Talk:Maryam Rajavi/Archive 1

Archive 1

I wrote a mini-biography

I wrote a mini-biography of Maryam Rajavi, and even put pictures (from her website) that to prove the facts.

For example, I wrote about her address to a 15,000 Iranians in Dortmund (Germany) and put a picture of that as well as another gathering which she spoke to in person of 25,000 Iranians in Earl's Court, in London (United Kingdom). These events of course received much press coverage both in German and British dailies. There is however someone who keeps vandalising the text, changing facts and even writing unsubstantiated lies. The person, whom I suspect of being an agent of the Iranian regime, also vandalises the page about the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), again deleting factual texts and writing lies. It does not surprise me that agents on the payroll of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry (VEVAK) abroad try to white-wash their own crimes and pretend that the Iranian opposition are the "criminal", since I know that VEVAK are actively pursuing a campaign to demonize the Iranian opposition in the West. (If you read the talk section and edit sections of the Maryam Rajavi page and the Mojahedin-e Khalq page you will undoubtedly see that the guy continuously calls me and my friend "Terrorists" without even the slightest idea of who I am or who he is) What does however disappoint me is Wikipedia's inability to combat such abuse. Despite the service being an extremely valuable one, Wikipedia seems unable to control vandalism on its encyclopaedia.

One other fact that I thought would be useful for everyone to know, is that the Iranian regime has to date executed over 120,000 political prisoners of the PMOI and have acknowledged this themselves. A partial list of the names and particulars of those executed can be found at www.iranterror.com . Ayatollah Montazeri, Khomeini’s right hand man wrote in his memoirs a few years ago (as published in the Sunday Times) that the regime executed over 30,000 PMOI members in a matter of a few weeks in 1988. Khomeini's henchmen, many of whom today live abroad and try to demonize the Iranian opposition, also tortured over half a million PMOI supporters inside Iran's prisons. Yet, when I added the 120,000 figure in the page about the Mojahedin, the regime's guy removed it, and again started to say that such a thing was a lie. This is how VEVAK tries to demonize the Iranian opposition.

The other problem is that this guy is continuously offensive and uses offending language, as one would expect from agents who are there to defend a corrupt dictatorship.--RezaKia 16:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You and "your friends" huh?! And I am an agent of the Islamic Regime in Iran? Did you say "Khomeini's henchmen"?! Were you guys not his very henchmen who helped him come to power? Were you guys not his right hand in oppressing Iranian people? Who is the liar here, me or you?! Who is the one who falsely accuses people here? Me or you? You are the one who accuses anybody who tries to write the truth about the shameful history and deeds of your organization, of being an agent of the Mullahs. This is the "culture" of your cult. As I wrote before, there is almost ZERO difference between you and the mullahs (and I say "almost" because the mullahs, as repulsive as they are, are not quite as evil, opportunistic and hypocritical as you people are.) Was your organization not the one who helped bring Khomeini to power? Now you are talking about "the future of Iran"?! Who are you to talk about Iran? You were not only the henchmen of Khomeini, you were also the henchmen of Saddam. And now you are the henchmen of the neocons in Washington. You call me agent of the islamic regime? This shows your weakness and inability to answer any of these charges that your filthy organization is known for. OK, I am an agent of the mullahs, what about all the other Iranians? Is it a lie that nearly all Iranians hate your organization with passion? Because they know very well what damn hypocrites you people are. The ONLY thing consistent about your cult is that you have stabbed everybody in the back -- including your own members; and the Iranian nation is one of them. Answer these questions:

• Didn't your organization use to kill Americans in Iran during the previous regime?
• Were you guys not the ones who helped Khomeini come to power?
• Were you not involved in the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran and taking hostages?
• Did you not cooperate with Saddam Hussein?
• Are you not cooperating with Washington now?
• Do Iranian people like you and support you?

I think this is enough for now. The best thing you and "your friends" can do, is to crawl back to your holes and beat your chest for your beloved terrorist cult leaders Masoud and Maryam and help them lead you farther down the abyss. And don't write lies and rubbish here. Your entire organization is not more than at most a few thousand members, and you don't have any sympathatizers among Iranian people. Now crawl back to your cave in Saddam's desert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.169.62 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

Phrases questioned by the opponent

Family executions

The Shah's regime executed one of her sisters, Narges, and the Khomeini regime murdered another, Massoumeh, who died under torture in 1982 while eight months pregnant. Massoumeh's husband, Massoud Izadkhah, was also executed.

How can these facts be confirmed? mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:25 (UTC)

There is a photo of Massoumeh which I am again willing to scan. Iranian press reported her death as "a great victory for the Islamic republic" because of who she was. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Support or opposition

Two diametral versions.

PMOI quickly emerged as the principal opposition movement to the clerical regime

MKO quickly emerged as the principal support movement to the islamic regime

Both sides, please explain. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:33 (UTC)

First and foremost, the name of this organisation is People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). This name appears on the top of all their statements issued and is even written at the top of the their website at www.mojahedin.org . The reality that the PMOI was the principal opposition movement was noted in seven consequtive reports on the organization by the U.S. State Department. The U.S. Library of Congress also wrote the same thing about the group in a 1988 report on Iran. All these reports are still available on both the US State Dept. website and the US LOC website. The term MKO is solely used by the Iranian regime simply because it sounds "harsher" to Western ears. This is also noted in the US State Dept reports, though not in the Library of Congress record.--RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Marriage

Anonym wrote:

as one of the leaders of the group because she was married to Masoud Rajavi, the leader of the organization

This is a guesswork, easily countered by the similar guesswork that Masoud maried her because she was strong politician in the first place. (Personally, I done see her as an irresistible houri, so she must be smart to be able to marry this guy.) mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi became a prominent figure in the group before the marriage. The marriage itself was more ceremonial than anything else. I might be wrong about this, but as I undstood it, the marriage made Maryam Rajavi an equal to Massoud Rajavi, thus the PMOI were able to fight against misogyny by having a woman as the leader. The PMOI said at the time that the Khomeini regime suppressed women, thus the best fighters against the regime "ideologically" were women. Again I may be wrong about this but to the best of my knowledge no other Islamic group is led by a woman. It is also interesting to note that in following years the PMOI's entire leadership council became comprised of women. The Iranian regime, as part of its demonizing campaign of course said that this was done to gain the support of Western politicians, but as I am sure you can imagine, it would be follhearted to give the entire command of an organization to other individuals solely to gain a good image in the West. No group would do such a thing. The realilty is that the PMOI genuinly believed that to fight against Khomenei you had to fight against misogyny. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Numbers

In a speech to 15,000 Iranians in Dortmund on June 16, 1995

20,000 Iranians and French citizens attended a gathering at Cergy soccer Stadium

the numbers require confirmation. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:50 (UTC)

The number of Iranians attending the Dortmund gathering was also confirmed in an article by the German news service DPA at the time and the Iranian oppostion movement advertised this greatly. I put the photos to back up the case about the figures. Regarding the "20,000 Iranians and French citizens", I myself did not write that part of the page, though my friends were able to give me the photos of the gathering. I did however see a report on the event on the site http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2514 which confirms the figure. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:36 (UTC)

The rest

The rest of anon's replacement text is irrelevant to the person in question and must be discussed in the article about the party. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:54 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.169.62 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

Supporters

Many famous performers, filmmakers, artists, painters, sculptors, poets and writers expressed their support for her platform for a free and secular Iran

Who? mikka (t) 30 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)

The Iranian opposition has held a number of concerts/political support gatherings in many cities across the world. Famous foreign singers who have performed for them include Chris de Burgh and Gypsy Kings but I think the majority of the performers, filmmakers, artists, painters, sculptors, poets and writers are actually Iranian ones. For example Iran's number one violinist has been supporting them for many years now. Also Marzieh, who in her time, was Iran's most famous singer actually joined the group a number of years ago. --RezaKia 1 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

He asked you to name the "many famous performers, filmmakers, artists, painters, sculptors, poets and writers" who have "expressed their support for her". You named a couple of non-Iranian artists that your organization has hired as entertainers for your gatherings, and then you name one old Iranian singer who is, I think, over 80 years old, and god knows why she has joined your group. So it is obvious that you are spinning.

Yes, I am asking for famous (i.e., the ones who must have a wikipedia article) persons, who extressed a documented support. Sorry for the inexact phrasing of the uqestion. I was a bit in a hurry; I work on wikipedia in my spare free moments of time.

Please try to speak less personally here. Clearly, you are political enemies, but personal verbal attacks are not helpful in editing. Please stick to actual pointing of errors and drawbacks. People editing here are volonteurs, working in their free time, and have no time to read long mutual accusations. You probably know a Persian or Arabian say "Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on". mikka (t) 1 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

He came here, ignored this question (because he couldn't come up with any names) but instead went to the MKO page and simply reverted that page back again. For your good information, almost all of his "contributions" (both on this article and the one on MKO) are copies from MKO sites. For example, the above statement, word for word, is from www.maryam-rajavi.com. Here is the copy from that site:

She also paid special attention to Iran's rich, but endangered, artistic and cultural heritage. Many famous performers, filmmakers, artists, painters, sculptors, poets and writers expressed their support for her platform for a free and secular Iran.

This is why I get mad at you and people like you who innocently jump in and interfere, especially when this guys fools you into presenting himself as a victim. RezaKia is the same person as Hanifjazayeri (it is so obvious a grade school kid can tell by just comparing their long messages in the talk pages) and this person is clearly a member of the MKO. Ask "RezaKia" where he gets the name "Hanif" from? That's from a part of the surname of one of the MKO founders, which the MKO members refer to him as "The Great Hanif".

For me it does not matter where the information came from. As you have noticed, I have already cleaned the text significantly of almost all propaganda. If you see false statements here, please explain this in the talk page. If you have additional verifiable information about the person, please add. But keep in mind that the article is about the person, not about the MKO/PMOI, whatever.

At the moment I have no time to work with MKO page. But I must say that your preferred version of MKO page is full of questionable claims. Any accusations, like killing americans, etc., require proofs. That is why I was going to start with the "supporters" version, to clean it from propaganda, and then let you to add negative proven statements. But I don't have time now, there is a holiday July 4 coming here, so you may play your revert wars a little bit longer (if any other admin will not interfere). mikka (t) 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Since the page was a biography about Maryam Rajavi, I did not go so far as writing each of the names of the personalities who have supported the PMOI. I will however at the request of Mikkalai spend some time in writing all the names which I can research in printed publications and on the internet and add them to the article as you wish. I do request however that somebody warn the "Anonymous" person of accusing me of being a member of the Mojahedin. Personal attacks should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Both me and Hanif have made clear in previous sections of the Edit and Talk pages of the Mojahedin and Maryam Rajavi pages that we were friends, so how can this guy claim that "we are the same"!!! --RezaKia 2 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

So you and "Hanif" are "friends" and Hanif disappears completely as soon as the ID RezaKia is created in Wikipedia and both of you have ONLY AND ONLY been involved with the MKO articles, and both of you have copied and pasted stuff from MKO web sites, and both of you have identical English style? You are impressively intelligent, mujahed, did you know that?

