User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran

Workpage re issues on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

Characterization of MEK
See this edit

Use of the words militant, terrorist and cult

 * 10/8/1997 Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) was identified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Department of State. It was delisted on 9/28/2012
 * It was delisted as part of a multi-pronged diplomatic effort, but the State Department still condemned it's past conduct and "the Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members."
 * According to the Council on Foreign Relations, some call it a cult due to the "group’s fealty to Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi . The couple have been said to have "fostered a cult of personality".
 * In 2016, MEK continued to discount it's past as a terrorist organization.
 * The New York Times called it a dissident group, delisted as a terrorist group, in 2018
 * The New York Review stated in 2018 that "the group has never ceased terrorizing its members and has continued to conduct assassinations inside Iran" and called it a terrorist cult. Its human rights abuses have been documented by human rights organizations. Trump's administration supports regime change and the MEK.
 * Al Jazeera calls it a left-wing political party, a secret opposition party, with a violent past and involved in one of the deadliest political incidents in Iran's history. Trump's administration supports regime change and the MEK. In general, Iranians do not support MEK in large part due to "its role in the post-revolution political assassinations and the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s". The organization is considered "cult-like".
 * MEK has been trying to transform itself into a moderate political party, in anticipation of a western-backed regime change, beginning with its lobbying effort to be removed from the State Department's terrorist list in 2012. Even so, the Iranian people are not likely to support the organization.
 * "WikiLeaks revealed that the MEK staying on the terror lists was a constant demand from Tehran to its western counterparts.".

My summary: MEK is a left-wing opposition party with a history of terrorist activities. It was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State between 1997 and 2012. It has continued to have a history of human right's abuses against its people and has been called a cult-like organization. It has been positioning itself for a western-backed regime change, but the Iranian people generally do not support the organization due to its past terrorist and political activities.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Minor edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran for :
 * We should avoid using the Iranian's regime labeling of this opposition group as a "terrorist cult". The US disarming of MEK in Iraq had more to do with inner post-occupation Iraqi dynamics (and trying to avoid a conflict with Iran from newly occupied Iraq which was (and is?) a big mess) - than anything intrinsic about MEK. Certainly MEK, as a group, has its issues - however it is a viable opposition group which outside state actors engage with at times.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Copied from Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran for :
 * There are over a dozen RSs that state MKO is terrorist and a cult, which only proves Iran government's view is not biased. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should not be labeled at terrorist cult. First of all, there have been a number of sources that have said that they are cult-like, but not a lot that definitively say that they are a cult. And, I think my summary above reflects that they have been considered a terrorist organization, but I am not seeing that is prevailing opinion that they are still considered a terrorist organization. I would also add the summary info about other countries consideration of MEK as a terrorist organization, now or in the past (Japan, UK, etc.) –CaroleHenson (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "The Islamic Republic was waging relentless campaign to isolate them [MEK]. It labeled them ‘Marxist hypocrites’ and Western-contaminated ‘eclectics’. It pronounced them ‘fifth-columnists’ collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists, and 'counter revolutionary terrorists’ helping the imperialists." (Abrahamian, 1989:256) -- Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this. This isn't the prevailing way they are described, though. So, it doesn't seem appropriate for the lede. I am not sure if they are appropriate for the body of the article, either. I am not sure how the additions further the encyclopedia article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pahlevun's comments and sources

 * Correcting CaroleHenson's summary:
 * On using the word militant: Removing the term and replacing it with the term "a left-wing opposition party" is inaccurate and misleading. MEK was never solely a party in nature. They always had a paramilitary hierarchy and today, they still do have. The source used to support that the organization is a "political–militant" one, clarifies that the MEK possesses a militant wing (the National Liberation Army (NLA)) and a political wing (the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)).

Today (and since the early 2000s), the MEK tries to showcase itself as a non-violent organization, because advocating violence openly would undermine their political and lobbying activities in the west. But the truth is, the armed wing known as the NLA is still active and it was NEVER disbanded. (See this recent image from MEK official website, the banner with "Hail to the National Liberation Army" slogan and logo). They operate armed groups inside Iran, the so-called "Resistance cells and rebellion hubs" (See the image of masked men in "Rebellion hubs in different cities supporting Free Iran 2018" as an example here on MEK official website: ). They still even use NLA flag in their rallies in the western countries. (See January 2018 London demonstration:  for example). Moreover, the MEK is suspected to be the operational apparatus of assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and they are believed to be still conducting covert operations inside Iran. (See the report MSNBC) They also operate a "massive military-style complex" in Albania. (See this)
 * 1) From 1965 to 1979, MEK was an underground guerrilla group with no character like a party.
 * 2) From 1979 to 1981, they opened offices, held meetings and recruited like a party while maintaining their armed activity and paramilitary organization, taking part in the hostage crisis (This period is known as the MEK's "the political phase").
 * 3) By 1981, the party activity was over inside Iran as they were suppressed and forced to go underground again. They were exiled in Iraq and Saddam Hussein supplied the MEK armed wing with tanks, artillery pieces, anti-tank missiles and surface-to-air missiles. MEK even rebranded its armed wing as the "National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA)" in 1987 to demonstrate a more military character and attacked Iranian soil with the weaponry. Saddam fell in 2003 but "US. military leaders in Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with the MKO in April 2003 that allowed it to keep all its weapons, including hundreds of tanks and thousands of light arms, as long as it did not attack US forces". They were in Iraq until 2016.

