Talk:National Council of Resistance of Iran/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Reversion

I reverted the last two edits. The previous edit was lifter word-for-word from [1]. The edit before had a POV which was very much biased against the group. Yahnatan 14:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

NCRI = MEK = MKO = ...?

i suggest people have a look through DC Court of Appeals Rules Against NCRI Petition for Review of "Foreign Terrorist Organization" Designation and maybe also http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/mek.htm (i haven't put this second one in the article, since i haven't used any info from it, and it's better to go to primary sources rather than secondary or N-ary sources if possible). If we were to take the FBI info as itself NPOV facts, then we could, in principle, merge the NCRI and MEK articles. However, since i'm sure this would be controversial, especially since MEK/NCRI supporters clearly don't agree (after all, the DC Court of Appeals text shows that the NCRI went to great lengths to claim that even if MEK is a terrorist organisation, NCRI is not an "alias" for MEK, so on those grounds cannot be counted as terrorist since it's a wide coalition of which only one member organisation is terrorist, and it just happens that the leaders of that single terrorist organisation are the leaders of the whole, wide coalition. IMHO not terribly convincing, but anyway, that's just a POV.) Anyway, i don't see any huge necessity of merging the two articles. Let people present externally referenced, preferably relatively "primary" sourced references and present the different POVs in an NPOV manner on the two different pages. Boud 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. One often forgets the WP:YESPOV. - Martinor (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

POV issue

This page been been taken over by the supporters of MEK, and is far from NPOV. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I would like you to point out exactly what you consider NPOV, and why, so that we can address the issue properly, and do something about it. If not, the tag will be removed after a reasonable amount of time. - Martinor (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is not NPOV. As it is, it reads like an advertisement for MKO. It should be rewritten by neutral editors. Self-designations like "government in exile" do not belong on an encyclopedia.--CreazySuit (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV template

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Article obviously needs more work to make it NPOV. And in future I may put some things in. But for now absent a contemporary explanation of the problems, I don't see a problem with taking it out. Does need better sourcing so that tag should stay. So many articles, so little time! CarolMooreDC 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Current Status NPOV

I've removed material from this section that violates NPOV guideline. It provides expressions of doubt, which appears to promote one position over another. Material should be kept to just the facts. Information regarding its founding and history are noted in the prior section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic12 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Council of Resistance of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

NCRI sponsored almost entirely a Spanish political party

A few months ago it was big news in Spain that the the extremist rightwing party "Vox" had in its beginning been almost exclusively funded by NCRI followers. Unfortunately User:BarcrMac has continuously disputed the relevance of this.

Firstly, is it a worthwhile news that a party in Spain manages to raise within 5 years from 0% of votes to 5-10% depending on the election? I do think so. Did I provide good sources? I think I did, the three newspapers I cite, are certainly among the most important 5 publications in Spain.

Is it worth mentioning that in the year the party was founded 80% of the resources where given by NCRI members? According to BarcrMac, NCRI is not responsible for what their members do. I dispute this. First of all, already the whole situation around the donations is rather unorthodox, and one does not have to be extremely paranoid to find it a bit suspicious: according to media 800,000€ were given in 150 separate donations, i.e., donations were on average more than 5000€! These donations were given to a then unknown party in Spain AND the supposed donors were Iranians often living in Canada, Switzerland, or Germany, and another 12 different countries. This already seems a bit suspicious, but according to some of the publications, NCRI encouraged people to give money to this new party project, and an NCRI spokesman made a statement that sounds like a apology for this mistake.

Meanwhile I will reactivate my addition, if you have anything to say about this, you can do it here instead of always just deleting. First of all, writing this paragraph has taken some work, secondly I do not think that the part I wrote does any harm since I did not do any false statements and since according to your last argument, it is simply not relevant, and thirdly if you try giving arguments here, maybe you also contribute a bit to the question instead of simply being destructive.