To Mikka and other general readers, I would point out that I only edit articles which I am knowledgable about, and I do know a thing or to about the PMOI. I would point out that the person that is making the accusations doesn't even have a Wikipedia name and just comes in with whatever IP his ISP provides each time. He too ONLY edits articles about the PMOI and tries to make them negative in any shape or form. I suggest that he has a political agenda and his IP should be banned for making personal remarks against others. If people read the Talk sections of Mojahedin and Maryam Rajavi pages they will see that he also swears at anyone who writes factually correct articles about the Mojahedin, of course, while hiding his true identity by not even having a Wikipedia username. --RezaKia 3 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Again, you did not address the charges, just like you never answered mikka's question when he asked you to mention a few of the names that you had claimed in the article. Let me again paste what I am accusing you (regarding the fact that you and the ID "hanifjazayeri" are the same person) and try to address this charge without spinning. Also if you can, mention a few of the names of the artists, poets, sculptors, writers, etc that you claim they support MKO; we are eagerly waiting to see the names. Don't worry about research for the contents of the article right now, just give us a few well-known names right here, so that we know you are not bullshitting. Here is my charge again:

So you and "Hanif" are "friends" and Hanif disappears completely as soon as the ID RezaKia is created in Wikipedia and both of you have ONLY AND ONLY been involved with the MKO articles, and both of you have copied and pasted stuff from MKO web sites, and both of you have identical English style? You are impressively intelligent, mujahed, did you know that?

To Mikka and other general readers, I hope that by reading my comments posted a little higher up the page you have enough information about me. If you want more, please state and I will be happy to give you. I will also add the completed list of artists, poets, sculptors, writers once I complete it since I am doing other work in my spare time as well. Please note that I refuse to answer questions by both agents of the Iranian regime as well as people who don't even introduce themselves on Wikipedia, choosing instead to make anonymous posts. The person who is accusing me of being the same person as Hanif (ie "identity fraud") does not even have a Wikipedia ID!!! I wish everyone a happy 4th of July holiday, and hope that other constructive posts will be added by unbiased people so that we can further improve this article. I am also preparing a section which would have highlights of Maryam Rajavi's recent activities. (I suspect most of it is already on her own site as well, but since this is an independent encylcopedia I think we should put a condensed "non-advertising" version in her biography here as well). --RezaKia 3 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

OK, it is 11 days since mikka asked for some names, and RezaKia promised to provide them but now we can see that he seems to have simply disappeared. This just shows that I was right that RezaKia was the same pereson as Hanifjazayer and he was a member of the MKO. This also shows the kind of people MKO members are. They have no honor and they are liars and cheaters and pretenders. I hope this is a good lesson for you mikka to not just jump in the middle of an issue of which you don't know the various aspects that may be involved. Also, it would be nice if you yourself work on either restoring the article to its state from before the MKO members changed it or modify it yourself to reflect the facts accurately.

To Mikka and other admins, This is a partial list which I wrote in my free time: Chris de Burgh, The Gipsy Kings, Jean Ferrar (Famous French singer), Marzieh (Iran's most famous female singer), Greek diva Maria Farantouri, Abbé Pierre (Winner of the award in France as the most famous social figure in the country), Mme Danielle Mitterrand (Former French First Lady), Ross Poppel (Conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra), Yehudi Menuhin (UK, later became a Lord), Reza Olia, William Nygaard (Norwegian publisher), Fouzieh Mehran (distinguished Egyptian writer), Nina Karin Monsen (Norwegian philosopher and author).

Now I want to know something. How can this guy say that he is unbiased? For starters he says "it is 11 days since mikka asked for some names, and RezaKia promised to provide them but now we can see that he seems to have simply disappeared. This just shows that I was right that RezaKia was the same pereson as Hanifjazayer and he was a member of the MKO". Considering that it is the holiday season (and even if it wasn't), how can this guy without being biased state that since it had been 11 days that I didn't write some names, that would automatically make me "the same person as Hanifjazayer" and "a member of the MKO"?!!! (He obviously has suspect motives for saying this. If anything a member of the PMOI would be able to produce it faster!)

As an Iranian, I know about the PMOI considerably, but no-one can expect me to remember the names of famous supporters off by heart, (even actual members of the Mojahedin wouldn't be able to that). I found these names of personalities on their personal websites where they state their support. Some of them are also mentioned on Maryam Rajavi's website. This is just a partial list, because if I wanted to put a whole list together it would take forever, but I hope Mikka that this is sufficient.

The other thing Mikka (and other admins), is that this guy (although I would say they are a group) doesn't even have a Wikipedia username since all he does is come along, vandalise articles for the Iranian regime's benefit, and then leaves. His motives are suspect and he clearly has an agenda. I have answered all questions asked by admins here. You will notice that I have written a lot here but he hasn't answered any of the questions.

Here's a though: Has this guy (or this group) actually even made one unbiased factual statement in this page (which he has been able to back up like I have done) or does he just make random accusations, edits the page without providing factual arguments, and uses abusive language? The reality is that the Iranian regime's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (VEVAK) is a vast sinister organisation. In the Middle East, it is second only to MOSSAD (Israeli intelligence). Its purpose is to destroy any opposition to the Ayatollahs. It has a two-pronged strategy; one is international terrorism such as assassination of dissidents; the other is a vast disinformation campaign it is running to demonize the Iranian opposition in the West. Did you know recently Human Rights Watch issued a report against the Mojahedin, based on telephone interviews with 12 Iranian intelligence operatives in Europe? The National Council of Resistance of Iran recently announced on its website that over 500 parliamentarians around the world had condemned HRW for writing a biased report. For example in the report HRW announced as facts that the 12 people it had telephone-interviewed had physical torture scars on their bodies. But how can it verify that when it only spoke to them on the phone and even admitted to never having seen the 12 individuals. But it goes to show how far VEVAK has gone in its campaign to demonize the Iranian opposition. I give you one more example, then I have to go, VEVAK websites such as Iran-Interlink and Iran Didban etc... have put a video of a meeting between Iranian Resistance leader Massoud Rajavi and Saddam Hussein, which VEVAK claims to have discovered in a secret location after the US-led war in Iraq. The reality is the complete opposite. If anyone sees the video they will notice that at the top left there is an insignia. This is the insignia of the Iranian Resistance's own satellite TV channel. You ask why? Simple. Because this was not a secret video discovered in Saddam's labs, rather it was a video of the ceasefire agreement, that Massoud Rajavi went to sign with Saddam to end the Iran-Iraq war, which was broadcast by the Iranian Resistance themselves. Khomeini wanted to continue the Iran-Iraq war which cost a million lives, though Rajavi wanted to end it to stop so many lives from being killed. So again you can see how VEVAK is taking a public video, putting false subtitles underneath it, and then using it to demonize the Iranian opposition in the West. For more information I refer you to www.iranterror.com that explains some of VEVAK's most sinister tactics.--RezaKia 09:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. You list is cracking me up man. After 12 days, you came up with this joke? is Gypsy Kings a political supported of the MKO ?!! and is the former first lady of France, an artist whos is a political supporter of the MKO? And a "Greek diva" is another of your artist political supporters?! You are really entertaining. From your list, I can ONLY recognize one Iranian name who is a well-known artist, and that is Marzieh, who is 81 years old. The rest are non-Iranian, or not famous, and in the case of the famous ones, they are either entertainers who have accepted to perform for your gatherings for money (and not because they are your political supporters) or they are irrelevant to Iranian politics. So all in all, after 12 days, you could come up with only one name, which was a repeat and she is an 81-year-old retired singer and god knows why she has joined your organization. You were claiming your organization is popular among Iranians. Nothing is farther from the truth. Iranians like you as much they like Saddam Hussein.

Even if we accept your list (which is really more like a good joke), can you give a few links to OFFICIAL SITE(S)_ that is, not any of the numerous MKO suckpuppet web sites__ that shows the above artists are political supporters of the MKO (we know Marzieh is an MKO member, so don't bother proving that one).

Anyway, were is Massoud? Rumor has it that he is dead. He is either dead, or he doesn't know what to say to Mujaheddin about his failure in leadership. LOL.

Being unusually meticulous on this article!

I was following up with several subjects. Tell you frankly I am half Iranian, half English (I like both parts of me!). As a spectator to this unbelievable, and un-necessary verbal "communication" I a not a bit convinced on you too Mr.mikka. I think you are strangely over reacting on elements which are actually extracts of news reports and Internet sites. Some for your amusement is verified in the Iranian Intelligence ministry's internet sites as well. So, you know what? A big question comes up over the credibility of this site, if it is being speculated -or edited - or moderated by volunteers, and not professionals. At least I did not have this image about Wikipedia. I must admit that until now it had been one of my major references. I Hope I am wrong. But I prefer to rely on a biased supervisor. On the other hand, this whole cynical argument, would naturally provoke both parties to use language not fit for an encyclopedia!. So I do disagree with questioning, and undermining all info put by someone in this place. I think it is like as if one feels another sort of violation of freedom of speech! Please not here, at least let every one speak and judge. I do understand as well the difference between a forum and an encyclopedia, but this scene was too much! --setareh

The wikipedia is edited by volunteers. The credibility depends on people accepting the WP:NPOV mechanism which means accepting that points of view which are stated by "credible" personalities or organisations, and preferably traceable to online sources are considered "facts" in the sense that "person X stated Y" is a fact, even if you may feel that Y is clearly false. Anyway, please see WP:NPOV. i put in the cleanup tag because clearly this page needs a lot of work - preferably between people who know the subject, i.e. Maryam Rajavi. Boud 01:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

did you even read any of my edits before reverting them and making those funny comments, this whole page was prior to when i edited it a propaganda page, very likely made by yourself. Next time you revert i will have to report you for spreading propaganda in Wikipedia. --Darkred 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear user:jayjg, you said: "if she's elected how can she be "self-proclaimed"? And what makes the group "terrorist"? And why would you remove all that information, including the link to her site?"

Like i meant to say above, perhaps you should consider reading the new article before reverting and then asking all those questions. If you read it your questions would be answered. However without even questioning you have also deleted my added source(new york times) which is considered a reliable source. Please revert the article back. Thank you for your cooperation.--Darkred 09:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked a single quotation from what purports to be a New York Times article. The purported article is actually being stored on a personal website, undoubtedly in violation of The New York Times copyright. You'd have a hard time making a case that that link should be kept. Now could you possibly respond to the questions I've raised? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all my that source backs up almost all my edits, second there is of course another copy of it on the new york times website itself.

Now to your questions. you said: "if she's elected how can she be "self-proclaimed?" Like it said in my edits and on the new york times, the ones that elected her is no other than her own organization the MKO, they have many names for themselfs to fool iranians into joining them, one of their names is: National Council of Resistance of Iran. Thus she is self-proclaimed. Your other question: And what makes the group "terrorist" Again like it said in the source, her organization the MKO have been on the USA list of terrorist gropus in years. just search the net. In the future please consider reading the article fully before questioning your own "missed lines". I didn't have to explain everything step by step, everything was clearly provided on my edit, but i did it anyway. Thank you for your understanding in advance. --Darkred 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP; we have to be extremely careful that biographies of living people are neutral, and you have to provide sources for all claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not change her biography one bit. I changed the propaganda and lies that were in this page. And i have provided sources, please do not revert this page without any reason. Thank you. --Darkred 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BLP? Have you read my comments above? It is critical that you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why you wont cooperate, you keep showing me the wiki rules! then keep rejecting my explanations and sources! It is clear that you need to read the rules more than me, so please do, start with this one: WP:BLP, just like i said there is no violation of her biography here, i did not even touch that section. Like i said in the edit summary for the page, next time you vandalize the page i will have no other choice than to report you for vandalism. I hope you will cooperate. --Darkred 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please state problems rather than revert-warring. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Kash, when dealing with living people we have to be particularly strict about following WP:V. See WP:BLP for more information. I've restored the previous version because the one reverted to contained writing errors, deleted material, and appeared to be written in a disrespectful tone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, fair enough I will try to read up on that when I get time, thanks -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Biography is copied from the website of the organisation she is president of

This whole biography is copied almost 1:1 from the public information website of the National Council of resistance of Iran (http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/12/26/). While this says nothing about the veracity of the facts in this article it casts doubt on the neutrality of the author.

