Talk:Alireza Jafarzadeh/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV (Talk) 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the leading voice in Washington on Iran's nuclear threat, terrorism, and Islamic extremism. Jafarzadeh is the rising star in foreign policy circles, who is considered as the ultimate authority on Iran.

Jafarzadeh was the whistleblower that drew a worldwide attention on Iran's nuclear weapons program, when he first revealed on August 14, 2002 that Iran is actually running a secret nuclear facility in Natanz, and a heavy water facility in Arak.

Sandbox

Could you please discuss your edits here, or at the very least write edit summaries. One day Jafarzadeh is a scholar and an expert on Iranian affairs, the next day he is an anti-Iran terrorist. Are you even writing about the same person? --Ezeu 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not a drug smuggler. Second, Ashraf is NOT a terrorist base. It is protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Headed by the US) and all of its members are protected by the United States.

Observation

Actually, Iran was under no obligation to disclose the construction of the nuclear sites that the terrorist MEK "revealed" so dramatically, and in fact the IAEA knew about Iran's plans to enrich uranium, since the IAEA had been cooperating with Iran on the program in 1983 and IAEA inspectors had visited Iran's uranium mines in 1992 according to Melissa Fleming, the IAEA spokesperson. This makes Jafarzadeh nothing more than an opportunist.

SOURCES:

"Although Iran is a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA, it has not concluded an Additional Protocol to its agreement. The Additional Protocol would provide for more rigorous inspections, including inspections of undeclared nuclear facilities. On December 13, ElBaradei called upon Iran to conclude such a protocol. Iran, however, is not required to allow visits to the Arak and Natanz sites under its current agreements with the IAEA.

- IAEA to visit two 'secret' nuclear sites in Iran

Arms Control Today January 1, 2003

and

"Iran did not have to declare that it was building a pilot plant until 180 days before it expected to introduce nuclear material into the plant."

Furor over fuel; Iran. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May 1, 2003 Albright, David; Hinderstein, Corey

and

"A spokesman for the U.S. Department of State asserted in a press briefing last week that Iran was out of compliance with its IAEA obligations because it had failed to notify the IAEA of its intent to build the facilities 180 days prior to construction.

IAEA officials told NuclearFuel Dec. 18 that was not the case. Rumyantsev's assertion that Iran did not violate its commitments was correct, one official said.

In 1992, after the Gulf War, the IAEA Board of Governors recommended by consensus that member states provide design information to the IAEA 180 days in advance of construction. Iran, however, singularly raised objections to that. Compliance with the board's recommendation, an IAEA official said, has since been voluntary. A similar provision is contained in the Additional Protocol for integrated IAEA safeguards, which thus far Iran has refused to join and which so far is not binding.

Infcirc-153, the model safeguards protocol for member states of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), including Iran, discusses facility design information in Articles 42-47. But any specific requirement on a member state for reporting design information and notification to the IAEA of an intention to construct a nuclear facility subject to safeguards is handled in confidential Subsidiary Arrangements, which are annexed to the safeguards agreement and are country-specific.

In the case of Iran, the Subsidiary Arrangements for Infcirc-214 -- Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA -- require Iran to notify the IAEA of any new nuclear facility and to provide information on the design no later than 60 days prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the facility.

In early safeguards agreements such as Iran's -- it dates from 1974 -- member states were allowed considerable freedom in notifying the IAEA of new nuclear facility construction, said one former U.S. official, practically right up until they loaded fuel. More recent agreements require notification in advance. For example, the Subsidiary Arrangements for Argentina and Brazil under the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting & Control of Nuclear Material (Abacc) regime, dating from 1994, specified that the two countries must give notification at the time the decision is made to construct an installation, he said."

- U.S. BRIEFED SUPPLIERS GROUP IN OCTOBER ON SUSPECTED IRANIAN ENRICHMENT PLANT Nuclear Fuel December 23, 2002

Jafarzadeh is a very important figure who revealed major nuclear sites of Iran, and therefore is very much liked by the free world and democratic elements of Iran, and hated by the Iranian regime. That is where the dispute is eminating from. —This unsigned comment was added by 208.58.7.159 (talk • contribs) 19 March 2006. Jafarzadeh was also (until recently) the spokesperson for an organisation known as NCRI (National Council of Resistance in Iran). Whilst they openly claim to be democratic and secular, some people have drawn links with NCRI and the Baathist regime in Iraq, and there are numerous reports on the internet of Jafarzadehs involvement in the massacre of Iraqi Kurds under the sanction of Saddam Hussein.

There has to heavy editing of this article. It should be noted that he is a member of the MKO, a terrorist organization.

Restored page content

I spent a lot of time researching Alireza Jafarzadeh today so that I could supply fully referenced factual material for the page. Someone called Middle East Editor reverted the lot without comment. I call that vandalism. There is no excuse for deleting well referenced factual content. If you want to improve the article about Mr Jafarzadeh, add to it like I did. --Dave 14:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zionist-run and Sayanim-controlled Wikipedia

Zionist-run (judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm) and Sayanim-controlled (aka the Hebrew Battalion) Wikipedia (encyclopedia??? Mossad-encyclopedia is more appropriate) insist that the well known anti-Iran terrorist Alireza Jafarzadeh, a member of British-Israeli-American-funded and armed terrorist group the Mojahedin-e-Khalgh (MEK, MKO) also known as the National Council of Resistance (NCR) is an Iranian dissident (thus, Osama bin Laden is also a dissident by Zionist-Wikipedia's definition! that's what you get when a porn-peddling Zionist and Mossad asset like Jimmy Wales is behind such an INTEL OP).

The history of the terrorist Mojahedin-e-Khalgh is well known to those who have studied and know about MEK/MKO/NCR, and its leaders (Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Ghajar-Azadanloo-Rajavi). These two terrorists, sorry dissidents (just so the Hebrew Battalion monitors are happy) have committed horrific acts in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere. But since they and Alireza Jafarzadeh are working for Israel/West, they are called dissidents! and that's the agenda of porn-peddling Zionist-Wikipedia. But for the rest of us, they are monsters, and war criminals, so is Mossad, MI6, and CIA who create, finance, and arm these monsters.