Below my contribution to the article as erased by BarcMac:

In Spain, main media outlets reported that supporters of the NCRI had sponsored more than 80% of the 2014 election campaign of the far-right extremist party Vox.

The party that was only founded in 2013 has since managed to score between 5% to 10% in recent elections (2019).

The money was split up in 146 separate donations given by individuals of the Iranian opposition living in 15 different countries.

When confronted by Spanish journalists, a spokesman of the NCRI claimed "We knew that this [VOX] was a new party, but we where not aware that it was an extremist rightwing party."

 ^[1],

^[2],^[3]

These links do not say that the "NCRI sponsored almost entirely a Spanish political party", they say that "random NCRI supporters" donated money to Vox. What 'random supporters' do is not something that the NCRI itself has done. Please provide links that show this is directly linked to the NCRI. Barca (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear BarcrMac, I think you should stand to the decisions of your friends. If they had nothing to do with these "random supporters", they should have said we strongly disapprove of these people instead you read in "El País": "¿Conocía el grupo iraní el trasfondo ultra de Vox y su posición sobre inmigración? “Sabíamos que era un partido nuevo, pero no de extrema derecha”, explica ahora un portavoz del grupo iraní en el exilio".

Y "La vanguardia" you read "Además, Vidal-Quadras puntualiza que el CNRI solo organizó la colecta, “los donativos no vinieron de la organización, sino de simpatizantes del CNRI. De una comunidad en el exilio muy variopinta”." Instead of censoring, you want to do something productive, you can add that the NCRI only organized the donations but that the money came from supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.130.131.120 (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you with "you should stand to the decision of your friends"? What you are doing here is assuming that the NCRI should have said something about this incident. That does not mean they are responsible for this incident. Please do not insert back into the article without a valid reason. Barca (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, I didn't want to offend you, it is just that I already wrote twice some quotes from the different articles that make it clear that the NCRI is not just a victim of some random supporters but that it organized the donations and that it claimed not knowing to what type of party the money was going to. I don't know if you read Spanish or not, but I really cannot believe that you believe your own arguments. So let me translate for you what I quoted above from the Vanguardia article: "Vidal-Quadras (the first chairman of Vox in 2014) declared that the NCRI only organized the collection, but the donations did not come from the organization itself, but from sympathizers of the NCRI."

The other quote from el País (that you chose to ignore says) "Was the Iranian group aware of the ultra rightwing background of Vox and its opinion on immigration? “We knew that it was a new party, but not an extremist rightwing party”, explained to us a spokesman for the Iranian exile group." When you said that the money came from supporters but that the NCRI was not involved I told you what I just said, then I told you again, and now I'm telling again. You claim to want to discuss something, but then you always ignore what I write. This is why I had the impression that you're trying to whitewash the NCRI, I'm really sorry for my accusations. I hope that now that I translated the articles you will understand why I believe that we should include this incident in the NCRI article. Cheers

