Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 12

Protection 3
Here we are again. This is not good. I've reverted to last version by me, but if there is material to be added that is not under contention, let me know and I'll add it directly. I'm giving ample time for participants to settle each individual addition, removal, or modification. Be methodical and comprehensive about consensus. El_C 17:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you please restore the following edits to mainspace, which were not under contention?:


 * "Fix cite date error"
 * "Robot - Speedily moving category Political organizations in France to Category:Political organizations based in France per CFDS"
 * "Fix urls"
 * "Expanding based on TP"
 * "Expanding based on TP - human right abuses against MEK supporters"
 * MOIS agents passing as ex-MEK members spreading disinformation against the MEK
 * "add image"


 * Thanks. For the rest, we'll continue to discuss here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ the first three. ❌ the rest pending confirmation. El_C 20:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That was very sneaky Stefka; quite smart of you to mix up punctuation edit requests with disputed content related ones and pretend they are not "under contention".--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When I added this content into the article, it was not "disputed" by anyone. Check the article's editing history. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection 3 removals
Does anyone object to the following inclusions?


 * "Expanding based on TP"
 * "Expanding based on TP - human right abuses against MEK supporters"
 * MOIS agents passing as ex-MEK members spreading disinformation against the MEK
 * "add image"

If there are any particular objections, please explain in detail. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For the first three I find it undue. I mean think about it for a second. You folks could not tolerate inclusion of one sentence explaining divorce decree, separation of children from their family, and sexual fantasy confessions (all performed by MEK) in the abuse section. Yet you want to push a huge amount of text on the kidnap and torture into the article. All I have to say is that I see no fairness in this editing style.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The cultish tendencies of the MEK are comprehensively covered in this article, are they not? El_C 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, for this being an article about the IRI's main political opposition, it sure mentions "divorce", "marriage", and "cult" plenty of times and in plenty of sections: The 'ideological revolution' and the issue of women's rights, Human rights record, Allegations of Sexual Abuse, Designation as a cult, Series, films, and documentaries by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the MEK, etc...


 * Yet, inclusion of a section covering the IRI's torture of MEK members seems to be a problem. These three edits were all discussed in this very same TP, and backed up by numerous RSs, so not UNDUE. So what exactly is the problem with this information besides the "I see no fairness" allegation? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I searched through the whole article at its current form and there was no mention of the "sexual fantasy confessions". Also, what gives you the right to put the word "allegation" next to the abuses that was reported by independent sources? You cannot tolerate US department of state's report on MEK being behind Hafte Tir Bombing. Or NBC's conclusion that MEK is behind assassination of Iranian scientists. I have to repeat myself that the only way out of this situation is choosing the middle ground. --Kazemita1 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Greenwood Publishing Group seems to be a weak publication for MOIS agents passing as ex-MEK members spreading disinformation against the MEK, I asked the reliability of book for that fact in RSN! Also for "Expanding based on TP - human right abuses against MEK supporters", there are some related discussions above. It is better to follow them rather than start new ones.Saff V. (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @Saff V.: this is the feedback for your post at RSN:


 * "That book is actually a Praeger imprint, not Greenwood (Greenwood does own Praeger, but the linked book isn't published as a Greenwood book). Both are well known academic publishers and in general books they publish would be RS. If it's an extraordinary or controversial claim it would be best attributed to the authors though. Fyddlestix
 * "Absolutely yes you can use that source. Greenwood is a reliable source since it is an academic publisher, an imprint of Preager. Their website verifies this [62]. I agree with User:Fyddlestix, if the claim is controversial then just attribute the claim to the author of the book: "According to Yonah Alexander,...." or something like that. Otherwise you may use the source without attribution. Just make sure that the source itself makes that particular claim that it was a disinformation operation. Huitzilopochtli1990