To learn about these criminals, and their atrocities, you will need to take a look at Hebrew-Free sites: http://www.iran-interlink.org/ , http://www.irandidban.com/index-e.asp

This really isn't going to help you. I doubt Jimbo Wales has even seen this page. I also have not felt any editorial control from your Jewish Cabal even though I have been called a "jihadi" and a "Muslim"... so, please just argue about the article... if this really is a Zionist controlled encyclopedia then you're not going to be able to change that from within. And if this leads to any insulting of Jews on here you will be blocked. This is a place to write an encyclopedia, not attack people or groups. gren グレン 13:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

gren: "you will be blocked"; by who? of course, I already know the answer: judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm

Your pro-ZioNazi gibberish is appreciated gren, now go back CORRECTING articles to Mossad-standard.

removed bogus shehab3 claim

I just removed the following text:

He had previously provided valuable information about the Shahab-3 medium range missile.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/background.html "Revelations of a Secret Program"], ''FRONTLINE/World (PBS)'', May 2005</ref>

from the article because there is no mention of the word missile or Shahab-3 in the source cited. --Dave 07:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

deleted copyvio material

I just deleted a paragraph that was cut and pasted from www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/AlirezaJafarzadeh.php. Cutting and pasting material from external websites without permission is a copyright violation. If you want to use such material, rewrite it in your own words and cite the source for the information, don't just copy and paste the words. BTW, if Alireza Jafarzadeh or SPC is behind the Iraneditor username, they might like to consider putting a photo in the public domain and posting it to the commons so it can be used in this article. Be aware though, there is a Wikipedia policy against the subject of an article editing that article. Even if you wrote and provided the text to the external website as part of a publicity release, you cannot use it on Wikipedia. See WP:COI for further details. --Dave 02:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted copyvio material again

I just re-deleted the same copyvio material. Adding a reference does not stop the copied material violating copyright. You must rewrite the information in your own words rather than simply copying and pasting copyrighted material. For further information see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Dave 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

MEK references and COI warming

Mr Jafarzadeh has a well documented association with MEK that goes back many years. Any attempt to remove references to this association, or to hide it among "clutter" within the article will be reverted quickly. Information about Mr Jafarzadeh's association with the MEK is essential to understanding why he does the things he does, and where he gets the information he brings to our attention. The MEK association is an integral part of his biography. Also, any attempt to hide the fact Mr Jafarzadeh himself provided the text used on the Intelligence Summit website would leave the material an example of WP:COI. Its getting pretty close to that already, the only thing that saves that whole tract from deletion is the reference declaring who provided it. --Dave 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop character assassination

We are dealing with the biography of a living person who is a respected figure by the academicians, politicians and the media in the United States. Acording to Wikipidia : This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. Wrongfully and unsupportedly accusing (implicitely or explicitely) a person of being a terrorist in not only unethical and wrong but it is illegal and libelous.

Quoting Iran-interlink.org to smear an activist is unethical at the very least. This site is a front for propagating false information and character assassination against the opposition figures of the Iranian regime. To understand the relation of the Iranian government with this site see the list of references:

http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47 http://www.ncr-iran.org/fr/content/view/33/67/ http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2158 http://www.iranterrorism.info/

Sima-Azad

Stop character assassination

We are dealing with the biography of a living person who is a respected figure by the academicians, politicians and the media in the United States. Acording to Wikipidia : This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. Wrongfully and unsupported accusing (implicitly or explicitly) a person of being a terrorist in not only unethical and wrong but it is illegal and libelous.

Quoting Iran-interlink.org to smear an activist is unethical at the very least. This site is a front for propagating false information and character assassination against the opposition figures of the Iranian regime. To understand the relation of the Iranian government with this site see the list of references:

http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47 http://www.ncr-iran.org/fr/content/view/33/67/ http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2158 http://www.iranterrorism.info/

Sima-Azad

Must observe WP/BLP Guidelines

AS per very clear and specific WP/BLP guidelines, Iran-interlink should not be used as a reputable and authorized source on Jafarzadeh. This site is mainly a compilation of defamatory lies and half-lies about Jafarzadeh and numerous other Iranian opposition activists. Jafarzadeh, as per his own web pages, has been the spokesman for the representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). If any one believes that this statement is not correct or know any thing beyond that, must say so in a none defamatory fashion and ONLY based on well documented references and sources.

Sima-azad 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Sima Azad

process of building consensus

revert again. David Moss obviously has a personal agenda against Jafarzadeh. Nevertheless, I suggest a process of building consensus.

Instead of keep reverting, lets start with a version with no defamatory content and then start adding content as Dave suggests only after its accuracy is supported from reliable sources. For example, the following paragraph. What is the source for it?

Jafarzadeh married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, in 1986 and the couple were divorced four years later. Both the marriage and the divorce were allegedly performed under orders from Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)[6]. Sima-azad 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Sima

The only agenda I have is to make sure properly referenced information is not replaced by vanity material. This article has an unfortunate history of having good work by many editors overwritten by poorly referenced material that is more flattering to the subject. A biography is not a eulogy. It should contain all known information about the subject, not just favourable information. I would suggest that we start a consensus building process using the existing article as a basis. Any suggestions should be about improving or expanding the article, not about suppressing information Mr Jafarzadeh would find unflattering. Any attempt to remove properly referenced existing information will be considered vandalism and appropriate action taken against repeat offenders. --Dave 02:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Either identify your sources or stop character assasination

Revert again until we identify what the source of defamatory allegations are. See talk. To begin with, where does the information of your assertions on Jafarzadeh’s marriage and divorce come from. What is your source of research?

Jafarzadeh married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, in 1986 and the couple were divorced four years later. Both the marriage and the divorce were allegedly performed under orders from Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)[6].

Let's identify the source of this information. David has complained about "poorly referenced" information. David also claims that his additions are the result of his hard work and diligent research. May be it is about time he shares with us what are the references he uses in his research before assassinating a reputable character. I beg him to read guidelines on WP:BLP.