Removing the word "militant" from the opening sentence is not making it neutral, but is making it inaccurate.
 * On using the words cult and terrorist: Both words cult and terrorist organization are among the words to watch and no article should call any group a cult or terrorist organization. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. However, any article should include the most important facts, like being designated as a terrorist organization or cult. Stating that an organization is designated as terrorist/cult by the country X or Y is a fact, and as neutral as stating that the sky is blue. That's nonjudgmental an impartial. MEK's terrorist designation status is summerized in two lines, and is in compliance with the above-mentioned MOS and NPOV:

I think that's just fine for the lead. It does not weight any country over the other one, and it is giving a clear view over the designation in different countries. The summary (It was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of State between 1997 and 2012.) is neutrally stating a fact and that's fine. But it does not mention the 3 sovereign states that currently list the MEK as a terrorist organization, as well as the 3 sovereign states + EU that formerly did so. For using the word cult, the lead lists the entities that have described them as a cult:

That wording is stating designations as facts. Both sentences in boxes are now in the lead and I think they should remain for the reasons above. —Pahlevun (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Other corrections: It has continued to have a history of human right's abuses against its people. Not just against its people [in Iran], but also against Iraqi people and its own members. It has been positioning itself for a western-backed regime change. It's inaccurate. Before 1979 (until the 1980s?), the MEK was anti-Western. From 1982 to 2003, they were sheltered by Saddam Hussein (not a Western leader).


 * I didn't purposefully exclude "militant" I just didn't find in the sources I looked at and/or provided.
 * Do you have sources for your comments? If you can provide sources for your comments, I'd be happy to update my summary. You just need to put sources here for me to look at... I can take it from there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure! Below a few sources for the key points of what I wrote are listed. Feel free to ask me for more sources on details.


 * The MEK's official website in January 2018, mentions the NLA several times in what it published about MEK clandestine cells becoming more active inside Iran:
 * This is a primary source, so I won't use this, but I get your points.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of what I wrote on historical nature of the MEK and the years for them has been taken from a book that dedicates a chapter to the MEK:
 * I see the metamorphosis described as guerrilla organization --> political group ---> terrorist organization ---> destructive cult.
 * It's doctorine: Marxist-Islamic ---> liberal muslim ---> nationalist ---> fundamentalist muslim group
 * Fighting against Iraq (1980) ---> with Iraq against Iran (1985-1989) ---> ally of Israel and U.S.
 * Lots of detail and a chart that explains the evolution.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @ The author of this work / chart in not Eileen Barker but Masoud Banisadr, a conflicted author with this subject and ex-MEK member whose work only consists of writing against the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @ The author of this work / chart in not Eileen Barker but Masoud Banisadr, a conflicted author with this subject and ex-MEK member whose work only consists of writing against the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The source used to support that the MEK is a political-militant organization in the article, cites a US Department of State work: "Designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization on October 8, 1997, the Mujahadin-E Khalq Organization (MEK) is a Marxist-Islamic Organization that seeks the overthrow of the Iranian regime through its military wing, the National Liberation Army (NLA), and its political front, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)"
 * Initially, the organization had a political front, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and a militant wing, the National Liberation Army (NLA)
 * Terrorist organization in the 1970s, engaged in activities worldwide, including U.S. companies and government sites
 * Lots of good historical information that supports the metamorphosis described by Barker.
 * Routinely called a terrorist organization.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Supreme Court of the United States: "In 1987, petitioner [MEK] formed a military wing, the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA)... Petitioner receives substantial support and assistance, including military training, from the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein... petitioner stated that it "maintains an army (the National Liberation Army), and it carries out missions within Iran against military and strategic targets. But if armed resistance to an oppressive regime were illegal, the United States would not be a nation... petitioner is not a recognized foreign government, it is a foreign entity that (by its own account) is dedicated to the violent overthrow of Iran's current government and conducts both "diplomatic" and "military" activities to achieve that result... It is headquartered in Iraq, has relations with the Iraqi government, and maintains its own "army.""
 * Duplicate of information provided in the previous source, except it describes "diplomatic" activities which have been described as political and/or propaganda–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources below, dating 2014, 2015 and 2016, classify the MEK as a violent non-state actor:
 * I have no idea from the abstract, which doesn't mention Iran let alone MEK.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's listed once in the entitled violet nonstate actor document, in a list of organizations. Are you making a distinction between a violent non-state actor and a terrorist organization?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rebel groups that rely on foreign sponsors with no HRO [Human Rights organizations] presence kill eighty-six civilians on average... The groups demonstrating this possible relationship include... the MEK of Iran...". —
 * Ok, so here it's characterized as a rebel group.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rebel groups that rely on foreign sponsors with no HRO [Human Rights organizations] presence kill eighty-six civilians on average... The groups demonstrating this possible relationship include... the MEK of Iran...". —
 * Ok, so here it's characterized as a rebel group.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

—Pahlevun (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "The history of the MEK from Iran is particularly instructive on the usefulness of the legitimacy thesis as a theoretical lens. The MEK had been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US State Department in 1997. It was delisted in 2012 partly due to its successful lobbying effort in Washington, DC, by its political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a powerful lobbying machine. The group primarily resorted to assassinations of key Iranian politicians and coordinated terrorist attacks that sometimes included civilian casualties. But the group denounced violence as of 2001, and there is no evidence that they have committed any acts of terrorism since. One plausible explanation of this transformation in strategy is the group's legitimacy-seeking needs. As one of the largest militant group opposing the Tehran government, MEK needed international recognition to keep its movement alive and make it legitimate. With the previous supporter, the Iraqi Government gone, the group perceived that Western interests met the group's interest in fighting against the authoritarian regime in Iran. The group did not enjoy civilian support as it was operating outside. Such a lack of domestic legitimacy led the group to focus more on employing the strategy of relying o elite support from the United States and Europe. This allows the group to establish its own legitimacy by delegitimizing the Iranian regime, which fits the bill of the strategic legitimacy story".
 * This seems to be a duplicate source that they are a terrorist organization and tells a bit about its evolution.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Recommendation
Comment: I think you may have missed the edit at the top of this section. I was just trying to find the words to characterize MEK to solve that little part of the dispute. (The edit had a lot of parts). I think overall, stating that they have been involved in terrorist activities and are a cult-like organization is apt. Terrorist organization is used routinely to describe them... so is cult or cult-like. I agree with the way that terrorist organization and cult are defined in the lede and see no reason to change it. So, my recommendation is to not change the first three paragraphs of the lede from its present wording. I should have been clearer about that. I apologize for the confusion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I did strike out the part about political party and double-checked that Al Jazerra said "secret" political party. But, this isn't a prevailing opinion, so I struck it out of my summary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to summarize the evolution of the organization in the lede, but I wasn't evaluating that in this specific item.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed lede section
RS describing the MEK as a leftist organization seems a more prominent description than the IRI designation "terrorist cult":


