Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 15

Peaceful(?) demonstration
The lead describes the 20 June, 1981 Iranian protests as being "peaceful" which is just POVish. There are other reliable sources saying otherwise: So, using "peaceful" in the lead is just lending undue weight to a POV. -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Your sources don't say why riots turned "bloody", could it be because the "the government violently confronted the rallies"?:
 * 


 * 


 * 
 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was brought in WP:YESPOV that A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.So without considering why sources describe the protest "bloody" or"peaceful", it is necessary to balance all viewpoints not removing one or opposite opinions. Also, I think that it is a disputed subject, is it really need to mention it in the lede section?Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need for Wiki-lawyering, Stefka's sources say the protest started peacefully until the government opened fire on protesters. Barca (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and Stefka Bulgaria knows this well and as El C said, these MEK-sympathetic sources are "for our immediate purposes here, problematic". Also, since when do we interpret "revolutionary resistance" as "peaceful"? That's simple, if there's controversy over whether or not the demonstration was peaceful, then we should not have this qualification in the lead. -- M h hossein   talk 14:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Isak Svensson is Professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden, and former Director of Research at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand." Ervand Abrahamian and Dr Bayram Sinkaya are also fully qualified authors that confirm the protests were peaceful until the government suppressed it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of what you said don't change the fact Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and hence is closely related to MEK. Also, that Bayram Sinkaya (WOW he's a doctor!) says something which is objected by other known authors, tells us there's a controversy over the quality of the protests. Why are you attempting to insert a controversial word into the lead? -- M h hossein   talk 13:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that Isak Svensson is the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup"? Also, how is Ervand Abrahamian and Dr Bayram Sinkaya related to the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just mistook him with Struan Stevenson, but it does not change anything since he used Abrahamian as the source for his claims. Also, Bayram Sinkaya just talks about a "revolutionary resistance" which does not mean there was a peaceful demonstration. -- M h hossein   talk 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a specific demonstration, not the "revolutionary resistance" as a whole, and we have RSs saying this was a peaceful demonstration. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also we have reliable sources describing this demonstrations as "riot", "clash" and "bloody". In fact, reliable sources are inconsistent with their descriptions of this demonstration so using the "peaceful" qualifier is against NPOV. -- M h hossein   talk 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This has already been addressed: the demonstrations, according to RSs, were peaceful until they turned bloody on account of the IRI targeting protesters. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, some of the sources I provided say otherwise, that's why we can't use "peaceful". Do you have more things to add here? -- M h hossein   talk 07:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the RS I provided earlier:


