Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Square brackets

@El C:. An IP(?) is waging an edit war in this article. Mainly because of 'square brackets'. As such I am asking you to comment. In a 2009 report by UK Home office's border agency we read:

According to the USSD Background Note of March 2008: [...] “The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK [cult-like terrorist organisation Mujahedin-e Khalq, People’s Mojahedin of Iran] (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People’s Fedayeen, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), and the Baluchi opposition group Jundallah.” [4u] (Political conditions)

Essentially, UK border agency is quoting a piece from USSD Background Note in 2008, but is adding a sentence in square brackets. Am I right thinking the square brackets indicate editorial opinion? p.s. The reliability of the source has been established in the WP:RSN here with the un-involved editors voting the square bracketed piece is an interjection by the UK Home office.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the IP is correct, even though they violated the article's editing restriction. El_C 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I carelessly overlooked the restriction, my bad. Kazemita, that thread on RSN is less than a week old, has only 3 responders, of which only one has "voted" that the bracket text is an interjection by the border agency (the other replies just generally accept the document as a reliable source and have not commented on its use/meaning.) 2600:8804:1E80:EAE:7C39:7148:248:3F5C (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

After further thought, I realize that I'm just not sure which of these version is correct. Sorry. El_C 22:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8804:1E80:EAE:7C39:7148:248:3F5C:, @2600:1014:B10C:8E3A:6CB0:F625:47FB:EB5D:, @199.116.171.94: Now that you admitted you violated the restriction, please self-revert so we could talk it over.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@El_C understandable, it's not cut and dry. I hope theres more discussion here and/or at blpn. @Kazemita per the restriction I've removed the contended recent addition pending further discussion. 2600:1014:B10A:76B6:1DF:C9F0:6CE0:E7DA (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Very funny Mr/Ms IP. Not only you did not self-revert, you also removed sourced content from long-standing text.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 - I don't think it's funny that you opened an "investigation for sockpuppet" against me for this, especially because you had nothing to support this accusation. I also reverted your edit ([1]) because you are repeating that Iranian people did not like the MEK collaboration with Saddam, something that is already in the article many times. Barca (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - I am still understanding the restrictions procedure of this article, but if Kazemita1 inserts something to the article ([2]), and I revert ([3]) and present my reasons in this Talk page ([4]), can Kazemita1 just re-revert his edit back in to article without any discussion or consensus (he did this here [5])? Barca (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That passage does not mention Saddam in anyway that I can see, so your rather brief objection does not appear substantive enough for the restrictions to come into effect. El_C 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do MEK supporters' view on MEK play a role in "Perception by Iranian People"?

@El C:. I and Stefka disagree on something. The dispute is over removal of the following piece in a section titled "Perception by Iranian People":

According to Ilan Berman, to its supporters, "it is the most organized and disciplined alternative to the current clerical regime in Tehran, and the only one that is truly capable of establishing a democratic, secular Iran."

This is the corresponding edit, however, I suggest you read the section in whole to get a grasp of the subject.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure what you expect me to do. I don't moderate content disputes — such is not my role here. Each of you is expected to attempt to gain consensus for your respective version. And while that discussion takes its course, the longstanding text (whichever it is) should remain in place. El_C 17:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. and yes the longstanding text is in place as we speak. The thing here is that the above mentioned paragraph is clearly a wp:soapbox and is by no means related to the Iranian People's perception of MEK which is the title of the section. As a matter of fact, the very same section says MEK has pretty much no supporters inside Iran. If you can determine if it is a wp:soapbox or not that would be very much appreciated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I'm not going to have time to read walls of text. If you wish for me to evaluate violations of SOAP or FORUM, please feel free to quote a few brief excerpts directly below this space. El_C 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary

@El C: pardon to bother you! Is this edit fixing grammar, while quashing Kurdish has not mentioned in the previous sentence or is fixing grammar picking up the "According to Time"?Saff V. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it certainly does more than just fixing the grammar (which, indeed, needed fixing). Again, Stefka Bulgaria, you need to do better when it comes to your edit summaries. Don't shy away from explaining exactly what you're doing. Also, does anyone know what is up with that cn at the end? Who added that? Is Time an inadequate source? El_C 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That Cn was from Saff V. I´ll explain my edit summaries more in detail from now on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I inserted, Denying the aid of Saddam for quashing Kurdish or Shia uprising is the claim need to more RSes.Isn't it?Saff V. (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would that single reliable source not be enough? El_C 16:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• El_C you attribute it to shyness, thank you, but please see the following:
  • Edit 1 with the explanation mentioned here.
  • Edit 2 with the explanation mentioned here (per which TP???)
  • Edit 3 with the explanation mentioned here (per which TP???)
  • You just mentioned something similar (I think)

