Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 35

Removal of the casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division
Also can you explain why you have removed "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division."? (diff). Idealigic (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because, as my edit summary reads, it promoting the POV of MEK. Who says it was heavy? -- M h hossein   talk 03:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The author of the source you used, Omar Al-Hassan, is saying that the 77 Khorassan Divission suffered heavy casualties. Why have you removed it? Idealigic (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, why did you remove the details of the causalities? -- M h hossein   talk 12:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What details of the casualties are you saying I removed specifically? Also you haven't responded to my last question, so please do. Idealigic (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

More removals by Mhhossein
- Please explain these recent removals you did

1* "On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

2* "while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

3* "In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

4* "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

5* "on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

6* "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

7* "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8* "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Also you should explain why you added back the exceptional claim - "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses.".

Also please show where this is supported - "Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded." - MA Javadi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained my edits. As for this one, you can see my edit summary; the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere, also "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department" (this quote is from the Cohen source). Why should this pro-MEK propagandistic claim be inserted into the page? As for this one, it's being discussed elsewhere. Moreover, you can see a link to my explanations in the edit summary. -- M h hossein   talk 03:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have presented each removal with a number. Please answer clearly to each one of your removals. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find Mhhossein's explanations for this. @Mhhossein: can you please explain step by step why you removed this? Idealigic (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. As far as I see, I have addressed all my edits. For instance, just ctr+f "Psychological", "Komite". Can you show where I did 1-5? -- M h hossein   talk 12:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

here is where you did 1-5. Please explain them step by step.

About points 6, 7, 8, is this your explanation? "Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". Also, can you find another reliable source talking about this so-called Komite report? So much detail was added on a claim by MEK"?

The information about "the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades"." is not repeated anywhere else in the article.

We also have MEK propaganda section in this article.

Please provide a policy based rationale explaining why you removed all this material from the article. Idealigic (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comments are really getting very annoying. You guys don't follow the comments carefully. Forty stars operation is already included. Karand and Islamabad-e Gharb is already included. The source for Latif Nusayyif Jasim's claims are Rajavi's speech. Can you find an independent source for that? You can find my explanations for the rest, including "Psychological", "Komite", in this TP. -- M h hossein   talk 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

you still are not explaining a lot of the text you removed.

1"On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

Neither the date, the additional name (“Chetel Setareh"), or the part about recapturing Mehran is already included in the article.

2"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

Why can't this be attributed to Rajavi?

3"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

Nothing about Kerand and Eslamabad being liberated from regime's troops, or about NLA destroying Iranian regime weapons and equipment is in the article.

4"According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

You have not provided an explanation for removing this.

5"on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

This is not in the article.

6"According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

Why can't this be attributed to the MEK?

7"In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8"A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Are you saying we need more than this one source (a source which you provided) to be able to add the information in 7 and 8 to the article? If so, you need to explain why you restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses." (which is only mentioned by one source).