 * 


 * 


 * 

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was asking for a rational argument. Don't bludgeon the process by over repeating these wall of texts please. -- M h hossein   talk 04:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the RSs provided, there you will find the rational argument that explains the process of these protests. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the point, you had no new thing to add. We already saw the sources saying the demonstration was peaceful and I provided sources describing the demonstrations as "riot", "clash" and "bloody". -- M h hossein   talk 10:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, may have turned "bloody" when the IRI started targeting demonstrators, but, according to the sources, the protests were peaceful to start with. So when we say that the "MEK organized a peaceful protest", it reflects sources accurately. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're again relying on your OWN original research, which is not supported by the reliable sources. No, "MEK organized a peaceful protest" presents a POVish selection of sources. -- M h hossein   talk 13:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources more carefully. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what I'd like to ask you do. -- M h hossein   talk 11:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue is being discussed since 6th of July. I've provided sources describing the 20 June, 1981 Iranian protests as being "riot", "clash" and "bloody". Stefka Bulgaria, from the other hand, has 2 sources describing the protests as being 'peaceful'. I've concluded that reliable sources are not consistent in describing the protests and we should not take sides in the lead of the article by having qualifications for the protests. Would you please assess the consensus? -- M h hossein   talk 11:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops! I meant to . Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Obviously, there's a split in the scholarship (and a debate about the neutrality of some) regarding the extent to which these protests were peaceful or riotous, on the one hand. And on the other, whether Khomeini's forces treated protesters as armed combatants or themselves were engaged by "revolutionary resistance" immediately taking up armed struggle ("revolutionary" resistance" does not automatically equals armed struggle, however). Or, whether the reality is somewhere in the middle and involves facets from both scenarios. The point is that it's difficult to parse the historiography, for me at least. But you can, indeed, compromise and qualify, bringing up the split in the scholarship (like in an explanatory note). El_C 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: Thanks for the response. Firstly please see this modification to my comment. I've in fact opened this topic to show there's a "split in the scholarship". Despite this inconsistency in the sources, the lead of the article is describing the demonstrations as being peaceful and I think the lead should remain neutral when describing the incident. -- M h hossein   talk 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have here 3 reliable sources (Ervand Abrahmian, Bayram Sinkaya, and Isak Svensson) saying that the MEK organized this as a peaceful protest, which does not contradict the other sources that say these protests turned "bloody" (RSs say that the IRI attacked protesters, which may well be interpreted as "protests turning bloody"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I told you previously to avoid making misleading comments (diffs needed?). Just few sources are talking about the demonstrations "turning" violent. Also, just 2 sources are supporting that claim (Isak Svensson is referring to Abrahamian). Most of what I provided are describing the demonstrations as being violent without saying how the became so. There's a rough consensus here that the reliable sources are not consistent with describing the event and that the "split in the scholarship" should not be ignored. That's why the lead should stay away from making judgements about the status of the events. I'm going to remove to remove the qualification "peaceful" if you fail to provide a fair objection. -- M h hossein   talk 06:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The RSs provided speak for themselves, so no, there is no consensus to remove "peaceful" from the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes the sources speak for themselves and as it was shown, they're not consistent in describing the incident. Though enough sources were provided, the following clearly show the consistency better than before:
 * 
 * 
 * Among the the above sources, first one clearly talks about MEK fighters acting on 20 June 1981 and second one mentioned MEK's armed conflict at the time. -- M h hossein   talk 14:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources do not address the protests, and there are reliability issues. Do not change the live content without consensus first. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: Your revert was clearly tendentious and a misuse of the new restrictions of the article. I'm just baffled by your recent arguments; The quotes I provided directly and explicitly talk about the 20 June 1981 demonstrations and the sources are reliable enough. Taylor & Francis-2012, SAGE-2015, Abe Books-1989, Routeledge-2011, HRW. I don't need to gather all sources on the earth to convince you, since it's not what consensus building constitutes and I think your failing to substantiate your objection, as El C said, needs to be properly addressed. --  M h hossein   talk 13:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just say the the lead of the article should not take side when mentioning the 20 June 1981 protests since the sources are not consistent in describing the demonstrations. I even showed fresh sources saying it was violent and armed. While Stefka Bulgaria says the lead should describe it as 'peaceful' only because old source, Abrahamian 1992, is saying so. -- M h hossein   talk 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was it intended as an armed insurrection? Was it a demonstration that responded with armed struggle to excessive force? Was it a combination of these two scenarios? I, at least, am unable to tell. I agree, though, that modern historiography is more pertinent for our immediate purposes here than an older one. El_C 17:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to sources, the protest was not intended as an armed insurrection. In fact, sources specifically says the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful until Revolutionary guards cracked down on protesters (turning protests bloody, etc.), which matches the supported claim: "the MEK organized a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic Republic party". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is what YOU think or what you like to see in the article, not the fact supported by the sources. El_C: That's exactly the point. This complicated issue is something to be detailed in the article dedicated to the incident or briefly in the body of this article. Certainly, where ever it's suitable, the lead of this article is not a good place for having such a judgement. For my own information, do you find such a revert in response to my edit (see the edit summary), after such an amount of discussion, collaborative needing no caution? The users should be warned against making bizarre arguments given the fact that the article is under restrictions. -- M h hossein   talk 18:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Talk:20 June, 1981 Iranian protests is currently a blank page! Ordinarily, the nature of that event should be decided there and juxtaposed here. What is the longstanding text and how did it come about? El_C 19:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - it's a short article, few editors (to be more precise - mainly written by a single editor) - I wouldn't read too much into consensus (or lack thereof) in that article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: What longstanding text are you asking for? -- M h hossein   talk 11:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm asking in what context did "peaceful" come about? El_C 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: The WikiBlame is not working properly, or I would tell you when it was inserted into the lead (I'll give it another try tomorrow). But, why are you asking for this? The sources are already ploughed up and we saw the inconsistency among the sources. I don't know why we're keeping that word in the lead at the moment? -- M h hossein   talk 12:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: The WikiBlame is not working properly, or I would tell you when it was inserted into the lead (I'll give it another try tomorrow). But, why are you asking for this? The sources are already ploughed up and we saw the inconsistency among the sources. I don't know why we're keeping that word in the lead at the moment? -- M h hossein   talk 12:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources used to back this up say:
 * 