--Mhhossein ^talk 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not attribute it to "shyness" — I said "don't shy away from." At any case, the expectation is that they are to do better from now on. El_C 16:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, "don't shy away from" does not necessarily mean that. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry, I missed your Question! I believe in Only Time (one source) is not enough to deny the collaboration between Saddam and MEK while there is plenty of sources which supports the collaboration. Am I clear? In addition I am going to ask, Has Stefke allowed to remove CN tag which I inserted it when I have not answered your question up that time?Saff V. (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, that is a reliable source. You cannot ask for a citation when one already exists! If you find a source that disputes what is being attributed, that's another matter. But there is no rule requiring multiple sources, and I deem such a request to be redundant. El_C 17:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Considering your latest comment on this matter, I think we have another misleading edit summary by Stefka Bulgaria here. In the edit, he's allegedly removing Sajjadpour's credential while he is in fact removing Sajjadpour's well-sourced and well attributed description of MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree — that is indeed misleading. Presumably, a key part of the removal is the description of the MEK by the subject, as opposed to their credentials. El_C 17:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Thanks but he should stop somewhere this pattern of using misleading edit summaries. Should there be cautions or warnings? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In his quest to get my warned/sanctioned, it seems Mhhossein forgot to mention that I did include the full quote in my next edit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Indeed you did. Maybe, like me though, they just were unaware of that. El_C 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I had not seen that. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I am not in quest to get you sanctioned, though it is not that hard due to the tough warnings you have recently received. I just meant to stop your misleading edit summaries. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You've received more tough warnings than myself, so thanks for the advice but by all means be mindful of your own editing (including checking one of my edits and not the next, as you've done here) before going ahead looking at others. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what does "There is already a section about this" mean in this edit as edit summary which was left by Stefka,If he was going to remove duplicated material, this sentence the wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud’s face was not and I moved it to appropriate section.Saff V. (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That that nonrepetitive passage (wedding rings-related adventruism) was also removed is, indeed, worth reflecting on. In the future, whenever removing material due to repetition, it would therefore be prudent to address any nonrepetitive text that may fall victim to the removal as collateral damage. El_C 13:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong edit summary

@BarcrMac: Your edit summary reads "MEK collaboration with Saddam, something that is already in the article many times" while the portion you removed does not talk about MEK's collaboration with Saddam. Can you please be more careful about your edit summaries? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To me it looks like repetitive information about the MEK's involvement in Iraq, but we already had this cleared up by El_C in the talk page discussion about this. Barca (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Iraq؟Saff V. (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Barca: Under which topic of this talk page did you "clear up" by El_C this problem? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I can take that, I think the reference is to the end of this discussion. El_C 13:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Allegation of Pentagon using MEK prisoners as spies

I recently removed this statement from the article:

• "American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran.

I removed it because the allegation is not only WP:UNDUE, but it also not supported by the source, which says: "Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners".

Hearsay of what pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to do is not equivalent to "planning to utilize MEK members as informants". Saying the Pentagon is planing to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Sa.vakilian:: If you could kindly replace "planning" with "hoping" in the above mentioned piece in the article you will be doing us all a favor.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone address these concerns before editing the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for the constant pinging, but this is another case where editors have reverted stuff back into the article without a substantive justification for their edits. Are these ok to revert back if nobody addresses them in over a week? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, again, a week with no response can be interpreted as WP:SILENCE. El_C 16:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I had asked the editor to make the necessary change to address both mine and Stefka's concern some time ago (link). But apparently the user was too busy to make the change. So I did it for him just now. I understand Stefka's frustration though (which lead him to completely remove the piece instead of making that small fix).--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: As shown here, I asked you if I could revert an edit that hadn't been addressed in this TP discussion, and you said that I could based on WP:SILENCE; but now Kazemita1 has reverted the edit back into the article.

You already warned Kazemita multiple times to not edit war in this article. In his last block you said: "You don't get to decide —and act upon— on your own that an objection isn't substantive. You need to ask for clarification and get confirmation about that from an admin who is willing to enforce the general sanctions applied to the article. You have made too many missteps already when it comes to that article. As a result, you are now restricted from making any edits to the People's Mujahedin of Iran‎ (not including the article talk page) for 2 weeks. Please keep in mind that a response to the next violation will be much more severe."

Reverting an edit back that had been approved by an admin here seems like another violation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, SILENCE is broken once there is an objection, which I presume is outlined in their comment above. El_C 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: As you can see in this TP discussion, I presented an objection and Kazemita didn't respond to it. He just reverted the revert without asking anyone. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

They're saying that you failed to respond to their objections. I'm not really able to immediately tell what's what. What is the longstanding text with regards to that Newsweek passage. El_C 20:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry, but can't see what their objection is here, can you? Kazemita only suggested that we change "plan" with "hope", which does not address the point I made here about "Saying the Pentagon is planing to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Stefka. May I suggest that we avoid WP:Wikilawyering and stick to civil discussion? Here is the course of events:

1. On September 28th, you removed the content under discussion in a series of "bold" edits without proper discussion on the talk page. Your only explanation was the edit summary that read as follows:

"Not verified (Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners))"

2. On September 30th, you finally decided to explain your edit. Your concluding remarks were as follows:

Hearsay of what pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to do is not equivalent to "planning to utilize MEK members as informants"

3. On October 1st, a Good Samaritan rolled the article back to a previous long-standing version (link).

4. On October 1st, I asked the "Good Samaritan", aka User:Sa.Vakilian, to address the concern mentioned by you by replacing "planning" with "hoping". You did not express any objection to my proposal. But the user did not address my proposal either.

5. On October 7th, i.e. less than a week from my proposal you reverted Sa.Vakilian's edit. Still, you did not express any objection to my proposal.