 * are we done here? (these insertions were not disputed to begin with). Also, you asked Kazemita1 to tone it down, but they keep casting baseless aspersions against me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that it's better to just assume good faith about one's intentions. Anyway, if you want that part of the edit request to be accepted, please work on getting consensus for it. El_C 18:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't seem to identify the relevant objection against these edits. Can you please advice what the standing argument against the inclusion of these edits is? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I am unable to. If one is not forthcoming, I will be granting your request. El_C 21:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Following the RSN post, @Stefka you have to attribute the statement to the author.Saff V. (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The tone and titles are POVish which need to be toned down and neutralized before anything else. Among other things, you need to consider attributing whenever needed. You can provide a draft here so that other users can come with their comments. With current version, NO, the materials are not suitable for the inclusion. That said, I'm not objecting the image to be added. -- M h hossein   talk 06:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein, you didn't object when I first added this text to the article. To me, the text reads neutrally and to the point, so If you'd like the text to be modified, then you need to present a specific argument describing what exactly is "POV-ish" and "not suitable" about this information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you expect me to revert you to show my objection? -- M h hossein   talk 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What I expect is for you to address with some clarity what the issues are, if any, with these edits (saying that they are "POVish" and "not suitable" does not address what the particular issues may be here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, this objection rational falls short. El_C 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will come with a detailed comment. -- M h hossein   talk 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When you do, please explain how the content may be considered "POVish" in relation to what the RSs are saying. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're trying to add various topics reading "IRI....against MEK" adding to the POVish tone of the article. This is the most important issue I see here. Just Imagine how it would become if there were counter sections with their titles reading "MEK...against IRI". You've added more than enough times in the article that MOIS harrased MEK members. How many times do you think it should be repeated in the article? Let alone that you were not, let's say, careful in writing; in this edit for instance, "European Intelligence and Security services" is not commenting on MOIS enticing. Also, you've heavily based your other edit on the sources by advocacy groups. How about using higher quality sources? -- M h hossein   talk 06:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Unlike the "sex marriage cult" allegations, the "IRI torturing MEK members" information is focused on a single section here. The text included regurgitates what the sources are saying, without exaggerating or diminishing any event.

2) About your concerns regarding MOIS (your first tangible objection here), this is what the source says:

3) About your objection concerning sources, these are the sources being used in that particular edit:


 * Congressional Record, Government Printing Office


 * Ongoing crimes against humanity in Iran, Amnesty International


 * Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, I.B. Tauris


 * Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran, University of California Press


 * Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity, Amnesty International
 * The New Iranian Leadership: Ahmadinejad, Terrorism, Nuclear Ambition, and the Middle East, Praeger


 * What happened?, The Economist


 * Inside Iran’s Revolutionary Courts, BBC


 * Deepening Crisis on Rights, Human Rights Watch

What exactly is the problem with these sources? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still can't see a valid argument from any of the objecting editors here for not including these edits/sources in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The arguments may not be that strong, but they do have a kernel of validity to them. So long as the discussion is still ongoing, I am not inclined to do anything. If and/or when it concludes, I may reconsider based on said discussion. But don't count on it. What you really need is greater involvement from other participants and more outside input. Rather than, as mentioned elsewhere, me ruling on the editing disputes by fiat. El_C 17:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * could you please identify what the argument against inclusion is? (I am unable to). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also finding it difficult to do so. You were asked to provide higher-quality sources and have done so. Now is the other side's turn to accept or reject these as the basis for the edit, and beyond. So we await their reply. El_C 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * According to European intelligence and security services...."shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately... is already included in the article.
 * "According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots," is not in the source given.
 * This edit is heavily based on Amnesty and HRW. I asked to find high quality sources.
 * This edit says "Hossein Sobhani "was dispatched to Europe to recruit other former MEK members" as a fact, without elaborating how this intelligence info was achieved and what the source of this finding is. The edit also gives undue weight to Shabnam and Farzad claims cited to a partisan source (the Weekly standard). Though you may try trimming it into 1 line.
 * The article is already dedicating enough space to 'MOIS ran disinformation campaign against MEK', so this one is really excess and unnecessary. Remember how the 'Propaganda campaign' section was trimmed. -- M h hossein   talk 07:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That seem like substantive enough reasons to me to, at the very least, continue to discuss and possibly work toward a compromise version. (Although in what way Amnesty and HRW fall short as quality sources is something I, myself, am curious to learn more about.) El_C 09:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Yes, that's fine, let's not repeat text. 2) "According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots," is in the source given:

3) Also curious to hear what exactly the problem is with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (both sources that were already in the article, yet nobody's complained about them before).