If you look at the end of the paragraph you cut and pasted you will see a number in square brackets (for example [6]). If you look at this position within the article itself you will see a superscripted number (for example⁶). If you click on the number you will be taken to the references section of the article. The reference with the matching number describes the source of the information for the paragraph. Often these references have a URL included that hyperlinks directly to the source material. Every single contribution I make to Wikipedia is as well referenced as I can make it. In fact I am so keen on referencing that I wrote program called Wikicite to assist with the effort. Feel free to use it in your own work on Wikipedia. --Dave 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting “iran-inerlink.org” or quoting a secondary source that quotes “iran-interlink.org” is not acceptable practice. Iran-interlink is a disguise site by the Iranian intelligence ministry with the mission of character assassination of the opposition figures. See discussion in the talk page (here) on interlink.

Let me remind you of some of the WP:BLP policies:

[edit] Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [3]

[edit] Reliable sources Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

Biased or malicious content Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

Sima-azad 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)sima

either use reliable sources or stop defamatory info. campaign.

WP: BLP:

Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately!. Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

Sima-azad 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)sima

STOP defamatory information propagation.

Once again,

How do you know whom Mr. Jafarzadeh married, when he married, when he divorced and why? Citing an article that in turn cites inter-link.org, a partisan web site that is notorious for pro Iranian government activities and against Iranian opposition members, and is the subject of several litigations for forging documents and propagating false accusations, is not acceptable practice.

Let's resolve this issue so we can discuss your other "researched" material as well.

Sima-azad 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC) sima

Stop vandalising the article Sima-azad. You have been warned. User:Middle East Editor, User:John Baxter and User:Iran Editor have been banned from editing Wikipedia in the past for suspiciously similar vandalism to this article. Please start adding information to the article instead of just deleting the work of others. You are clearly have strong personal views on this subject, so perhaps it would be better if you concentrated your efforts somewhere else on Wikipedia. --Dave 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,

David, instead of assuming a threatening tone, please comply with my very reasonable request. Do you have any other source (other thank Iran-interlink.org) for your assertions on Jafarzadeh’s personal affairs (marriage and divorce)?

Sima-azad 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Sima

requesting urgent attention of the administrators to this article.

David Moss continues to add false / unsourced or poorly sourced material that is defamatory and falls under character assassination. I have recently registered and I am not very familiar with the customary processes in WI. My sole reason was to prevent false slanderous information that is potentially very harmful to the reputation of a very respected opposition member to the Iranian regime. Out of fear of reprisal from Iranian regime I have not given my real name but if it is needed, I will do so. My only request from Davis Moss is to use ONLY material that is reliably sourced. Sources that are very partisan, involved in several law suits against them for fabricating, falsifying and forging information against Iranian opposition members and have conspicuous relations with the Iranian ministry of intelligence must not be used. Sima-azad 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)sima

David Moss is propogating false information again

David has mentioned that I (Iraneditor) have been banned from editing the article. This is NOT true. I strongly urge him to place more value on being accurate and truthful. I also kindly ask him to think hard before recklessly accusing others of being involved in terrorism. He should know the consequences of such accusations and hopefully be more careful in choosing sources in doing so.Iraneditor 23:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Iraneditor

David, You are right that I am not using my real name. I have explained that in a prior talk (see below). You are also right that my main focus right now is to prevent cavalier slander against Jafarzadeh, an important opposition figure to the Iranian regime, who, specially after his revealing the Iran’s secret attempts, has been the target of all sorts of attack from the Iranian regime – if you are not part of this orchestrated effort, then it is a freak coincidence. Nevertheless, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. So here is what I suggest:

1- If there is any piece of information in the current version that you think is not accurate, let us know (be very specific) so we can discuss it.

2- There is no attempt to hide the relation that Jafarzadeh has had with NCRI. The current version clearly states that he has been NCRI’s spokesperson for about 12 year. Do you think this is inaccurate?

3- As far as I have seen in the reliable sources, Jafarzadeh’s association with MEK has been through NCRI’s relation with MEK. Do you have other reliable sources that indicate otherwise (again do not bring up Iran-interlink.org enough said about them).

4- What does Jafarzadeh’s private life has to do with this? And again do you have any reliable sources on this? If not- for god’s sake leave this behind.

5- Your language and choice of words in this article is obviously partisan. Do not insult our intelligence by pretending you are this fair unbiased researcher who just happens to be interested in promoting accuracy please.

6- WI: 3RR clearly excludes removing unsourced/poorly sourced defamatory material from an article.

Sima-azad 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

David: Suggestions to move rorward:

David, You are right that I am not using my real name. I have explained that in a prior talk (see below). You are also right that my main focus right now is to prevent cavalier slander against Jafarzadeh, an important opposition figure to the Iranian regime, who, specially after his revealing the Iran’s secret attempts, has been the target of all sorts of attack from the Iranian regime – if you are not part of this orchestrated effort, then it is a freak coincidence. Nevertheless, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. So here is what I suggest:

1- If there is any piece of information in the current version that you think is not accurate, let us know (be very specific) so we can discuss it.

2- There is no attempt to hide the relation that Jafarzadeh has had with NCRI. The current version clearly states that he has been NCRI’s spokesperson for about 12 year. Do you think this is inaccurate?

3- As far as I have seen in the reliable sources, Jafarzadeh’s association with MEK has been through NCRI’s relation with MEK. Do you have other reliable sources that indicate otherwise (again do not bring up Iran-interlink.org enough said about them).

4- What does Jafarzadeh’s private life has to do with this? And again do you have any reliable sources on this? If not- for god’s sake leave this behind.

5- Your language and choice of words in this article is obviously partisan. Do not insult our intelligence by pretending you are this fair unbiased researcher who just happens to be interested in promoting accuracy please.

6- WI: 3RR clearly excludes removing unsourced/poorly sourced defamatory material from an article.