77.130.131.120 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your message, and I'm also not saying that the NCRI is "just a victim of some random supporters", but what I am saying is that what is missing here are reliable sources that say the NCRI are the ones that provided the funds to VOX. These sources clearly say that NCRI supporters, and not the NCRI, gave money to VOX, so that means that this cannot be credited to the NCRI. Barca (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear BarcrMac, I think I never claimed that it was the NCRI itself that gave the money. I hope you believe me that I have been trying to be very careful when I wrote the text (admittedly I didn't know anything about the NCRI before, I didn't know that there was a difference between NCRI and MEK, but as soon as you told me, I corrected that, as soon as you said that El País is not the main Spanish media -- which might or might not be true by the way -- I added further Spanish newspapers to make it clear that this had not been some conspiracy type of publication, I tried to make several times changes to the article that would make it more acceptable to you). If it is just the headline of the article, then change it, but I don't understand why you are insisting that NCRI cannot be credited for this story? The former head of Vox says in the Vanguardia article that the NCRI collected the funds for him. This is certainly something that can be credited to the NCRI, and certainly you don't believe either that any of this money would have arrived in Spain without NCRI channeling the money. I think that there is very little doubt that the Spanish political landscape would have been much different without such outside influence. 134.214.214.99 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The title you added to the article, "Building up a far-right extremist party in Spain", implies that the NCRI built a far-right extremist party in Spain, but this is no verifiable through the given sources. The closest connection to the NCRI is the quote that says "Vidal-Quadras puntualiza que el CNRI solo organizó la colecta, “los donativos no vinieron de la organización, sino de simpatizantes del CNRI. De una comunidad en el exilio muy variopinta”." Here Vidal-Quadras confirms that the money did did not come from the NCRI, but from "NCRI sympathizers". How is "Vidal-Quadras points out that the NCRI only organized the collection" equivalent to the NCRI funding a "far-right extremist party in Spain"? This association seems tenuous at best. Barca (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear BarcrMac, I thought I wait a bit to let things settle a bit. Please change the headline and the rest of my contribution to what you see fit. You do not seem to refute that we are talking about an event that happened, you seem not to refute either that Spanish democracy and Vox are notable subjects. As I see it, you currently only object to specific formulations, so I beg you to do any modifications you wish to the current version in the talk-page so that we can discuss about something instead of me doing some modification to obtain your agreement and you simply deleting every time my new version. Thank you.

PS: Maybe you do not like having to rely on sources written in Spanish, I have searched in English and even though this event has received surprisingly little coverage outside Spain, there do exist some articles about this. Thanks.77.130.131.120 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding repeated content and removing content supported by reliable sources

Pahlevun, in your edit [2], you are removing the NCRI political concepts, something that is supported by reliable sources. You are also adding a new section for something that is already repeated in the article (and that is supported by only one source). I have fixed this now. If you require to discuss this in more detail, please do it here first. Barca (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What you call "NCRI political concepts" is highly promotional and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Moreover, your "reliable sources" are a speech by Rajavi and a blog post, neither are reliable. Pahlevun (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fabrication

User:BarcrMac. In this edit, you have removed several sources and used Keddie, Modern Iran, (2006), p.253 as a source to support Both co-signed a covenant outlining Banisadr “as the Republic’s president”, and of Rajavi “as the chairman both of the National Council and of the republic’s Provisional Government.” The covenant criticised the Iranian regime as “medieval”, “reactionary”, and “dictatorial”, while proposing “a democratic, patriotic, and law-abiding government”. By 1983, the NCRI included the People’s Mojahedin o Iran, Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), National Democratic Front (NDF), the National Democratic Front, the Hoviyat Group, the Union of Iranian Communists, the Workers’ Party, the Union for Workers’ Liberation, the United Left Council for Democracy and Independence, and the Labour Party of Iran.

However, I checked the above-mentioned source, and this was all about this:

Masud Rajavi, the head of the Mojahedin, and Bani Sadr escaped to France in late July 1981 and formed the National Council of Resistance, soon joined by the NDF and the Kurdish Democratic Party. Assassinations continued in Iran, with a bomb killing, among others, President Rajai, Prime Minister Bahonar, and the head of the national police. In a presidential election in October 1981, Hojjatoleslam Ali Khamenei became president. The majles, which leaned toward the populist faction of the IRP that came to be called the Islamic Left, rejected Khamenei’s ﬁrst choice for prime minister, the conservative Ali Akbar Velayati, and accepted the Islamic leftist Mir Hosain Musavi. Government attacks on the Mojahedin culminated in the discovery of their main hideout in Tehran, and their top leaders were killed. Many of them now joined the Kurdish rebels, while others ﬂed to Europe. The Mojahedin had miscalculated the government’s vulnerability and their own appeal; their rising ended by strengthening the Khomeinists. From then on the Mojahedin operated mostly in the West and Iraq. Their violent pro-Iraq activities in the Iran–Iraq war caused the NDF and Bani Sadr to withdraw from the National Council of Resistance. In 1986 the French government forced them to leave Paris, and their center henceforth became Baghdad, Iraq, with which they were, until the U.S. 2003 victory in Iraq, allied.