4A) Here you are mixing up two different sources. The first, a book by Yonah Alexander and Milton Hoenig published in Praeger says:

And it's being used to support this statement: "In 2002, for example, Ministry of Intelligence agent and former MEK member Mohammad Hossein Sobhani "was dispatched to Europe to recruit other former MEK members to denounce the group through elaborate disinformation campaigns designed ultimately to alienate MEK supporters. Ministry of Intelligence operatives have also been known to pose as members or former members of the MEK."

What exactly is the problem with this?

4B) The next, is an article by The Weekly Standard, that says:

And it's being used to support this statement: "In 2009, activists and MEK supporter Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh were arrested by Iranian police. According to Farzad, Iranian officers tortured him and his sister, and wanted him to confess to crimes that he had not committed: “They told me, ‘You come and do an interview against the PMOI, the MEK, and the NCRI… They would throw me on the ground and treat me like a football between three people… Several times they did this to me in front of Shabnam’s eyes in order to break her.”"

What exactly is the problem with this?

5) This is the last statement you're objecting here:

"In May 2005, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence ran a disinformation operation against the MEK by deceiving Human Rights Watch into "publishing a report detailing alleged human rights abuses committed by MEK leadership against dissident members. The report was allegedly based upon information provided to HRW by known Iranian MOIS agents who were former MEK members working for the Iranian Intelligence service.""

This section is about "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK", and this text brings specific disinformation tactics concerning deceiving HRW into publishing a report against the MEK. As an alternative option, this can be moved to the "Human Rights Record" section (where the HRW report is mentioned), but because this isn't repeated information, and it's important information backed by RSs, it needs to be in the article.

Please respond with specific objections (if any) to the above. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good
 * It's not in the source given. The "Additionally, these network attempt to entice or coerce..." belongs to a another paragraph and is not literally connected to "according to European..." coming in the previous paragraph.
 * Grounding most parts of a section on advocacy groups like Amnesty and HRW is what I'm objecting.
 * I'm not mixing anything, read my comment once again. Alexander's book does not elaborate how such an intelligence info was achieved. It's saying, as a fact, that Sobhani was "dispatched...to recruit other former MEK members"! The edit, also gives undue weight to some claims using a partisan source (WS). Btw, you've inserted Madadzadeh's claim alleging you had talk page consensus (your edit summary reads "per TP"). Can you say which consensus you were referring to please?
 * No new tactic is introduced. See the first paragraph in "Disinformation operation against the MEK members". You see phrases like "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK", "to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK", ""an extensive campaign to convince Human Rights Watch that PMOI [MEK] is engaged in human rights abuses". So, we have already have lots of them. -- M h hossein   talk 14:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1)OK!
 * 2)The source does not support the material, for example, the mentioned sentences by Stefka connected to 1980.
 * 3)Consider In 2011, Evin prison authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so.". the HRW report largely talks about "Huge Spike in Executions in Iran". You want to use it to cite a minor passage just about MEK Or two specific persons, That is called cherry picking and is a kind of misrepresentation of the source.
 * 4 and 5) Mhhossein is right, POVISH issue is brilliant as he explained.Saff V. (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's solve these one at a time, otherwise we're just building a wall of text without getting anywhere. Lets start with HRW and Amnesty International. What is the problem with these sources? (please be specific, saying that they're "advocacy" sources repeatedly is not being specific). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They can occasionally be used, but as I said enough times, the main problem is basing nearly a whole section on them. -- M h hossein   talk 12:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole section is not based on them. In fact, they are attributed when used. could you please weight in? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that, as the uninvolved admin, my word may carry too much weight. But since both sides asked for my view, okay... I don't really see an issue with relying on Amnesty or HRW, as these are neither MEK nor Islamic regime sympathetic sources. If there are problems pertaining to advocacy (beyond human rights) for these entities, that's something, I myself, am unaware of. El_C 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add this back into the article then, along with the other text that was not objected. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what? Was there consensus to restore ALL of these disputed contents? Did not you see "If there are problems pertaining to advocacy (beyond human rights) for these entities, that's something, I myself, am unaware of" or did you build consensus for all the bullets? Per WP:ONUS, you have to build consensus before inclusion of the disputed contents. -- M h hossein   talk 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International material go back into the article? I don't see a valid objection for not including these sources in the article (Amnesty and HRW sources are in fact already in the article!). Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is unprotected now, so there's no need for further protected edit requests. El_C 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This topic essentially is continued in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. -- M h hossein   talk 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed assassinations
Regarding 1981 Iranian Prime Minister's office bombing, Rajavi claimed responsibility on behalf of MEK.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Barely any support inside Iran
Dozens of WP:RS show that this group has barely any support inside Iran and has only risen to prominense in the West in recent years due to massive lobbying (incl. $$$$). How come this verifiable fact is not reflected in the lede and body of the article?


