEK carried out operations, for example see Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists were MEK is of the main suspects according to analysts and experts. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hundreds of tanks? — where do they keep them? Anyway maybe you two can compromise with a label of inactive but a note about suspected activities past that date. Just a thought. El_C 16:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: If Mhhossein can find a source that says the NLA is suspected of any activity, then by all means let's come up with a middle-ground. Mhhossein is not, however, putting forth such a source (the suspicions about of nuclear scientists does not mention the NLA). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you have the floor. El_C 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you EI C for the suggestion, however we still need sources saying NLA has got inactive. I checked MEK's official website and found some more interesting clues supporting my position. For instance, this link speaks of NLA's summon letter being distributed across Iran amid the previous presidential election or this one talking about the history of NLA. The latter does not say in any ponint NLA was inactive and emphasizes that NLA has passed multiple steps in its history. Also I'd like to say that Stefka Bulgaria's assertion on using an emblodened 'NLA' just baffles me. Despite what he tries to pretend, NLA is not something different from MEK. See this source for example: "In the Matter of the Designation of the Mujahadin-e Khalq...Also Known as the National Liberation Army of Iran, Also Known as NLA, Also Known as People's Mujahadin Organization of Iran..." The MEK members still use this title indiscriminatedly when refering to their group ([7]). --Mhhossein ^talk 11:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, there may have been a cease fire, but do you have evidence that the NLA actually (officially) suspended operations? — actual mentions to that effect beyond your own original research that speak as to its overall lack of activity passed a certain date? Mhhossein, on the same token, do you have actual evidence of (overt, covert) activity that goes beyond suspicions? Again, a compromise that includes exactly what we do have to show in this regard, might be the best way to resolve all this. El_C 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C, there is no evidence of the NLA taking part in any operation beyond 2003, just like there isn't evidence of other things that the NLA did not do. It's confusing to me to have to provide evidence of things that have not happened. Also, the NLA is not the MEK, but the military wing of the MEK. The NLA has been active from 1987 to 2003, and thus we have sources that confirm its activities during this period. If there are sources that confirm the NLA has taken part in any event after the 2003 ceasefire agreement, then we should certainly include this in the article; however, there aren't any. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I had already said above we're not talking about the MEK as a whole, though, we're talking about the status of its military wing, so that was unnecessary. I am up to speed. Anyway, if you have sources that NLA disbanded or suspended operations then you should provide these. If not, then that probably would have to be qualified. El_C 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@El_C: That MEK's official website talks about the NLA's activtiy in recent years is a good indication of the branch being still active. Please search Persian: ارتش آزادی بخش ملی ایران. I made some examples, but see this one which talks about a 2013 report by NLA on a murder case. What more do we need here? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Here are sources that confirm the MEK were disarmed in 2003 by the US:

• The MEK/NLA subsequently signed a cease fire letter on April 15, 2003. Heavy weapons and all light arms were confiscated from the MEK, and the membership of the MEK in Iraq was consolidated from several MEK camps to the main camp at Ashraf.

  [8]

• In May 2003, the Washington agencies agreed to direct coalition forces to secure the MEK’s surrender and to disarm the group. Again, the coalition officers who negotiated with the MEK leadership were dissuaded from carrying out this instruction. Rather than insisting upon the MEK’s surrender, they accepted a cease-fire agreement under which the MEK would be disarmed and its (at the time) 3,800 members would be consolidated and detained through assigned residence (rather than internment) at the MEK’s largest facility, Camp Ashraf.

  [9]

• Until the American invasion of Iraq last year, the People’s Mujahedeen maintained armed camps near the Iranian border… The American bombing raids on the camps represented the most aggressive approach by the United States in the handling of the group. It was followed by a gentler approach, including prolonged case-fire negotiations and a cordial relationship between the group and the American military police unites that have guarded the camp, preventing members from leaving except under American military escort.

  [10]

• Eventually, the NLA was consolidated into Camp Ashraf… and oversight of the NLA was assigned to the U.S. military. A cease-fire agreement was signed between the U.S. military and the NLA… All NLA members signed letters renouncing terrorism.