6. It was only then that I implemented my proposal. My proposal was addressing your concern that intelligence planners had hoped in using MEK members (and not yet "planned"). No one had shown any objection to my proposal prior to my edit and quite frankly there was nothing to object since it was literally based on the text of the source. Kazemita1 (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria, Why didn't you change "hope" to "plan" rather than picking up the whole of material?!Saff V. (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing "hope" to "plan" does not solve the issue. Nobody has yet addressed the point I have made, so I will repeat it: Hearsay that Pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification/sources, and this is unverified hearsay, which has no place in an encylopedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

While according to wp:RSP, "There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable for news", I seek your concerns in the RSN.Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I second that. Newsweek has been a reliable source for this article. Besides, MEK spying on IRI is not new. As stated in this article, MEK informants were the ones who allegedly leaked Iran's nuclear program:

In 2002, the MEK was a source for claims about Iran’s clandestine nuclear program

Kazemita1 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not about Newsweek being a reliable source, it's about including hearsay about something that someone is allegedly "hoping" to do. This is not encyclopedic content. That is objection with this. Please address that objection. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You NEED to clearly say with policy/guideline backs your claim. The source is reliable but you say the material is "not encyclopedic"! In what terms? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems you have new concerns. Essentially, you are saying now that US official's statement on "Pentagon hoping to use MEK as spies" is not a strong enough assertion for the content to be used in a Wiki article. First of all, what you hear from US officials and read in a reliable source normally is not categorized as hearsay. You may see Wikipedia's definition of hearsay here. Besides, in this case the very same source provided enough evidence for the claim:

some of its intelligence has already proved very accurate. (It was the MEK last year that revealed Iran's secret nuclear facilities at Natanz.)

In other words Newsweek has enough reasons to believe what US officials are saying about Pentagon's plans (or hopes whichever you prefer).Kazemita1 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My concerns here have always been that hearsay about what someone allegedly "hopes" to do is not encyclopedic content, specially when you're talking about accusations of the Pentagon using "Iranian spies". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Either way, WP:Hearsay points to reliability on which we do not have any dispute.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1, which policy says that ‘’hearsay’’ equals ‘’reliable’’? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

comment: I think the deleting act which done bu @selfkaBulgaria was wrong, the Wikipedia is not a place for personal feeling about article or a peace of them, the user reasons for deletion is not strong.Forest90 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka, I was not able to find any policy on hearsay; only an essay which read as follows:

Hearsay is often claimed when an articles content is disputed due to WP:VERIFY issues, or when proper sources are not cited. Wikipedia relies on its practice of providing verifiable sources as much as possible, to keep the content neutral and accurate.

Kazemita1 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, an "essay" is not policy, which means it doesn't justify the inclusion. Please present a valid explanation about why hearsay about allegations concerning the US Government hoping to use "Iranian spies" belongs in an encyclopedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No response for over a week. Removing this controversial text based on my points raised above which have been met with WP:SILENCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit of mine was done after a week of silence from your side since my comment on Oct. 21st and yet you reverted it. So, I am guessing this is not how WP:SILENCE works. Besides according to El_C when there is objection, WP:SILENCE does not apply. Anyways, you have failed to point to any policy why the long-standing text should be changed. You talked about hearsay and I told you that the only thing found in Wiki about it is an essay which equates hearsay with unreliability. and because the source currently in use is reliable your objection against it has no merit. Since then I have not heard anything meaningful from you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Designation as a cult" title

@Saff V.: In this edit, you reverted "Cult allegations" to "Designation as a cult" with the edit summary ": Don't change long standing title which was added since April 2018 ". Two points to make here:

1) Just because it's "long standing", it doesn't mean it can't be changed if inadequate.

2) If there isn't a single source confirming the MEK was "designated as a cult"; how do you justify keeping this title over the one I have proposed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Quite the opposite. There is no source that uses the word "cult allegation".

The U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has identified the MEK as having cult-like characteristics.[citation needed] Among governments of sovereign states, and Federal government of the United States[307] have described the MEK as a cult. Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult".[308] Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian,[309] Stephanie Cronin,[310] Wilfried Buchta,[311] and others have also made similar claims.[312]

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh[313] and Masoud Banisadr[314] among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich,[315] Robert Scheer,[315] and Elizabeth Rubin[316] among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.

In 1990, following to ceasefire between Iran and Iraq and a quarter of his follower's absence, Rajavi declared the second phase of the “Ideological Revolution”. By his order, all members got a divorce from their spouses. A year later, Rajavi ordered all children (800) to be moved from Iraq to Europe and America to be adopted by MEK supporters.[143][1]

An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded: “the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence”.[317] According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".[318]

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had “many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options”. .[319]