 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I already told you not to bludgeon the process by repeating your wall of texts; this is the 3rd time your over repeating those sources, which shows you have nothing new to add (for your response see my 14:47, 13 July 2019 comment). El_C: Would you please respond to my previous comment, notably to why we're keeping the word "peaceful" in the lead despite the fact that the sources are not consistent in its description? I think it's quite clear that the lead of the article should be neutral with this regard. Btw, the tool still does not work properly, though I don't know what would happen if it works. -- M h hossein   talk 14:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm unable to clearly parse the pertinent historiography, so the status of that word as constituting longstanding text (or lack thereof) actually becomes rather key. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: But I did not ask you to "clearly parse the pertinent historiography". That's not easy, I know. You already said there was "a split in the scholarship" and that "compromise" could be a good idea. Also you noted that modern historiography should be priored for this immediate purpose. Note that at the moment we're relying on a 1992 book and I showed multiple fresh sources, some of them academic works, contesting the current status of the lead. I think it's logical, under the circumstances, for the lead to be neutral with regard to the description of the incident. -- M h hossein   talk 19:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't know if I'm able to decide this by fiat. Perhaps yet another RfC can resolve this. El_C 19:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: I think this not so complex to be resolved via a time consuming RFC. This topic is opened since 6th July and Stefka Bulgaria's failure to substantiate his position without adhering to his own original research should be enough for now. Building consensus is much different than trying to convince a user who repeatedly says same thing. -- M h hossein   talk 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't disagree, and I, too, am inclined to go with the more modern historiography over an older one — yet, it still feels like too much of a content decision to make by fiat. That's why I still think revealing the edit history context to how the word "peaceful" came about is still important. El_C 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: Well, I tried to find how the word peaceful was inserted, though it was time consuming. I knew Stefka Bulgaria himself had did it, but I could not tell the precise date. The disputed content was first added by Stefka Bulgaria to the body. Days later, he inserted it into the lead without using "peaceful", wikilinked the phrase and added the word "peaceful" to the lead. It was not though without back and forth, you can see the edits between them. You can see the source being an an old book. -- M h hossein   talk 06:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for investigating, Mhhossein. I see. Well, obviously it constitutes longstanding text. That having been said, relying on older historiography when newer sources exist, is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria, are you able to provide more up-to-date sources that support the "peaceful" assertion? If not, removing "peaceful" and adding an explanatory footnote that deals with the scholarly split (vis-a-vis "peaceful" and/or lack thereof), is a compromise that's worth considering. What do other editors think? El_C 10:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Much Ado About Nothing. We don't really need to label the protest (and one could claim that due to the very severe IRI crackdown - it wasn't peaceful disregarding the protester's actions). I would rephrase "Along with then president Abolhassan Banisadr, the MEK organized a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic Republic party (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d'état)." to "The MEK organized a large demonstration against the Islamic Republic party and in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr". Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Icewhiz. Barca (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what I stated one month ago, but Stefka Bulgaria turned the discussion into a frustrating process by over repeating his non-applicable arguments. He needs to be warned against misusing the restriction of the article to avoid such "Much Ado About Nothing"s. -- M h hossein   talk 12:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Arresting two people in relation with MEK
@Stefka Bulgaria, Why do you consider the report of Iran's court published by Radio Farda as unconfirmed allegations by unconfirmed individuals? While I made my sentence with attribution.Saff V. (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The report derives IRI sources, which as we've seen, are not reliable sources for this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you show which discussion prohibits using those sources attributed? -- M h hossein   talk 10:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. Btw, if we have an "IRI" views section, then we should also have a "MEK" views section per NPOV. I'll get to work on this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What?! Stefka Bulgaria, you claim that th Radio farda is not RS. When it was asked to provide reason, you said it is better have an "IRI" views section.I cann't get your mean!Saff V. (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the report derives from IRI sources, which as we've seen, are not reliable sources for this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and I asked you once and in the case you ignored; Where on earth did they agreed IRI sources are not reliable for IRI positions attributed? -- M h hossein   talk 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and I repeat... again... :We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. Btw, if we have an "IRI" views section, then we should also have a "MEK" views section per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You picked up the report of Radio Farda with this reason, unconfirmed allegations by unconfirmed individuals because you don't count it RS. O.k. first of all, convince us why are not IR sources reliable?Saff V. (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding all POVs under one section adds to the POV issue of the article, which is not suitable here. -- M h hossein   talk 11:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If we include IRI POV in this article (and we are including IRI POV in this article), it needs to be labelled as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who said IRI POVs should be gathered under one section? -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will start a MEK POV section per NPOV, would everyone be ok with that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This will worsen the POV issue, as I explained. -- M h hossein   talk 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is any main objection with thisedit. Am I right? Another hand I am against MEK POV section. We can put every material into a related section of the article make balance and solve the POV issue.Saff V. (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we don't include MEK POV, then also we should not include IRI POV per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we either include both sides of the POV, or neither. Barca (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" as well as my edit is sefenetly relaeated to this. I can not understant this section and my edit have nothing to do with MEK POV?Saff V. (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, if there is a section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK", then there should be a section titled "MEK allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran" per NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you said above We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section and I want to add it to that section, but creating a section titled "MEK allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran" is another subject to discuss and have nothing to do with this edit.Saff V. (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stefka is trying to mix two unrelated discussion with each other. Now the section titled "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" stands on the article and every user are allowed to add to the section well-sourced material as well as I did and he reverted it but he accepted that We can perhaps include it in the "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section. In other hand he dissused about creating a section titled "MEK allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran". My edit has nothing to do with this creation and it needs another section to argue.Can I revert my edit?Saff V. (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not really following your question. El_C 13:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a dispute over whether I can insert this material or not. Stefka Bulgaria objected at the time and I think his objection was false. Can you assess the consensus please?Saff V. (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those objections, which conflate creating a parallel section with the proposed addition, do seem to be without merit. El_C 13:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The source says "The Alborz Central Prosecutor and Revolutionary Prosecutor announced the arrests of two people in Karaj in connection with the Mojahedin Khalq Organization on Monday.", so this is a claim by the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We can take their word for it, in this instance. Not everything the Islamic regime publishes is in question. El_C 14:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm - we can take their word that they arrested two people who allegedly confessed to be MEK (or Zionist/American/Saudi spies in other cases) - In as much as there was a verdict - we can say IRI sentenced to X. However, we can't say that the IRI's claims of organizational/national affiliation are correct. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ir-nla.gif