Sima-azad 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Reply to Sima-azad

You are the one deleting referenced material. The onus is on you to justify deleting the referenced work of others by proving it to be factually incorrect, not the other way around. The accepted way to deal with disputed content is to add text, not to delete text. Deleting well referenced text because you do not like its content is vandalism
You are correct, you are not trying to hide Jafarzadeh’s association with the NCRI, you are attempting to hide his association with the MEK. I would prefer that all his associations are described, not just the ones you and he find flattering.
Jafarzadeh has a long history of association with the MEK. One of the paragraphs you are trying to suppress cites a Houston Chronicle article where Jafarzadeh claims to be a spokesperson for the MEK. The association is therefore independently documented.
Are you serious? This is a biography for goodness sake! All aspects of the subjects life are open to scrutiny in a comprehensive biography, not just the aspects he or she likes people to know about.
I am Australian with no association whatsoever to Iran. This is quite easy to check, I write extensively on USENET under my real name. I am one of the most open and transparent people on the Internet. You, on the other hand, clearly do have a barrow to push within this article. You also appear to be part of a sockpuppet/meatpuppet network that edits only this article, and does so in suspiciously similar ways. Even the username you have chosen is a dead giveaway to your agenda.
The WP:3RR is one of the fundamental planks of Wikipedia policy, along with WP:NPOV. There is no excuse for reverting well referenced content more than 3 times in 24 hours just because you don't personally like the material, or its supporting references. Wikipedia policy is clear on this, you are lucky not to have been banned.

You claim your "main focus right now is to prevent cavalier slander against Jafarzadeh, an important opposition figure to the Iranian regime". Editing in this way violates WP:COI and WP:NPOV in the worst way possible. An article on Wikipedia is expected to be comprehensive. An encyclopedic article is expected to contain all available information about its subject, not just the positive information. If your political beliefs interfere with your ability to build on the work of others, or tempt you to delete information you find politically offensive, perhaps you should consider contributing elswhere on Wikipedia. --Dave 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Vandalism

I note the article had nine hard references included before the recent vandal attack. Today it has 3. One of them is out of context, left over from a clumsy deletion. The other two are pointing to self promotional material written by Jafarzadeh himself. The article, in its current form, is nothing but a vanity piece. I am disgusted that a reasonably well written, well researched article such as this can be reduced to such a sorry state. --Dave 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a dialouge

Dave,

I am trying so hard in getting you engaged in a dialogue. I will continue to do so. I also urge you to put aside your threatening and putting down tone and start discussing this as a non biased researcher you say you are.

See my points in prior yalk. Let’s discuss your references. Besides, which one of the current information you think is questionable?

69.182.73.164 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

My issue is not with the information you provided, although I would be happier if it was properly referenced. My issue is with the information you deleted. In my opinion it is up to you to justify the deletion, it is not up to me to justify why properly referenced biographical material should stay. Even if you show the material is inaccurate, you should still not delete properly referenced material. The accepted protocol for conflicting claims is to include the balancing material, with references, alongside the disputed material and leave it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind. So, where is the evidence upon which you believe Mr Jafarzadeh is not associated with the MEK? That will do for a starting point. The material you deleted has well referenced information that states he is associated with the MEK. Even if you discount the Iran Interlink material, you still have the Houston Chronicle article where Mr Jafarzadeh himself claimed to be a representative of the MEK. We then have the FBI claiming the NCRI, which Mr Jafarzadeh claims to have represented for many years, is just an alias for the MEK. This view was upheld on appeal in the US court system. It will be interesting to see how you justify deleting Mr Jafarzadeh's association with the MEK in the face of this evidence. --Dave 13:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

now we are talking

Very good. This is the start of a dialogue. Lets start picking items in your “well referenced version”. Convince me and we will move on.

For example, the following paragraph. What is the source for it?

Jafarzadeh married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, in 1986 and the couple were divorced four years later. Both the marriage and the divorce were allegedly performed under orders from Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)[6]. Sima-azad 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Sima

In your opinion (as an unbiased researcher), is iran-interlink.org a reliable source that could be used to tarnish some one’s reputation? What are WI guidelines on this?

Sima-azad 12:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) sima

relavant portions of WI: COI (as you have refered to it)

Notability and saliency Wikipedia's policy on verifiability prohibits the inclusion of material not already published by a reliable source.

Importance of civility Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — such an accusation may be defamatory. Please assume good faith, and don't bite the newcomers.

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Defending interests In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.

Sima-azad 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

You keep repeating that “Mr Jafarzadeh has a well documented association with MEK that goes back many years.” As a “good and unbiased researcher” your only reference for this “well documented” (other than iran-interlink.org) "cites a Houston Chronicle article where Jafarzadeh claims to be a spokesperson for the MEK.

Your well” researched and referenced” article had: Jafarzadeh's name first appears in the media in a Houston Chronicle article dated December 24, 1986, where he is described as a spokesman for the MEK. In the article he denied US State Department claims the MEK was a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of at least six Americans in Iran[7].

First of all you had previously mentioned that "he was describe to be spokesman for the MEK". Now you claim : "Jafarzadeh claims to be a spokesperson for the MEK". As a "good and unbiased researcher" you are certainly aware of the difference.

secondly, you mention "the association is therefore independently documented.” You also chose to completely ignore Iraneditors Dec. 7th d talk in which he/she mentioned about this article: “The paragraph is totally incorrect. MEK was listed in 1997. How could Jafarzadeh deny the US State Dept claims in 1986 (11 years earlier!!)??)” .

Thirdly, I could not find this article in Houston Chronicle archives. furthermore, your sentence is copied "verbatum" from iran-inerlink.org. Have you seen the article yourself? can you please post more of the article in the talk section so we can see what the Houston Chronicle actually had?

more later...

Sima-azad 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) sima

correcting myself

Correcting my self. Here is your assertions your “well researched and well referenced” version of the article:

Jafarzadeh's name first appears in the media in a Houston Chronicle article dated December 24, 1986, where he is described as a spokesman for the MEK. In the article he denied US State Department claims the MEK was a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of at least six Americans in Iran[7].