You also still have not responded to what source is supporting "Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded.", something you restored in the article. Idealigic (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't bludgeon the process. You are repeating the old questions over and over in frustrating manner. I have already explained my edits. I told you two three days ago (see '06:47, 4 November 2020') about "Islamabad-e Gharb" and you're again repeating it. I told you multiple times that the "Psychological Welfare" claim is already mentioned in the page. Also it's not my fault you fail to understand "Operation Forty Stars", which is already included, is in fact "Operation Chehel setareh". It's not my fault you can't find "On 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal back to Iraq" in the page. As for the Komite see my '13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)' comment. As for the ""Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK..." it's MA Javadi who should explain his removal, not me (I just restored an unexplained removal of a longstanding content- though I think "the longest war" should be the source). Rajavi's claim regarding the eternal light operation is not a big deal and the New York Times source is well supporting it. For Montazeri's comment, I have no objection against the inclusion -- M h hossein   talk 07:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of deprecated words in the article
At the moment, this article uses the word "claim" more than 50 times and a glance shows that the majority of uses are illegitimate (i.e. they are not quotes). Per Manual of Style/Words to watch, I encourage editors to replace the word with unloaded terms. Pahlevun (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence campaign
This current section People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran seems redundant and a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can we summarize and shorten it? VR talk 23:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been expanding these sections with the aim of attending the WP:DUE and MEK-sympathetic sources request. Properly representing the body of sources from all sides is necessary, and since there seems to be a large amount of derogatory depiction of the MEK in the article already, then it seems that we need a similar amount of coverage about the efforts that have been made to delegitimise the MEK in the West so that appropriate weight is given to the different viewpoints.
 * I would be in favour of summarising redundancy in the article. To give proper weight to the different view points, if we shorten the propaganda/intelligence campaign against the MEK, then I propose we also shorten redundant derogatory depictions of the MEK (something that's currently excessive in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We have to mind WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "average" Western reliable source depicts MEK generally negatively. It doesn't help that they were once designated a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, I would agree with removing redundancy everywhere, both pro-MEK content and anti-MEK content.VR talk 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a fair bit of MEK-trashing in Western sources, but there are also a fair amount of reliable sources that commend the MEK. Also what Stefka pointed out, there are reports of the Iranian government running a media demonization campaign to promote the MEK as a terrorist cult in the West. I think all this needs to be in the article, but I don't think we need long paragraphs continually banging you over the head with the same information, which is what is in the article now. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: I agree with VR saying the section should not be FALSE BALANCED. Addition of POVish narrations MEK-sympathetic sources to the already oversized page, not only is a good tool to reach what you could not make via those awkward RFCs, but also is making the article full of unnecessary things. Establishing WP:DUE, more than other things, requires paying attention to high quality sources. Hence, Varesteh's claims is rarely an improvement to this page. What is it adding to the page? As for this unnecessary insertion, MEK sympathetic sources like Vidal-Quadras, Giuliani and Ereli should not be used to give weight to such a position. Neither Hamid Bahrami's nor Majid Rafizadeh's claims (who are they??? I know Bahrami is a former political prisoner!) are adding something new to the page. Though their reliabilities are highly questioned here. Also, do you think Al Bawaba is a reliable source here? As for the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report, it is known that MEK's "supporters have also hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm, to persuade members of Congress to support its cause". There are similar issues with . Also are 'verfassungsschutz' and 'english.aivd.nl' reliable? You should not just insert everything you find on the net. You can see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section. -- M h hossein   talk 12:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Blanket removal of sources
why did you blanked-remove all of the sources that Stefka added to the article pointing out to a demonization campaign by the Iran regime against the MEK?

1* "The United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, and Committee on Foreign Affairs published an enquiry on derogatory descriptions of the MEK, including "cult"-like allegations. The enquiry found that since 1979, the Iranian government had gone through "extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI", adding that for years, MOIS had conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI.""

2* "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK. On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

3* "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."

4* "In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."

5* "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

6* "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."

7* "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”

8* "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."

You also refer to the 1st source as "the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", but it seems to be a report by the U.S. Congress. The other sources also seem to meet WP:RS.

You seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK, but when someone offers a counter-view that says there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK, you blanket-remove all of it? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @MA Javadi: See my comprehensive explanations. Also, please avoid from making personal attacks ("you seem to have been adding in the article anything you can find that’s negative about the MEK" is a clear comment on me which is prohibited). Take a look at the "Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's report", you'll see it's what I said. Was it necessary to copy all of them here? -- M h hossein   talk 13:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * These sources by Dr Majid Rafizadeh, Ivan Sascha Sheehan, Joseph Adam Ereli, also the sources by Arab News, Intelligence and Security services, etc., why did you remove them? (I don't see an explanation for this in your past post) - MA Javadi (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, your "comprehensive" explanation doesn't take into account many sources you removed from the article, and this is not the first time your edit summary doesn't reflect all of the edits you made in the article. Idealigic (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Both of you: Read my comment once again please. I have tried to cover all of your questions. As for, this is simply an opinionated piece. Futhermore, Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. -- M h hossein   talk 12:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: here you appear to be in agreement that "Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia.", so your response to removing these sources does not justify their removal.