 * Moahedin e Khalgh posed the greatest threat to the Islamists, precisely because they conveyed their leftist ideology through Islamic vocabulary.
 * The majority of the Mojahedin derived from the Iran intelligentsia... advocating a “modernist interpretation of Islam.” (Abrahamian, 1989:227-230).
 * No opposition group claimed responsibility for the attacks, but they were immediately attributed to the leftist Mojahedin-e Khalq.
 * The principal left-wing groups in Iran were the Islamic Mujahedin...
 * ... attracted by the Mojahedin's liberal, even radical interpretation of traditional Shia concepts.
 * The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine. (Piazza, 1994:11)
 * Rajavi’s presidential candidacy was endorsed by various Mojahedin-affiliated organizations, as well as a number of independent ones, becoming “the vanguard of the secular opposition to the Islamic Republic. (Abrahamian, 1989:198)
 * The MEK in Iran transformed from propagating an Islamic agenda towards demanding a secular democracy as well as agreeing to lay their arms.
 * Founded in 1965 as a left-wing Muslim group...

, Did you mean for this to go in the Historical events section - just below this one? I don't understand the heading. Do we need it? Or, you could make a heading, "Stefka's suggested addtions" perhaps?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the confusion. This was meant as a response to the suggestions above concerning finding words that characterize the MEK, and also concerning your initial suggestion that the organization was a left-wing political party with a history of terrorist activity, which I find more appropriate per the above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , My suggestion/recommendation was to not change the first three paragraphs in the lede. What are you suggesting? Do you think it's a prevailing opinion? Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think that the first three paragraphs in the lede, which is the first thing readers get to know about the organization, don't currently describe the MEK effectively (some of the points raised above were meant to support your initial suggestion about the lede, but I realize I did not do this very eloquently). The MEK first took on armed struggle against the IRI because the IRI banned the group and started killing MEK members in Iran (in order to suppress political oppositions). Later, its terrorist designation by North America and Europe derived from an IRI's request (and implemented as a means to improve relations between Iran and the West). I have not been able to find any evidence that the MEK have been involved in any armed struggle / terrorist activities in years. Yet, these complex characterizations (which need to be teased out in order to be better understood) is what we first get to know about the organization. The MEK were, on the other hand, one of the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam." They are also considered "Iran's largest and most active political opposition groups."       I feel that describing what the organization is (before it became something else for a particular period of time or how the media views it) is an important distinction to make within the first three paragraphs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This section is "Use of the words militant, terrorist and cult".


 * I don't have your suggested language as an issue, I don't think, unless this was one of the changes that you tried to add in the edit diff at the top of this section.


 * It sounds like you want to recommend additional text for the lede. I recommend that you draft where and how you'd like to add this information and add it as a new section to the article talk page to get folks to weigh-in on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. A violent non-state actor (VNSA) is not essentially a terrorist organization. Also, not every terrorist organization is a violent non-state actor, because the latter plays an active/important role in international relations, but the former may not. In the source that you could not find the VSNA, on page 19, it states ...for the purposes of this study all violent non-state actors will be considered, whether or not they technically fall into the traditional “terrorist” ideological categories. and one of the violent non-state actors studied is the MEK (Table 3.1, p. 83; it has been almost listed on every table in the research). Pahlevun (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, will explore your suggestion further. Concerning the use of words "militant", "terrorist", and "Cult":


 * "Militant": I can't see any concrete evidence (from Pahlevun's references or otherwise) that the MEK has been involved in militant activities in recent years or that it holds a military base anywhere. Yet, this is the first thing we read about the group. This source used to back up the "militant" claim is a student-edited journal that also states that "Without Hussein, the MEK lost its financial and military support. In short order, the MEK negotiated a cease-fire and surrendered its heavy arms to coalition forces". The other source is a web archive from 2012, when the MEK was still designated a terrorist group by the US. On the other hand, as noted in my points above and elsewhere, there are numerous RS that describe the group as a left-wing organization and political opposition, which I would propose as an alternative to the more inconsistent "militant" characterization.


 * "Terrorist": Agree this needs to be included, however, considering the complex nature of this designation here (where the MEK took armed struggle against the IRI on account of the IRI taking armed struggle against the MEK first), it should not be the first thing we read about the group. I agree that it should still be in the lede, but would suggest to place it further down after some kind of description about the group (e.g.: its ideology, conflict with the IRI, status as political opposition).


 * "Cult": As noted above, Masoud Banisadr (not Eileen Barker) is the author of the "destructive cult" chart. Considering Masoud Banisadr's affiliation with the MEK, and that all his professional endeavors consist of speaking against the MEK, we should use other (more neutral) sources to illustrate this point. Again, I feel this can be placed further down the lede after more important historical information (including why the MEK became known in the West), has been teased out first.

@CaroleHenson, should I include a proposed update of these points in the lede considering the points above? Thanks in advance for your feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, . I didn't suggest exploring the words militant, terrorist, and cult further. I suggested that we leave the first three paragraphs the same. I thought that you said that you had additional information that you want to add to the lede. My suggestion was that you draft something if you think that there is something that needs to be added.