I don't know whether this has been noted already in this discussion (since the website already has the neutrality sign) and I did not have the time to read the whole discussion, but I thought it should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.149.18 (talk • contribs)

Hmm well it doesn't seem like a word-to-word copy so it can't really be seen as a copyvio I believe -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg edits

I have reverted them, I think it's best to add the citation tag so it can be investigated further as it is definately not nonsense -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

protection and slow edit warring

I have protected the page on the last additional edit. Subsequent to that it is only slow revert warring. As usual someone will hold this protection being on the wrong version. That is just fine by me. Please slug it out on the talk pages before any editing or unprotecting takes place. The editwarring is only about a sentence and a half or so, so I think it should be relatively straight foreward to clarify Refdoc (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to these questions

The abbreviated name of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran is PMOI. In farsi it is Mojahedin- e - Khalq which means People's Mojahedin ( Khalq means people in Farsi). So instead of PMOI, the word MEK is also used. But "MKO" is a term used by the regime in their materials. If BBC has used this term, it is quite unfortunate! Maryam Rajavi is president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Some time people use Iranian resistance instead of NCRI but the former is OK. Tom davy (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem then is that your assertion that only the Iranian regime uses the abbreviation MKO is factually and demonstrably incorrect. Essentially there appear three abbreviations about: PMOI, MEK and MKO, all three are used by some interchangably (e.g. BBC), by some only one or two are preferred - for a variety of reasons, including presumably unkind ones. Wrt Iranian resistance and "some people", this is what Wikipedia describes as weasel words. Essentially a global term Iranian resistance needs either exceptionally good sourcing as indeed globally accepted or should not be used. Off hand, I would think that monarchists, communists and various ethnic movements will not be in majority part of the NCRI - which in turn makes the global term unacceptable. To be very clear, I am not party in this debate, I simply point out the problems which led to persistent edit warring without solution so far. Refdoc (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to Refdoc

You asked several questions. I tried to reply. But it seems that you already have an opinion despite your claims. I did not insist on using the word " Iranian resistance" but you keep expressing your views on that. I had simply pointed out that if you want to use the right words to call this group, they are called PMOI or MEK. The word MKO is used by the Iranian government and its supporters. Regards, Tom davy (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Ther's too much embedded POV in this article. Phrasing like "Khomeini's reign of terror" and "the most capable and qualified woman in the movement" are not appropriate under Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The version of the article you tagged is a promotional version that PMOI supporters frequently revert to. It's mostly based on the website of the group. I've taken the liberty of rolling that article back to a more neutral state. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to add a COI tag, as this page has been heavily edited by MKO members/WP:SPAs. The page should be cleaned up, and semi-protected in order to prevent such disruption in the future Kurdo777 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP Issue

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have reverted my edit because you have noted that there is a BLP issue. Can you please clarify? Which part is the BLP issue you are addressing? The only thing I can think of is the section on her role in Saddam Hussein's Anfal campaign. However this is properly referenced in the New York Times article cited and the MEK (under her leadership) support for Saddam Hussein has been widely documented (see MEK page). Please clarify your concern so that I can address it.

Thanks

Poyani (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

overseas support

NCRI has support primarily amongst overseas Iranians. Agreed. Why add "and numerous American political officials such as former New York City Mayor and Presidential Contender Rudy Giuliani"? The support of a few American politicians is not sufficiently notable to warrant mentioning in the lede.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maryam Rajavi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003021728/http://ensani.ir:80/fa/content/49872/default.aspx to http://www.ensani.ir/fa/content/49872/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Iraq Court

The Iraqi Judiciary, the source of the alleged arrest warrants added to the WP page, has major flaws and fails according to Amnesty International to uphold international standards. Amnesty International's country overview on Iraq currently states:

“… Government authorities held thousands of detainees without trial; torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife. Many trials did not meet international standards of fairness.” Thus, undoing the added Iraq section is merited according See WP:PublicFigureTheDreamBoat (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

You can add these to Judiciary of Iraq. It does not concern this article. Pahlevun (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Pahlevun, Well it actually does because the source of allegation, “Iraqi Judiciary”, mentioned in the Reuters is not credible. There also seems to be some confusion about which guideline applies here and the language used in the source provided.

A person can be charged with a crime before they are arrested, in which an arrest warrant is issued. However the article does not discuss a conviction, so it is inaccurate to say "she is convicted by a court of law", as noted in your edit summary. Furthermore, this incident is not well documented or discussed widely among reliable third-party sources, following WP:PUBLICFIGURE, it does not belong in the page.

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV); Verifiability (V); No original research (NOR), the biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The article does not say that she is convicted, it says an arrest warrant is issued, that's all. Plus, it is being covered by multiple reliable sources. Other than Reuters work cited in the article, Radio Farda and BBC Persian and various outlets in Arabic are available. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." So here we go. Pahlevun (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This text has been removed since the first statement could not be verified and the citation does not support the claim made. In addition, the wording of second Iraq sentence was edited to better reflect WP:BLP TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pahlevun, my edits and discussion of edits here on the Talk Page are to help improve the article, I would appreciate if you could kindly refrain from accusing me of censorship. The first sentence cannot be verified as stated in my previous comments here on the Talk Page. The same goes to the citation, which does not support the claims of a trials. There were no trials or conviction, hence “Trials” as the header for this section is inaccurate and only deceives the readers. I also revised the text of the second sentence in order to include balancing aspects per NPOV. Radio Fardo and BBC Persian, are not unique, reliable sources as they copy the same statements made in the Reuters article, without any verification. TheDreamBoat (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It is verifiable, if you mean Wikipedia:Verifiability, by using the word. Because it comes from a reliable source which is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The title should be "trials", because there were two criminal accusations i.e. formal accusations made by a governmental authority, not just "accusation". Iraq's court seems trial in absentia.

Adding "However, no members were convicted", which is not cited in the source is absolutly original research, hence should be removed. The wording is already neutral, it is stating facts. Any objections? Call for Wikipedia:Third opinion. Pahlevun (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request for a 3O made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) due to the RFC pending, below, on these and/or related issues. No dispute resolution process will accept a request or case while other DR is pending. RFC's generally run for at least 30 days before closing unless withdrawn prior to that time without objection from other parties. If consensus is not reached in the RFC, then 3O or some other DR process can be requested. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Trials, Iraq Court

• Title of section should not be “Trials” because no trials ever took place. Also, the events discussed in this part of the article are not trials.

• Language in second sentence under “Iraq” should support NPOV.

• Radio Fardo and BBC Persian, are not unique, reliable sources as they copy the same statements made in the Reuters article without any verification. TheDreamBoat (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If there were no "trials", the section heading reading "Trials" would seem out of place. If the section heading were to be changed, what might it be changed to? I don't think I've seen any suggestions in the above discussion. I am weighing in here, hopefully as a neutral observer, having been summoned by "Feedback request service". Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Would you please make a comment on this edit? I really do feel that it is discussing the article subject. Pahlevun (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Iraq

I have removed information regarding Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Neither the information provided or the source mention the subject of this article. There for it should not be included in this article. Detente 1 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume that it does belongs here, it's talking about "documentary evidence of Rajavi's role". Pahlevun (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It refers specifically to “Masud Rajavi” and does not mention “Maryam Rajavi”, at all. Therefor it should not be included in this article. Detente 1 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Political career

The most recent edit to this section violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Avoid victimization section. The rewrite of the source amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization, which WP editors should refrain from. The violation merits a removal of the paragraph, espeically as the source is clearly a hit piece in order to present the subject negatively. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maryam Rajavi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025111556/http://maryam-rajavi.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=927&Itemid=59 to http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=927&Itemid=59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Languages

What language[s] dose she speak? She speaks Dari but any others? She has lived in France for a long time can she speak French? Or what about other languages spoken in Iran such as Azeri? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.129.155 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file Maryam Rajavi at LFTAR gathering.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi trip to UK

Hello, I am reverting this edit by Pahlevun because the information about the Maryam Rajavi trip to the UK is already in the article:

"On October 2011 Theresa May banned Maryam Rajavi from coming to Britain in a trip where she was to "explain how women are mistreated in Iran". The high court then sued Teresa May, with Lord Carlile of Berriew (the Government's former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism laws) saying that May's decision “could be viewed as appeasing the Mullahs”.[16][17] In 2014, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dismissed an appeal from Lord Carlile of Berriew QC and others and upheld it to maintain the ban, which had originally being implemented in 1997. Members of the UK House of Lords argued that the Home Secretary was "violating Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention)", saying that “Home Secretary’s reasons were legally irrelevant, because they depended on the potential reaction of a foreign state which did not share the values embodied in the Convention.”[18][19] Rajavi is not excluded from any other European country and engages regularly with parliamentarians in the European Parliament.[20]"

Maryam Rajavi's incident with Theresa May is already in the article and I cannot see reasons why this needs repetition, but please discuss here first before putting this back in again. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No need for "repetition". This is a legal issue, and should be in the proper section, this is in no way about her "Political career". Secondly, this is not an "incident with Theresa May". Rajavi's entry ban has been in effect since 1997 –during premierships of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron before May in office; and current cabinet of Boris Johnson– so this is an "incident" with UK government. Last but not the least, do not remove List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom, which is more relevant than any other article listed in see also section. Pahlevun (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is about Rajavi coming to Britain about a trip "where she was to 'explain how women are mistreated in Iran'". The article also mentions the 1997 ban, and that there was a dispute that the Home Secretary was "violating Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention)". It is a complicated dispute, "with Lord Carlile of Berriew (the Government's former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism laws) saying that May's decision 'could be viewed as appeasing the Mullahs'." This is all presented in the article, so there is no need to create additional sections or POV titles. The same with your recent edit diff, where you are removing Rajavi's denial of the charges, and adding more details about a proven false arrest. The arrest is already mentioned in the article, and that all charges were cleared is also mentioned in the article, so trying to over-emphasize an arrest that led to no charges could be seen as a WP:BIO problem. I am reverting you based on that. I am also reverting Kazemita1's edits based on the same. If you both disagree, start a RfC and we will get other's opinions. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No Javadi, it's not. She never couldn't go on a "trip" to the UK. This article is about a person in the List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom for more than two decades, because of "firm stance against terrorism"; and apparently you want it removed from the article whatsoever, because your arguments are not in line with guidlines. Ths article is about a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative". Removal of her terrorism-related charges in France, which is backed by multiple reliable third-party sources, and while it is written in a neutral tone and mentions drop of charges, is pure censorship. Pahlevun (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: I second what Pahlevun said. These were all in the article and part of long-standing text for months. Your previous objection of being repetitive has been addressed.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are controversial. List your sources in a RfC, explaining what they support that isn't already in the article. We will then get other people's opinions about whether they merit inclusion. MA Javadi (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Let it be, we don't have to ask for RfC for every single "controversial" edit that is supported by multiple reliable sources, when it is in line with WP:PUBLICFIGURE guideline. In France, she was charged with several crimes and after eight years of trial, got acquitted. There is no problem with describing that in the article. This is funny that France–Iran relations is linked in see also section and List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom is constantly being removed. Pahlevun (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: The content in both of my edits were part of the long-standing text. You are the one offering to change that so your proposal needs an RfC. I am going to roll back your edits. Feel free to set up that RfC.Kazemita1 (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me. The "United Kingdom section" was added by Pahlevun (Jan 20)[1], removed by Ideligic (Jan 22)[2], and restored by you again (April 29) [3]. Actually, the "long-standing text" has been without the "United Kingdom section" (also "long-standing text" is not an policy, you need to discuss your edits and explain why they need to be included). Barca (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The objection was against having repetitive content and/or it not having much to do with trials. Thus, I am proposing what is suggested by User:HistoryofIran in en:Special:Diff/941112086/941112594 to include it a separate section under "United Kingdom Entry Ban". The event is notable enough and has been cited independent of the ban imposed by Theresa May.Kazemita1 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1 you're saying that you're proposing this, but you're actually pushing your edit back into the article without getting consensus first. That's edit warring (again). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit you are referring to is actually not my edit. It is a past version of the article that at least 3 users seem to be OK with (me, Pahlevun and HistorOfIran). That is a relative consensus given the number of active editors in the article at the time (5). Moreover, none of the users ever stated any reason for their objection towards inclusion of some of the contents. For example, You, MA Javadi, or Barca never says why including "*List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom" in the "See also" section is a problem and yet you blankly reverted it from the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I like to retract whatever I said and not be involved in this, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kazemita1, like I said in an earlier post, the reasons behind why Rajavi was banned from coming to Britain are controversial, so to put in the "See also" section that she was simply banned from entering the UK is an oversimplification that requires, at the very least, some source analysis and (hopefully) some outside input as well (RfC). You have tried to insert this several times saying "long-standing text", "what HistoryofIran suggested", etc., but have not actually attempted to discuss sources or consider other POVs (except your own). - MA Javadi (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit request; 24 July 2020