 * "The MEK, which still seeks the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, has marginal support inside Iran, however." -- Juneau, Thomas (2015). Squandered Opportunity: Neoclassical Realism and Iranian Foreign Policy. Stanford University Press. p. 124
 * "Most observers of Iranian politics say the MeK has minimal support in Iran and is widely hated for its use of violence and close links to Israeli intelligence." -- Arron Merat and Julian Borger (30 June 2018). "Rudy Giuliani calls for Iran regime change at rally linked to extreme group". The Guardian.

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * LouisAragon: Hi, can you put your suggestion here? I mean, how should the lead include this do you think? -- M h hossein   talk 14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Something like: "'The MEK is considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.[33][34][35] However, it has barely any support inside Iran, was listed as a terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada and the United States until around 2010, and has only recently risen to prominence in the West since the 2000s due to major lobbying campaigns."


 * IMO, reading this article as an uninvolved editor, there's a hidden message underneath. And that message is to make you think that this group actually enjoys major support inside Iran and represents quasi-innocent angels who were given a bad name only due to unjust actions by others. Yet the reliable sources completely contradict this. The fact that the group was known as a terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada and the United States until 2009/2012 is a major point that should be given more prominence in the lede per WP:DUE. The current status/activities of the party (as its not defunct) are much more relevant than its detailed 1960s/1970s/1980s activities. IMO, its current/recent status should be explained first, followed by its history since inception.


 * Currently, its post-2000 status is only mentioned at the bottom of the lede, and almost 3,5 alineas are dedicated to a fraction of its 1960s/1970s/1980s activities. Interestingly, not even the fact that the MEK killed numerous people in the Pahlavi era is mentioned. "Armed conflict" is weaselish as far as this article is concerned, given that the group continued its "armed conflict" for many years after 1979. Suggestion:


 * "The organization engaged in armed conflict with the Pahlavi dynasty in the 1970s,[31] killing Iranians and foreigners (incl. US citizens) in the process and contributed to the overthrow of the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. It subsequently pursued the establishment of a democracy in Iran, particularly gaining support from Iran's middle class intelligentsia.[37][38][39][40"


 * Some lay-out play has to be initiated as far as the lede is concerned. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Public support of the MEK in Iran is problematic since that can lead to incarceration, torture, and/or execution. The MEK's terrorist designation is also problematic as there are also plenty of RSs saying that “The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami".  Also the group went through a Schism period between 1971 up to the Iranian revolution where a Marxist splinter faction used the same name; this has sometimes created confusion between the Islamic MEK (this page) and the Marxist MEK (Peykar), even though they're two completely different groups. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with you and I opened an RFC in this regard, however there was self-made 'chrono' arguments repeatedly used by some users which, to my surprise, Cinderella157 has found to be a "compelling argument". That said, I'm still OK with having a lay-out play. -- M h hossein   talk 11:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I'm in agreement with Cinderella157, they closed that RfC properly, so discarding what other editors and sources are saying is not OK. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Chrono' order is a self-made and bizarre argument, not a "compelling" one! -- M h hossein   talk 18:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that arranging events as they unfolded, rather than according to personal preference, is definitely compelling, but you don't have to agree. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Left wing?
While the MEK is historically left-wing, they have, as the article says itself, moved sharply to the right in exile, embracing free-market economics and taking a pro-Israel, pro-America line, and are roundly condemned in international left-wing circles. I think at this point their political position would be hard to articulate, I'd suggest it be removed entirely. Zellfire999 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Zellfire999: Hey, that would be much better if you had supported the "move" by reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 14:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is no reliable source for them being left-wing, either, and no citation in the claim. Agreed with removing the designator entirely. Voyaging talk 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. I also get the impression that the historiography would agree with you on this front. El_C 14:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MEK may have created a fake author promoting its propaganda
@All, have you seen the recent news on a character believed to be fake and created by MEK propaganda machine? That's why I stress that we should take care when using MEK-sympathetic sources. -- M h hossein   talk 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting!Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation campaign by MEK against Iranian regime

