Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 13

Disputes
There are plenty of dispute areas between the users here. I have commented on some of them and gave enough details why they should/n't be/changed in the article. I'm trying to make it clear for insiders/outsiders/admins what's going on here and which user is doing what. This is already discussed and comments have arisen. I think there need to be an RFC for this (I've done it just below this discussion). Discussed here, here, here and here (all opened by Kazemita1) though they're not enough. This is clearly a disputed content which is kept by edit war, without building consensus. This is also disputed and should not be included without having built consensus. There's already a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=897464010&oldid=897463943#ISJ_report_=_RS? RSN] discussion over it with no certain consensus. This is another disputed content. While Alex-h believes the content is already included in the lead, Kazemita1 thinks otherwise. This is though discussed no where in the article talk page! I discussed it plenty of times here with Saff V. and Forest90  agreeing with that the sources are not supporting this claim and Alex-h saying the claim is "supported by reliable sources". This subject, among others, had been subject to back and forth. It's disputed and should not be included without the consensus among users. The users who intent to insert this material should carry the burden of showing how the sources support such a big deal. There is dispute on whether to include this in the article and which section to include it in.
 * A) Location of the paragraph and terrorist designation and cultish nature of MEK:
 * B) MEK's only targeting Islamic Republic’s government governmental and security institutions:
 * C) Col. Leo McCloskey's comment on Batoul Soltani:
 * D) MEK's 1981 serial attacks killing dozens of Iranian officials:
 * E) IRI capturing and torturing MEK's members:
 * F) Confessions of sexual fantasies.

The piece existed until a few days ago when MA Javadi removed it.
 * G) US officials confirming MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in the article lead.

User:Saff V., User:Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita1, User:Icewhiz, User:Alex-h, User:Sa.vakilian, User:Forest90 and User:Nikoo.Amini: I'm inviting the involved users to consider discussing the above issues (and other points I've possibly missed) instead of making serial reverts. The article suffers from lack of input from neutral admins or experienced users. Please consider watching the changes and/or commenting on the disputed contents where ever needed. -- M h hossein   talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Please keep on discussing the above points under the related topics.

Dispute A
I have opened a RFC for this. Please take your words there, instead of here. -- M h hossein   talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute B
What is dispute B? El_C 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have categorized it here since there were back and forth on it. Do you have a response for El_C's question? --  M h hossein   talk 12:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given MEK's behavior in massive bombing of a political party and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and having verified statements from sources confirming they target "low civil servants", it is a bit undue to use strong words such as "analysts confirm that the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions". --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Context:
 * "Khomeini banned Rajavi and other MEK candidates from office on the basis of their refusal to support his new constitution. Le Monde’s correspondent wrote on March 29, 1980 that Rajavi would have received 'several million votes'.[...] At some point in early 1980, Khomeini issued a hand-written judicial order to execute MEK members and supporters. Regime forces ransacked every office printing or distributing the MEK journal ‘Mojahed’."


 * "June 20, 1981 […] Rajavi and President Bani-Sadr together had 'called upon the whole nation to take over the streets the next day to express their opposition to the [regime] ‘monopolists’ who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat.' An outpouring of people materialized the next day in cities across the country – half a million in the streets of Tehran alone."


 * "Faced with the prospect of being swept aside by a second revolution […] Khomieni moved to impeach Bani-Sadr, forcing the two men into hiding, and launched what Abrahamian calls (p.219) 'a reign of terror unprecedented in modern Iranian history.'”


 * "With MEK members and sympathizers, and other political challengers to Khomeini, being hunted and summarily executed by the cleric’s enforcers, on June 28, 1981 a bomb killed and wounded a number of senior regime clerics. According to the Reuters dispatch in the New York Times on June 30, 1981, the authorities initially blamed the 'Great Satan' (the US); Abrahamian (p.220) noted that the regime also suspected 'SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime.' The Nationalist Equality Party […] claimed credit for the attack, according to the Times story. The pro-Soviet Tudeh part was also suspected. According to the Times account, 'a note had been found saying the Forghan group […] had staged the attack…' Within days, the regime shifted its story and blamed the MEK. Throughout its 30 years of underground armed resistance the MEK habitually issued communiqués taking credit for its actions against the regime, yet it never claimed responsibility for the June 28, 1981 bombing."


 * "These [MEK’s] activities reflect two characteristics that do not fit the mold of counterterrorism analysis: first, the violence was targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc; and second, all these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between the MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs. [...] A terrorist group is by nature prone to gratuitous, indiscriminate violence, and is content – even eager – to harm innocents. The MEK’s record, however, suggests a different ethical calculus."


