Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:58, 25 February 2021

|topic= not specified. Available options:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maryam Rajavi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages has strict policies about copyrights; please see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)

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.

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)

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

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 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)

1. https://ctc.usma.edu/irans-unwavering-support-to-assads-syria/

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)

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 . Mind you, this is a discussion that has been ongoing for a long time here . --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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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" "ad hominem "justified" revision trying to create nonsensical, non-existent redundant term"? , I literally made it match the Misplaced Pages article as you CLAIMED you did, but didn't . --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.. 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." 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 ), 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)

1. ^ Rubin, Elizabeth (2003-07-13). "The Cult of Rajavi (Published 2003)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
2. Merat, Arron (2018-11-09). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2021-01-12.
3. ^ "France drops case against Iranian dissidents after 11-year probe". Reuters.

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:

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.

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)

1. Muhanad Mohammed. "Iraqi court seeks arrest of Iranian exiles". The Times. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
2. Muhanad Mohammed. "May 'is appeasing Iran' by blocking dissident's visit". The Standard. Retrieved 21 January 2020.
3. Barakatt, Marina (25 November 2014). "U.K. Supreme Court Upholds Home Secretary's Decision to Prevent an Iranian Politician from Entering the U.K. (November 12, 2014)". The American Society of International Law. Retrieved 14 September 2016.
4. "R (on the application of Lord Carlile of Berriew QC and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) UKSC 60" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2017. Retrieved 14 September 2016. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 27 September 2017 suggested (help)
5. Hussain, Murtaza HussainMatthew ColeMurtaza; ColeMarch 22 2020, Matthew; A.m, 8:00. "Defectors Tell of Torture and Forced Sterilization in Militant Iranian Cult". The Intercept. Retrieved 2021-01-12. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
6. HasanJuly 7 2017, Mehdi HasanMehdi; P.m, 12:00. "Here's Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group". The Intercept. Retrieved 2021-01-12. {{cite web}}: |first2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
7. Merat, Arron (2018-11-09). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2021-01-12.

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• Start-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• WikiProject Women's History articles