 * Why does the U.S. need trolls to make its Iran case?, Washington post, June 11th, 2019


 * AN IRANIAN ACTIVIST WROTE DOZENS OF ARTICLES FOR RIGHT-WING OUTLETS. BUT IS HE A REAL PERSON?, The intercept, June 9th 2019

--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * مجله فوربز مقالات 'کارشناس ایرانی جعلی' را حذف کرد, BBC Persian, June 11th 2019
 * Kazemita1: Yeah, that deserves to be in the article. Also see:
 * The Suspicious Twitter Network Trolling for Regime Change in Iran
 * Iranians respond to MEK troll farm: #YouAreBots
 * -- M h hossein   talk 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These accusations are not confirmed and IRI-controlled media/opinion pieces are not RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Washington Post, The Intercept, Forbes, and BBC are not in any way controlled by IRI.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP violation, see: Alex-h (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is talking about the redirect not inclusion in the article. Moreover, the responder isn't aware of the sources other than the intercept.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kazemita1: you took this to two noticeboards, and neither said it was ok for inclusion. Please do not include back into the article unless you have some consensus to do so. Alex-h (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kazemita1 added info that according to two noticeboards (see: ), may be a BLP violation, so I reverted and left a message explaining why (the one above this message), but Kazemita1 then inserted the text back again. How does this work in terms of the pages’s recent edit restrictions? Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They now are given a chance to self-revert, or they face sanction. BLP violations are exempt from any restrictions, but what constitutes a BLP violation needs to be established first (at BLPN or by an admin). Please keep me updated. Personally, I have no problem with using The Intercept as a source (and it is not listed in WP:RSP), but I'm not exactly unbiased, as I do read it regularly. El_C 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But if there are, indeed, other reliable sources (that are listed on WP:RSP) which confirm this addition, then you need to better substantiate your objection, in turn. The report at BLPN is one which I deem insufficient to establish a BLP violation, so that's out, for now. If you do get consensus there for that in the future, or are able to convince myself or another admin that this does, in fact, constitutes a BLP violation, then that, again, will supersedes any restriction. But now the onus is on you to better explain why that addition does not merit inclusion. El_C 17:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, Kazemita1 rolled back his edits but also rolled back other edits that were not in dispute, with the edit summary "rolling to back to pre-war condition per El_C's request on my talk page". What happens now? Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide an outline, including diffs. But generally, they have to provide substantive objections, in detail. Unexplained reverts may be viewed as tendentious. El_C 20:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, Kazemita1 rolled back these edits which were not in dispute:,, , , , , , , , , , . Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted edits from both sides, not just one side, including this edit from Mhossein. All I did was essentially roll it back to an earlier time; i.e. right after the article was opened last. You can see the diff here. We are yet to hear a reason on why the story piece about Heshmat Alavi is a BLP violation.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why did you revert those unrelated edits? El_C 03:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In order to remain bipartisan that's all. I saw you doing that whenever there was an edit-war.Kazemita1 (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but generalities won't do. Please restore any edit you removed which you do not have a substantive objection to. El_C 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. With that I am asking folks to explain why the content on Heshmat Alavi is BLP violation, given the fact that there was no redirect in my edit.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, from what I can see, the Intercept interviewed two people that claim Heshmat Alavi is a made-up journalist. Other sources that have covered this story seem to have done so based on the Intercept article, but this does not appear to have been confirmed beyond the previously mentioned. What do you think? Should we take it back to BLPN? Alex-h (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not true. Take this Al-jazeera piece where the author interviewed several independent or anti-regime folks who believe Heshmat Alavi is fake.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Al-Jazeera piece seems to be convincing. The work is contributed by "Negar Mortazavi - consultant editor, The Independent, Maral Karimi - author, The Iranian Green Movement of 2009, Trita Parsi - founder, National Iranian American Council and Tara Sepehri Far - Iran researcher, Human Rights Watch." -- M h hossein   talk 12:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Believing to be true is not the same as being true. Al-jazeera's report is drawing from the same Intercept article and not providing evidence that confirms if this Iranian activist exists or not. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Very interesting what the Al-jazeera report says about the Iran Disinformation project, and those interviewed appear to have been accused of lobbying for the Iranian government, so not the best people to ask about this topic. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things that need attention. First of all, the so-called Heshmat Alavi, in his own website admitted that it is not his real name or picture. Therefore, the BLP issue is off the table. The second thing is that BBC, Al-Jazeera, Washington Post and etc. are all endorsing The Intercept article and that should be enough. Remember we do not perform original research. Add to the fact, that no independent source has said anything in support of Heshmat Alavi being a single person.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading Alavi's website, I see that he says "I have asked myself repeatedly about the objective of The Intercept article that is full of obvious lies, and how it was a completely orchestrated effort with the Iranian regime’s troll cyber army and known Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents," which means he denies these allegations, which means this can constitute a BLP violation. Barca (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Since your last comment here that "the onus is on you [Alex-h] to better explain why that addition does not merit inclusion" we have a new input. The fact that the pseudo-name "Heshmat Alavi" admitted it is not his real name or photo:

"No, I will never reveal my real identity or photograph. Not as long as the mullahs’ regime is in power. No activist in his/her right mind would do so. That would place all of my family, friends and myself, both inside & outside of Iran, in complete danger.". Am I right thinking BLP violation is off the table given this confession?Kazemita1 (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. El_C 10:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That this is not a BLP violation, it doesn't mean that there aren't any other problems with this. The Intercept article interviews Hassan Heyrani, (yet another former MEK member) who alleges that Heshmat Alavi is not a real persona and that he writes on behalf of the MEK. Alavi then admitted that he writes under an alias, but did not say that he writes on behalf of the MEK. There is, in fact, no evidence that he writes for the MEK. All we have is an unverified allegation by a former MEK member, or is there something else? Alex-h (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me fix your argument. There is no confession from "Heshmat Alavi" he writes on behalf of MEK. However, there are 4-5 independent reliable sources that back that assertion (BBC, The intercept, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera).Kazemita1 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Links to those sources? Please feel free to just refactor those onto your current comment. El_C 19:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/heshmat-alavi-fake-iran-mek
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/11/why-does-us-need-trolls-make-its-iran-case/?utm_term=.669dac8e0727
 * https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/fa/contents/articles/originals/2018/09/iran-mek-twitter-troll-farm-al-jazeera-zarif-criticism-jack.html
 * [https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2019/06/iran-tensions-trolls-dubious-case-heshmat-alavi-190616075641073.html
 * http://www.bbc.com/persian/world-48604383

--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h, there seem to be enough reliable sources that report on the Intercept piece, so I'm not sure your objection really stands up to scrutiny. (Example:Alavi was once cited by the White House as a credible commentator on Iran but it turns out he is a fictional persona that reportedly was created by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) - a group opposed to the Iranian government and supported by Washington.) El_C 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources (including Al-jazeera) are just drawing from what the Intercept wrote about Heshmat Alavi. The Intercept interviewed a former MEK member who claimed Heshmat Alavi writes for the MEK. That's the only evidence presented here, an allegation by a former member that is being repeated in other sources. Alex-h (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not really here to investigate reliable sources' findings (unless another reliable source does this) — that is original research. All we are here to do is report what these sources are saying. El_C 14:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)