MEK support in Iran and NPOV
Saying that the MEK has no support in Iran, without also including that MEK supporters are persecuted, tortured, and executed by the Iranian regime in Iran, fails to provide a major part of why there are virtually no MEK supporters in Iran. , you reverted this edit where I tried to explain this; why? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-inserting the edit based on lack of any logical counter-argument. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. You need to prove " this is difficult to ascertain" is supported by reliable sources. Your change is a SYNTHESIS of some sources. Don't revert please.Saff V. (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are sources backing up the claim that MEK members and supporters are persecuted by the Iranian government, and Ronen Cohen addressing the MEK's popularity in Iran in connection to the government in Iran:


 * "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."


 * "The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."


 * "In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""

What is the argument against including this claim that is well backed by RSs? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "In 2017, Amnesty International reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."
 * None of the sources say: "...though this [MEK's damaged appeal in Iran] is difficult to ascertain as MEK supporters are targeted by the Islamic Republic". -- M h hossein   talk 18:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that your objection was with my paraphrasing then? I'll use Cohen's words then. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SYNTH you should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Your change was partially ok but still needed some changes. The material needs to be attributed and the sources used should be directly support the text. Don't use excess and unrelated citations and don't violate the restriction of the article. Please draft your suggestion here before inserting it into the article. -- M h hossein   talk 11:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria, definitely, your paraphrasing is not Cohen's words. "because of the nature of the government in Iran" does not mean "as MEK supporters are targeted by the Islamic Republic", It is combining material from multiple sources to reach the text which is not seen in any of them. I have to note that Cohen's words is just a possibility, "It can be said that...". According to which reason, we have to include a possibility into the lead, however other sources does not support it, they just support MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people because of their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War.Saff V. (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To avoid any conflict, I propose we include it as Cohen says it, which presents both sides of the argument: ""It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran." This solves the POV issue of just presenting one side of the argument (per NPOV), and Cohen is a reliable source. What's the problem with including this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think Cohen's POV being a "it can be said..." is enough for balancing the lead. See WP:UNDUE. -- M h hossein   talk 18:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt,Cohen is a reliable source but Cohen's words is just a possibility, "It can be said that..." and does not suit for lead.Saff V. (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If Cohen is without a doubt a reliable source, and the issue presented here seems to be with the part "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization", then this would be a good middle ground:


 * "According to sources, the MEK's presence in Iraq during the war minimized its support for the organization. According to Cohen, that claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."


 * Barca (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * for body, it is ok maybe but for lead no, we need verifiable material for lead, it is just a guess.Saff V. (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cohen guesses about the support the MEK receives in Iran, not about the nature of the Iranian government (the part that's actually missing in the lede). would you say that Barca's proposed middle ground is a fair compromise? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Coehn's POV is not just weighty enough to balance what numerous reliable sources say. -- M h hossein   talk 12:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems like a fair compromise, certainly good enough for the body — though maybe hammer something out that's less reliant just on that one source for the lead. El_C 19:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The National Interest source can be used to support the inclusion in the lead. Barca (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In what terms do you think this blog is weighty enough for our purpose here? -- M h hossein   talk 10:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * supposedly, if we want to use Cohen's word into the body, the mentioned sentence is not on page 23 of source The source was provided to me by requset in RX.Saff V. (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Saff V. - it's on the first page, see here Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This quote on the National Interest sourcesupports Cohen's quote, mainly the part about the Iranian intelligence and senior Iranian officials saying the recent uprisings in Iran have included arrests of MEK activists:

"claiming that, among other things, it [MEK] fundamentally lacks support on the Iranian “street.” For its part, the MeK rejects that assertion, noting that its long track record of “resistance” would simply not be possible without extensive domestic backing. The Iranian intelligence ministry’s announcement this spring of the arrest of several hundred MeK activists, and repeated acknowledgements by senior Iranian officials of an MeK role in the uprisings of the past year-and-a-half, lends some credence to that contention. That resistance, moreover, has clearly come at an extraordinarily high price. According to MeK officials, some 120,000 of the group’s members and supporters are estimated to have died at the hands of the Iranian regime since 1979."

would the National Interest source and Cohen's source be fine to support this in the lead?:

"According to sources, the MEK's presence in Iraq during the war minimized its support for the organization. According to other sources, that claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."

Barca (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Myself, I wouldn't bother to overqualifying it with "according to sources," but that's besides the point. How is the quote supports that passage? I'm sorry, I'm not quite seeing it. There must be more sources speaking about historical levels of support, no? El_C 19:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the sentence exists on this source, why did you refer to page 23 on that source? In addition, "according to sources" takes into account Weasel words.Saff V. (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To complete El_C's words; I should say that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". -- M h hossein   talk 12:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the following enough evidence of the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran?