Hi! ^_^ , I think I have contributed to Wikipedia with something I found. A much new colored picture of her Here on Flickr , under This license . BUT I have tried to upload it unsuccessfully and it overwhelms, frustrates me. Can anybody help me? THANK YOU! I cherish you!. CoryGlee (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• EDIT: It was solved on Commons by two very kind users! Thank you! --CoryGlee (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

1RR and consensus required

I have applied two page-level restrictions here; a. 1RR — one revert per editor per 24 hours; and b. consensus required — once a new addition or change to longstanding text are reverted, the edits must be shown to enjoy consensus before being reintroduced again. Please familiarize yourself with these restrictions before making further edits to the article. This notice is simply a courtesy; the formal notice is the edit-notice, which should be abundantly visible to everyone. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, is this page still supposed to be under 1RR and Consensus required? I don't see a record that you ever added them. Anyway, after all the disputes over the interpretation of the Consensus required provision I was hoping to find everywhere it's used to see if we can achieve some consistency and link to the WP:Consensus required page which is currently being edited and discussed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just found that this template was just being discussed.[4] I don't really understand any of that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is the right template which has CRP as an option: Template:Gs/talk notice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: The restrictions are in place, and the edit-notice serves as the notification. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I don't understand. I'm used to seeing the restrictions in the talk page template. If this section is the edit notice I feel like it could easily be missed, or archived. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

An edit-notice is seen by everyone editing, and cannot be archived, while many if not most editors do not read a talk page through before editing, so I do not understand your grumbles. Feel free to add a talk page template, if it bothers you. I am disinclined to spend more time on the paperwork. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I wasn't complaining; I'm just trying to understand how these restrictions and templates work. I replaced the template. Can you tell me where the description in the template of the Consensus required restriction comes from? I don't see it in the source code of Template:Gs/talk notice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Consensus required and a few other places. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: sorry, I meant to ask how the template generates that text, because I do not see that the text is stored in the template code. The WP:Consensus required page is being actively edited and discussed, and the changes may have changed the original intention of the template text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't especially want to get involved until the cleanup effort has been resolved in some way. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruption

@173.52.73.120: In case you didn't read this:

Editors to this page: are restricted to making no more than one revert per twenty-four (24) hours (subject to exceptions below) must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article

I would highly advise you to revert your edits and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Also, please don't write false summaries, I didn't request anything from you [5]. Mind you, this is a discussion that has been ongoing for a long time here [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: No worries, I have included a talk section and notified the WikiPedia supervisors of the issue. Please show why you are refuting the cited information to the terrorist activities and history of this BLP so that we can reach a conclusion on the basis of evidence rather than your meritless accusation of a "false summary". The information was cited. The articles clearly state she has terrorist links and affiliations still ongoing into the Trump admin. Thank you. 173.52.73.120 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This didn't belong to incidents. I'm just gonna let the admins deal with you. Please read WP:NPOV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a new user apparently, but the information provided is cited to well-sourced links and I don't see any false items in the summarization of them. Can you please explain your viewpoint and why you believe the editor has broken neutral viewpoint guidelines? DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Ditto. 173.52.73.120 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines Violations

As I'm reading through this talk page, I'm noticing about 99% of it is filled with items that could easily violate Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. The discussions here are for items relevant to the BLP and to be done in a good faith, positive manner. This page, too, requires editing so that substantive discussions about the actual BLP can be noticed. I am going to clean slate here so we can have the most relevant discussions completed. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Once more about reverts

Any one who will revert these pages again without explanation of each and every deleted piece will be blocked from editing. I don't care about your political bickering, and it is not be tolerated in wikipedia. Answer here for each deletion separately: you have to prove each statement to be false or has reasonable doubts and request confirmation from the author, for each dubious item separately. Allah akbar. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Agreed here totally. And please refrain from further Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines violations. This page had to be substantially edited to remove just plain internet ad hominem. It's easy to discuss these subjects without the name calling or heated back and forths. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mullah

Please provide a neutral term for phrases "mullah regime", etc., in the article, which IMO are used with the intention of offense. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

I suggest that the terms "clerical regime" to be used instead of "mullahs' regime" if the latter phrase is seen as biased. I have seen it used in news agency reports about leaders of the Iranian regime. --RezaKia 2 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

"Regime" is not a neutral term. This must be edited out of the article. That is Iran's government and not regime, a politicized adjective with non-neutral connotations, whether we agree or not. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

It is abundantly clear to me that this particular topic is highly controversial in some circles. I highly recommend that a neutral third party fully verify all facts before they be treated as such. Without citations and proof, what SHOULD be a factual representation is no more than a debate about politics in Southeast Asia.

Agree wholeheartedly. I have edited this talk page of all violations accordingly. Please use EVIDENCE to support your views just as you would use CITATIONS on article content edits. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

descended from Qajar dynasty

Maryam Rajavi's Maiden Name is Maryam Qajar Azodanlu since she is a descended from a member of the Qajar dynasty.

sources : http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=686332003

          http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3789
          http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980279.stm

The surname "Qajar" does not indicate descendancy from the Qajar dynasty. This is a false relation and it should be removed. Anyone can change their surnames, and several Iranian families did so. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A new Religion!

The article says "Rajavi has given lectures on the modern, democratic version of Islam"! So she is creating a modern Islam too? What I like to know is what her religious qualifications are? Ok, I know she has none; then what is her credibility? Ok, ok, I know she doe not have any! Then what is her authority and who gave her such authorities? Ok, ok, I know the answer to this one; it is Ayatollah Tony Blair! Kiumars

HELLO! does anybody read here? The article is written by a zeolus MUJAHED. In the opening sentence there should be a short notice that the organization is recognized as a terrorist organization by US, Canada, EU, and Iran.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/040203/terrorist.aspx

There is additional evidence to support that BLP has terrorist affiliations and it should be mentioned in the article. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

CopyVio

I flagged this article as a copywrite violation. It's not a complete copy-and-paste from http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/34/59/, but you can tell it comes straight from that site. Dchall1 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the site, it is clear that the organization has come here and copied and pasted a biography from the organization, and tried to maintain it over time through various editors. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

The dispute appears to be

1. whether Maryam Rajavi is the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance vs of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Is there an actual organisation called Iranian Resistance? Is her acceptance so ubiquitous by any and all relevant organisations that a global term can be used? Like e.g. the French government in exile under de Gaulle?
2. the use of MKO vs PMOI. The claim by the last editor previous to protection is that MKO is a biased term and only used by the current Iranian regime. Is this so? can you substantiate that? If there is an abbreviation which is preferable then it should be used throughout the article - it appears that various ones are used across teh whole article.
3. the use of the term umbrella organisation for the NCRI. Can whoever introduced the term provide a source? And those who object to it explain why - with sources?

My suggestion is that these are three simple matters which can be rapidly resolved in the ususal way, by providing links and sources. For what it is worth abbreviation MKO appears to be the one in use in the BBC [7] Refdoc (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody refers to Maryam Rajavi or her orgs. as the "Iranian Resistance", a term more denoting the Shia Alliance of Iran by Iran's government and its affiliates in professional circles. See, for example, DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

This article is ridiculous. The lead has qualified statements like describing the subject as "the main opposition" to the Iranian regime, despite the fact that this is a VERY questionable statement and not backed by the source listed. The first half of the article is promotional material without sources and even the rest is extremely poorly written. I am tagging it. If you disagree discuss here. Poyani (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that most of the problematic material has been added within the last two months. I am reverting to an earlier version. Note to editors, please ensure you adhere to WP:RS WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV when making changes to the article. Poyani (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The reverted version is also POV but this time against the subject. It almost exclusively lists criticism. Someone needs to add properly sourced information which provides other information about the subject, balancing the article. Poyani (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article requires substantial edits and updates. It looks like it was polished clean of any well-cited information by the supporters of the BLP out of bias. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Template removal