 * This should also be included in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would note that MEK's involvement in Hafte Tir bombing and Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is disputed (one of many claims) - and in any event the first is a regime affiliated political organization and the second is military target. Civil servants are also a regime target. None of the assertions above (2 of which are clearly disputed) are convincing regarding civilian targets. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all politicians in the Hafte Tir bombing were statesmen or members of the current government. Nuclear scientists assassinated by MEK were NOT members of the military. Some of them were academics with no ties to government or the military at all. Read Assassination of Masoud Alimohammadi where it talks about his political views to see for yourself. The guy was closer to opposition than to the state. Also, as mentioned here an independent source disputing MEK's involvement in the assassination of nuclear scientists is yet to be found. As for Hafte Tir bombing there are pretty strong sources confirming MEK's involvement:
 * "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
 * "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
 * "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.


 * I encourage you to find similar sources that deny MEK's involvement in that bombing incident.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of cases were MEK violently killed civilians only for they probable sympathy towards the government or only because their targets had been beard or wearing Chador (signs of being religious, respectively for men and women). You can see examples of MEK's child killings here and here. There are some more sources on this:
 * Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge
 * Terrornomics by Routledge
 * So, saying in the lead that MEK only targeted governmental targets is just giving undue weight to the claim. -- M h hossein   talk 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that Khoemeini and the clerical regime blamed the MEK for all sorts of things, some of which have been confirmed by the MEK and some of which amount to allegations without evidence.

About Kazemita’s sources: even though they they have some issues including a few inaccuracies (such as death toll count in the June 28, 1981 IRP bombing), they all acknowledge that the MEK’s targets were Iranian officials (the part that Kazemita didn’t include in his quotes above for some reason).

About Mhhossein’s sources: The first two links are Tehran based government advocacy websites. The Terrornomics source cites Sandra Mackey’s “The Iranians” as its source for this claim, who in her book says about the 1981 bombing :



This is not equivalent to "targeting civilians", also confirmed by the following authors:

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. :

Struan Stevenson :

Ervand Abrahamian :

Ronen Cohen :

MEK leader Masoud Rajavi : Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on! Are you asking us to act based on Rajavi's "pledge"? Here's Wikipedia! Moreover:


 * The portion quoted from "Terrornomics" is exactly supporting that MEK targeted civilians.
 * Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
 * There's a wrong link of Cohen's.
 * I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
 * As for the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements." So, please come back with a an academic and neutral source! Note that I already presented two sources saying "Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" and that MEK's operations included "killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people." -- M h hossein   talk 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I would have thought the 6 sources provided in my previous post all passed WP:RS and clearly stated that the MEK did not target civilians. Here’s one more:




 * If thinks all these are not enough, I can look for more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is in dispute that the Islamic regime is not a reliable source about their political opponents. El_C 21:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly . And we all know David Gold, Eileen Barker, NBC news, and Haarz are not in any way related to the Islamic regime and yet they all confirm MEK targeted ordinary people.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of the two books I provided here is related to/by Iran? -- M h hossein   talk 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "David Gold" (Terrornomics): quotes Sandra Mackey, who does not say the MEK targeted civilians : "Converting the Islamic Republic’s loss into political rhetoric, Khomeini held the Muahedin-e Klhalq responsible… When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Mujahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and Revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them."


 * "Eileen Barker": author is actually Massoud Banisadr, another former MEK member whose published works focus exclusively on attacking the MEK. His observations are far, far from neutral analysis and UNDUE. We have, nevertheless, included some of his views in the article, but they should not be the determining factor of a major claim based on lack of neutrality.


 * "NBC News": is the only source that says that two "U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group". Haaertz contradicts this, saying "Though never backed up with evidence, this sensational accusation was frequently repeated to justify the group's terror designation in the lead-up to the delisting." Because there isn't evidence, the MEK have been treated as suspects. (Haaretz just quotes NBC).