 * "The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."


 * If so, would this be enough to support Cohen's statement? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Coen's passage forms the basis for an important compromise, but can you find more in the historiography to further support their position? El_C 06:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stefka Bulgaria is trying to insert the material based on his own original research; The sources on MEK's members torture make no comment on the popularity of the group so can't be taken as a basis for decision. There are multiple reliable sources saying MEK's helping Saddam with their military attacks against Iran was viewed as "treason" leading to MEK's popularity diminishing in Iran. There are probably sources linking this to MEK's killing of dozens of Iranian people. So, there should be multiple reliable sources saying otherwise. -- M h hossein   talk 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article describes the MEK receiving support from the public in Iran: "On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,00 participants, who advanced towards parliament" until it was outlawed by the IRI soon after (with MEK supporters were imprisoned, tortured, or executed by the IRI after 1981). This is what Cohen is referring to when he writes "That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran". What else do you think we'd need here to help support Cohen's conclusion? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More discussion on MEK domestic support vis-a-vis the war with Iraq. Is there anything in the historiography also touching on this point? El_C 17:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found sources that say the MEK has support of Iranians outside of Iran, but have found little else about its domestic support vis-a-vis the Iraq war that also addresses the Islamic regimes' targeting of MEK supporters in Iran. Cohen seems to be one the only author I've found making this connection, although there are plenty of RSs confirming the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran. Should this not be included? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The last comment of Stefka is absolutely SYNTH of some sources. If want to know the meaning of "the nature of the government in Iran" we have to search just in Cohen source how he supports this. In addition 1981 peaceful demonstration in Tehran, 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners and 1890 Iran Iraq war have nothing with each other unless Rs(es) illustrate a connection.Saff V. (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe launch an RfC with your proposal...? I'm feeling less confident about what to do exactly; but yes, I think the Coen content is important and should be included. El_C 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Insertion of an unsourced challenging claim
In this edit, Stefka Bulgaria inserts a challenging material into the article which is totally false and not supported by the source. He adds to the article that Khomeini ordered "the torture" of the prisoners! He needs to respond why did he insert it? -- M h hossein   talk 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you already reverted the unsourced text. Is that right? --MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, Mhhossein, you're gonna have to select section headers with greater moderation from now on. This just won't do. The entire point of assuming good faith is not only acknowledging that your opposition may have sourced something in error, but also that you, yourself, may be in error. Please reflect on that. Anyway, though I would be shocked to find out Khomeini didn't order the 1988 executions, until substantiated, that is a fair objection. Stefka Bulgaria, can you show in what way the source claims this? Please quote directly. El_C 17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember how I associated Khomeini here (there was a lot of back and forth with sources around this time about this) though this is where I may have gotten that Khomeini was associated with this:
 * 