And here is an obscure web log: http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/02/is_fox_news_foreign_affairs_analyst_a_former_terrorist.php

Jafarzadeh's name first appears in the media in a Houston Chronicle article dated December 24, 1986, where he is described as a spokesman for the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). In the article he denied US State Department claims the MEK was a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of at least six Americans in Iran.

So much from the gentleman who lectures us about the copy right issues and the fundamental planks of Wikipedia policies.

Sima-azad 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Sima, you have admitted you are new to Wikipedia so I am showing considerable leniency. Wikipedia is copied and mirrored into thousands of places around the world. I wrote the paragraph you refer to myself on 1 May 2006. I did so after conducting a comprehensive search of the media using the Factiva system. When challenging referenced information the onus is on the person challenging to show the information is incorrect. In other words it is up you to find a copy of the Houston Chronicle from 24 December 1986, locate the article by Rebecca Trounson, titled "Iranian torture victims denounce arms sales" and see if Mr Jafarzadeh put himself forward as a representative of the MEK and made a statement denying the MEK was a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of at least six Americans in Iran. I have done that hard work, as the superscripted ^[7] within the Wikipedia article indicates. I would expect you to take advantage of my work and check the reference before making allegations of dishonesty. I expect an apology. --Dave 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

David,

The paragraph (that is actually copied on several sites) predates your suggested writing date and is larger in contents. Nevertheless, if you have done due diligence then spare us some other parts of what you have found (in Houston Chronicle ) and put me to shame. Sima-azad 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) sima

Assume good faith, and please no personal attacks. --Ezeu 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case there is a counter claim that...

Correcting my self. Here is your assertions in your “well researched and well referenced” version of the article:

“Jafarzadeh's name first appears in the media in a Houston Chronicle article dated December 24, 1986, where he is described as a spokesman for the MEK. In the article he denied US State Department claims the MEK was a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of at least six Americans in Iran[7].”

And here is from an obscure web log: http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/02/is_fox_news_foreign_affairs_analyst_a_former_terrorist.php

“Jafarzadeh's name first appears in the media in a Houston Chronicle article dated December 24, 1986, where he is described as a spokesman for the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). In the article he denied US State Department claims the MEK was a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of at least six Americans in Iran.”

So much from the gentleman who lectures us about the copy right issues and the fundamental planks of Wikipedia policies.

Sima-azad 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

PS. Just in case there is a counter claim that it was the other site copied David’s article, note that their paragraph extends beyond what WI had.

WI's new policy? Accuse first then research and have others rebut it.

This is now interesting. This should be a new policy now. Make an accusation and then place the "onus" on others to disprove it.

You claim that WI’s “ accepted protocol for conflicting claims” is “to include the balancing material, with references, alongside the disputed material and leave it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind. So, where is the evidence upon which you believe Mr Jafarzadeh is not associated with the MEK? That will do for a starting point. The material you deleted has well referenced information that states he is associated with the MEK.” We have already established what your “well referenced” means.

Sima-azad 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC) sima

and learning from you

where is your evidence that you are not following a grand agenda in tarnishing Iranian opposition figures?

Sima-azad 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Yet another example of “good” research and “well” referencing”

As the credibility of iran-interlink.org is questioned, Mr. Moss references his statement on the private life of Jafarzadeh (marriage and divorce) as:

“Jafarzadeh married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, in 1986 and the couple were divorced four years later. Both the marriage and the divorce were allegedly performed under orders from Massoud Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)[6].”

6- ^ van Engelen, Angelique (2005). Exiled Iranian Resistance Could Help Pressure Tehran. Global Politician. Retrieved on 2006-05-01.

While this reference it self has:

“Iran Interlink, an organization that claims to reveal the MeK's true face to the world, runs a website that claims that Jafarzade married his wife, Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, in 1986 on Massoud Rajavi's orders. Four years later, the couple divorced after Rajavi told all the group's members to do so for ideological reasons.”

This is yet another example of “non-biased “ “neutral”, and “non-partisan” point of view.

Does this style of including damaging material to a person’s reputation justifies taking action as WI suggests : “Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.”

Sima-azad 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) sima

David Moss claims to have a Neutral Point of View on the subject

And as far as Mr. David Moss’ innocent claim of having a neutral point of view is concerned, we may want to look at the history of his edits in the WI article “Iran and weapons of mass destruction” to see his very very strong bias towards removing all material that shows Iran is attempting to develop WMDs and Iran is known to be sponsor of terrorism. In the history of that article he suddenly takes cautious to the other extreme and starts questioning the reliability of what ever reference other editors are adding on the subject. :

“On the contrary, I believe articles about the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) status of many countries are worthwhile and useful. Its just that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, something everyone in the International community agrees on. If we are going to include speculation that a country might develop nuclear weapons in an article about WMD to avoid bias we would have to list every developed country in the world. Any country might develop nuclear weapons. Do you advocate we do that, or do you single out Iran for special treatment? I believe the expanded section on chemical weapons is relevant because Iran is one of the few countries that has actually suffered chemical attacks. Where the chemicals used were sourced is not particularly relevant to an article on WMD however. WMD is a highly politicised topic so it is very difficult to write objectively about it. The only way to achieve objecdtivity is to stick closely to the topic and record only known facts. That is what I suggest.” (DMoss Revision as of 00:25, 14 April 2006 )

“The title of this article is Iran and weapons of mass destruction. They don't have any. Thats the end of the known facts and where the article should end. Leave the speculation to the popular press.” Dave 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (DMoss Revision as of 00:25, 14 April 2006)

And many many more. See the history.

Remember that Jafarzadeh was the whistle blower on Iran’s WMD’s. So does David Moss have a PV on the subject or not?