  [11]

• On April 2003, members of the U.S. Special Operations Forces signed a ceasefire agreement with MEK leaders. Subsequently, Department of Defense issued guidance through CENTCOM to forces on the ground to effect a MEK surrender. Following a series of negotiations with MEK leaders, the several thousand MEK members were separated from their well-maintained heavy weapons and brought under coalition control at Camp Ashraf in Diyala province. […] After the security agreement took effect on January 1, 2009, U.S. forces handed control over the outer perimeter around Camp Ashraf to the ISF.

  [12]

• Aside from the National Liberation Army’s attacks into Iran toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War, and occasional NLA cross-border incursions since, the MEK’s attacks on Iran have amounted to little more than harassment.

  [13]

There are more available if needed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You're repeating the old comments. The question is not whether they had agreements or not. There might be millions of sources saying they had ceasefire with the U.S. So what? My sources from the official website of MEK explicitly talk about the NLA's activities. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm providing sources that say the NLA was disarmed by the US in 2003, which is I believe what El_C asked for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, so did the MEK follow through on that agreement? Was the NLA disarmed in the end? El_C 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: According to the sources, the MEK was disarmed in 2003. Here is another source by the LA Times (currently being discussed in another TP section):

"Known for its female-led military units, the MEK was disarmed after the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Since it was disarmed, there haven't been any reports/sources of the NLA breaking their agreement with the US, or taking up arms in any other incident. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks for clearing that up for us. We have to go with the sources say, until other sources establish this to the contrary. If after the 2003 agreement with the US to disarm, the NLA still participated in other (covert, armed-encounters) operations, even if on behalf of US allies, this needs to be established by the available sources. Was the NLA actually dissolved, also? El_C 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

El_C: RSs say that the NLA was disarmed in 2003 by the US, and then there's nothing else about the NLA from 2003 onwards. My suggestion would be to reflect what RSs say: "Founded in 1987 - disarmed in 2003" (or something along those lines). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@El_C: The details of the ceasefire is also given in this reliable source which says MEK was "allowed it to keep all its weapons". As for the NLA being dissolved, I already provided links to the MEK's official website talking about NLA's recent reports. So, the sources say they are not dissolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The fact remains that sources say the NLA/MEK was disarmed in 2003, with no other RSs saying the group has broken the agreement or that the NLA has been involved in any other event since. This source may also be of interest:

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam, occupying US forces disarmed the residents of Camp Ashraf and signed a formal agreement that promised them the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which outlines the rules for protecting civilians in times of war.

[14]