 * For instance, DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara), and he writes:


 * Ivan Sascha Sheehan is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. He writes:


 * Joseph Adam Ereli is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs] and he writes


 * For years now you have been trying to continuously add "cult" quotes to this article (despite this already being overtly covered), but you won't allow opposing POVs describing a well-financed propaganda campaign against the MEK. By doing this, all POVs (except your preferred one) are not properly weighted, but then in these RfCs you propose that "major POVs should be included based on their due weight". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to stop making accusations and personal attacks once for ever. I am not, however, going to comment on you. This would make the discussion useless and frustrating. But, if you're here to know the fact: See this and this to know about how MEK sympathetic the source is. For instance "...In contrast to Katzman, J. Adam Ereli, another MEK panelist..." and "The Thursday appearance on the panel won’t be the first time that Ereli has participated in one of MEK’s events. In July, 2014, Ereli appeared at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a coalition whose sole purpose is supporting the MEK, and praised the NCRI." Also, I already said why Rafeizadeh and Sheehan are not proper additions to this page now. Are they adding something new? Sheehan's work is already is used for saying pretty much the same thing. -- M h hossein   talk 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: there is nothing in this Wikipedia page about the $80,000 that was offered to the head of the Mackenzie Institute to label the MEK "a terrorist cult". More importantly, these sources that you removed help provide weight to opposing POVs so that when cleaning up the article for redundancy is proposed (as I have with the recent RfCs), then we are able to weight accurately sources representing both sides of arguments. Here you are removing several reliable sources from one side of the argument, but then yourself and VR protest that there is a WP:FALSEBALANCE in establishing what is WP:DUE in the article. How can we establish accurately what is WP:DUE if you keep removing all the sources from one side of the argument? (as with the previous post, I've been specific about the issue and about which sources I'm referring to, so please don't give another Straw man response). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I will reply very soon. -- M h hossein   talk 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Had you read my previous comments carefully, you wouldn't be asking these questions. I told you that a work by Sheehan "is used already for saying pretty much the same thing". Moreover, as I told you last year and this year, the source used, being an opinion piece, falls below the minimum standards as regards a reliable source. As for your comment on maintaining DUE, it seems like sophism; you can not use those questionable sources, to make a false balance. Considering the RFCs you've started recently, you are probably missing regarding DUE. Using your logic, a dozens of more reliable sources can be added saying MEK is a "cult" or like (I think you're well aware of these sources). -- M h hossein   talk 16:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Have read your previous comments attentively and indeed you have not answered various points I raised here. You are removing content backed by reliable sources that isn't in the article and your responses thus far have mainly been straw man arguments and bludgeoning. First you say opinion from scholars are ok, but here you say they are not, then you say WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims should be removed, but then insert other exceptional claims. You say we should not include MEK claims, and then want to include numerous claims from former MEK members. You are not consistent with your own wikilawyering. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". Also, can you find another reliable source talking about this so-called Komite report? So much detail was added on a claim by MEK. -- M h hossein   talk 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot see your reply to Stefka's last post here. I am curious to your answer about these issues.Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

where in your response do you address the sources about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult?

Then Stefka provides a diff where you agree to use opinions from scholars, but now you are saying "being an opinion piece, falls below the minimum standards", and remove opinion pieces from scholars. You need to explain this too.

You then say these are "questionable sources" that make a false balance: The General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD), Bundesamt Für Verfassungsschutz , The General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD) , Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen , The Baghdad Post. You need to explain how they are "questionable" sources. Idealigic (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that I agreed to use opinionated pieces? The "$80,000" source is already addressed. The Baghdad Post is an opinionated piece. AIVD sources were used to say MEK's members are targeted by MOIS. It's already mentioned multiple times. The other source is used to add an unnecessary thing over the alleged Iranian diplomat in Vienna and the EU terrorist list. The latter is also mentioned already in the page. Are they adding something new that I am missing? -- M h hossein   talk 13:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

are you not agreeing with Kazemita1 that "Opinions from scholars are considered reliable source in Wikipedia"? so why are you now saying they are not or that you didn't agree with Kazemita1's statement?