My suggestion as a middle-ground solution would be to use the following title for that section: "Cult-like characteristics"Kazemita1 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You are Wiki-voicing something that consists of allegations, so for this reason "Cult-like characteristics" would not work either. We need a factual title, not a POV title. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing longstanding material or title needs the opinion of involved users and it does stand up the consequences will get. It is the point that you don't pay attention to! Why did you turn the title to cult allegation while There is no source to confirm it? Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. Aren't the sources in that section making allegations that the MEK has "cult-like characteristics"? For example, I read lots of "...so and so have described it as a cult". Those are 'allegations', not 'designations'. Barca (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Any mention of of "allegation" would actually count as pushing POV as most sources are stating the "cult-like" behavior of MEK as a fact.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Designation seems appropriate. These entities designated the MEK as a cult.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What about Status as a cult? What do everyone think of that phrasing for the section title as a compromise? El_C 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If not, this might require an RfC with a formal closing to codify the consensus (or lack thereof). Although, of course, bold ideas are encouraged. I certainly won't be deciding further on this (per my above suggestion), beyond reminding everyone about the mandatory restriction applied to this page, which determines what version stays up while this matter is being decided. El_C 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Status as a cult" seems like a good middle ground. Barca (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2019

For the sake of reaching a compromise, Status as Cult would be ok for me as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice. Any objections? El_C 06:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems these sources say that the MEK has cult-like qualities. Is that the same as "status" though? Ypatch (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not against the Status as a cult, although there is RSes (1, 2, 3 support the "designated as a cult".Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources say that the MEK has been designated as a cult. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also this source that says that the MEK is [w]idely regarded as a cult[6] and the there is this [7] which says that the US government described the MEK as cult. I dont think it makes any sense to say allegation when there is no RS source disputing that.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Saff V. has already shared these sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1's lede edit about politicians receiving Payment

Reverting this source by Kazemita1 because it's a disputed statement for the lede (not all politicians advocating for the MEK are paid, as the source itself says):

"Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes. But then many other prominent MEK supporters act without payment."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That is right. So says the text in place "Many American public figures who support the MEK have also been paid by this group.". --Kazemita1 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, my grammatical improvements to this passage should bear no special weight (quite the contrary) and were unrelated to my copyvio fix — what should be in place while this is being discussed is the longstanding text, which I presume constitutes removal. Likewise, for Stefka Bulgaria's "conservative American politicians" bit, which was my copyvio fix, and which is being objected to elsewhere on this talk page — where the longstanding text would also be (I think) removal. So there we have it: the last two sentences of the lead, which I can appreciate are of tremendous import. There's two options of what to do immediately. There can be a quid pro quo compromise on the side of inclusion with both passages retained (and perhaps with "many" changed to "some"); or, we can err on the side of removal for both, while they are continued to be discussed individually. True, there may not be a direct relationship between the two passages aside from both together ending the lead, but I'm trying to be creative here! Perhaps foolishly. Ultimately, it is up to both of you (or the two opposing camps, in general) to decide how to go about this. El_C 05:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Two sources

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can I ask you to provide qouet from this source (It was used for this edit):

• Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.

As well as I don't find PBS as RS in this list. any idea for its reliability?Saff V. (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., the quote is In 1988, a new crop of wardens took over, and once again mass executions became the norm in prisons. The reason for this new round of widespread executions was Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the Mojahedin-e Khalq. PBS is a RS. ∯WBG^converse 12:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: in this edit you moved the text from the 1988 executions to the Operation Eternal light section. Why? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously clear, MEK 's members who were killed during Operation Eternal light were buried in mass graves in the Khavaran cemetery, It has nothing to do with 1988 executions.Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can I ask you to provide qouet from this source (It was used for this edit):

• Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: So you've moved content around without even looking at what the source says? This is what the source says: "Thousands of political prisoners were then executed in the summer of 1988. The majority of them were MKO members, but many also belonged to other groups. Many of them were buried in mass graves in the Khavaran cemetery, east of Tehran. Recently, the government tried to convert the cemetery to a park in an apparent effort to erase all signs of the crime. Obviously, this is talking about the 1988 executions, and nowhere it mentions Operation Eternal light. Please re-insert it where it belongs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I decided based on the your edit, Following Operation Mersad... . I asked you the material of the book, not PBS!Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need the link from the book when the PBS source perfectly outlines why this pertains to the 1988 executions (and not to Operation Eternal light, where you have included this text)? Based on the PBS source, I am restoring the text to the 1988 executions section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: right now I find out the edit which we have had discussed on,it was warned for copyright violation. on the other hand, I needed to verify the content but the source is offline and as you can see, Stefka refused to provide the content. All in all, Am I allowed to pick up the content for copyright violation?Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: sorry, I missed your query (been doing that a lot lately, it seems!). Anyway, yes. This is, indeed, another copyvio by Stefka Bulgaria. For example: Many of them were buried in mass graves in the Khavaran cemetery, east of Tehran is simply copied straight from that PBS source. Thank you for removing it. I revdeleted it, but if there are still some revisions I missed that has that copyvio still in place, please let me know. El_C 05:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources

Kazemita - in your edit ([8]) you have removed cnsnews, haaretz, nytimes sources from the article. Please explain why. Barca (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See the section right above. You will see El_C's notes. There is also another discussion going on here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editing decisions on the inclusion of text should reflect: ...the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only...etc.. Many of the opinions expressed below are little more than just that: personal opinions expressed without reference to either policies or citations. After eliminating those, the remaining opinions are approximately evenly divided and therefore no consensus has been established for making the proposed edits. (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Shall we replace this (currently in the article):

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

with this?:

"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, which some sources claim damaged its appeal in Iran, though this is difficult to ascertain "because of the nature of the government in Iran."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:NPOV. We need to explain both sides of the argument here. The MEK sided with Saddam Hussain in 1983, which sources say led to them losing support in Iran. Sources also say that showing any support for the MEK in Iran leads to imprisonment, torture, or execution, so it's easy to see why there is little evidence of MEK support in Iran. Ronen Cohen NPOV's this well:

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

I find Cohen's quote creates a balanced argument explaining both sides of the debate, and that would be a more NPOV explanation than the one currently in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question: The RFC explanation is flawed; is the change going to be exerted in the lead or body? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In the lede, where this information is first summarised. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• No to mentioning it in the lead, yes to adding to the body: Per WP:UNDUE; this case is widely discussed in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#MEK support in Iran and NPOV and there we discussed that Cohen's POV is not weighty enough to counterbalance plenty of objecting POVs in reliable sources which say MEK's siding with Iraq and its killing tens of thousands Iranian people led to diminishing their support in Iran. When we say "some sources" say MEK's siding with Saddam had some consequences, there should be "some other sources" saying other wise in order to balance the text. But in this case, there's only one POV saying this. So, this is not suitable for lead unless there are some other reliable sources sharing similar POV as Cohen. In other words, Cohen's source can't be simply used against "some sources". Another point, which was also discussed in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#MEK support in Iran and NPOV, is that Cohen says "it can be said..." in his book which signals a degree of uncertainty on the author's part. However, Cohen's POV can be added to body in an attributed manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - in agreement that including only one side of the story in the lead of this article creates a neutrality problem. There are many sources that describe the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran, so there is not a WP:UNDUE problem for Cohen's analysis. We need to tell readers both sides of the story, and currently this is missing in the lead section. The MEK's support in Iran is difficult to determine because of the nature of the government in Iran, as Cohen says, and that needs to be included there where this is mentioned in the lead, or remove this about the MEK's popularity in Iran from the lead altogether. Alex-h (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You already said "There are many sources that describe the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran". Can you present ONE of those reliable sources making the relationship between Iranian government policy regarding the MEK supporters and the diminishing of the group's supporters inside the country? I mean can you present ANOTHER source saying "MEK's support in Iran is difficult to determine because of the nature of the government in Iran". Note that the latter is the critical point of this article. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLUESKY - The Iranian government eradicates MEK support through prison/execution, so the availability of a neutral analysis of MEK support in Iran is difficult to ascertain, as Cohen stated. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It was just a quite example of Original Research. No, there should be enough reliable sources making the connection! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Per 2017–18 Iranian protests (which Rudi Giuliani credited to the MEK.[9]), resuming the MEK does have at least some support among Iranian people post the Iran-Iraq war. Cohen describes this neutrally, without favoring neither side, so it's adequate for the lead. Barca (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• No. I am surprised people are actually discussing this. How can a nation like it when you side with their enemy at war. Tinting the existing text with words such as "some sources" is obvious POV.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Firm "no" - per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:RS and WP:VER. This appears to be yet another attempt to present the MEK as a group of angels and saints, while carefully getting rid of anything that does not fit with the personal beliefs of the party's leaders and pro-MEK lobbyists. This all is the result of a recent lobbying campaign, as attested in many newspapers and other reliable sources. For instance, search for "MEK lobby", "MEK lobby John Bolton", "MEK Obama Iran", or "MEK Trump Iran" in Google. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes because second statement contains the first while being more neutral.--Abutalub (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abutalub:,It is not neutral, because the author is not sure about "it is difficult to ascertain". Please refer to the source!Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, nothing is certain when it comes to dictatorships.--Abutalub (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Because of dictatorships, you said it is neutral.isn't it?Saff V. (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• No "this is difficult to ascertain" belongs to this sentence of the source, It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran. The author uses "can" for presenting his claim so that it is just a guess by the author who not be sure about that. Why such disputed material has to be included in the lead of article.Saff V. (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