 * 

Also, see Khomeini's order of the executions. How's this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the mentioned text says that Khomeini ordered execution not "the torture".Saff V. (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the quotes above more carefully. They clearly say that Khomeini made the order which led to torture of MEK members, which means there was no "manipulation of sources" as Mhhossein claims, which means Mhhossein is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No where in the text says Khomeini ordered to 'torture' them. Even it does not support your recent claim, i.e. "Khomeini made the order which led to torture of MEK members". Look, you should not have gone beyond what the source said. -- M h hossein   talk 13:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotes say that Khomeini ordered their execution through a fatwa, and many were also tortured as a result of this. That was what I tried to include in the article, and if you thought that passage needed to be edited, that would have been fine by me. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What you did was a clear Original Research, which is prohibited according to the policy. You inserted a challenging material which was not supported by any reliable source. -- M h hossein   talk 13:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a compromise is easy here. Just don't misattribute Amnesty vis-a-vis the torture order — only note the one about executions. El_C 13:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Picking up Bloomfield and two other sources
As it was discussed here and Someguy1221 mentioned that  Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., NYT and pages 219-220 from Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin authored by Abrahamian should be picked up from both articles Hafte Tir bombing and People's Mujahedin of Iran. Saff V. (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I suggested that this specific NYT article is only reliable for reporting official statements, and that I did not know if any text matched the point of view expressed on pages 219-220 of Abrahamian as that portion is not available in the free version. The Bloomfield source should not be used at all though, yes. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,Thanks for the comment. Can I ask you to present your opinion about this source which the only source belongs to Bloomfield in the article?Saff V. (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of source
Saff V. - why did you remove this source from the article? Barca (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As WP:V demands, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it", While the added material by you was not verifiable. I searched it but couldn't find it in Other RSes.Saff V. (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? What I added was verified by the source itself. "This widespread endorsement of regime change prompted Khamenei to acknowledge the organizational role of the MEK and the “resistance units” operating throughout Iranian society." - this is in the source, so it's verified, no? Barca (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I searched it but couldn't find it in Other RSes. In other words, just this source published it, so it is not verifiable.Saff V. (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C - sorry to bother you with this, but Saff V. removed a source and information from the article saying that it is "not verifiable" because the information is published on that source only. It would make more sense to me if Saff V. requested the information to be attributed to that source, but removed altogether as "not verifiable"? Isn't the information verified by the source itself? Barca (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the reliability of the source to comment further, sorry. El_C 11:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