I have just removed the templates after some minor clean-up as it appears that the offending material has been removed. Furthermore, the existing content seems to be properly sourced. As for the COI, no specific accusation was made, so its template removal is appropriate unless a credible claim can be made. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Another User just reverted the removal of the tags. Out of the 37 watchers or the 236 unique Editors that have made edits, anyone care to comment on why the tags should remain? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy.... Unfortunately I could not disagree with your removal of the POV tag. Unfortunately this article is consistently and continuously scrubbed of any item which negatively portrays the subject. When I first edited the article, it was an unreferenced, word-for-word copy of the official PMOI page for Maryam Rajavi. I rewrote it completely using the sources I could quickly gather together. It has since then, been slowly but surely been scrubbed of every negative statement, while adding absurd statements such as "Her platform for the future of Iran has been endorsed by Iranians". For the record, the MEK's support within Iran is measured at somewhere far to the south of 1% of the general population. Major sources who have been critical of Rajavi and the MEK have all been removed. Consider for example the massive profile the New York Times put together of the group which can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html You will also notice that the entire chapter of the relationship between Rajavi and Saddam Hussein has been completely wiped out of the article. This was a critical and extremely important part oft he history of the MEK, and the primary reason why their support in Iran is because of MEK's close relationship with Saddam Hussein, DURING the time Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. Also completely expunged are Rajavi's participation in the genocidal Al-Anfal campaign of Saddam Hussein against the Kurds of Iraq, her groups participation with the US and Israel in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists (they are considered in the US media as the most likely perpetrators), the group's former alliance with the Khomeieni regime, the numerous acts of murder they committed against Iranian and US targets, and the group's former listing on numerous countries' list of terror organizations (including the US, Canada, and the EU). Maryam Rajavi's primary claim to fame are the fact that she is the wife of Massoud Rajavi, that she is the former head of the MEK, and that she participated as a commander in the Iraqi war against Iran and the Kurds. This article instead entirely focuses on her "election" as the head of the NCRI (a completely non-noteworthy organization which the western media typically refer to as an "front group for the MEK") or other non-worthy portions of her life (her education, her claims for why she joined the MEK or her congratulations to fellow MEK leaders. For all this and more I strongly oppose removing the POV tag at this point. If you have the time, I would recommend you update the article to reflect some of the items I listed above, and remove the garbage about how she is endorsed by Iranians and members of parliament around the world. Poyani (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. That is what is happening here. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional resources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980279.stm http://prospect.org/article/cult-mek Poyani (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Poyani, first off, thank you for your efforts to provide balance to the article. I can empathize with your frustration. As long as you have reliable sources for the information you wish to add and its obviously pertinent (and not just to those familiar with the subject) to the subject of the article, it should be included. One guideline though is that criticism should not be limited to a specific section, rather it should be threaded throughout the article. I am not as familiar with the subject you seem to be, so I will defer to your input on this matter. But if the sources only provide a certain type of information or viewpoint, there's not much we can do about it. You may have to dig deeper to find better citations. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scalhotrod. I do have sources for everything. The best source on this particular topic is this 5-page detailed report on this very topic printed in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html I've used this source, but it keeps getting removed without comment. Most common type of responses are POV or BLP issues (even though I don't think when you have reliable sources you are violating either rule). The people who remove the material aren't interested in debating the merit of their actions in the talk-page. They know that over time I will just give up since it seems I was the only one pursuing this content here. Poyani (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So I did a quick scan of that article and did not find much in the way of citable fact. There are statements about what others think of Mrs. Rajavi's actions or impressions that others have of her, but not a lot that is directly attributable to her except for the quote about the Kurds. The arrest is talked about and verifies it, but everything is seems speculative. What else do you have? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scalhotrod. The specific claims about Kurds does not have to necessarily be included. I am just concerned that the whole article is greatly unbalanced. Another good source may be the Council on Foreign Relations page on MEK. See http://www.cfr.org/iran/mujahadeen-e-khalq-mek-aka-peoples-mujahedin-iran-pmoi/p9158 Poyani (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I know nothing about the CFR, but that looks like a WP style essay that includes links to sources for claims they are making. Those sources are usable as well. Is the CFR a reliable and reputable source of information or are they pushing an agenda? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

CFR is used as a reliable source on many other pages. For the record, if an issue is disputed in the scholarly record, then we can present it as different sides. However, if an issue is clearly stated in some sources, and not disputed in any RS, then it is reasonable to include it in the article.Poyani (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

President elect?

How can Rajavi be president elect since 1993? A president elect is someone who is elected but not yet taken office.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This needs updating. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of Unreliable Sources

The source "Who's Who's of Women in 2002" is a self-published source. Is there any other data on Rajavi's education credentials that we can reliably include? If not, there's no proof of her education. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the Fox News articles are subject to speculation and debate. Are those reliable? They are opinion pieces. De minimis, the article's content should reflect that the allegations come from "Fox News" outright instead of citing it inline so that the audience can make a better determination without digging. If no one objects, I will try to find better sources, re-word, or just remove. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MKO is a terrorist org.

I don't understand why iranians are so anxious to support the mko, it's not like if iran's mullha's leave power iran will suddenly turn fine under an mko regime, iran is split, it's always been split, nothing will solve iran's problems, iranians are a bunch of bazaris who only care for themselves and their pockets with the opportunistic acts, under any regime they will try and fill their pockets with as much cash as possible.

I hope vevak finally finishes the job by assassinating maryam rajavi, it's the least they can do, the mko has killed many iranians, it's funny, everyone says iran's media is bias and propaganda, how can we take the word of mko then? they have no bias? they would sell their own mothers to overthrow iran's government, no doubt.

I rather iranians made an org. where armed struggle or terrorism wasn't part of it, but peaceful protests and encouraging iranians to vote the most reformist mp's into power, rather than the last election encouraging iranians not to vote and they ended up with ahmadinejad, iranfocus.com is rajavi's propaganda machine, mko has had no good for iran or iranian's cause for a democratic iran, the sooner they understand this the better, personally i hate maryam rajavi and the mko, she had a hard life, tough, live with it, it gives her no right to take someone elses life for her troubles and ideas of a new iran which i can tell you many disagree with.

It appears we do have some sources below showing this. Can anyone disagree? DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As the section was deleted because of extraneous text correctly, I have copied and pasted the links supplied to the resources outlining the basis for calling this BLP terrorist related as it is a important update for Neutrality to be met:

(1) https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giuliani-and-his-old-iranian-clients-cheer-soleimanis-death - "Rudy Giuliani Calls Former Iranian Terrorists ‘My People’";

(2) https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/long-march-yellow/ - "LONG MARCH OF THE YELLOW JACKETS - How a One-Time Terrorist Group Prevailed on Capitol Hill" ; and,

(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/world/french-arrest-150-from-iranian-opposition-group.html .

DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The above items are not from me but simply copied/pasted, and I find them to be reliable neutral sources for information supporting the edits of 173.52.73.120. We have consensus. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please read the above here. It appears we have reached consensus that the word "terrorist" used throughout those articles above in reference to the BLP is valid. Although it CAN be a derogatory insult, it also is an academic term referring to a tactic of using fear or force to further a political goal. In this instance, the adjective applies and to remove it from the BLP when mainstream and reputable sources are echoing the distinction is non-neutral IMHO. I am also a subject matter expert in this area. This would be a correct description of the BLP according to a consensus of professionals. Looking forward to hearing why it shouldn't be included. Thank you kindly. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To wit, one can read the profiles of numerous live individuals noted as "terrorists" by the FBI and see the term used in the lede along with "militant", "Islamist", etc. These are not derogatory terms, but objective adjectives used by subject-matter experts. "Islamist", for example, doesn't refer to actual Muslims. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus here. Consensus requires, hmm, interaction of several editors. If you have yourself written something which you think is plausible this is not consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: As noted, the above was copied and pasted from the IP user's contributions. Please see the history of this talk section to see that an admin asked it to be restated andit was deleted. Meaning, the sources are not from me. I have repasted and vetted them. Please provide reasons not to include the descriptions appropriately for BLP upon review of the articles supplied. I am a subject matter expert who believes they should be included because the New York Times, Daily Beast, and other sources used are considered reputable journalistic venues. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Again: Please do not try to involve me into this content dispute. If you are a subject matter expert, sure you can convince other editors that your edits are not disruptive.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And now I have looked at the history of this talk page, and I must say if you continue like this you are likely to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I confirm the evidence here supplied by IP User 173.52.73.120 and think the terrorist adjectives are professionally appropriate. Please help me understand if consensus is thus reached or if we can wait for an additional editor to chime in. I am fine with others chiming in. There's no ambiguity here over the applicability of the term among professionals. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: - you are invited to provide your reliable resources in refutation of the above well-resourced material as you are the main one objecting to the addition of the appropriate information from these sources. Please attempt to do so in a timely manner before the article is revamped. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that's not gonna work. Let me repeat myself for the third (?) time; this topic has already been discussed plenty of times at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran, where a consensus was reached, please go and read it. Judging by what went on at that article, simply branding them as terrorists (which you are so keen on) is not neutral. Those sources you want to add are just one side of the story. Now, can you please cease this disruption? --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, actually it seems we have reached consensus thus then. You are now just arguing you don't like something without substantive rebuttal. That is a different article and new consensus can be reached based on new information. You don't have a right to exclude RELIABLE information on WikiPedia because you don't like it. Please retain neutrality and this is your final warning to cease and desist from false accusations of bad faith. You must assume good faith here. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You wrote that the articles from these sources only represent "one side of the information". Can you please provide reliable sources for the "other side"? This is the last request before edits are made. Thanks. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

For the 4th time, please go and read the talk page, you will find all you need there, its not my job to do your research for you. Go ahead, make those edits and I will report you. HistoryofIran (talk)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Maryam Rajavi and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

If I read this discussion properly, it seems to be about whether to include a mention of the MEK as a terrorist organization. If we look at the current countries which explicitly designate the MEK as a "terrorist organization", we see it's only Iraq and Iran recognize it as such. Note that the UN only describe it as a group that is involved in terrorist activities, not as a terrorist organization. Let's compare with other similar articles. Jose Maria Sison is the founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines which is currently recognized by the U.S., EU, and the Philippines as a "terrorist organization". This is worse than the MEK, which only has two countries designating it as terrorist, and both of which are involved (unlike the U.S. and EU). Yet there's no mention of the CPP designated as terrorist on the first lead paragraph of JMS. Instead, it used "person supporting terrorism" on the next paragraph. There is no need to point out that the CPP is designated as a terrorist org. Another, closer example is Leila Khaled. She is a member of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This case is even worse, because the PFLP is designated as a "terrorist organization" by five countries (U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, EU), and she was involved in the hijacking of TWA Flight 840, which I think we could agree is a terrorist act. However, there's no mention of terrorism at all on her lead paragraphs. Instead, it mentions her involvement in the airplane hijacking. There is no need to point out that she and the PFLP are terrorists. So I think it's not necessary to include a mention of the MEK as a "terrorist group". Mentioning it would make the article less neutral, in my opinion. It's better to let the facts speak for themselves. pandakekok9 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Major changes to this article

@DeweyDecimalLansky: You are making too many sudden changes to this article changing its narrative completely with cherry picked sources. For this reason I will rollback the bulk of your edits. Please discuss your edits here in small parts, building consensus before adding it back to the article. Barca (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of term

@DeweyDecimalLansky: I am one more incident away from reporting you for both POV pushing and personal attacks. In what universe was my addition of the term "political" [8] "ad hominem "justified" revision trying to create nonsensical, non-existent redundant term"? [9], I literally made it match the Wikipedia article as you CLAIMED you did, but didn't [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: First, this isn't the right forum for your personal communications to me. Second, please stick to content discussions as per guidelines. Third, I am sticking to guidelines here and not responding to that kind of assertion further. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is a pretty fine place. That's why you have been recently blocked and warned for the very things, huh? But let's not dwell on it any further, I expect you will do better from now on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I re-added Dewey's content, as well as your term, but I removed content that would violate WP:BLP. You can revert me if you want, I'm open to building consensus via discussion. But now, with the removal of the loaded language as well as content that is "guilt by association", it should be easy now to establish consensus. Thanks, pandakekok9 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Pandakekok9. My concern is also that these edits include many modifications to the article that sometimes change the attention from Maryam Rajavi to other topics like PMOI or her husband. I think the long-standing version was more neutral and more faithful to the subject, so please allow me to revert and let’s look at the edits section by section, starting with the lead.

• ”People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), a political-militant organization”

This description is about the PMOI and not about Rajavi, and its a complicated description. The PMOI initially declared armed struggle against the Islamic Republic, but they were disarmed by the US and declared “protected persons" during the Iraq war.[11][12]. It currently "claims it is seeking regime change in Iran through peaceful means with an aim to replace the clerical rule in Tehran with a secular government."[13] Describing it as a militant-political organization in the lead of Maryam Rajavi's article gives a rather unsupported POV that Rajavi is somehow involved in militant undertakings.

• "Until 2013, Maryam Rajavi's group was designated as a terrorist organization on the United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, among others were supporters of de-listing Rajavi's organizations from the designations."