References

• Yes Indeed the second statement contains the first while being more neutral. The author using "can" in the first part does not affect the part that adds the NPOV about the "claim being difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran". Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So why did the author use "Can" in the first part?Saff V. (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Why is "because of the nature of the government in Iran." in double quotes and the quotes aren't paired? Ignoring the formatting problems, there are three sources listed. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment First, out of the two options provided, the original content was a more accurate rephrasing of the source used (see Ostovar, p. 74). I am, however, uncertain about this point because the source used did not provide evidence to support the claim regarding the view of the Iranian majority. Second, this article has already stated that MEK was banned in Iran, driven underground, with the government hunting and executing symphatizers. So indicating that we cannot be certain whether this organization lost standing or appeal in the homeland may not be accurate since Iran aggressively repressed it. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No: Per WP:UNDUE weight problem. This will lend undue weight to an idea. Cohen is not enough for this claim. DIYeditor's comment on formatting is right.Forest90 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. The first choice of wording (the one that's currently up) is evidently preferable since it offers statements of fact, trivially supported by sources. It is, as it happens, a statement of fact that Mojahedin-e Khalq's decision (and there was such a decision) to side with Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War (and they did side with Iraq) was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians (and it was viewed as such). It is also a fact, also supported by numerous sources, that this decision harmed significantly ("destroyed" is not an inaccurate term) their appeal in Iran. It is the second choice, the one being proposed in this RfC, which is actually the non-neutrally worded option. -The Gnome (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Can't help but disagree with The Gnome's vote. Unless there is an official survey in Iran about this (one that allows Iranian people to actually express themselves freely without fear of serious consequences implemented by the government), there aren't any "facts" about what Iranian people think or don't think about this. Cohen's words describe this neutrally because such survey is impossible in Iran, making his observation more accurate than what's currently on the article (what's currently in the article only portrays the IRI's POV, and not what can actually be measured as "fact"). - MA Javadi (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There does not appear to be a neutral, independent survey in Iran regarding this, and replacing it with the 2nd phrase would be more neutral (WP:NPOV). Taewangkorea (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There is no credible survey in Iran about what Iranians think. So the second sentence is neutral. Tradedia^talk 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• No: Lead is not the place for inserting the POV of an author as a fact. More high quality sources are needed, per WP:UNDUE, for making such a big claim. Besides, DIYeditor correctly questioned the sourcing here. Three citations are provided, but just one of them support the disputed quotation (which is the POV of the author, not a fact). Some users questions the survey in Iran and try to support their position in this way, while these arguments are Original Research. In summary, we go by the reliable sources according to their weight.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's is not the author's "POV", but a fact that the Iranian Government targets MEK supporters in Iran: . And it is also a fact that there is no official or accessible survey (or anything close to it) that can determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:No Original Research does not let you just use those self recognized facts to reach your desired conclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1) They are not "self-recongnized" facts, there are plenty of RSs in the article that confirm the IRI targets MEK sympathizers 2) It not my "desired conclusion", it's Cohen's conclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That's it and why are you trying to push Cohen's conclusion as a fact into the lead of the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. MEK is unwanted in Iran. An evidence of this is when they attacked their own country after the Iran-Iraq cease-fire during Operation Mersad. Long story short, they received no support from the residents and were crashed in early stages of their invasion. Iranian people don't like terrorists. If you don't believe me see photos here.Kazemita1 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The MEK waged war on the IRI, not on Iran, so your vote is a red herring. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you want (IRI, Iran). So long as an Iranian citizen is killed during an MEK operation, MEK is considered a terrorist group. The most recent of which being targeting nuclear scientists. Kazemita1 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sanction violation

@Ypatch: I take it you are familiar with the policies of this article as admin:Vandermonde left a message on your talk page which you had acknowledged. When you add a content for which there is objection (and is reverted), you are not supposed to put it back in the article. You added this piece which is not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article. As a matter of fact there is no mention of MEK in that piece. Your previous edit gave enough information related to the incident and thus there is no need to explain about the "terrorist cell" any further. I removed the new content saying it is undue and that there is plenty of information in the previous passage on that same topic. You then put it back in the article for the second time, briefly saying it is not undue. @El C: if you want to avoid another round of edit war, this is probably the right time to weigh in.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: re-reverting, as you have done, deprives the user from being given a chance to self-revert, though. I would have preferred that. @Ypatch: please don't revert again. Aim to gain consensus for your changes, here, on the article talk page, instead. Thank you. El_C 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the quote from the Tirana times:

• "During a press conference, Veliu said the “terrorist cell is also responsible, among other things, for the March 2018 plan to carry out a terrorist attack during the celebrations of the Nevruz Festival, attended by high-level members of the to the Iranian opposition organization Mujahideen al Khalq (MEK), a plan that was prevented by increased State Police measures, thanks to accurate information.” According to Albanian police, “the terrorist cell is run by a QUDS Forces operative, known under the name Peyman, a permanent resident of Iran, who remotely manages a number of operations in Albania and elsewhere in Central and Western Europe.” One of the cell members is Alireza Naghashzadeh, a former MEK member with an Austrian passport. “Naghashzadeh was sent by Peyman to gather information in Albania during several separate visits as part of plans for an attack that was eventually halted,” Veliu explained."

You say this is "not related to the MEK", but it explains who attacked the MEK in Albania. Then you say that "it is undue and that there is plenty of information in the previous passage", but nothing about this is in the previous passage. I cannot understand why you are trying to remove this. @El C: can you explain please what's going on? Ypatch (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: this would be a good time for you to explain why you deem the addition to be undue. El_C 00:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch:, @El C:. The incident itself is about MEK, and I have no objection against its inclusion as has been done in Ypatch's first edit here. However, what he is doing in his second edit is elaborating excessively on those who are responsible for the incident. Why do I say excessively? Because, his first edit already explains who are behind the incident: "that two Iranian security officials led the network from Tehran, and that it was linked to organised crime groups in Turkey. It also said that the network used a former MEK member to collect information in Albania.". My objection is simply with the length of the material he is adding. As stated in WP:UNDUE

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.

It is my opinion that the quantity of text used for explaining the details of this incident is unnecessary. There are many incidents where MEK is involved for which we do not elaborate this much in the article. I am only asking Ypatch to be fair in terms of quantity being added.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 these are your objections, and my responses (underneath each objection):

•  "not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article. As a matter of fact there is no mention of MEK in that piece."

The quote from the Tirana times I provided in this discussion shows that this is related to the MEK and that it mentions the MEK in that piece.

•  "Your previous edit gave enough information related to the incident and thus there is no need to explain about the "terrorist cell" any further."

Saying that "my previous edit gave enough information related to this incident", when in my new edit I inserted new information about this incident.