POV of Kayhan
Why did you remove the published news by Kayhanof the article while I supported by RSes, Also I have the archive of Kayhan belongs to that date (October 1981) that the bus was burnt by member of MEK and could to email Anyone who wants.Saff V. (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an IRI sympathetic source. In the same way you've recently removed Bloomfield for being a MEK-sympathetic source, we should avoid IRI sympathetic sources per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologize to bother you, As you said before," Not everything the Islamic regime publishes is in question", It is needed to be included the Keyhan newspaper POV as one of the most reliable paper in Iran into the article for reporting fired bus.How many users have to say to him that IRI sources are verifiable to illustrate Iran's positions. I can not understand why Stefka considers it as "IRI sympathetic source", while Admin never said that Bloomfield is a MEK-sympathetic source, he just stated that this is a vanity publication.Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Censorship in Iran, which this source pertains to, making it an IRI-sympathetic source. If we remove MEK-sympathetic sources, as has been suggested in this Talk page, we need to remove IRI-sympathetic sources as well per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know Wikipedia articles are not a good source for confirming your claim. Why do you consider Keyan as an IRI-sympathetic source without seeing that report about burning bus by MEK?Saff V. (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Kayhan: "Hossein Shariatmadari is the editor-in-chief of Kayhan. His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader." Btw, Wiki articles tend to be backed by RSs, which is where you'll find the sources that back up Censorship in Iran, as well as the source that backs up this statement about Kayhan's editor-in-chief: . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who wrote this? Please sign your username for all comments. Anyway, beware WP:FALSEBALANCE. X-sympathetic sources can be used sometimes, depending on the context, but should generally be avoided. If they do, they should probably be qualified as x-source, known to be affiliated with... In this instance, it's better to find something that is 3rd party, or make it especially clear of the source's own affiliation. El_C 17:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is verified by another source: "a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death in October 1981 when the Mujahidin set fire to a bus in Shiraz" but Stefka removed it.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And also there are other ones YJC NEWS Agency, IRDC.Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, these are all IRI-affiliated sources. Is there something published about this in a non-IRI affiliated, 3rd party source? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @Stefka Bulgaria: You're essentially wrong. Bloomfield was not removed solely because it was MEK-sympathetic. It was actually a bogus source! See this explanation once again. Besides that, I was against using that MEK-sympathetic source to reach a conclusion in the lead.-- M h hossein   talk 12:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is one of the ironies of modern history! when a firing occurred at Shiraz, It is absolutely obvious IR news agency reported it. Do you expect that I find it in news agencies not associated with Iran? Also, could you explain how this source connected to IRI? It is another one to support the fireSaff V. (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you include the exact quote from this book? I have not been able to verify this information there. Also, isn't the publisher connected to the IRI? Can you provide more details about the publisher? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both sources belongs to Indiana University:
 * MEK terrorists set fire to bus in Shiraz killing 2 persons injuring 48. One of the dead was 7-year-old Leila Nurbakhsh, from this source