 * I see that this heading was changed to say that the term "terrorist cult" should not be used. I agree. I'm not seeing anyone that is saying that term should be used.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , below my proposition for the lede, which describes events in a chronological order (providing context to issues concerning the "cult", "militant", and "terrorist" assignations):

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Historical events
Is it possible for you to summarize in short bullets what the historical events were that you wanted to add/change from your edit at the top of this section? Or, still think are appropriate to add and change?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, working on this. Will send ASAP. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks! No hurry.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@ I'm starting to draft history of the MEK; please have a look and let me know if this was the desired format/detail for now. There are a couple of interesting books I'm currently reading about the MEK that I'd like to include here too, which discuss the MEKs terrorist activities and conflicts with the IRI in detail. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to draft a short and neutral piece for the the history:

–Pahlevun (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , that looks good to me. Are you suggesting adding both the timeline and the summary paragraph? Where are you suggesting that these should be added?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I did not compile that timeline, Stefka Bulgaria did. I only suggest replacing the proposed paragraph with the two paragraphs in the current lead that are about the MEK history. I don't recommend using Stefka Bulgaria's timeline at all, because it neglects some important facts while spinning the others. The tone looks like a soapbox to me. If you think a timeline is necessary, I would take the time to compile one. Pahlevun (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think we can use my propose outline as a starting point to re-organize the article (categorizing events by dates perhaps). My proposed lede (above) was drafted to resume this timeline, both backed by RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper
The issue was with:
 * According to the official Iran newspaper, in August 2012, a number of MEK members detained by the Syrian government confessed that the MEK is training militants on Turkish soil near the border with Syria. The report also said they cooperate foreign-backed militants in Syria through the Jordanian borders and are stationed at a base called 'Hanif', which is "disguised as a hospital".

Comment: I am not finding another source for this information and I've tried searching a number of ways. In this case, though, there might not have been many sources that would have reported this. I can see why the source is questioned. But, the paper is used as a source in more than 300 articles, per this. And, the way that the sentence is worded lets the readers know the nature of the source. If there is still a disagreement about this, I would run it by the Wikiproject Iran or WP:RSN.

For future consideration: Rather than removing cited content, two other approaches were: 1) tag with better source and add the reason that it's a government-leaning newspaper, and therefore a POV issue and/or 2) start a conversation on the talk page. Those options are much better than removing cited content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I could find corroboration but again from Iranian media. TEHRAN (FNA)- The terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as MEK, NCRI and PMOI) has been providing military training to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other militant groups in Syria, a defected member disclosed on Monday. . And this HuffPost report at least corroborates that they have had some presence in Syria. And I can go with either of your suggestions. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another corroboration. Original source is Le Figaru. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's information about fighting in Syria... nothing about training in Turkey on a base disguised to be a medical facility or hospital... and occurring in 2012. But, it's similar. It's good back-up to provide validity that the Turkey story is likely correct. But they're not exactly the same event, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, not exactly the same. And I also found this --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there could be a following statement about the organization's presence in Syria, with these sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Iran is the main newspaper reflecting the views of the executive branch of Iranian government. So, it is usually cited in many major news outlets such as Reuters (e.g.:, ), AFP (e.g. , ) and AP (e.g., ), among others. So, it is a reliable source to reflect the views of the Iranian government. In this case, the claim is not challenged by any other source (at least to my knowledge), and since it uses proper wording and in-text attribution, it is in compliance with WP:BIASEDSOURCES. So, I would let it be and I don't think that tagging it for a better source in needed. Pahlevun (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The issues I'm finding with this is that this information is being presented as a fact, and the only source we have to back this up is an IRI-controlled newspaper. As observed at WikiProjectIran, IRI-controlled media are ok to be used when discussing certain topics (e.g. sports, culture, etc.), but are conflicting sources when used to back up claims on IRI political oppositions (unless we're specifically identifying an IRI viewpoint on the matter). Here are some sources claiming a disinformation campaign by the IRI against the MEK:


 * In addition to outright assassinations, MOIS agents have conducted traditional intelligence gathering, disinformation, and subversive operations against individual regime opponents and opposition governments. ... 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 back to Iran for prosecution.


 * VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign, which is also carried out through former opponents of the regime[including the MEK].


 * One major task of this network has been discrediting those opposing the regime in Tehran and taking measures against any efforts voicing support for Iran regime change. The main Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and its most important member, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), have been the constant target of smear campaigns launched and orchestrated by the Iranian regime and NIAC.


 * With regime change in Iran gaining increasing support both at home and abroad, Tehran is frantically resorting to the oldest trick in its book: demonizing the opposition. This is a campaign that the Iranian regime has been leading for decades, although in recent months it has seen an uptick. Massoud Khodabandeh, a U.K.-based Iranian whose ties to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) are well known, recently ran a long tirade in the Huffington Post against the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), a prominent opposition group that advocates regime change in Iran.

I also found numerous sources that describe the same tactics used against journalists/academics that don't write in favor of the IRI. That is not to say the MEK doesn't have its share of controversies, but in this particular case these should be documented from non-involved sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this information is NOT being presented as a fact, as CaroleHenson commented above, the way that the sentence is worded lets the readers know the nature of the source. Pahlevun (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering my points raised above, I feel such statements/sources need to be categorized carefully (if used). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I am hoping that all of the discussions don't need to get into side comments like that nature of misinformation. I don't see any of the bullets in response having anything to do with the actual content from the article. You just have to say that you have a concern that there's a concern about misinformation from the source. We all know what you mean.


 * Based upon the voting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, this may soon become a moot point.