Then where in your response do you address the sources about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult? (please provide a diff). The other sources you removed are adding new information. For example, point 3 (there is nothing about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands and attempting to gather information through espionage), point 4 (there is nothing in the article about EU sanctions on Iran for the Iranian diplomat incident with the MEK), point 5 (nothing in the article about MOIS coordinating a campaign to pay politicians and public servants to portray MEK in highly negative manner). Can you please explain step by step why you removed this? Idealigic (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am getting frustrated by your harassing questions. I did not agree on using the opinionated pieces. Finally, those points are already covered, probably in other forms, e.g. "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group," and "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations" (there are still more). You can find similar things for 4 and 5.-- M h hossein   talk 04:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

these are not "harassing questions", you removed all this information and now you need to give a reasonable explanation about why you have removed them.

About using opinionated pieces, you say you did not agree to this, but didn't you recently support to use this opinionated source by the theglobepost?

About the information you removed with reference to the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult, you are saying this is the same as "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group," and "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations"? But none of this talks about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult.

Also none of those quotes talk about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands, or about EU sanctions on Iran for the Iranian diplomat incident with the MEK, or about MOIS coordinating a campaign to pay politicians and public servants to portray MEK in highly negative manner.

Am I wrong? If this information is in the article somewhere, please say where (the passages you listed do not talk about these things). Idealigic (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have taken this to ANI for review. Idealigic (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ANI? Probably more eyes should be attracted on my report of the pro-MEK editors always wandering around the page. Anyway, to show how baseless your comments are; For my so-called support see "The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement." As for the $80,000 source, did you even 'ctrl+f'ed "Sheehan"? Then check out "There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." As for the arrestings in EU in 2018 yuo can ctrl+f "2018 Belgian police" and check out the whole paragraph. Did I miss something (please come back only after having checked the previous comments carefully)? -- M h hossein   talk 12:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein:You first tried to use The Globepost to support that the MEK had been in operation Shining sun. You also asked at WP:RSN, and you were told that this was not a good source. You trying to use this opinion piece to support that the MEK had been in operation Shining sun but at the same time saying we should not use opinion pieces is an example of the general problems with your answers. The same thing with the information about the $80,000 offered to write that the MEK is a terrorist cult, which describes a specified event that is not in the article. Also like I said before, the content about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands, or about EU sanctions on Iran for the Iranian diplomat incident with the MEK, or about MOIS coordinating a campaign to pay politicians and public servants to portray MEK in highly negative manner is not in the article. I have been trying to get you to answer about this for weeks. Now please answer at ANI so others can decide about your answers. Idealigic (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the Adoring nanny's comment? He's certainly an involved user. Anyway, I don't say 'The Globepost' SHOULD be used since the disputed content is verified by at least another source. Also, check People's Mujahedin of Iran out before bludgeoning the talk page more than this. You can see enough materials regarding "Iran Intelligence services targeting MEK" and its using of "a network of agents who have defected from these organizations." For the EU sanction I could find this Reuters source, However it also includes "The move, although in part symbolic since one of the men is in prison in Belgium" which is necessary for maintaining NPOV. I am seeing the info on this alleged plot is found elsewhere like "Settlement in Albania (2016–present)". Anything to be added regarding the EU sanctions is better be in this section.-- M h hossein   talk 12:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: I understand why you are not providing these answers at ANI, nothing in your response provides a policy based explanation for your removals. Idealigic (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source used in this article
The book titled Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, has two big problems: Back in 2018, I raised this same issue at reliable sources noticeboard and uninvolved users giving a third opinion agreed that the argument was fair enough (here). Whoever has used this source in this article, should consider either replacing it with a reliable source or expecting it removed soon from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is published by Troubador Publishing Ltd. On its website, the company introduces itself as a self-publishing company. It is also described by BBC as "one of the UK's leading self-publishing houses". As a result, this work is subject to WP:SPS and not acceptable for this controversial article.
 * 2) The author of this book, Manshour Varasteh, is linked to the subject of this article and thus has an apparent conflict of interest. Here, in this MEK-affiliated website it is said that this person has paid tribute to the "martyrs of the resistance and PMOI (MEK)". Moreover, he has published a work with an organization affiliated with the MEK. Per WP:QS, such sources are not acceptable.
 * Pahlevun: Thanks. I will tag the contents related to this source. But looking at the page some of the contents are supported by other reliable sources, too.-- M h hossein   talk 07:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No response here. I removed the citations and content backed up only by this source from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)