 * On the other hand, he said, a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death in October 1981 when the Mujahidin set fire to a bus in Shiraz, from this one.Saff V. (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * while I provided 3rd party source above, I have a question, when an event or crime occurred in Iran, it is common Iranian news agency reported it and we used that report in Wikipedia.Kayhan or IRDC] take accounts reliable.Why are they called "IRI-affiliated sources"? they just are news agency! aren't they?Saff V. (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the IRI have a disinformation campaign against the MEK, and the sources presented here serve the IRI (as shown with the editor of Kayhan: "His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader."), then we would help their cause of spreading disinformation about the MEK (See The IRI's disinformation campaign against the MEK). That is not to say that IRI-affiliated sources aren't reliable for a wide range of other topics, but for this one in particular, they are problematic. I think that a fair compromise would be to identify these as IRI-sympathetic sources (but, per WP:NPOV, then we should also allow MEK-sympathetic sources into the article, labelling them accordingly). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't mix issues with together while they are not be solved, our problem in the discussion is not to allow MEK-sympathetic sources into the article!Thanks for the response but I ask El C, "His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader", it doesn't confirm Keyhan is IRI-affiliated source. You have to confirm that Keyhan is anti-MEK or the author of that report is anti-MEK. Isn't it?
 * I provided other sources belongs to Indian university but it seems to me you don't pay attention to it.El C Can I revert the edit, into the article?Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Stefka Bulgaria has failed to present fair objections against using materials from your sources being and . --  M h hossein   talk 12:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The first source says "MK terrorists set fire to a bus in Shiraz". I haven't seen any other publication refer to the MEK as "MK", but what's more concerning is that I haven't been able to verify that this source pertains to "Indian University", but rather I found that it's published by Falls Church, which, if I'm not mistaken, is not a peered-reviewed publication. The second source (which I saw Saff V. requested someone access it to verify this information but received no responses) doesn't seem to allow for the text to be read. Also, the publisher seems to be Islamic Press Agency, a publisher I haven't been able to find anything about online. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the above prohibits us from using POV of Iranian papers. -- M h hossein   talk 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On 17 October 1981 in Shiraz, There was just a bur burning, so it belongs to MEK or MK. You can be sure by asking your question about the reliability of source which it was written in Google book Publisher: Research and Publication., 1981 and Original from:Indiana University, in RSN. For the second source it does n't matter the source is online or offline I provided the text to you.Saff V. (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that publisher? Can you provide links (as I did)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please go to the end of the page or do ctrl F of "Indian".Saff V. (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It says the publisher is "Research and Publication., 1981 - Iran". It then says "original from Indiana University", but that's not confirming the publisher of this work is Indiana University; rather, this seems to be the actual publisher. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * why is not confirming the publisher of this work is Indiana University while it had been written "original from Indiana University"?Saff V. (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to repeat, Can I ask you answer my question. while I provided 3rd party source above (source and source, I have a question, when an event or crime occurred in Iran, it is common Iranian news agency reported it and we used that report in Wikipedia.Kayhan or IRDC] take accounts reliable. Why are they called "IRI-affiliated sources" by Stefeka? They just are news agency! aren't they? Why I am not allowed to use this source? As I said before I have the archived page of Keyan belongs to the report of firing bus in Shiraz. Saff V. (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Kayhan, for example, is an IRI-affiliated newspaper and needs to be presented as such. I'm not sure there's anything else for me to say that I haven't already stated above. If in doubt or at an impasse, RSN also exists as a resource. El_C 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * According to my question in RSN, the sources do not support the reliability of the report. I don't think this debate needs to continue anymore. Thanks for participating in the discussion.Saff V. (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)