 * There is plenty of information that MEK/MKO/PMOI has fought in the Syrian War, which seems to back up the information from Iran (newspaper), but I couldn't find a source to directly state that there was training for MEK in Turkey in a base disguised as a medical facility or hospital.


 * Perhaps we can focus on their role in fighting in Syria... and remove the content about the training in Turkey?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. In general, I'm good to include info if it can be confirmed beyond IRI-controlled media. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. I will draft something and put it here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What Stefka Bulgaria wrote, including the opinion piece written by a member of the MEK, is no proof for what he claims. I suggest bringing the case into WP:RSN. Pahlevun (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I found another source backing what Iran wrote: Radio France Internationale (in Persian)

"مجاهدین خلق در مناطق مرزی اردن و سوریه به ایجاد پایگاهی مبادرت کرده اند که آنرا حنیف می نامند و بیمارستان می خوانند. این مرکز از جمله حلقه های ارتباطی مجاهدین خلق و ارتش آزاد سوریه است."

–Pahlevun (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * From google translate, I get "The People's Mujahedin-e Khalq (Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization) in the border regions of Jordan and Syria has created a base called "Hanif" and called "Hospital". The center is among the Mojahedin-e Khalq and the Free Syrian Army communications circles."–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally, that's right. Figuratively, the first sentence implies that "Hanif" is not a hospital. The second one means that the MEK contacts Free Syrian Army via "Hanif" and other similar facilities. Pahlevun (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft
Current language (rolled into one paragraph)


 * According to the official Iran newspaper, in August 2012, a number of MEK members detained by the Syrian government confessed that the MEK is training militants on Turkish soil near the border with Syria. The report also said they cooperate foreign-backed militants in Syria through the Jordanian borders and are stationed at a base called 'Hanif', which is "disguised as a hospital". On 30 May 2013, Georges Malbrunot of Le Figaro wrote that two members of the organization were found dead in Idlib, citing a "European parliamentarian in contact with the anti-government rebels". In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government. In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran.

Draft (in progress)
 * On 30 May 2013, Georges Malbrunot of Le Figaro wrote that two members of the organization were found dead in Idlib, citing a "European parliamentarian in contact with the anti-government rebels". In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government. In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran. The MEK reported on the activities of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force in Syria for The Washington Times.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adding content from a tabloid source is a good idea. Pahlevun (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I started with the original language and I think the source I added was The Washington Times. What is the tabloid source?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times is known for publishing conspiracy theories and falsehoods (see The Washington Times) and the MEK is also known for purchasing space for their propaganda in several outlets, The Washington Times is known to be one of them. (See: ). This article is full of loaded words such as "brutal" and "rape of Aleppo" and I won't be surprised if this is one of them explained in the book. Pahlevun (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Brookings Instuttion is a think tank that has received funding from IRI-controlled sources.  Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Integrated sections in keeping with chronological order of the page vs. separate sections
this edit

Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Comment: I agree that the information from this section is historical information. Rather than having a separate section, this information should be integrated into the history section, where appropriate.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I Agree with CaroleHenson's comment. The section was an attempted content fork. Pahlevun (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Using the content fork example, should we integrate the different sections outlining controversy about the MEK into a single "Controversy" section (as we do in other articles)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Pahlevun (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on why not? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree that it would be helpful to have more of an explanation than a flat "no". I am guessing that the issue is it is better to keep the historical information in a chronological flow, rather than breaking this out into a separate controversy section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , it would be fine to keep controversies in a chronological historical flow. Currently there are separate sections for them ("Propaganda campaign", "Fraud and money laundering", "Assassinations", "Designation as cult", etc.). As outlined by Pahlevun, this constitutes content fork, so we should merge these within the history section, where appropriate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK
There was also regrouping of films/series with this edit