We have the same problem here where we are delving into issues regarding the PMOI (or NCRI) instead of Maryam Rajavi. The PMOI (and NCRI) are not “Maryam Rajavi’s groups”. She co-heads these organizations (together with her missing husband). The issues of listing, de-listing, and political support are described in the NCRI and PMOI articles, where I think is more relevant.

• "Maryam Rajavi enjoyed the support of both the Obama and Trump administrations."

The Obama and Trump administrations supported the PMOI. This is not about Maryam Rajavi explicitly.

• "Massoud Rajavi, who is the co-leader of MEK and reportedly dead or missing."

This is also not about Maryam Rajavi explicitly. There is an article about Massoud Rajavi (who is also the co-leader of the NCRI) already linked in the article.

We can talk about this more. My point is that I tend to agree that the focal point of the article should be on the sources and information talking about Maryam Rajavi respectively. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MA Javadi, thanks for the response. After some careful reading of the sources cited in the paragraphs mentioned here, I agree with your points. However, I'd like to re-add this part which you removed from the "France" subsection:

The Paris Police claimed "that the group was planning to move its military base to France and launch terrorist attacks on Iranian targets in Europe", which caused some members of Rajavi's organizations to set themselves ablaze.

Currently the Rajavi denied the charges part of the "France" subsection doesn't make sense, as the charges aren't mentioned in the article. If needed, we could reword that removed part so that it's more neutral and is specifically about Maryam. I think The police claimed that the group planned to establish a base and launch attacks on Iranian targets from there. should work. pandakekok9 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this on the article (though I'm not sure where, maybe on the "Political career" section or as a new section?):

In 2018, MEK defectors accused Rajavi of helping her husband abuse female members. One of the defectors alleged that "she used to read the vows" during the marriages of Massoud and the female MEK members.

I removed a similar paragraph as that didn't seem to directly mention Maryam, but this time it does directly accuse Maryam, and I think it is relevant and should be included in the article. pandakekok9 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Pandakekok9: Thanks for your response too. Concerning mentioning the charges, I agree this could be good for the article. Maybe reword something like this?

The police placed the group under formal investigation on suspicion of "associating with wrongdoers in relation with a terrorist undertaking

About accusations by defectors, there is a big misinformation thing going around through alleged MEK defectors (and non-defectors [14] [15][16]), so my suggestion would be to generally avoid claims from defectors and just stick to claims from reliable authors since this is a highly controversial article. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: Hmm, I see. I won't add the defectors' allegations, as it seems to be better suited at the MEK's article. Regarding the charges, I think it would be better to merge our wordings, as yours didn't mention the earlier claims by the police of "establishing a military base and launching 'terrorist' attacks on Iranian targets", as well as "money laundering". I propose this addition be made on the article:

The police claimed that the group planned to establish a base on France and launch attacks on Iranian targets from there. The group was then placed under formal investigation over suspicion of links to terrorism and money laundering.

What do you think? pandakekok9 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: About the charges, the article seems to say there were charges for some PMOI members, and other charges for a different initial group which also included Maryam Rajavi. The part about Rajavi seems to be this

Twenty-four people were originally placed under formal investigation, including Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the PMOI’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), on suspicion of “associating with wrongdoers in relation with a terrorist undertaking”.

Maybe a reword of that would be the more precise thing to add? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: Ah, didn't notice that, thanks for pointing it out. How about this then:

She and 23 other people were investigated over suspicion of links to terrorism.

That should accurately and concisely cover what charges she was facing, and avoid having to use quotes. pandakekok9 (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: looks good to me. Thanks. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Terror and Cult Affiliations Central to Rajavi BLP Totally Missing

I have tried to add these revisions, but they are being scrubbed off by edit disputes. Please see the added section below:

[START OF ADDED SECTION]

Allegations of cult or terrorism affiliation

In October 2011, Theresa May banned Rajavi from coming to Britain in a trip where she was to "explain how women are mistreated in Iran" with the stated reason of Maryam Rajavi's affiliations with terrorism. The high court then sued Theresa May, with Lord Carlile of Berriew (the Government's former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism laws) saying that May's decision "could be viewed as appeasing the Mullahs". However, In 2014, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dismissed an appeal from Lord Carlile of Berriew QC and others and upheld it to maintain the ban, which had originally been implemented in 1997. Members of the UK House of Lords argued that the Home Secretary was "violating Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention)", saying that "Home Secretary’s reasons were legally irrelevant, because they depended on the potential reaction of a foreign state which did not share the values embodied in the Convention."

In 2020, the "Intercept" reported former group member's allegations of forced sterilization and torture by Rajavi and her husband. From the article: “I couldn’t feel whether I was alive or dead,” said Issa Azadeh, a senior operative who left the group in 2014 after 34 years. “I was thinking, ‘Did I make a mistake?’ But the first time when I got into the internet, I saw the truth. I searched about cults. I realized we were robots."

In 2017, journalist, Mehdi Hasan, reported via the "Intercept" that Rajavi's financing comes from the Government of Saudi Arabia and right-wing war-hawk ideologues in the US and Europe.

In November, 2018, The Guardian extensively reported terrorist affiliations and politicized de-designation from the United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations for Rajavi's groups.

[END OF ADDED SECTION]

What are the compelling reasons for not including these very reliable sources and articles? They are not on the unreliable sources list. Why is this information all missing from this person's biography and why does it read like an advertisement for the person instead of an actual encyclopedic biography for academics to possibly utilize without suffering integrity issues over major aspects of this person missing from the BLP article? DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@DeweyDecimalLansky: You could also use the following source, the chapter Cultic Characteristics of the MeK for your purpose.

• Goulka, Jeremiah (2009). The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum (PDF) (Report). RAND corporation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2016.

The subsections of this chapter are as follows:

• Sexual Control
• Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership
• Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation
• Emotional Isolation
• Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure
• Deceptive Recruitment
• Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation
• Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options
• Patterns of Suicide
• Denial of Cultic Tendencies

Ghazaalch (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Ghazaalch: You can also work on Maryam Rajavi detention in France. This incident is of importance to MEK history. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Meetings with world leaders

Stefka Bulgaria meetings with world leaders that generate coverage in reliable sources merit inclusion in this article. So why did you revert this? The information is well-sourced and neutrally phrased.VR _talk 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Meetings with other political figures seem redundant unless something major actually came out of it. Not all that is covered by reliable sources merits inclusion (Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). But if you insist this should be in the article, I don't have a problem to revert myself as a goodwill gesture to compromise. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For everyone to see the truth

I have no intention of arguing with someone who is obviously not interested in the truth and who makes accusations without providing any proof, but for the interest of other readers and to prove that the regime lies and is running a demonization campaign against the Iranian opposition, I would like to answer the accusations.

Please, everyone reading this bear in mind that I am not myself a member of the PMOI, thus the answers I give would probably not be up to the standards of the organisation.

In response to “Didn't your organization use to kill Americans in Iran during the previous regime?”

The PMOI, (not my organisation) has never killed Americans in Iran. I understand that some 5 of 6 Americans were killed in Iran at the time of the Shah and then attributed to the Iranian opposition, however at the time the PMOI issued a statement denouncing the acts, which were later discovered to be the work of a splinter organisation, PEYKAR, who after the revolution joined Khomeini’s forces in suppressing the Iranian PMOI members, but today they are non-existent in Iran.

In response to “Were you guys not the ones who helped Khomeini come to power?”

The PMOI, (again not my organisation) fought an underground resistance against the Shah’s regime so as to free the Iranian people from tyranny. At the time Khomeini was living in France. By the time of the 1979 revolution, the entire PMOI leadership was in the Shah’s prisons, thus Khomeini was able to steal the revolution as his own and then introduced his brand of Islamic fundamentalism to suppress the Iranian people far more than the Shah did. Of course Khomeini knew that the PMOI could not be negotiated with if he were to suppress the people since they sacrificed their lives for the peoples’ freedom. Therefore most of Khomeini’s violence was directed at the PMOI, and even his number 2 man, Ayatollah Montazeri has admitted in his memoirs that in the span of only a few weeks in the summer of 1988 more than 30,000 PMOI members were executed in Khomeini’s prisons. To date Khomeini’s regime has executed over 120,000 members of the PMOI. So, I hope everyone now understands that it was not the PMOI would brought Khomeini to power. They were in prison, and when the revolution broke out Khomeini stole the momentum and pronounced himself leader, whereas before he was living in France.

In response to “Were you not involved in the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran and taking hostages?”

The PMOI never supported the regime when it took hostages in the American embassy. They gave at least a dozen statements during the 444 days denouncing the action, which in fact gave Khomeini a chance to label the Mojahedin “pro-American” and get his henchmen to attack members and supporters of the organisation.

In response to “Did you not cooperate with Saddam Hussein?”

One common charge the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (VEVAK) spreads about the PMOI is that the organisation cooperated with Saddam Hussein. After Khomeini’s regime executed tens of thousands of Mojahedin members and their supporters, the PMOI would their base to Iran-Iraq border. The Iran-Iraq war lasted from 1980-88. At the beginning, when Iraqi forces invaded Iran, the Mojahedin fought them, (ironically, while they were fighting Iraq, regime’s forces also shot at them from behind, so they really had to defend against both fronts). However in 1982, Iraq pulled its troops out of Iran, and declared a ceasefire. The Mojahedin promptly accepted a ceasefire on the grounds that over 100,000 Iranians and Iraqis had been killed in the war, however Khomeini chose not to accept the ceasefire and instead made the slogan “Capture Jerusalem through Baghdad” and continued the war for a further six years, at the end of which more than a million people were left dead. In 1986 Mojahedin set up base on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border, with the ceasefire they signed in effect. One of VEVAK’s usual claims is that PMOI cooperated with Iraq because it maintained an office in Baghdad throughout the years, however the reality is that Britain, France, Germany, Russia … all had and continue to have an embassy in Iraq, (even the Iranian regime has one there now). It makes perfect sense for an organisation on Iraqi soil to have a press office in Baghdad, and it doesn’t automatically mean that they cooperate with the regime.

In response to “Are you not cooperating with Washington now?” The PMOI were never enemies with the United States to begin with, their only enemy is the Iranian regime which has killed over 120,000 political prisoners and tortured over 500,000. During the U.S.-led war on Iraq, the PMOI neither assisted the Americans nor the Iraqis, thus they are now protected under the 4th Geneva Convention. The other thing the PMOI have done that is really hard to swallow for the regime is that they revealed its clandestine nuclear weapons sites. The regime had not declared these to the IAEA until the Iranian opposition revealed that, and these are not my words; these are the words of the IAEA officials and George Bush who clarified it during a recent a press conference. If this person is criticizing the PMOI for revealing to the world that the regime was secretly making nuclear weapons, then I would seriously suggest that this person’s motives are extremely suspect!

In response to “Do Iranian people like you and support you?” As an Iranian I would say the Mojahedin are supported by the vast majority of Iranians inside and outside Iran, and that is why they have so much international support too.

As I wrote in my previous post, this guy is continuously offensive and uses offending language, as one would expect from likely VEVAK agents who are there to defend a corrupt dictatorship.

Now, everyone can see that the charges this person levels are unsubstantiated and his motives are extremely suspect. For anyone wanting to learn more about the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (VEVAK) and their campaign to demonize the Iranian opposition, please take a look at this site: www.iranterror.com --RezaKia 18:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From your answers there are three things that are immediately obvious to the reader:

• One, that you don't lie.
• Two, (and this one is glaringly obvious) that you are NOT a member of the MKO.
• And three, that your are impressively intelligent (for example: "The PMOI, (again not my organisation)" -- ha ha ha ha ... this one is too funny).