Sima-azad 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Of course I have a POV Sima. I would not be human if I did not. The important thing is that the words I write in Wikipedia have a neutral point of view. What I write in Wikipedia talk pages is another matter. It is expected that I put forward my own point of view in talk pages. I strongly suggest you get several hundred edits in several dozen articles under your belt before flinging accusations about. Your inexperience clearly prevents you from making informed comment regarding Wikipedia culture. --Dave 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

David, one moment you are innocently unbiased and neutral (an Australian who has no association with Iran… ) and the next moment of course you have opinion but you are professional enough to keep it to yourself (and the talk pages). Why don’t we let every one to see the history of your edits where it relates to Iran or Ahmadinejad or his opposition and decide for themselves. Sima-azad 00:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Sima, there is not a human being alive who does not have a point of view. The trick is to write Wikipedia articles from a neutral point of view and include all information available, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. That is what I strive to do. My own character is irrelevant to the content of this article however. I suggest you stop attempting argumentum ad hominem and concentrate more on the content of the article. --Dave 11:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Working through the differences, here is my view:

The biographical information of the place of his birth together with the references seem both relevant and based on reliable sources. They should stay.
It is not immediately obvious that a press-release intended to advertise a conference/summit is a reliable source. The statement attributed to that press release ("Alireza Jafarzadeh is a well-known and credible authority on terrorism") makes it sound like advertising, not analysis. Mr. Jafarzadeh's credentials as a terrorism-expert need a better source or should be removed.
The ex-wife's name should under no circumstances be included. Don't forget that she has the right to privacy. I'm dubious as to the relevance of the marriage at all, so even if www.globalpolitician.com is a reliable source, I think this should be dropped.
The association with the MEK is well-established and must be included: a quick lexis-nexis search of "Jafarzadeh" and "Mujahedeen" produces 70 articles from the mid-80s to the present.
I doubt whether the word whistle-blower is appropriate in this case. A whistle-blower is by definition an insider; Jafarzadeh has been outside of Iran since before the revolution.

Those are my comments. Something there, I'm sure, for everyone to be unhappy with. Bucketsofg 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly, and since editors here are on talking terms now, and since this article has been RfCed, I'm unprotecting it. --Ezeu 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with many of the pints you have. A few issues remain to be resolved. One is using “iran-interlink.org” as a reliable source. This should be avoided by all means.

The other one is using the quote from a web log that in turn quotes Huston Chronicle )and that article is no where to be found).

The third issue is with the tone of the anti Jafarzadeh’s information which is very biased.

Sima-azad 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Bucketsofg ,

I have taken many of your comments and tried to implement them to the best of my ability. The issue of Association with MEK and toning it so that it implies that the subject individual is a terrorist that walks among us can destroy one’s life. Have you checked the references you have found (70 plus you mentioned). I really suggest we do more than just number counting.

Sima-azad 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)sima

Yes, I sampled them. The dozen or so that I specifically looked at referred to him as a spokesman for the MEK, the MKO, or an MKO front organization. Bucketsofg 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MEK Association and Iran Interlink

Please do not attempt to delete or hide Alireza Jafarzadeh's association with the Mujahedin-e Khalq. It is not possible to plausibly deny the association, and the association is essential to understanding the subject of the article. I would also advise caution on writing POV statements about Iran Interlink within this article. If an editor believes people will be interested in detailed information about Iran Interlink, it is better to start a separate article about it and place a wikilink in an appropriate place. Editors will then have greater scope to detail the structure and activities of Iran Interlink and avoid cluttering the Alireza Jafarzadeh biography unnecessarily. --Dave 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More on MEK and Iran Interlink

I just reverted the article again as User:Sima-azad again attempted to remove the association between the subject and the MEK. I also removed some POV argument from the text. A biography is not the place to argue ideological differences. ie it is a fact Alireza Jafarzadeh first appeared in the media as a spokesman for the MEK, and what he had to say in that first appearence is also relevant. A further statement by the MEK denying terrorism allegations by the State Department is not relevant. Likewise the ideological dispute between the allegedly Iranian controlled Iran Interlink website and the allegedly MEK controlled Iran Focus website does not have a place in this biography. Of course if Iran Focus publishes an article about Alireza Jafarzadeh, facts about Jafarzadeh from that article may be included. One political website casting doubt on the integrity of a rival is probably not relevant in a biography however. --Dave 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not attempted to remove association with MEK out. I have agreed to leaving the association in. However, either all material that are about MEK should be left out (MEK has its own pages) or it should be balanced by opposing materia.

The stuff on Iran-interlink.org is not only from Iran Focus (allegedly associated with MEK) but from 5 different sources. WI/BLP:Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The stuff on the marriage and divorce is defamatory, and poorly sourced. Can't have this one both ways again. If there is an assertion, we have to give the reader enough to judje the reliability of the source.

Sima-azad 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC) sima

mailbox rental reference

Quoting from the reference:

"2101 CRYSTAL OLAZA ARCADE #164 ARLINGTON, VA 22202 4600This is probably a typo, however, as there IS a 2101 CRYSTAL PLAZA ARCADE in Arlington, VA.Actually, it is the address of a mailbox rental firm; Plaza Mailboxes ( phone: 703-415-0400 ).Searching the address "2101 Crystal Plaza Arcade, Arlington, VA" turns up dozens of different organizations. Similarly for "1101 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 600". Presumably that also is a mailbox rental facility."

When I researched 1101 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 600 I found it to be on the 6th floor of the Evening Star Building, and that the Regus Group use the 5th, 6th and 7th floors of that building as part of their "virtual office" product. Mail forwarding is indeed one of the base services offered from that location. Higher level services include telephone answering in the name of the client company, limited use of meeting rooms and even a lobby plaque for the client company for those willing to pay more.

Unfortunately this information falls under the category of original research, so I couldn't include it. The information quoted above is not original research however, so it can be (and arguably should be) included. --Dave 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

David's attempt to keep references that do not support his POV out

1- If assertions on the activities on MEK is to be included, it is just fair journalism practice to refer to their denial of it. Reference added again. Just notice how many times and how much emphasis on MEK being on the Terrorist List in David Moss version.

2- If Assertion ( which is very defamatory)of Jafarzadeh's marrige and divorce are to be included, from a very questionable source (i.e. iran-interlink.org), then references that discuss.