• "I removed the new content saying it is undue and that there is plenty of information in the previous passage on that same topic"

You are taking the matter in your own hands to decide that "there is plenty of information" about this.

El_C, why do you support such reverts? You're asking me to "gain consensus" before adding to the article, and I get that, but there should have been at least a half-decent reason not to include this. Saying "I've decided that this is enough information about this" as a reason to remove sourced information sounds to me like one of the worst kinds of excuses, and that you're encouraging this is surprising. Ypatch (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I'm surprised you're surprised. I, for one, neither support nor oppose and I neither encourage nor discourage this revert or the reasons for it. It is up to the both of you to discuss this. Objecting to the addition on the basis that it contributes to repetition may or may not be valid. That is something that needs further substantiation on both of your parts. I remain fully agnostic at this point in time. El_C 03:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I am yet to hear a response about the quantity of text being used for describing a single incident. Of course one way to resolve this issue, i.e. undue weight, would be elaborate on every other MEK related incident in the article. But that is a very difficult path to take since it requires adding content for everything. As a result I suggest you summarize the two edits of yours to have proportional quantity.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

El_C, you know how I know the content is not repeated in the article? because it's not repeated in the article. I've gone back to read in detail the article's restrictions, and saw that Mhhossein asked you "what should be done for clueless reverts?", to what you answered "users who fail to substantiate their objections, will be viewed as tendentious — which is to say, harshly." Well, this is your picture-perfect clueless revert, which Kazemita1 is now trying to divert into a "quantity of text" problem. That's easy then, lets remove text from the article because too much information is being provided, and let's call this an "undue" problem. If that's the sort of editing that's being allowed here, then I think we need to revisit the article's restrictions. Ypatch (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I'm especially interested to hear what other editors have to say about this dispute. But, by all means, please feel free to request any other admin to evaluate this particular dispute, instead of me, if you find my indecision to be slowing you down. I have no objection (if anything, it would be a relief) and do not need to be notified or consulted in any way whatsoever. Otherwise, I suggest you make use of any dispute resolution request that might bring further outside input into your dispute. The restrictions may be revisited at any time, of course, but seeing that there was unanimous support for them by all participants when I originally proposed them, my sense is that revisiting (especially with the aim of revoking) them will be challenging for you. But you are welcome to try. Either way, good luck. El_C 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch: To give you an idea why I think the quantity of text you are trying to include for a single incident which -did not involve any casualties by the way- is undue, I encourage you to take a look at how many lines are allocated for the assassinations of president, prime minister and other key figures of Iran by MEK in the existing form of the article:

The organization has claimed responsibility for the assassination of Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. The MEK also claimed responsibility of assassinating Ali Sayad Shirazi, Asadollah Lajevardi, director of Iran's prison system (1998). MEK assassinated Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, Mohammad-Javad Bahonar,.

As you can see a total of two lines is allocated to several assassinations made by MEK and yet you want to include 5 lines describing the alleged "terror cell" that was "planning" to do something in Albania. Kazemita1 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - there is a whole Wikipedia page about assassinations made by MEK called List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran. Going back to the main point, I also don't see the text is repeated in the previous paragraph. Ypatch's edit is actually very short (one sentence) and it provides more info about who attacked the MEK, which seems like important information about this story. Barca (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The page you are referring to only lists the assassinations, allocating one line to each assassination without any explanation of how it occurred. If I were to use your reasoning, Ypatch would be the first victim. In other words, we should only describe what happened in Albania in one line (instead of 5). Either way, your argument is not a defense against my objection that MEK assassinating a president and a prime minister of a country deserves much more text than someone hoping to or planning to do something against MEK and got caught before committing it.Kazemita1 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita - Nobody prevented you to add more information about the president or the prime minister. You recently added a lot of information about a divorce to the section "Ideological revolution and women's rights":

"Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."

But now you have a problem with one sentence about who attacked the MEK? Barca (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am glad you agree the assassination of the president and prime minister deserves more text than someone in Albania planning to form an alleged terror cell. I guess we can go on with our contribution then (i.e. Ypatch adds his piece and I do mine). But you should know that the list of MEK related incidents that are more notable than capturing an alleged terror cell is numerous and I will be happy to make them proportional to Ypatch's inclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 can you just say that your revert was unnecessary so that I can bypass the article's restrictions and reinsert this back in the article? After that you are free to do whatever you want. Ypatch (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you just say -like Barca did- that MEK's assassinations such as that of the president, prime minister and other political figures are more notable than capturing an alleged terror cell in Albania and thus deserve more text?Kazemita1 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 I don't think you're getting it. You reverted me, I didn't revert you. In this talk page you have changed your reasons for your revert, all of which have been without basis. Your last reason is that "there is plenty of information in the previous passage on that same topic", but that's also incorrect. Barca pointed out the extended chronicle you added about a divorce, so refusing a single sentence that adds important information about an attack on European soil makes no sense. You're also now talking about MEK assassinations for some reason, when I never stopped you from adding anything about any assassinations. So an answer is needed here. Why did you revert me? Ypatch (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ypatch First of all, I do not like your tone. Secondly, The divorce you are referring to is termed by MEK as "ideological revolution". Academic author Ervand Abrahamian writes pages about it in his book. It is much more notable than capturing an alleged "terror cell" that was planning to do something. The piece you are trying to allocate 5 lines to has barely been cited by two news pieces. I really hope you can absorb what I am saying by due weight when I say the quantity of text allocated to each event should be proportional to its notability. For example, I can find tens if not hundreds of sources that have discussed assassination of the president and prime minister by MEK. Yet, in the article's current form there is barely a line about it. I am trying to help reach a compromise by offering two solutions: 1. You summarizing the two edits of yours into the size of your first edit. 2. You adding your 5 lines about that not-so-notable event and we -the rest of editors- having to make the rest of events proportional to the quantity you are using. Common sense says the first option is a more reasonable one. Let me know if I am missing something.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 What you are missing is to give a proper answer about why you reverted that edit. Your self-made criteria that a divorce deserves more depth than an attack on European soil seems like a clueless reason to revert. Ypatch (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is about time we have someone judge between us. Once again, the so-called "divorce" was promoted by MEK as a "revolution".--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. moving Operation Mersad text to 1988 executions