Usually when regime's agents blow their cover. At first they responces make no sence, and later they start to repeat all their previous lies. Just reading the note written by this "anonymous" guy, he doesn't seem to be able to reply yet continues to revert the page to his vandalism. (Note: pretty soon, I suspect, he will start to call me a terrorist again, as he has done in the Talk section of the page Mojahedin-e Khalq.)--RezaKia 08:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page protected. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Page unlocked again. If no one's going to discuss it, then I'm not going to sit on it. Please work out a way to make this article unbiased, even if there's disagreement over the facts.

Let me begin by telling immediately that I am neither a supporter of the Iranian regime nor any group affilliated with them. However, several comments you have made here are incorrect. First, the MEK support within Iran is, at best, insignificant. This being due to the perception that the MEK allied with Saddam Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war, with documented pictures and videos to back that perception.

The MEK's base of support is primarily in Europe. It also enjoys limited support from American politicians. Within the US Iranian community, the MEK's support is overshadowed by those who support the late Shah's son.

Furthermore, the MEK is documented to have fought along the Iraqi army against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (Basij) and Iraqi Kurds. The organization is known to have even been armed by Saddam Hussain with heavy weaponary and tanks. "Crush the Kurds under your tanks, save you bullets for the revolutionary guards" is a very famous quote attributed to Maryam Rajavi.

Another fact conviniently left out is that MEK leadership supported and endoresed Khomeini prior to the revolution. However, after the revolution's success, the MEK participated in the power struggle with the Islamic Republicans to gain control of the country. At the time, the MEK had the largest standing guerilla army in Iran, but it lost the power struggle, due to the quick recruitment of the Pasdaran (revolutionary militias) and Massoud Rajavi's decision to move the guerilla army's most experienced units to France for his protection.

Yet another, very important missing piece of information, it the fact that the MEK has on multiple occasions, has committed terrorist acts. For example, in order to assassinate senior regime officials, the MEK is known to have bombed targets that have also killed many innocent civillians.

Yet another point ignored here was the fact that the MEK was directly in confrontation with the US until the year 2003, when US forces surrounded and captured the MEK's military base of operations in Iraq, called camp Ashraf. The US always viewed the MEK with suspecion given the MEK's peudo-Marxist and Islamist ideology. The confrontation was further intensified when the MEK supported Iraq in its invasion of Kuwait, and through to the fall of the Baath regime.

The regime in Iran is also responsible for many many despicable acts against the MEK and other desident groups at the time, however the behaviour of the Islamists in government at the time does not excuse the crimes of the MEK. --Poyan, April 19, 2007. 7:55AM

Sources about MEK leadership

• 1)"The Mujahideen organization is jointly run by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi"

• 2)"Rajavi and his wife and co-head of the organization, Maryam"

• 3) "The faces of Mujahedin-e-Khalq leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi briefly disrupted state TV programming"

• 4) "MEK leaders Massoud Rajavi and his wife, Maryam Rajavi"

• 5)"The key leadership cell of the MEK fled to France … including the two primary leaders - Massoud Rajavi."

Other than claims by some speculators, Massoud Rajavi going missing has not had an official impact on the leadership of the MEK as far as I know. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? He's been missing, presumed dead for twenty years. That the incredibly secretive organization hasn't announced what has actually happened to him is neither here nor there. When reliable sources question whether he is alive, you cannot leave statement in Wiki voice suggesting that just glosses over that and act like it is assumed that he is still alive. And that is unrelated to her being the public face, which she obviously is. The other changes are unexplained and unjustified. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You do actually need a good reason for removing reliably sourced information - and, 'it's already in the infobox' isn't one. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I disagree. Please show where it says that Massoud Rajavi isn’t part of the leadership anymore. The only thing sources are confirming is that Massoud Rajavi is missing and that Maryam Rajavi is the current public face of the MEK. There is also already an article about Massoud Rajavi (and a similar discussion took place in that talk page), so information that’s exclusively about him belongs in that article. I also think that mentioning a former spouse once in the article is enough. If you still think you have a valid reason for making these additions to the article, then kindly self-revert and start a RFC. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

An infobox isn't the article proper, and one would expect key biographical details to be in the body copy, not just hidden in the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of the infobox is to: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Infoboxes, like the lead, only summarize what is in the article, and any information in the infobox should also already be in the article (except for certain technical details like maps, coordinates and other exceptions). The idea that an infobox mention of key biographical information is an excuse for not including that information in the article itself is a made-up one, contrary to the guideline and pretty contrary to common sense. As for Massoud, one would think being "missing, presumed dead" - a phrase that is repeteadly widely across reliable sources - would be a pretty severe impediment to leadership. I'm not sure how one would go about being a dead leader. 'Public face' is not the only language in sources that refer to Maryam's leadership - others simple state that she is the 'de facto' leader. Of your sources, the first two precede 2003, when Massoud disappeared; the second two are about his picture being on display, which is neither here nor there. That just leaves the US government source, which does not trump the BBC. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, I asked you for sources showing Massoud Rajavi isn’t part of the leadership anymore, but your response hasn’t provided any sources (what you “think” Massoud Rajavi’s current leadership role is in the PMOI/MEK is not a replacement for sources). Please provide some. About Maryam Rajavi’s spouses, this probably belongs in a section about her personal life (not early life). This is my proposal:

"Personal life: Maryam was married with Mehdi Abrishamchi, whom she divorced in 1985. She then married Massoud Rajavi."

Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You actually found a source for that already. It's your own VOA news story: "Massoud Rajavi hasn't been seen publicly in nearly two decades and is presumed to have died. Maryam Rajavi now runs MEK." How about you find a source that says Massoud still runs the MEK. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The dispute is not about whether Massoud still runs the MEK, it's about whether he has been removed from the MEK's leadership on account of being missing (most sources still describe him as part of the group's leadership). You’ve made assumptions but haven’t provided sources that say he has been removed from the leadership. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comment above simply makes no sense. You said: "I asked you for sources showing Massoud Rajavi isn’t part of the leadership anymore... Now you've said you're not asking for that. Then you've said there aren't sources saying he's no longer in the leadership, but those were just provided. And you've said "most sources" say something, without providing any evidence. There isn't any sense to any of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's simple, provide sources that say (in plain English) that Massoud Rajavi is not part of the PMOI's leadership anymore, and we'll remove him from the group's leadership. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it can be made clearer than in the VOA story. What do you not understand about that? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Being missing is not regarded the same as being removed from the leadership position (the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran page lists both Massoud and Maryam as leaders). I don't know what you don't understand about that. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, VOA says: "Massoud Rajavi ... is presumed to have died. Maryam Rajavi now runs MEK." Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this is Associated Press, published by VOA, so that's a double layer of reliable source. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so the PMOI page is not something that you can cite for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A source saying that Massoud is "presumed to have died" and Maryam "now runs the MEK" is not regarded the same as Massoud being removed from the leadership. See WP:SYNTHESIS. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

How does the language of "now runs the MEK" (not 'co-runs') not exclude other leaders? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say, so when you find a reliable source saying that Masoud Rajavi has been removed from the MEK's leadership on account of being missing, then provide it. Until then, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to make assumptions. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is hair splitting plain and simple, as well as an extremely unreasonable expectation. A source will never say that he has been "removed", because a missing or dead person has removed themselves - they don't need to be fired by their organization. (Do I need to say this?! That an informal group is hardly going to make an HR announcement?) All we are ever going to get for this are sources that say that Massoud is missing/presumed dead and Maryam Rajavi is now leader, which is what we have. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Asking for reliable sources is neither "hair splitting" or "unreasonable", but it's actually basic policy. I don't know why you're so insistent in adding something none of the sources say. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And I don't know how you're ignoring your own source: "Massoud Rajavi hasn't been seen publicly in nearly two decades and is presumed to have died. Maryam Rajavi now runs MEK." [17] For anyone not totally illiterate, the meaning of this should be plain. The emphasis on "now" in particular indicating a change of circumstances. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi running the MEK doesn’t necessarily mean that Massoud Rajavi was removed from the leadership. Massoud may well be missing yet still be considered part of the group’s leadership. Because he was never removed from the leadership role (despite Maryam Rajavi currently running the group), it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to assume otherwise. In case you haven’t seen the 5 sources I included in the top of this thread:

• 1)"The Mujahideen organization is jointly run by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi"
• 2)"Rajavi and his wife and co-head of the organization, Maryam"
• 3) "The faces of Mujahedin-e-Khalq leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi briefly disrupted state TV programming"
• 4) "MEK leaders Massoud Rajavi and his wife, Maryam Rajavi"
• 5)"The key leadership cell of the MEK fled to France … including the two primary leaders - Massoud Rajavi."

That’s what’s in the sources, and that’s what should be in the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you already posted those cherrypicked sources at the top, and I've already responded about them: Of your sources, the first two precede 2003, when Massoud disappeared; the second two are about his picture being on display, which is neither here nor there. That just leaves the US government source - that being also fairly dated at this point and exceptionally so relative to the 2022 VOA/AP source that you yourself provided. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That you are still attempting to cite pre-2003 sources to assert post-2003 facts after I have clearly the problem with this just raises questions about your competence to comprehend sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Furthermore, the assassinations of exiled Iranian political activists - including those of former Prime Minister Shahpour Bakhtiar; Kazem Rajavi, the brother of MKO Leader Masoud Rajavi" in Routledge 2017 book "The Revolutionary Guards in Iranian Politics: Elites and Shifting Relations" By Bayram Sinkaya. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mention at all whether he is missing, dead or alive. It's like someone saying, Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, Empress of India. Doesn't make her alive. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody knows if Masoud Rajavi is alive or dead, what we know is that he's missing but that doesn’t mean he’s been removed from the leadership role. Since sources (like the one I just gave you) still describe him as part of the leadership, then that’s what we should be going with (anything else is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRYSTALBALL). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Great, more Wikilawyering. You've repeated the claim of 'WP:SYNTHESIS' four times now. But indeed, why apply a bit of commonsense when you can just reiteratively bludgeon discussions with tired pseudo-policy? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not "wikilayering" or "pseudo-politcy", it's WP:POLICY together with WP:RS. Here’s another book that makes it very clear:

"Masud Rajavi was (and still is) the leader of Mojahedin-e Khalq."

Routledge book "Literary Subterfuge and Contemporary Persian Fiction: Who Writes Iran?" from 2019 By Mohammad Mehdi Khorrami.

Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done. You found a source to cherry-pick. Source analysis is always a bit more impressive when you find, you know, more than one possible outlier. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I provided several sources, and you provided none that say he's removed from the MEK's leadership. You may not like the other sources, but they are reliable for this information. If you don't think so, we can always post the question at WP:RSN. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of your other sources are reliable, others either aren't reliable or aren't applicable (e.g. pre-2003). Not sure which ones you are referring to. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There are already enough sources to prevent removing Massoud Rajavi as part of the group's leadership. But here are more (just because they're not difficult to find):

• "Massoud Rajavi - leader of the MEK but has not been seen in public since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq."Potomac Books publisher "Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps" from 2015 by Steven O'hern.
• "Opposition to the Iranian regime The People's Mujahidin of Iran (mujahidin e-khalq) Leader: Massoud Rajavi (in exile in France from 1981 to 1986, then in Baghdad)."Harvard University Press book "The Iran-Iraq War" from 2015 by Pierre Razoux.
• "The dominant militant force in opposition against the Islamic Republic of Iran was Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). Led by a husband and wife team, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi..."Rowman & Littlefield Publishers book "Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism" from 2017 by Mathieu Guidère.