Sima-azad 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) sima

1- Please try to understand this is a biography about Alireza Jafarzadeh. It is a place to describe things Alireza Jafarzadeh has said and done, not what the MEK has said and done. The MEK has its own article for that. See my comments above about the ideological dispute between Iran Interlink and Iran Focus, and how I suggest it should be dealt with.

2- I personally don't think Jafarzadeh's marriage and divorce are defamatory at all. They are simply events in his life. If you are keen on removing references to marriage and divorce, head over to the article about Elizabeth Taylor. The alleged circumstances of the marriage and divorce demonstrate a very strong ideological committment. Understanding the strength of this committment is very important if the reader is to understand Jafarzadeh at all. --Dave 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1-If this is about Jafarzadeh and not MEK then we MUST leave association with NCRI and MEK in and leave all additional stuff about MEK out. We can’t be selective on this and only use the stuff that supports your POV – you can’t have it both ways.

2- I do believe that your additions on Jafarzadeh's marriage and divorce are defamatory - your assertion is that he was ordered to marry and get divorced. For all we know – we are do sure if has ever been married. Nevertheless, I did not remove it. I just added explanations on the nature of the source you have used (i.e. Iran-interlink.org)

Sima-azad 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC) sima

mailbox rental reference

Even the qoute from this peculiar web site (which by the way almost entirely in other language (arabic or farsi ?) so I could't figure it out says: "Presumably that also is a mailbox rental facility."

well as I have mentioned befor on this talk page, our offices are on the same floor:

http://www.iil.com/WashingtonDC/ 1101 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Sixth Floor Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 756-5004 Fax: (202) 756-7323

But it seems that some want to tarnish the subject in this article -- what ever it takes.

JJ

Organization?

It strikes me that the current article is very chaoitc. Should not the article proceed more or less chronologically? That is, start with the paragraph on his birth-place and year, go on to education, then spokesman years with MKO, NCRI, etc., and finish with his work in the media. Bucketsofg 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bucketsofg,

what is your specific recomendation about:

1- the stuff on marriage+divorce 2- Leaving the discussion on the nature of MEK and NCRI in their own pages instead of trying to give a balanced view in this article ?

Thanks

Sima-azad 22:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC) sima

On the marriage and divorce, I'm inclined against inclusion, but am open to an explanation from David (or anyone else) as to why it is relevant. On the MEK/MKO/NRCI, there has to be enough here that a reader can know what the issues are in so far as they relate to Jafarzadeh. Obviously full exploration should be left to the articles on these organization, but unless you provide the reader with some context, Jafarzadeh's career and significance will be unintelligible. Bucketsofg 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

On the issue of marriage, I agree with you but I will not have strong opposition if we find a reliable source (other than iran-interlink.org that in turn is quoted by some one else.) For all we are concerned, this might be bogus and he may have not married ever.

On the Issue of MEK and NCRI, the reference to these being included in the terrorist list is a very complex and controversial one. Either we need to give a balanced version of this or we should refer the reader to their respective pages. (even David has said: (above) “Please try to understand this is a biography about Alireza Jafarzadeh. It is a place to describe things Alireza Jafarzadeh has said and done, not what the MEK has said and done. The MEK has its own article for that.”) We need to provide enough for the reader to explain why Mr. Jafarzadeh is living and working in Washington DC instead of spending time in Guantanamo !) Don’t you think so?

Sima-azad 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) sima

the material on the private life is due to a very partisan site with no neutral source confirming it. This material is acussatory as well as non relevant and must be removed immidiately.

Noriziba 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ziba

Bucketsofg,

I have been trying to improve the organization. Do you think it is begining to look better?

Sima-azad 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) sima

MEK and NCRI

The two issues of 1) jaffarzadeh assosiation with NCRI and MEK and 2)the discussion and inclusion of what the State Department has said and done about these organizations, reasons for it, their legal and political status and what what their response to this is are two different issues. As David has suggested both MEK and NCRI have their own pages and all discussions about them (including their inclusion in the list) should be eliminated from Jafarzadeh's biography.

I also agree with the Bucketsofg that 1) info on marriage and wedding is not relevent and 2) The article is very Chaotic.

Despite what David has declared (to scare off others) I have not been banned from edditing- but I want to give these discussions a chance before I attempt edditing it my way.

Iraneditor 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Iraneditor

no threats or insults please

I do not appreciate threats such as:

"..... unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Alireza Jafarzadeh, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Dave 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"

or repeatedly being called sockpuppet meat puppet:

"Hi Ezeu, I'm starting to get worn down by this. Can you please do something about the sockpuppetry in this article? I'm getting to the point I'm ready end my association with Wikipedia I'm so annoyed. It should not be possible for a sockpuppet/meatpuppet cabal to destroy an article in this way, especially as people have previously been banned permanently for essentially the same thing in this article recently. I leave it up to you to deal with this. I'll be back in a couple of days, after I've cooled down, to see if its worth continuing. --Dave 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

I am bending backward here for the sake of a fair and balanced article Sima-azad 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) sima

Interesting. I got one of those from DMoss the first week I started to edit:

This is the only warning you will receive.

Your recent vandalism to Alireza Jafarzadeh will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dave 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (only warning)

Iraneditor 20:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)iraneditor

removing reference to marriage and divorce

Per WI: LPB : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately"

Is thre any one who thinks that Iran-interlink.org is a reliable and non partisan source on Jafarzadeh?

Iraneditor 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Iraneditor

Removing reference to address

The reference that was cited qoutes a person named (first name or nick named "Brad" and cites a web page that does not exist. The reference it self (http://www.negaheno.net/) is a very partisan site that claims as its main goal to fignt against Iranian dissidants. Sima-azad 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Sima

repeat vandalism by unregistered users

There has been a surge in vandalism by unregistered users. The tactic in this page and several other pages is the smear and charachter aassasination by calling individuals who oppose the Iranian regime terrorists, traitors, and other names. I sincerely ask these people to add factual material (even if contovertial). Iraneditor 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Iraneditor

One sided and full of unwarranted praise

It seems Iraneditor and Sima Azad are members of the MEK (an armed group agreed upon by EU and US as a terrorist organization). As spokesman for this organization, Jafarzadeh's biography deserves some mention of this fact rather than the effusive praise which this article seems to lay upon him. The level of compliments given to Jafarzadeh in this article begs the question whether Iraneditor is Jafarzadeh himself. Sima Azad and Iraneditor have combined to present this ridiculously one sided biography by systematically removing all possible negative references. Any accusation leveled by Jafarzadeh is "revealing" something in this article and unverifiable references to testimonies etc. which are not available on internet are made to make him out to be a hero. No mention is made that MEK (and Jaffarzadeh) fought Iran under the command of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. etc. etc.