I reverted Saff V.'s last edit because the section is about the 1988 executions, not Operation Mersad. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section starts with the Operation Mersad and the reaction of Khomeini to it as well as it ends with the Operation Mersad. What is the problem with my edit, I just put material with the same subject next together?@El C: Please leave a comment!Saff V. (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section is about the 1988 executions. The text you're including fits chronologically in the previous section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, Operation Forty Stars took place on 18 June 1988, Operation Mersad took place in July 1988, and the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners took place right after Operation Mersad (it came as a result of Operation Mersad). I don't know what you're complaining about; the text is now presented chronologically in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You disturb the balance of the text. You added Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution. The failed invasion refers to Operation Mersad, you mentioned mass execution of thousands of MEK but ignore to killing or wounding 3,500 and nearly destroying a Revolutionary Guard division by MEK in Operation Mersad which do you describe it with failed invasion.Saff V. (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a section on Operation Mersad, followed by a section on the 1988 executions. This is organized chronologically. I didn't add "Khomeini used the failed invasion.."; that was already in the article. I will clarify that "the failed invasion" refers to Operation Mersad, but then all the information about that it's already in the section (Operation Mersad), which is organized chronologically in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka you need to be more careful before doing any edits! In the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners section, the reason of Khomeini's order for execution identified his fail in the Eternal Light, then you remove this negative word (failing) with the name of Operation Mersad is the natural word. Am I clear?Saff V. (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this. The information is now organized chronologically, that's all that matters to me. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The objection has merit — turning that passage into the intro for that section without any attempt to further connect it to the prior intro, which now becomes the 2nd paragraph, can be seen to hinder the flow of the section and its overarching topic. This isn't to say the section cannot be further prefaced —maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't— but if it does, it needs to be a more well-thought-out attempt to assemble all the pieces together. El_C 14:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, I checked the material to assemble all the pieces together but I found out that material belongs to forty lights and has nothing to do with Mersad and 1988 execution. Anyway According to the Guardian, the word "failed invasion" in this sentence Khomeini used failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails refers to Eternal lights operation, To make the text clear, I put it in the parenthesis but Stefka reverted it. What is the problem, the source support y edit.Can I revert it?Saff V. (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If it does, I suppose, but it is a bit poorly-written, with the parenthesis and missing the: i.e. Khomeini used [sic: the] failed invasion (Eternal lights). El_C 15:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: I wonder if you explain why reverted this edit while the admin (above comment) affirmed it.Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It was explained in my edit summary: "We have a reliable source saying "Following Operation Mersad, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed." We don't have the same saying about Operation Eternal lights. Reverting per WP:OR" Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your answer has nothing to do with my question.According to the Guardian, the word "failed invasion" in this sentence Khomeini used failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails refers to Eternal lights operation, To make the text clear, I put it in the parenthesis but Stefka reverted it, Admin said there is no problem to add it but you reverted again. why are you against to make the sentence more clear?Saff V. (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: If you put "Operation Eternal light" in the Wikipedia search box, you'll get the article Operation Mersad. That's because they're both the same event, with the MEK using the name "Eternal light", and the IRI using the name "Operation Mersad". I added a RS that described the 1988 executions as something that happened after Operation Mersad, whereas your Guardian source just says they happened after the "failed invasion". This is the reason I reverted, because there is a book that says that the executions happened after Operation Mersad, whereas your Guardian article just says they happened after the "failed invasion", but go ahead and change it if you want. You have my consensus. I'm tired of what's going on in this page and if admins are not fixing things then it's certainly not on me to take on the responsibility. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It is correct that "Eternal light" or "Operation Mersad" belongs to the one operation, but my concern is not it. I think that the word "failed invasion" should be clear and as Guadian says, it refers to "Eternal light" or "Operation Mersad", IMO it doesn't matter which of them, but one of them should be brought after "failed invasion". Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Saff V.: The article already refers to Operation Mersad and describes the attack without copying from the Guardian's exact wording (which I would think is copyvio, but whatever): "Following Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the MEK desiring to gather Iranian opposition at home and overthrow the Islamic Republic, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, but many also from other leftist opposition groups were executed." I also gave you consensus to do whatever you wanted here, so I don't know what you're still complaining about. Go ahead and change it as you see fit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)