Comments: 1. This seems like a reasonable section. The heading may need tweaking. I just realized that there's the section "Status among Iranian opposition" and the subsection "Public opinion"... so this section actually looks like a duplicate. 2. I would still keep the documentaries / movies / etc. where they were. 3. Is there an issue with this particular section (as a concept, the content)? Is there content Stefka wanted to add that is not in the Status among Iranian opposition / Public opinion section? –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Update #1 and 3.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Section for productions or views? Stefka was trying to conflate these two. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand why that might make sense... but it's really better per standard practice to keep the documentaries/films in their own section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with keeping movies as a separate section. In fact they should. But the IRI views I believe must be integrated into the sections. But I was not personally involved in the movie section dispute. It was Pahlevun I believe. But I reverted Stefka for he was making many other changes without discussion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know if you saw that I made an update to my comments. I realized that there was already an existing section in #1 above for the viewpoints. And, yes, I have said that I think that the films should stay where they are.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Here I'm inclined towards making a distinction between IRI-POV and other sources: I find "Status among Iranian opposition" and "Public opinion" sections are more confusing than informative. The reason why I proposed an "IRI views on MEK" section is because of the complex propaganda-like rhetoric by the IRI to discredit the MEK (which also includes IRI-produced documentaries and, as pointed out by Icewhiz, influence on some Western sources). I feel that embedding these problematic statements/sources within more factual/reliable statements/sources helps emphasize that propaganda-like rhetoric. If we determine that IRI-controlled sources should be recognized in the MEK article, and these are embedded throughout the article, then it can become difficult for the reader to distinguish which sources are pushing a POV and which aren't. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "Public opinion" is pretty clear. I wondered about "Status among Iranian opposition" myself. And, I am not sure about IRI views on MEK. I don't have a good suggestion, though, at this moment. Perhaps someone who has edited the article for awhile has some thoughts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe creating a section that covers only one specific view is content forking. So, I discourage dedicating a section to the subject. However, the government POV itself is worth mentioning, where appropriate in the article, because: It is really part of what the MEK is, perception of the MEK by the Iranian government (both Imperial one and the current one) has shaped its activities and not mentioning it would hurt the article in terms of being neutral and complete. Last but not the least, in some cases it is the majority view. Pahlevun (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @CaronnHenson, about the "Public Opinion" section, the reason I thought this to be a confusing section/title is that these can vary considerably. For instance, the opening sentence: "A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people." - Does this refer to people inside/outside Iran? Is the survey current/official? etc... (the 2013 George Mason University reference appears to be broken, though it wouldn't change much if it wasn't). There are also a wide range of sources that describe the organization as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition groups, eg:      I don't think we need to decide about this right away, just food for thought... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) What do you think about an overall section heading titled something like "Viewpoints" and then have subsections for the groups being discussed? I don't know if you'd call that content forking, because it would come under the umbrella of viewpoints (or a similar word).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. Viewpoints on the MEK vary, so subcategorizing the different distinctions under an umbrella "Viewpoints" section would allow us to organize things accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would that work for you, ?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The word public opinion is no confusing and the content is relevant and well-sourced. I'm so-so with separating it from the 'Status among Iranian opposition' section and making it an independent one. Answering to what Stefka Bulgaria has brought in, I should clarify that he previously tried to push this POV and he was failed. More than half of the sources he cited here for this exact claim, were revealed to be a case of quote mining, citation overkill and synthesis at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 242. Pahlevun (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My only proposal here was to change the heading to viewpoints. Are you saying that "public opinion" is a total subset of "Status among Iranian opposition"... that all of the public would be defined as Iranian opposition?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, all of the public is not defined as just opposition. Stefka Bulgaria was suggesting that the content in the section "public opinion" is irrelevant and I don't agree with that. Changing "public opinion" to "viewpoints", would pave the way for violating NPOV in my opinion, because the latter is pretty a vague word (potentially a suitable (?) place for adding fringe theories) and the former has a minimal definition, being a hurdle for including irrelevant content. That's fine with me to make the section "public opinion" from a sub-section of "Status among opposition" to an independent section. Pahlevun (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording of the lede, per RfC
Comment: Wait to see the result of the RfC... and the degree to which it is accepted.

Use of the Munafiqin label, per RfC
Comment: Wait to see the result of the RfC... and the degree to which it is accepted.

Use of PSRI as a source - or is that resolved?
Is this resolved?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am in two mind whether we can agree to state PSRI narrative as facts. Sure it is been commissioned by IRI government but like I said in the talk it's been founded by an exhaustive historian named Abdollah Shahbazi and the work is quite remarkable in richness of its documentations and sources. I don't see how we can reduce it to just "IRI POV". --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have done a bit of reading around, including reading translated documents from the site, and it seems reasonable to me to use this as a source. It would be good to search for alternative sources as well that may be more objective - and compare the nature of the content if/where there are differences to help round out the article.
 * If there is still disagreement about this, it would be good to take it to WikiProject Iran or WP:RSN.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PSRI is not quite a scholarly source - but the more pressing issue is that this is a source based in Iran that is promoting a hagiographical account of the Islamic revolution - a highly censored/monitored subject by the Iranian regime - there is absolutely no way to write an independent account of the revolution from inside post-revolution Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted a question about this at at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Article tags: neutrality, undue weight, weasel words.
1. Neutrality 2. Undue weight 3. Weasel words

I can review the article and guess at these, but if someone has a particular take on what the issues are, please let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Using NGOs founded by MKO defectors and victims
Such as Nejat Society founded by defectors who provide insight into inner workings of the organization and campaign against it. The NGO reports are covered by Iranian sources.

Habilian, which specializes in terrorism studies with special focus on MEK, founded by families of Iranian terror victims including the son of Ayatollah Syyed Abdul Karim Hashemi Nejad who was assassinated by MEK in 1980 according to Habilian About page.