There have since been numerous violent attacks by Iran and Iranian proxies to MEK refugee camps,[15][16] which led to the US relocating MEK members to Albania. There isn't any mention of the NLA (or any type of armed resistance) during these violent attacks against the MEK (or any other event after 2003 for that matter). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the NLA was active under Saddam - and was tolerated and promoted as an armed force (including heavy arms) by Saddam. Following their 2003 disarmament (see - [17] - they had the strength of an armored division circa 2003) - they no longer exist as an actual regular force (in terms of actual men/women and material). Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but your understanding is just against the facts found in the MEK's official website, as I showed earlier in this section. They still talk about recent reports by NLA! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And is MEK a RS? The source you pointed out mentions some report from Camp Ashraf (since closed moved to Camp Liberty, since closed move to Albania). MEK might still refer to NLA. There might still be people with NLA ranks (just as Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran might style himself as something, as may people associated with various defunct groups). However - NLA as a bona fida armed force (with tanks, artillery, APCs, etc.) - ceased to exist in 2003. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MEK's official webpage can be used in this case; My source talks about a 2013 report by NLA on a murder case. Also please note that the 2003 ceasefire agreement "allowed it [MEK] to keep all its weapons"[18]. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ummm..... Not per my understanding or RSes. They may have been allowed to keep weapons in some interim ceasefire (in April 2003 per your source - however they were subsequently disarmed (I think in May 2003) - and your cited sources explicitly says "renounced the agreement a few weeks later"). Sources such as - mcclatchy in 2003, NYT in 2012, a 2009 RAND paper, a 2016 House of commons library briefing, Guardian in 2012 (which goes as far as saying "forcibly disarmed by the US army in Iraq") - all state they were disarmed. They used to have an armored division+ in Iraq - this simply doesn't exist anymore (heck - MEK as a visible group in Iraq doesn't exist following the final Albania move). Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate, I think that there has to be evidence of some sort of armed encounters in order to render the NLA with active status. Who here agrees with that as a standard? El_C 20:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I do - for inclusion - but it is too high to exclude. AFAIK during the last decade of their existence (93-03) - they were mainly or even only in camp (with a division worth of tanks) - they were an active force, just not engaged in major conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all the sources we addressed so far say they were disarmed in 2003 and we should not go beyond these sources by saying they were inactive. Hence I suggest to mention in the infobox that they were disarmed in 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that there has to be evidence of some sort of armed encounter in order to render the NLA with active status. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: based on this TP discussion, I edited that the NLA had been active until 2003, but Mhhossein reverted this saying that there is no consensus for this. Is this correct? Thank you Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The only remaining concern is the MEK's official page pointing to NLA official activities such as the 2013 report I mentioned in my earlier comments. When you say NLA is inactive, it gives the impression that there's no longer such a thing as NLA, which is against the clues available in their official page. That said, I'm not of course against pointing in the infobox that NLA was disarmed in 2003. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add in the infobox that it was disarmed in 2003. About the NLA being mentioned on the MEK's website: 1) I don't speak Farsi, but using Google translate it appears that the reference you're talking about refers to a statement by a MEK committee that also included previous NLA's Security Committee members, correct? 2) Is the MEK website a reliable source for this Wiki page? If so, that opens up a whole new door of information we can include in this Wiki page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OK with mentioning somewhere in the infobox that the NLA was disarmed by the U.S. Also, the source I provided speaks of a NLA report issued recently. Did I suggest using the webpage to add info into this article? I just meant to reassure the info added in the infobox is the most accurate thing we know. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert of what the MEK advocates (which was backed up by RSs)

In this edit, Mhhossein reverted the MEK's ideology (which was backed by RSs), with the edit summary "highly POVish". @Mhhossein: how is including the MEK's ideals in the MEK article "highly POVish"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it's highly POVish! Why not adding the following:

• "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.
• "The MEK now advocates a secular Iranian regime."[19]
• "Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"[20]
• "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.
• "the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"[21]
• "Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"[22]
• "..other dissident groups such as the Islamic extremist Mojahedin (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'[23]

--Mhhossein ^talk 05:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument since we are not talking that, but to answer your question anyway, the reason we're not using "violent" in the lede is per this AfD. Now, could you please answer how including what the group advocates is POVish? (just repeatedly asserting that it's "POVish" doesn't explain it) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the comments carefully please. There are many other things the group advocates and we're not going to cherry pick the POV of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Like what? we already had a RfC about using the word "violent"; is there anything else you have in mind? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

See the examples in the above list. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We've had many TP discussions about these. You need to be specific. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

MEK is described as, being "Islamic extremist", being not far from Marxism, advocating "a secular Iranian regime" and etc. Why not adding them? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How the group is described, and what it advocates, are two very different things. I'd be fine with adding that the group was influenced by Marxism (this is already in the article) an that it advocates a secular Iran. We can include this in a section together with the other remaining text:

The group advocates a "democratic, tolerant and anti-fundamentalist Islam" and non-nuclear Iran with gender equality and a ban on capital punishment.

Agreed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

my point is that, for example, how can the group be described as "Islamic extremist" while advocating "anti-fundamentalist Islam"? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So let's leave UNDUE and fringe claims aside, and just abide by what the majority of reliable sources say. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Were you serious by this, making the lead more POVish than before? Is that what "majority of reliable sources" say? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)