Without accusing people of being members of what and what I kindly request Amirb to suggest what he would like to add to the article. Please keep idealogies out of this and only limit the article to thinks that are based on credible references. Sima-azad 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) sima

Sima how come you removed the request to have the one sidedness of the article checked. That goes along with the initial allegation that you and Iraneditor are censoring this piece to make it as flattering as possible to Jaffarzadeh. Also, are you saying that being a member of NCRI or MKO is an insult (you are being accused?). I would like to revert all the changes that you and your buddy Iraneditor have systematically removed over the last few years and replaced with profuse praise. The tone of the article glorifies the grandeur of this Jaffarzadeh guy and is just too much. Let's start by some reference that the world (including EU and U.S.) consider the MKO a terrorist organization which deserves some mention on Jaffarzadeh's page (since he is a spokesman). Also, how com you judge all that is disagreeable to you as not credible. I don't find vague references to offline court proceedings and newspapers as credible wheras you and your colleague (Iraneditor) have removed many newspaper references that didn't agree with your point of view.

Amir, This article is not about MKO (as the Iran's Ayatollahs call it) or MEK or NCRI. This article is about what Jafarzadeh has said and done. To the degree that it relates to him, you can add related info on Him. 69.183.77.160 Iraneditor

I can't edit anything neither can anyone else because you and Sima have made it a point to remove all edits and make this article the ridiculous piece that it is. Also this is the second time that you two have removed my request for someone (other than the two of you) too look at what a ludicrous piece this is.

Again Amirb, This article is about who Jafarzadeh is and what he has done. He has been associated with MEK and NCRI. The article makes it very clear. MEK and NCRI are on the terror list of the State Department. The article makes it very clear. MEK and NCRI might be controversial but that is discussion is left up to their respective articles. Is there any thing in Jafarzadeh's bio that you dispute? Is there any thing you wish to add? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you know any thing about Jafarzadeh, share it with us. The fact that you do not like what he is doing is not enough to question that fact that he is doing it! Sima-azad 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Sima

Sima, stop censoring the piece and let someone (other than you and Iraneditor) fix this ridiculous article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.212.194 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

This Article is just sad...

I read a news article on NBC on Alireza Jafarzadeh today. But I wanted to read a more unbiased summery concerning who the heck he is... but this Article here is worst than FOX... I read this sad-name-for-an-article and all Im thinkin, why does this seem like a MEK brochure? Anyhu, Im not edditor, and if there isn't anyone bright enough to see the problem with this article, than I might as well start getting my info from CNN... peace... and as a persian, I really don't think a persian should take up the main editing of this page....--MeMory H. 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just writing to agree that this article is sad -- a stub would be better than this confusing and pretty unhelpful piece. Somebody other than the current interested parties needs to step in and help out. Rlsusc 07:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sima Azad and Iraneditor are using Wikipedia as a way of promoting this guy. If you look over the last few years, they have removed all edits and replaced them with praise. I tried to get a third party to look at this but they keep removing that tag as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amirb1 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Folks

The tactic on shedding doubt on a biographical article by tagging it as a “biased” article, itself is biased. Instead why don’t you proceed as follows:

If some of the factual material or their sources are questionable, directly discuss that.
If you have additional info on this person a (credible sources) that is not defamatory, add it.
This article is not a venue for discussing what MEK is and does. The article makes Jafarzadeh’s association with MEK and NCRI clear. More than that, what do you wish to say?
This article is not a place to air your point of view on Iran’s nuclear programs of its actions in the region. This article is about Jafarzadeh’s deeds on these subjects.

Noriziba 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Ziba

a POV biography of a well known terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist!

This article has terrible pov problem. The reader will have the impression that AN is a humanist or a reliable expert! He hold a high ranking position in a group which is both Islamic fundamentalist AND terrorist!!!! A terrorist expert on terrorism! And obviously he is a spy!

Some of the pov problems:

"Jafarzadeh also exposed the Iranian regime's programs for biological and microbial weapons"!!! This is POV statement about Jafarzadeh's baseless claim.
"Alireza Jafarzadeh revealed that Iran's government has sharply increased its efforts to fan sectarian violence in Iraq". Another baseless claim.
"Alireza Jafarzadeh, has been particularly singled out and targeted by Iran's government for his unique historical role in revealing Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction." balant pov! neither of these claims have been proved up to know.

The article is propaganda for promoting a terrorist whose acts are in the favor of US! Sorry! Ohmyxy 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A comentary by Prof. Paul Fote?

Editors and contrinuters,

A comentary by Professor Fote, a person whome Washington Post criticies as anti Semite, and is well known for his pro Iran's regime writtings is hardly a reliable source. Satements such as : "He also regretted that United States did not put Jafarzadeh on trial for his acts of terrorism" from a questionable source are not appropriate in a BLP. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

This page has to be balanced

I have a POV. I have been avocating human rights and Iran's mullahs regime's victems for the past three decade. Having said that, I belive that this and any other page about Iran (pro or against mullahs) and in particular those living people whoes life might be endangered by these, we need to be very very careful while mainaining truth and balance.

We like it or not, Jafarzadeh is known as an expert on Iran. Can not take that away from him. Like it or not he is an author can not take that away from him. He has been affiliated with MEK that is now listed in the rerrorist list. To be complete and accurate I agree that that needs to be there too. So there are other reliable information from reliable sources on him. please add it. Comentary by people who have established themselves as having a strong view (pro or against mullahs) should not be included. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Omid