 * What is the issue with this (use of Iranian sources, other)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No issue so far. But you can guess fault finders will reject these as being somehow pro-IRI. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's no issue at this time, let's assume good faith. And, please don't label people. The disputes reflect that there are different viewpoints, but I haven't seen poor intentions. I think everyone wants to make the article better, there are just different opinions about how to get there. It doesn't help to make someone out to be a problem-maker because they have questions. The calmer the language, the more likely to come to a peaceful resolution, don't you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure! I didn't mean any thing negative but predicting what the reactions might be. Btw, you're an amazing arbitrator. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nejat was founded by the Iranian ministry of intelligence. Habilian is regime controlled as well. Iran is an oppressive country without freedom of speech, where discourse on regime opposition is tightly controlled, monitored, and edited by the regime - see RSF and Freedom House. For this reason - any source that is controlled by the Iranian regime should be considered reliable only for the positions of the Iranian regime itself. As MEK is studied/covered extensively by non-regime sources, there is little reason to use any source that is within the sphere of control of the Iranian regime.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully swapped italic for the bolded font... it's like shouting and is unnecessary. Your point is perfectly clear.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Icewhiz. First he has to provide reference for his claim about Nejat. Secondly, moderation of media by Iranian government doesn't mean Iranian sources don't present valuable information or verifiable facts, especially when a source has an unmissable academic quality and depth such as the PSRI. Moreover, given Iran's natural authority on a group that has emerged from Iran by Iranians they naturally have the best access to information about the group than all outside sources. Btw, MKO according to non-Iranian RSs has little to no support inside Iran, which means there would be hardly views that would conflict with IRI official policy to require repression. And as for NGOs who have been founded by the victims or defectors of MKO, the question of controlling their narrative to fit that of IRI doesn't even rise, because they are already on the same side with IRI due to their own experiences and views. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Very few sources cover the Nejat society as a topic (rather indicating its fringe status) - however per - this - it is registered with the Iranian ministry of Interior - and is thus clearly not independent of the Iranian regime. All sources within Iran, including academic publications, are under strict censorship regarding any writing about regime opposition - and can not be considered WP:IRS. Some sources within Iran (those that are clearly regime affiliated) are usable for the regime's position itself. Other sources - of any sort - can not be used at all for any topic related to Iranian opposition groups (of any stripe) or the Iranian regime. The regime represses journalists, students, academics, and any individual/group who expresses positions on these matters outside the regime's range of tolerated positions - penalties ranging from the friendly threat/warning, incarceration and torture at facilities such as Evin Prison, and in some cases death - judicial or extrajudicial..Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nejat being registered with Iranian Internal ministry means they have been given permit to work as is required in every other country I believe. The same source also says the organization keeps close contact with UN and the Red Cross which gives it credit. As for rest of your answer I don't see them addressing my specific points. You only paraphrase what you said in your earlier post while providing two new links. But these student arrests came with the 2009 elections unrest and 2017 November riots both incidents were heavily influenced from abroad and there were serious breach of law. So it is natural that many will be arrested for those charges. As for details of their treatment and due process I don't think anything certain can be said. So again I don't see how these cases discredit all Iranian media cross the board. I think you are going extreme. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As people writing/talking (in the "wrong" manner) about such subjects are routinely incarcerated, tortured, and even killed by the Iranian regime, no source within reach of the Iranian regime can be considered reliable for such a subject.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can keep throwing more links around and not respond to my comment on how those reports don't warrant total discrediting of all Iranian media. Protestors are shot and killed every in the world, in France, UK and USA. Torture has been actually made lawful in US post 9/11 and I don't know whether the law was ever revoked or not. Iranian satellite channels were also brought down by European companies due to political pressures, whereas several Western Persian outlets have been beaming into Iran to influence Iranian public opinions against their government. So depending on your perspective and biases, you can cite many awful lot of things about all governments and then conclude that their media or views are worthless. But that's not just practical and sound. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In France, UK, and the US - people are not generally jailed, tortured, and/or killed for expressing their opinions or for reporting factual information. In Iran, such repression against the media, academics, and private individuals (per the several sources I provided above) is routine and in particular is pervasive in regards to subjects about the regime or opposition to the regime.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're being too idealistic. Like I said most of these cases happen because the said persons are viewed as a security threat but of course not because a journalist for example has so much power to risk a government on his own but because he may provide fodder to hostile governments who use those reports to put political pressure on the country. The journalist case you linked was accused of collaboration with Amadnews, a Telegram channel that was encouraging Iranian protestors to go violent instructing them on making hand-made explosives during November riots. Which government on Earth do you think gets past that without action? And as with every report citing bad conduct we can produce counter examples for most countries I believe. In Iran's case I remember at least three separate occasions in which Khamenei was criticized at length in his face during public visits by students, topics included such sensitivities ones as political prisoners, conduct of government bodies under Khamenei's oversight, lack of freedom of speech and so forth! which was somehow ironic because the criticism itself proved the freedom to question freedom in Iran! Do these prove there's freedom in Iran? Well, like I said I don't think in absolutes. What I know is that, however limited the confines of freedom of speech by western standards in Iran, Iranian journalists get to freely talk about a wide array of issues in Iran and against almost any officials, while there are some written and unwritten red-lines for good or bad reasons. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee was jailed for Ms Ebrahimi Iraee's work describes the emotional reaction of a young woman who watches the film The Stoning of Soraya M - which tells the true story of a young woman stoned to death - and is so enraged that she burns a copy of the Koran.. The unpublished story (a work of fiction!) was found while searching her home, and wasn't sent to anyone. And all this for harboring thoughts / private writings on stoning, supporters of MEK (or even those who do not condemn strongly enough) face much worse. "Freedom" for journalists in Iran is limited to covering the range of opinions the regime endorses - e.g. supported one candidate endorsed by the regime over another (however - criticism of the Supreme leader himself- who controls the process by which candidates/officials are vetted - is strictly forbidden in all cases) - and even within this very narrow range (bounded by "red lines") there are "grey lines" in regards to some issues/people some of the time.Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing how this is going anywhere towards resolution. My two-cents are:
 * I get the point about the bias of Iranian press and sources that are controlled in some way by the government.
 * In general, it is better to find objective sources.
 * There are times when it is appropriate to use Iranian sources, but they should be called out. The content should not be used if it espouses Iranian propaganda, unless that's the point.
 * I don't get the leap that because there is little reporting of an issue that it is automatically a "fringe theory" - that sounds like a leap that would not always be relevant.

It seems that this should be taken to the wikiproject for Iran, so I am going to post something there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I posted a question about this at at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Questioned sources
There was a question about Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Novinite.com, and a few other sources used in the article:

Novinite.com (Bulgarian news source)

 * Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared MEK personnel in Ashraf protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They were placed under the guard of the U.S. Military. Defectors from this group are housed separately in a refugee camp within Camp Ashraf, and protected by U.S. Army military police (2003–current), U.S. Marines (2005–07), and the Bulgarian Army (2006–current).


 * Novite.com, a Bulgarian newspaper, regularly reports on events affecting the country. There are 414 articles that use it as a source. In this case the only thing that is being cited is the Bulgarian Army went to Iraq. I don't see what the issue is here. Why would this be an unreliable source for this? Would you like to look for an alternative source for this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, but the fact that 414 articles use it tells me nothing about its reliability. In fact, I wasn't able to find out anything verifiable about this website that didn't come from their own website. It also doesn't verify the content in the article - the Novite.com article says only that the Bulgarian unit guarded Camp Ashraf. However, the statement it is cited for says they guarded MEK units who were housed separately within Camp Ashraf. This is completely unsourced. The only source for them being taken to Camp Ashraf is globalsecurity.org - which is not reliable enough for something like this. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good research, I think I'm getting worn out. It looks like the data needs to be updated anyway.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a better source for the MEK presence at Camp Ashraf. from CSIS. It doesn't mention anything about the MEK being in a separate part of the camp or who was guarding it, so my proposal would be to just remove these details and possibly add additional details from this source. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for doing the research. Aren't we trying to find a source for the Bulgarian Army presence? I don't see anything on that page... and I searched the book and didn't find anything about the number of Bulgarian troops at Camp Ashraf.