If you don't think these sources are reliable, we can always post the question at WP:RSN. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, we have reliable sources saying that Massoud Rajavi is presumed dead, and was reported dead in 2016. I'll add this to Massoud Rajavi and both of you are welcome to discuss this on that article's talk page.VR _talk 03:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting /suggesting synopsis

@ User:Fad Ariff & User:Iskandar323, I came here from WP:3o when some one removed entry for becoming stale on the other hand dispute still seems being discussed. I would suggest both the users to write synopsis in 500 words limit each with links to relevant difs and refs. Bookku (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I merely wish to have it stated that Massoud Rajavi is "presumed (or reported) dead", as is common knowledge. This is clearly stated in everything from the Voice of America (AP originally) story provided by the OP themselves, to university papers, and published books, e.g. the source by politics specialist Amin Saikal provided by VR at Massoud Rajavi. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Marriage and divorce information

Iskandar323, the marriage between Maryam and Massoud Rajavi is already mentioned in this article. There is a detailed section about the MEK going through the ideological revolution in the MEK article. If you’re interested in expanding that information, that’s the section (and article) where to do it (I will expand that section further shortly). Cherrypicking one aspect of the ideological revolution and putting it in this article would be a WP:NPOV fail. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The marriage to and divorce from Mehdi is not already mentioned in the article. As explained at Talk:Mehdi Abrishamchi#Divorce information and per WP:INFOBOX (as well as common sense), a mention in the infobox alone does not excuse the inclusion of core biographical details in the body of a biography. Ditto the misinformed nonsense about WP:NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You changed the title from "Ideological revolution" to "Marriage and divorce information". That is a misrepresentation of the issue since Maryam Rajavi's spouses are already mentioned in the article, and the new information you were trying to add was about the MEK’s "ideological revolution". If you want to add in the article that Maryam Rajavi was married to Mehdi Abrishamchi ​ ​from 1980 to 1985, then let’s do that. If you want to add information about the MEK’s ideological revolution (which Massoud’s marriage to Rajavi was only a small part of), then the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights" deals with that in context. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have explained in detail how the information is not already in the article, as the infobox does not count. Either address this point or I will have to assume that you are either not acting in good faith or have basic competency issues - something I will regretfully have to report. I suspect you read the guideline, admit your fault and work cooperatively. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Challenging your edits does not mean "not acting in good faith or have basic competency issues". I don't know why you would think that just because you cherrypicked a couple of lines with no context, then that means it must be included in the article. Read the section "Ideological revolution and Women’s Rights" (located in a page you're very familiar with), and you will see that what you are mentioning is about the MEK's "Ideological revolution". I already said a few times that I reverted you because of WP:CHERRYPICKING (or WP:PLAYPOLICY?), WP:NPOV, and WP:ONUS. Since I already started a RFC about this same content you are trying to add in a different article [18], then you could now request input from new users through the RFC consensus process for this article here. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Revolutionary Marriage of the leader

Why the Revolutionary Marriage of the leader is missing here? Did it tally up with the Islamic Laws or not? In Islam women cannot re-marry for at least 90 days after divorcing the previous husband. And I understand Maryam married the new husband in a few days after her divorce! http://www.rickross.com/reference/mujahedeen/mujahedeen3.html Rajavi's meteoric ascent within the group was coupled with the dumping of her first husband and pairing off with the rugged Massoud, fuelling criticism from detractors who say the group is little more than a cult.

Kiumars

• Yes. It should be included in Maryam Rajavi's biography.SaeidNikseresht (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Disagreements

Also, this is not a place for exposing someone's political platforms. Excess quotations will be removed.

Looking at this talk page: the article is about a particular person. All criticism of the organization, especially about its alleged past is irrelevant and must be discussed in the page related to this organization.

Please discuss all deletions here, at talk page. Also, you have an option to create a section for criticism and opposing point of view. But wholesale reversals will not be tolerated. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)

As I said in the history edit logs, take a moment to trace how this edit war started, at what point and by which people. It is not intelligent to just jump in the middle of some dispute and start making comments without having any clue about the history of the issue at hand. Fortunately Wikipedia has a facility called "edit history logs" and you can take just a few minutes to review them.(written by user:80.58.4.42)

I will take a look into it. All what I see at the moment is that a large amount of factual information is deleted without explanation. It is inadmissible. Also, the heated, politized language of the replacement is inadmissible.

While I am looking into the history, please present the reasons why particular parts were deleted. Please also remember what I have said above.

I will restore from my reversal all what looks justified. For the rest I will ask for confirmations.

Please sign your texts, so that the dialoig is clear. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Protected

The page is protected against wholesale reverts while refuising explanations of deleted information.

Normally the editor who is repeatedly doing so would be blocked. I cannot do this now due to a software bug in the new release. Protection will be removed when blocking capabilities.

RezaKia, please keep in mind that this article is about the person, not about various events and her political party, and it is not a platform for her political propaganda. Her views must be explained clearly, but not with massive quotations.

I will also seriously abbreviate the descriptions of events, since such things are not normally included in people's biographies in such detail. If you have any objections, please state them here. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)

Dear Mikka, I think you are right to shorten texts about events. To be honest I haven't been able to work extensively on improving my text since this anonymous person(s) keeps reverting it. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Images

Wikipedia has strict policies about copyrights; please see Wikipedia:copyrights an read carefully section about image use. Copyrighted images and images of unknown source are deleted from wikipedia. Please provide the source of the images you uploaded and their copyright status; please read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the vandalism.

I would not call this vandalism. This is your political disagreement. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)

By the way, the pictures were taken by two of my friends at the events with a private camera apart from the one from an old newspaper clipping which I scanned and the open source photo of Mrs. Rajavi at the top. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Your friends must give the permission to use the photos an this must be explained in images. Newspaper photo scan is not allowed without the permission of the newspaper. The origin of the photo of Rajavi must be indicated and explained why it is open source. Please provide the required information, or the photos will be deleted. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)

Dear Mikkalai I spoke with my two friends about the pictures. They explained to me that the photos were the same open-source photos that are also available on Maryam Rajavi's website. They told me that the photographs were presented on the web and also to reporters at conferences as a handout free to be used without copyright. I am not sure where I should state this on the photo. The newspaper clipping is from the daily "Mojahed" from June 1981. Being an organisation that was outlawed by the Iranian regime in Iran, officially they could not have "copyrights" thus the scan is not illegal by any means. I only put it there however to backup the fact that half a million people demonstrated in support of the PMOI in June 1981. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Also you will notice that I wrote the bulk of material on the page but the vandals just change the text to purposefully make it negative. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Please don't use the term "vandals". mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)

I appologize to Wikipedia for having used the term vandal on the talk section of the page. I only did it because I felt that the person(s) changing the page were doing so without reason. You have said that you took a look at the talk section of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq page and I am sure you have seen them write there that they "HATE THIS GROUP". I felt that this person(s) was editting out of contempt. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Dear Mikka, May I also suggest you take a look at the talk page in Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran --RezaKia 29 June 2005 00:55 (UTC)

I've already did and I don't think I can help you here. I have no skills in political negotiations ad I don't have enough information to judge who is right in this case. The case of Maryam's article is clear so far, because the opponent mostly attacks the party, and I can remove these edits as irrelevant to the topic. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)

June 17 raid

What was it? Is it described in wikipedia? mikka (t) 29 June 2005 01:52 (UTC)

The June 17 raid has not been made clear in Wikipedia which I thought ought to be. On that day in 2003 over 1,300 French anti-terrorist police in a coordinated effort raided the homes of Iranian dissidents and the offices of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Some 165 activists including Rajavi were arrested. The French government charged that the Iranian opposition was bringing its base of operations to France though the NCRI said that the raid was conducted as part of France's appeasement policy towards Iran. In the days that followed, nearly a 1,000 oppostion supporters went on hunger strike in capitals around the world. Several supporters of the Iranian Resistance even set themselves on fire in front of French embassies in protest to the raid. The NCRI annouced within a two weeks the support of over 500 political personalities across the world, including a number of US Senators and Congressmen. One NCRI's website and Maryam Rajavi's wbsite both carry scanned copies of many of the letters written by such people. In the end on July 3, French courts ruled that the government did not have a case to hold Maryam Rajavi or any of the 165 people arrested in prison and all were release. Two years on, none have been charged and the fiasco remains a huge embarresment for the French government. The NCRI in later conferences revealed previously secret documents obtained from within the clerical regime in Iran which showed that the raid was carried out at the request of the Iranian regime. --RezaKia 29 June 2005 07:50 (UTC)

Name

What were the names of this woman in various times? Clearly, she was not at all "Mrs. Rajavi" during her student times and when she was married someone else. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Her name is Maryam Azodanlu. Before marrying Rajavai she was married to another MKO member by the name of Mehdi Abrishamchi (who is still an MKO member), so for a while she was Maryam Abrishamchi. Then she married Rajavi after what was a very controvertial "swap" and there was a big scandal about it both inside and outside their oganization for a long time. She is the third wife of Massoud Rajavi.

I fail to see why it is scandal, or of any note at all. Islam is very easy with divorces AFAIK. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

I didn't say it had anything to do with Islam. It had to do with internal politics and shifts of the MKO.

Still, why the word "scandal"? And why it must be of encyclopedic interest, and how is it documented (i.e., not just gossips and rumors)? mikka (t) 2 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

The word "scandal" appears in here in discussion area when I replied to your question. Why does it need to be documented?! Are you sober?

Mikki for your information, scandals are usually "secret" whereas the divorce and marriage in this case was public. If anyone researches about the issue they will note that the marriage was more for convenience since the Mojahedin believed that men and women should be treated as equals. The most prominent female Resistance member was Maryam Rajavi, who spearheaded the women's movement as is made clear in the Main article. This marriage brought her to the same level as Mojahedin leader Massoud Rajavi in the eyes of Iranians, especially those who supported the organization. Of course the Iranian regime has always tried to disrepute the Mojahedin by making this seem like some kind of "secret scandal". Though, their efforts are mainly for Western public consumption as the majority of Iranians are quite familiar with the issue. --RezaKia 2 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Actually, since nobody has heard from your leader Massoud since the Americans occupied Iraq, he is either dead or he doesn't show his face (not even to MKO members) because he doesn't know how to explain his failure in his so-called "leadership". If Massoud is dead, Maryam will have to think of yet another name for herself ... hmmm ... maybe "Maryam Abrishamchi" again ?!! hahahaha

Despicable

This page is pure propaganda and should be completely changed or deleted.

Never in history has any opposition group of any country been so traitorous to their own people as the Mojahedin-e-Khalq has been.

During the Iran-Iraq war they attacked the kurds on saddams behalf. They joined the iraqi army on their attacks against iran on numerous occasions.

As shown in their own propaganda page:

"In August 1993, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the Iranian Resistance's parliament, elected Maryam Rajavi as Iran's future president for the transitional period following the mullahs' overthrow."

They call themselfs:

"the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)"

"the Iranian Resistance's parliament"

"the National Liberation Army of Iran"

"the Resistance's military arm"

They elected the entire government of future iran for themselfs.

Despite their arrogance and the huge amount of money and weapons they recieved from saddam, they did nothing to reach their despicable goals. The only thing they were good at was setting themselfs on fire to protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkred (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)