I have started a RfC below about the allegation concerning the MEK targeting civilians. About the nuclear scientists, the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists already describes the MEK as suspects, so we should do the same here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's you're respond:
 * Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge
 * Terrornomics by Routledge
 * Living in hell
 * Willing to take a look at it? Please note my comment on how the two major sources provided by Stefka Bulgrai (books by Bloomfield and Stevenson) are not neutral and should not be given UNDUE weight. -- M h hossein   talk 18:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that MEK sympathetic sources are, for our immediate purposes here, problematic. El_C 18:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sympathetic sources (like the "Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Masoud Banisadr), as well as self-published sources (like the "Living in hell"), both of which Mhhossein provided above, should be avoided. We can do a deeper analysis of sources supporting the claim that the MEK did not target civilians as I don't see issues with most of the them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Living in Hell' maybe subject to negotiation but 'Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements' is edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge, so can't be simply discredited. Please note that, as per WP:ONUS "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." -- M h hossein   talk 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Defending a self-published book and some writings by Massoud Banisadr (an ex-MEK member that dedicates the whole of his work to attack the MEK) won't get us far in our quest to avoid sympathetic sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * stop making personal attacks. Did I ever commented on your using the sources by Bloomfield and Stevenson? While we know that both were sympathetic sources? -- M h hossein   talk 12:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute C
McCloskey guesses! Soltani was recruited by Iran. My evaluation of this content is that McCloskey's view is a minor viewpoint that can hardly be considered as reliable enough and hence its usage for describing a BLP is not recommended. I think, this defamatory content should be kept out of the article unless there's consensus over its inclusion. -- M h hossein   talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find another RS to verify the claim about Soltani! Why do we devote space to a person who was not a key member or playing role in key event(s) belongs to MEK, So I agree with Mhhossein.Saff V. (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSN response on 4 May 2019: "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf"." Alex-h (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? That's not the last say in the world, specially when only 2 users have participated the discussion (including me). See my response. -- M h hossein   talk 17:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We go to RSN to get non-involved editors to comment on the reliability of the source. The source was presented at RSN properly and neutrally, and Francois Revere said it was ok for inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He did not respond to my objections. That's why the source is still disputed. -- M h hossein   talk 13:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: Your edit summary reads "McCloskey source was approved at RSN" while RSN is not for "approving edits" and that no consensus was built there. Why are you repeatedly reverting this disputed BLP content without trying to build consensus (as ONUS demands?). (notifying El_C). -- M h hossein   talk 12:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry to keep pinging you, but as one of the few admins that has had some involvement here, it seems suitable to ask you. Mhhossein objected this source, so I took it to RSN, where the only experienced editor to comment was user:François Robere, who responded "While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf." I added the source back to the article based on this feedback, but Mhhossein continued to object/revert the inclusion. I feel like I'm missing a part of the puzzle here. Why is this allowed to happen? What could have I done on my side to make this any better? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you launch a proper RfC about this. El_C 21:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What you could have done better User:Stefka Bulgaria, was to choose a middle ground rather than pushing on your own point of view. That is the only solution to avoid edit wars. Previously, I had tried that when trying to include an RSN approved content about sexual fantasy interviews in MEK camps and your camp kept reverting it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit] because the explanation does not guarantee inclusion. There should be consensus over inclusion. The onus is on those who wish to include.Saff V. (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You proposed starting a RFC; But the RFC should be over inclusion of this disputed content attributing a defamatory content to a BLP. As I have repeated elsewhere, the ONUS for including a disputed content is on those who wish to include the content. Moreover, per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Please let me know if I'm wrong. -- M h hossein   talk 12:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe take it to BLPN, or try to explain what you perceive as the outstanding BLP issues in a more concise way. Sorry, I'm just spread a bit thin lately. El_C 17:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: You're welcome and sorry for the belated response, I'm not sure if BLPN would be suitable for this case, since the board is usually for the "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." I'll do it, though, if you demand. As for the explanation, I'm asking for removal of this content since:
 * The edit was introducing a libelous material into the article. I'm not repeating the content here, please see the diff.
 * The source used for this defamatory content is 'International Committee In Search of Justice' which, according to its website, is "an informal group of EU parliamentarians to seek justice for the Iranian democratic opposition". ISIJ is now "a non-profit NGO in Brussels" having members including from "other dignitaries!!!" This is certainly a questionable source, specially when it comes to BLP related contents.
 * The source is citing McCloskey, a former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf, making it even more questionable.
 * This is while, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE demands using "high-quality secondary sources" and per this policy, "material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". No clue is provided for the defamatory content, it's just there in the source and now it is used in Wikipedia. That's why I request removing this BLP related content for now. -- M h hossein   talk 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 20:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but former U.S. Colonel Leo McCloskey testifying about Soltani’s connection with Iran’s Quds force (a branch of Islamic Revolutionary Guards) is considered "defamatory"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing further about it, then yes, it's a problem. But feel free to submit to BLPN — I'll go with whatever is decided there. El_C 21:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the BLPN outcome, what do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems mixed. Anyway, I would err on the side of caution, unless we have decent secondary sources reporting about this testimony. El_C 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute D
Regarding Alex-h's edit, unlike what Alex-h claims in the edit summary, the lead does not talk about MEK killing prime minister, president and congress members. These were important acts of terrorism performed by MEK and are worth mentioning explicitly rather than summarizing as "MEK killed officials". Killing officials could be mistaken for killing regular soldiers, police officers or government employees. Assassinating the president and prime minister and half of the congress is a big deal and is due to be mentioned in the lead, specially when it is covered by an independent secondary source such as Guardian. This is a crucial part of MEK's history.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See Stefka's post in "Dispute B".Alex-h (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comments here & here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Only WP:DUE confirmed events should be included in the lede of a controversial article that's already too long as it is. Disputed events can be described in the body with context and counter-arguments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are yet to show any independent source that denies MEK's involvement in Hafte Tir Bombing or their role in assassinating nuclear scientists.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Plenty of RSs in Hafte Tir bombing explaining this:




 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute E
Saying IRI is "known" to capture and torture MEK members is a big deal. Saying some one is known for something needs a reliable source and none of the cited sources support this claim.-- M h hossein   talk 12:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you see the cited sources for this edit? As I have already said, advocacy sources such as and un-attributed report are used to conclude a fact. I recommend removing this disputed content. --  M h hossein   talk 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what the argument is about. El_C 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: Can you elaborate on that? Do you think every thing is right with that? -- M h hossein   talk 13:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion at this time. El_C 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: I've put much time on making this section to organize the major disputes. So, what should be done? Commencing an endless discussion with no un-involved input? who's going to help with resolving the disputes? -- M h hossein   talk 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are dispute resolution avenues to help you gain uninvolved input into content disputes. El_C 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: There's no dispute over whether or not the material is suitable for inclusion. I say the sources even don't support such a level of assertion. -- M h hossein   talk 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to learn what other editors think. If consensus can be shown, I'd be willing to edit the protected page to that (whichever) effect. El_C 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: They are watching our discussion and don't have to say anything, since their version is safely locked (please don't link to Wrong Version). I showed multiple users saying the sources are not supporting the claim and while the policy saying "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" you're actually asking me to do the reverse. -- M h hossein   talk 19:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to do anything. But, indeed, a lack of participation from those who support the other version may lead me to revert the protected page to your version. Time will tell. El_C 19:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources supporting the claim that the IRI has kidnapped and tortured MEK members. These all meet WP:RS, so not sure what the issue is here:
 * "The Iranian regime, however, launched an astounding demonizing and Disinformation campaign against the MEK. Iran's agents in the Intereior Ministry kidnapped MEK members while others discuntinued the government's allocation of food rations, medicine and fuel for residents of Ashraf City contrary to all Islamic and Iraqi traiditions.
 * "A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI [MEK], both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.
 * "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."
 * "The siblings were tortured in front of each other and repeatedly threatened with execution... Farzad was a nonviolent activist and supporter of the resistance group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), best known in the West for revealing details of the regime’s theretofore hidden nuclear program... "They wanted me to confess to crimes that I had not committed,” Farzad said. They wanted him to publicly renounce the PMOI (also called Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran. “They told me, ‘You come and do an interview against the PMOI, the MEK, and the NCRI,’ ” he said. “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.”


 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, came your comment after the warning. Anyway, your sources include claims by three people allegedly poisoned and tortured, an out of the ark source, i.e. Abrahamian's book, saying MEK made attacks for "imprisoning, and torturing political activists" (which should not be taken equivalent to saying Iran imprisoned, and tortured MEK members), a report by an advocacy group which, at best, can't be used un-attributed just like the report by the U.S. house of representatives saying "Iran's agents in the Intereior Ministry kidnapped MEK members". Come on, none of the above content can be used for concluding a fact like that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" with such a level of assertion. -- M h hossein   talk 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Among all the sources mentioned by Stefka, I only find Ervand's book reliable, in which there is no discussion of kidnapping MEK families. In fact, Masoud Rajavi's son was among the survivors of IRI's raid to Mousa Khiabani's safe-house, but the ended up growing up freely with his grandfather and leaving the country after all. --Kazemita1 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to delay in response! I have to note that there is a difference between MEK's family which is our subject and political activities that have nothing to with our discussion but most of Stefka's source belongs to it. Also Congressional Record is as a reliable source for opinion (at that date), not as a reliable source for a fact OR Congressional Record is not a record of facts, it's a record of what was said. All in all above sources cannot support The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.Saff V. (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Really? I could have sworn all these passed WP:RS and all describe torture or kidnapping of MEK members or sympathizers by the IRI. I browsed and found more:


 * "The killing was ordered by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who became Supreme Leader of Iran after the revolution. It was relentless and efficient. Prisoners, including women and teenagers, were loaded onto forklift trucks and hanged from cranes and beams in groups of five or six at half-hourly intervals all day long. Others were killed by firing squad. Those not executed were subjected to torture. The victims were intellectuals, students, left-wingers, members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK), other opposition parties and ethnic and religious minorities. Many had originally been sentenced for non-violent offences such as distributing newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations or collecting funds for prisoners' families, according to a report published by Amnesty International, an NGO, in 1990." (The Economist)


 * "Thousands of people suspected of belonging to the Mujahedin, and also to leftist opposition groups, were arrested and sent before the Revolutionary Courts... In order to obtain the desired confession, torture was routine." (BBC)


 * "During the early morning hours of January 24, 2011, Evin prison authorities hanged Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for the crime of moharebeh because of their alleged ties to the banned Mojahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK)... During several interviews with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Kazemi's wife informed the group that interrogators had tortured her husband and kept him in solitary confinement for more than two months after his September 2009 arrest in order to force him to confess to the charges, but that he had refused to do so. Authorities failed to notify the prisoners' family members or lawyers prior to executing them. (Human Rights Watch)


 * Ervand Abrahamian's Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran shows a chart of MEK and Marxist death tolls in Iranian prisons during the 1980s that says "Includes those executed by firing squad and hanging, but excludes those killed in armed confrontations and under torture. (University of California Press)


 * If they were lucky, Mojahedin were arrested and put in prison. Torture and firing squad came later (Routledge)

Now that I've found these other RSs, I believe they should also be included in the article. If thinks thinks all these are not enough, I can look for more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for kidnapping and torturing MEK members may be, but their families no. The edit shown above by Mhossein (currently in the article) asserts kidnap and torture for MEK family members as well. That has to be corrected. Besides, "known" is a strong word. You guys never tolerate anything close to this no matter how many sources confirm MEK's assassination records in Iran; instead you change it to "According to ...". --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I found this:
 * "documenting and investigating the crimes, including the extrajudicial executions carried out in 1988, as well as the ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims’ families... Amnesty International’s focus on one of the most heinous chapters of state violence in Iran’s recent history is further prompted by the ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about the extrajudicial execution of political dissidents in the 1980s"
 * "According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these Intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution.
 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I, personally, found the latest content contained in the sets of sources presented directly above, quite compelling. El_C 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will start moving some of these quotes/sources into the mainspace (as far as I can see, these sources here are neither MEK nor IRI sympathetic).

Dispute F
While, I no longer push for including the "sexual fantasy confession" in the sexual abuse section, I still think it is worth mentioning in the article. One candidate section could be the human rights abuse section. There are at least two independent sources that mention this and it makes me believe it is due for inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Votes from independent contributors of WP:RSN confirm the reliability of the source for the assertion, although mention that it is not sexual abuse.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "sexual fantasy confession" is remarked by numerous sources and ex-members. -- M h hossein   talk 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This case is open since long ago and there's no comment on this. What action do you think should be taken? -- M h hossein   talk 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Dispute G
As far as I am concerned, when an incident is so notable that has an article in the Wikipedia, it should be due for inclusion in the lead. Secondly, it is important to include it because in a way MEK broke its promise to USA after its ceasefire in 2003. --Kazemita1 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With Confirming Kazemita1's comment, why was the well-sourced material by haaretz removed? when the claim is supported by RS, it would stand as a fact! Isn't it? Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See MA Javadi's RfC post: "A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” so it is a difficult assertion. In Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists the MEK is mentioned as suspect, not as confirmed responsible." Alex-h (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and we can say in the lead that MEK is suspected to be involved in the assassination of the Iranian scientists. -- M h hossein   talk 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We call the content disputed when some deny and some confirm it. Here, We have more than one independent source that confirms MEK's involvement, but no independent source is yet to be found that denies MEK's involvement in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The third official mentioned in the NBC article is neutral, saying I neither deny nor confirm. As a matter of fact, NBC's conclusion on the matter is quite clear as the title reads Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News. If we don't find any source that denies MEK's involvement in the matter, it should be mentioned as confirmed. However, if we find a disputing source we can then use the word suspected.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MA Javadi already included this in the RfC below:


 * Considering the active active disinformation campaign against the MEK, only concretely confirmed data should be included in the lede. Complex allegations can be included in the body, along with context and counter-arguments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * NBC and Haartz are not part of misinformation against MEK. They are independent reliable sources. I do not recall I ever appealed to Iranian officials to prove a point in any of my edits on this article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The use of blogs and opinion pieces in this article
Moving conversation from here to this TP:


 * Read the sources you're trying to include: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982 (it's in the URL, blog). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you should carefully read this Stefka. From WP:RSOPINION:

A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. --Kazemita1 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC) --- I am confirming that The National Interest piece counts as a reliable source. You may take it to RSN to triple check, but it would probably be a waste of your time. El_C 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We've had a number of discussions about using blogs and opinion pieces in this problematic article:, , , (etc...) This is not your average Wiki article as there appears to be lots of disinformation taking place about this subject. We already have numerous difficulties using established and published reliable sources, using blogs would turn this into a disaster. This is a highly controversial topic, not your average article, so we need RSs here. "The National Interest" is reliable, but this particular article is a blog. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's written by a a contributing editor at the National Interest, and is published in standard news article format — I don't see how it's reliability is in question, aside from the word blog being in the url. El_C 23:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not considering that the article is writtern by Paul R. Pillar? -- M h hossein   talk 13:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * just to understand this process, have we reached consensus here to include this back into the article at this time? Mhhossein already included it back in. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I evaluated that your removal lacked substance. But feel free to take it to RSN for a 2nd opinion. El_C 15:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for clarifying. Would then this blog by the National Interest written by Ilan Berman also be considered RS? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Affirmative. El_C 15:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget to make proper attributions and avoid saying challenging materials as facts, specially those in contradiction with the major views. -- M h hossein   talk 17:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Does it support or not?
Do you agree that these sentences PMOI relations with the clerics worsened throughout 1980 and 1981. Ayatollah Khomeine refused to allow MASUD Rajavi to run in January 1980 presidential elections because the PMOI had boycotted a referendum on the Islamic republican constitution. On June 20, 1981, the POMI held a major anti-khomeini demonstration that turned into an armed confrontation in which the PMOI was badly defeated from this source support this sentence ...This created conflicts with Ayatollah Khomeini... from lede section. This refers to this sentense: After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,which led to Khomeini preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.

By the truth, I don't agree.In addition, another cited source doesn't support the material.Saff V. (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have in lede section because Khomeini didn't let Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members run an office in the new government, the conflicts were created between MEK and Khomeini. I think the source doesn't support it when I read the source. Boycotting a referendum by MEK or running demonstration against Khomeini is important to point that is not mentioned in lede following making the conflict. Am I clear right now?Saff V. (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC about the death tolls in the lead
This RfC was archived and "Consensus has been determined that the death tolls should be removed." Removing death tolls per RfC consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual abuse
These edits were included back into the "Allegations of sexual abuse" section:



Can someone explain how this constitutes "sexual abuse"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't a forced hysterectomy mean sexual harassment? She did that by force not her willing.Saff V. (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * She "avoided being sexually abused" means she had to protect herself against abuses which means there were some people trying to abuse her. -- M h hossein   talk 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which means she was not allegedly "sexually abused". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , The Answer is Right Under Stefka's Nose, but he urge to deny above statement or forcing Mek's member to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders are the example of sexual abuse and is trying to remove them.Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When you write in an encylopaedia that there was sexual abuse, there needs to have been some sexual abuse involved. "Avoiding sexual abuse" is not part of being "sexually abused". "Forced hysterectomy" is also not sexual abuse. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No women need to protect herself against sexual abuse where there's no threat! -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But that threat does need to be acted upon in order for it to constitute sexual abuse — otherwise, it can be precautionary. That is to say, there can be instances where one does feel they need protection from sexual abuse where no such potential actually exists. But that's all in the abstract. There's no sexual component to a forced hysterectomy — I would classify it as reproductive abuse. The sexual fantasies confessions probably does count as sexual abuse, however. El_C 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @El_C Thanks for responce, How about HR violation? Can't we consider the sexual fantasies confessions in front of commanders publicy as a Human right violations?Saff V. (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but sexual abuse is a human rights violation, by definition, wouldn't you say? El_C 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thoght that it would be a sexual abuse but if you don't agree with that, I can wrote about the sexual fantasies confessions of MEK's member in to HR violation of article,Can't I?Saff V. (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My own opinion, again, is that it probably is sexual abuse, even if there is no physical coercion. But it's up to other participants to decide if it is or isn't that. I'm already having an undue influence by even expressing my own view, in this instance (though, in fairness, I was pinged). In principle, though, my own personal view should have little influence on these content decisions. But that is often a challenging tightrope to tread. El_C 05:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whlie the ony objection for this edit belongs to Stefka, @Stefka Bulgaria would you provide rational grounds to convince us?Saff V. (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If Sexual abuse is human rights violation, a good solution would be to include all this in the HR violation section. Barca (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We're giving a name to something that doesn't properly describe it. Last time I checked, "sexual abuse" involves some kind of sexual contact. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In contrast to YOUR definition of sexual abuse, "non-contact sexual abuse" is also defined and used in the literature (see, and ). So I concur with others saying it's some sort of sexual abuse. --  M h hossein   talk 15:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, see Sexual abuse: By Wikipedia's own definition, the allegations pointed out here do not qualify as "Sexual abuse". About the sources you provided, see also WP:DUEWEIGHT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did you just labeled those academic sources (notably, ) as having undue weight and are just trying to use Wikipedia despite Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Did I get it right? -- M h hossein   talk 13:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of trying to parse ourselves whether a certain set of actions are "sexual abuse" - do we have sources using this terminology? Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you've read the previous comments! I already provided two academic sources. -- M h hossein   talk 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria, every one knows wikipedia is not Rs!Please try to convince us, if you cannot, I will use BarcrMac's suggestion or restore the material.Saff V. (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read the prior discussion - I see academic sources on sexual abuse - e.g. The Harm of Contact and Non-Contact Sexual Abuse: Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Health in a Population Sample of Swiss Adolescents - but to use them on MEK would be WP:SYNTH. Do we have academic sources describing MEK's actions as sexual abuse? Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you might have missed the first comment. It's already documented; The victim is reported as saying "she avoided being "sexually abused"". -- M h hossein   talk 14:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have a WP:RS stating this in its own voice, as opposed to quoting former members in an interview? Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually we are not in need of such a source thanks to the section title being on "allegation"s. -- M h hossein   talk 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a whole disinformation campaign by former members recruited by the IRI against the MEK. Considering this, we should only include reliable information in this article, and as such, "allegations" (specially by former members) has no place here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By providing RSes, It is confirmed there is non-Contact Sexual Abuse. @Stefka, I cannot accept your previous comment. Why do you think that Zahra Moini's saying supported by the guardian, has no place in the article? Are you able to confirm her saying were published under the IRI pressure against the MEK? Is there any opposite opinion to restore this edit?Saff V. (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I second Icewhiz's concern. If we have WP:RS stating this in their own voice (as opposed to former members in an interview), then we'd have something here. Barca (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: We can't act based on your own personal concerns regarding those campaigns. By the way, why aren't you concerned about MEK's online soldiers and possibly plenty of Heshmat Alavis promoting MEK's propaganda? @Barca: Every thing is attributed and reliable sources are used to reflect those interviews, so there's absolutely no concern. -- M h hossein   talk 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: why so much emphasis on including all these derivatives of human rights violation, sexual harassment, etc.? Why not stick to the most significant points and leave it at that? Barca (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You speak as if "sexual abuse" is something we should ignore! I don't think it can be a good idea, since we need to abide by the narrations provided by the reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please read my message again? I don't believe I said we should ignore "sexual abuse". I asked "why so much emphasis on including all these derivatives of human rights violation, sexual harassment, etc.? Why not stick to the most significant points and leave it at that? Barca (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with sticking to the most important and encyclopedia worthy things, though I don't find these quotes to be non-significant though we should care not to add every single claim! -- M h hossein   talk 13:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for whether or not the enforced public confession of sexual thoughts constitutes 'sexual abuse', which some users here agreed it does, I tried to find sources making the connection. I'm listing few examples of my findings:
 * "Sexual harassment is specifically defined as unwanted sexual advances, or visual or verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature."
 * "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment...:
 * Verbal sexual abuse can include sexual threats, sexual comments about the person's body, lewd or suggestive comments, and inappropriate discussions."
 * So, enforcing someone to detail his/her sexual fantasies, which is of sexual nature, can certainly be labeled as 'sexual abuse'. -- M h hossein   talk 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what Barca is trying to say is that Allegations of sexual abuse is plenty, specially these being "allegations". Allegations of "verbal sexual abuse" (and the rest) is pushing a POV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Plenty? not really. Despite the sources, do you have any fair objections against adding the sentence on 'confession of sexual fantasies' in the source's voice? -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing sources. Stefka Bulgaria, Can you explain why Allegations of "verbal sexual abuse" (and the rest) is pushing a POV?Saff V. (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the political opposition to the IRI, not about sexual harassment and its variants. I agree that we should stick to the main points and that's plenty. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Every one just see the argument; "This is an article about the political opposition to the IRI"!!! This article is on MEK and sexual abuse of members by MEK is an inseparable part of MEK's history. Do you have anything more to add? -- M h hossein   talk 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is what you appear to try to emphasise to the last very detail and allegation; what I'm saying is that these are trivial allegations. You object to include what the group advocates politically, but want to emphasize unconfirmed allegations of sexual harassment? (when there is already a section on "allegations of sexual abuse"?). This is pushing a POV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the section is featured with 'allegation' qualification. Verbal/physical sexual misconduct is what most of the ex-members and reliable sources are talking about, so it merits having a separate sub-section. Also, you're not prohibited from adding counter arguments if there are reliable sources supporting them. I'm still waiting for a fair objection against inserting 'enforced public confession of sexual thought' in the section, despite the sources I just provided. -- M h hossein   talk 12:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Barca, no need for further emphasis on "including all these derivatives of human rights violation, sexual harassment, etc.", sticking to the most significant points per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the subject of our dispute here. Btw, 'enforced public confession of sexual thought' is of the most significant points reliable sources mention when writing on MEK. -- M h hossein   talk 06:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Enforced public confession of sexual thought', which is an allegation, is not a significant contribution, we keep the important points only to avoid creating a POV problem. Barca (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think your opinion is needed. As you know this discussion is related to the allegations of sexual abuse for Zahra Moini and enforced public confession of sexual thought. Mhhossein provided sources to confirm they are an example of sexual abuse. But Barca and Stefka claim that such Allegations are not significant and have POV issue because this article is about the political opposition to the IRI. Really is writing about sexual abuse of MEK not important? while reliable sources support two material and there is no undue weight, how it can be pov pushing? Thanks  Saff V. (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that this article is about the MEK and should cover all facets related to it — including but not limited to distortions of self-criticism that may veer toward sexual abuse. That does not mean that my opinion can be used to enforce content decisions by fiat, however. El_C 08:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate for the response but I am sorry I can not get your mean by "not limited to distortions of self-criticism that may veer toward sexual abuse"?Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I see the confession of sexual thought to be: a distortion of self-criticism — a practice which (pardon the pun) I am critical of, anyway. El_C 09:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stefka Bulgaria, at first, said "(...) "sexual abuse" involves some kind of sexual contact." Then, when I provided sources on "non-contact sexual abuse", he referred us to the definition by Wikipedia (OMG!!!) and mentioned WP:DUEWEIGHT! To further prove that 'enforced confession sexual thoughts' is considered as 'sexual abuse', I provide more sources. This time, Stefka Bulgaria, found a new objection; he said inserting the 'enforced public confession of sexual thoughts' was pushing POV and this matter is not important. What more objections would be created in future? How lengthy the discussions should become? -- M h hossein   talk 18:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also have made objections. Barca (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was talking about fair objections. You said the thing was not important, which is already proved to be baseless given the amount of coverage by sources. There are numerous sources talking about it. -- M h hossein   talk 12:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See this comment where I have elaborated on why your objection is not fair enough. -- M h hossein   talk 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein won't allow to include what the MEK currently advocates politically, but wants to include allegations of unconfirmed verbal abuse. Including all these unconfirmed allegations keeps adding to the POV issue in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * unconfirmed verbal abuse?! it is supported by The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda book.As WP:NPOV demands,All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so where is the POV pushing with inserting the confession of sexual thought?Saff V. (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment by Stefk Bulgaria is clearly showing he has no fair and substantiating objection against inclusion of the 'enforced public confession of MEK members' sexual thoughts' in it's related section. I have no idea how adding a pro-MEK POV to the lead could be equivalent to the adding a well covered text to it's due section. -- M h hossein   talk 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally to the above, a mysterious IP already took this to RSN, where an uninvolved editor determined these allegations were not sexual abuse. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is not important for us since RSN is not devised to determine whether or not something is sexual abuse or like, specially when there are plenty of academic sources saying it's indeed sexual abuse. -- M h hossein   talk 08:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the RSN discussion that this is not sexual abuse. Barca (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of disagreement or like. Given these concrete sources clearly saying those "sexual confessions" are counted as sexual abuse, your disagreement is not applicable. -- M h hossein   talk 04:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)