 * Are you saying another point should be made with this source?


 * In the meantime, I'll try and do some searching and see what I can find.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This book says that there was a small contingent (subset of 154 troops), that went home in December 2008. And this source says that Bulgarian troops took over guarding the camp in 2006 from US troops. So, I think we can use both sources to say "and Bulgarian troops (2006–2008)" for the end of the sentence without mentioning the number of troops. How does that sound as a replacement for novinite.com citation for Bulgarian troops?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine for the article on Camp Ashraf but what does it have to do with the MEK? It seems to be going off on a tangent. I would replace it with MEK-relevant details from sources that discuss the MEK at Camp Ashraf. Unless the identities of the guards has some relevance to the MEK I think the section should be expanded with other content. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the first bullet in this section. You questioned the use of novinite.com. They talked about the number of troops that were guarding Camp Ashraf beginning in 2006. I am trying to find a better source for you for that information. What am I missing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC) See the only place I see novinite.com cited: "the Bulgarian Army (2006–current)". –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (edit request submitted)

 * In 2013 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty published diaries of a Kyrgyz student based in Prague who was recruited to travel to Paris for a MEK rally, in which most of the "protesters" were like her.


 * There is attribution in the article for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. What is the desired outcome?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is attributed in the "Crowd renting" section, but not the 2003 French arrests section. RFEL is a source that needs attribution. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I missed that one.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the full text: "Police found plenty of cash in their offices, $1.38 million in $100 notes and 150,000 euros."
 * I am not seeing where inline attribution is necessary for Radio Free Europe, but perhaps I've been looking at the wrong guidelines. I am concerned that it may make it seem that only Radio Free Europe believes this, per the WP:INTEXT point "Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead." Do you know where it says that every time Radio Free Europe is used as a citation it should have inline attribution?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As VOA, REFL (and radio Farda) is seen as an arm of the US government (though it is not that simple). These are definitely better than any Iranian regime controlled sources, however attribution is required due to biased / independence concerns - and I say this even though they are often the only credible source for some information (less relevant for MEK which has quite a bit of coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Is there a preference for switching in NYT vs. adding attribution to the REFL sentence?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NYT is a source beyond reproach in most cases, here too.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll put in an edit request for: "Police found $1.3 million in $100 bills in cash in their offices." I updated from 1.38 million to 1.3 million, and there was no mention of Euros in the article, and I removed "plenty of".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support NYT here also. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll go ahead and post the edit request.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, here's a The New York Times' source that says $1.3 million instead of $1.38 million.
 * One article from The Guardian says "Last Tuesday 1,300 agents raided 13 addresses in the Paris area, seizing computers, files and $9m (£5.4m) in cash. Almost all of the 159 people detained were released later." Pahlevun (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another from Wall Street Journal: "They arrested Maryam Rajavi and carted away $9 million in cash". Pahlevun (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another from Wall Street Journal: "They arrested Maryam Rajavi and carted away $9 million in cash". Pahlevun (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

BalkansPost
This is the only place that I see BalkansPost being used is in the infobox for "Split from headquarters": Manëz, Durrës, Albania (2018–)


 * If I understand correctly, Tirana Times is an ok source. I cannot read that article, though. If it covers the content, perhaps the balkanspost.com source is not needed. I have tried to find other sources, like this Nejatngo blog saying that it started in 2017 (instead of 2018). There is also this source from Rimse - also for 2017. Are either of these sources suitable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The BalkansPost article is probably the best out of these, I am AGF that TiranaTimes verifies as well. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am taking from your comment that no change is needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org
I looked through various RSN postings and there are plenty of people that say that the site is ok to be used as a reliable sources... and it's used by The New York Times, Oxford University Press, etc. There are some that say, though, that they use it as a last resort and that it's not very professional. There's also confusion with globalsecurity.ca and globalsecurity.com, which do have issues.

The content with globalsecurity.org citations is:


 * Area in the infobox: Iran and Iraq


 * Post-US invasion of Iraq (2003–2016) section: The MEK compound outside Fallujah became known as Camp Fallujah and sits adjacent to the other major base in Fallujah, Forward Operating Base Dreamland. Captured MEK members were kept at Camp Ashraf, about 100 kilometers west of the Iranian border and 60 kilometers north of Baghdad.

I'll look for other sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the content in globalsecurity.org can be cited more reliably elsewhere. A lot of the content is unreferenced like and the same language appears word for word in our articles - see this article with the external link to globalsecurity.org in the body: Qadr (munition) - (maybe I should nominate that one for G12? it appears to be close to a verbatim copy.)  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the area for the Infobox (Iran and Iraq), I think this Guardian article should work.
 * Regarding Qadr (munition), Copyvio detector does show they are nearly identical. The copyright date on the globalsecurity.org site is 2011, but the 2010 version of the article cited GS. Hmmm. It looks like a good candidate for a rewrite/hide versions or G12.
 * For right now, I tagged the article and posted a message on the talk page. Hopefully someone will paraphrase the content... and then the previous versions can be hidden. If no one does in a couple of days, then G12 seems the way to go.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Will work on content from the Post-US invasion of Iraq (2003–2016) section next. (I've got to take things one thing at a time, some days moreso than others).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)