As it is evident, the source does not mention even half of what you have written, and you have ~~fabricated~~ put a source here that does not say what you added to the article. This is clearly a violation of sourcing policy, and if it was done deliberately, your action may be perceived dishonest. This is time to explain your edit. Pahlevun (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: It would have been better if you asked my about the source instead of directly accusing me of source fabrication. Did you check the other source that in that paragraph (Abrahamian, 243-246)[3]?

"In the next few weeks, Bani-Sadr and Rajavi published a manifesto, which they called a Covenant (Misaq), and formed a National Council of Resistance (Sahwra-ye Melli-ye Moqavamat). The Covenant bore the signatures of Bani-Sar as the republic’s president, and of Rajavi as the chairman both of the National Council and of the republic’s Provisional Government. The Covenant was to serve as the programme o the National Council as well as that of the future Provisional Government until a proper constituent assembly could determine the exact structure of the Democratic Islamic Republic. The Covenant started with the customary Muslim introduction, ‘in the name of God, the merciful and compassionate’, and continued with the assertion that the ‘roaring river of martyrs’ blood will inevitably flow to final victory.’"

"After denouncing the regime as ‘medieval’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘dictatorial’, the Covenant promised to provide Iran with a democratic, patriotic, and law abiding government. It promised democracy in the shape of free speech, free press, free religion, free judiciary, free political parties, and free elections for factory councils as well as for local assemblies and national parliaments. It promised to safeguard national independence by uprooting cultural, economic, and political imperialism; by strengthening the armed forces that were now valiantly defending the country; by nationalizing all foreign trade to eliminate completely the comprador bourgeoisie; by establishing economic self0suffiency, particularly in the realm of food production; and by helping the ‘national bourgeoisie’ to expand the small and medium-sized industries that contributed to the public good. It also promised social justice in the shape of land reform, full employment, decent housing, mass literacy, workers’ participation in management, the right to strike, full equality between the sexes, and the protection of the national minorities, especially the Kurdish minority."

"By the summer of 1983, the National Council had succeeded in becoming a broad front. It included, besides the Mojahedin, the Kurdish Democratic Prty, the National Democratic Front, the Hoviyat Group (a recent offshoot of the Minority Feda’iyan), and our other Left groups: the Union of Iranian Communists, the Worker’s Party, the Union for Workers’ Liberation, and the United Left Council for Democracy and Indepence (Shawra-ye Mottahed-e Chap bara-ye Demokrasi va Esteqlal)."

Barca (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is your duty —as the editor who puts something on the article— to cite the source used, not another one. You cited Keddie for this content and I checked Keddie, I have no crystal balls and I don't have to check every single source you might have used. Everyone may make mistakes. Please correct the source in the article as well for the time being. The quote you put here shows that we have a paraphrasing problem here that needs to be addressed. More importantly, a glance shows that you have failed to mention what Abrahamian wrote in the next few pages, the fact that MEK used its front organizations to undermine all others in this "coalition" and had full control over it, which eventually came out as a reason for others to desert it as an MEK-only organization. This is the point that before in the article, supported by other sources, and you have removed any information that was there about those who refused to join MEK and those who left it because of this matter. Pahlevun (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You attack me saying I did a "source fabrication", and when I provide you with the source, you are still trying to lecture me. The source was in that same paragraph where the information was. If you have doubts, ask, don't attack. See WP:AGF Barca (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, this is your version and it cites a wrong source. I am no mind reader and I would go to the source cited to check. It was a mistake? OK then. I did not intend to attack you, so I edited my previous message here in case it may be seen as unhelpful; while I still believe your unexplained removal of content, as well as omitting conflicting information from Abrahamian's book is questionable. Adherence to WP:INTEGRITY will prevent from such violations of the sourcing policy. Pahlevun (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:, can you be more specific please? What "unexplained removal of content, as well as omitting conflicting information from Abrahamian's book" would you say is a "violation of sourcing policy"? Barca (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. In this edit you removed all information about how the NCRI was deserted and became a MEK-only group (explained by Abrahamian's book which you used, at pp. 247–8), and that Komola refused to join MEK (Communist and Marxist parties of the world by Charles Hobday and Roger East). There are various edits containing unexplained removal of content, this was about this particular section, and I wrote it here (Others should be discussed in their own place). Pahlevun (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Here are summaries of my edits where you are saying I committed "violation of sourcing policy"[4]:

"The NCRI was originally an umbrella organization of Iranian dissident groups that shared an opposition to Ayatollah Khomeni and Islamic Republic, but it lasted no more than two or three years." The first part (that the NCRI was originally an umbrella organization of dissident groups) is already in the article, and the second part uses Iran Chamber as a source, which is not a reliable source for this article.

"It was formed by People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) leader, Massoud Rajavi, and former president of Iran Abolhassan Banisadr in 1981, who co-chaired the council." This is already in the article.

"They were later joined by National Democratic Front (Iran) (NDF) and Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI)." This is already in the article.

"Unlike KDPI, the other leftist major Kurdish opposition Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan refused to join the alliance." Trivial. Many groups did not join the NCRI, that doesn't mean we should create a list of groups that did not join the NCRI.

"The council also received unequivocal support from the Labour Party of Iran.^[4] It caused a break up in the Fedaian Organisation (Minority), when Organization of Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas (In Search of Identity Program) led by Mehdi Sameh split the former in order to join the NCRI, with less than a handful of members."Iran Chamber is not a reliable source for this article.

"Despite the presence of well-known personalities such as Bahman Nirumand, Nasser Pakdaman, Mehdi Khanbaba Tehrani, Mansour Farhang and several others, the organization was dominated by MEK."Iran Chamber is not a reliable source for this article.

Where have I committed "violation of sourcing policy"? Barca (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, what you removed was not trivial, it was important enough to be cited in that source. Secondly, all the content backed by Iran Chamber that you have removed is more or less mentioned by Abrahamian and you could simply keep the content and replace the source. Yet you failed to add contradictory information. This resembles Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Pahlevun (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Here you have removed content backed by reliable sources written by Abrahamian (which yourself have used), Mark Edmond Clark (Routledge) and Nikki Keddie (Yale University Press) without any explanation or valid reason. Pahlevun (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: You still have not explained where I have committed "violation of sourcing policy" in the first edit. In the second edit you are brining up now (which was done 1 month ago), exactly what content are you saying I removed? Barca (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a certain content and citing a source that does not mention that it is a violation of sourcing policy, let alone cherrypicking from the source you used. Pahlevun (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: where have I added "a certain content and citing a source that does not mention that"? Barca (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you have forgotten why this discussion started in the first place. Please read this section from the beginning. Pahlevun (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Drop this, both of you. Barca, you made a mistake. I'm willing to accept that it was an honest mistake, but it's a mistake nonetheless. Further arguing is getting you nowhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

“Front and shell organization” sections

Pahlevun is changing the emphasis of this article about the NCRI into a list of what he calls “Front and shell organizations”. Many of the sources don't even mention the NCRI. Pahlevun is also trying to change the emphasis that the NCRI and the MEK are the same organization. But the sources say the NCRI is “an exiled coalition of Iranian opposition groups”. [5] Barca (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't call them "Front and shell organizations", reliable sources do. NCRI and the MEK are considered synonymous by the mainstream academic sources. The U.S. government and the U.S. Court of Appeals decision do confirm that NCRI is just an alias. And did this article, before you "updated" the lead in an undiscussed removal of well-sourced sourced content. You have removed FIVE reliable sources. Explain your edit. Pahlevun (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that all these organizations are "Front and Shell organizations" of the NCRI? Barca (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You said that the sources say MEK and NCRI are not the same. Those links above prove that the U.S. considers them the same. European Union does too. Scholarly sources (including those you deleted without a clear reason) recognize NCRI itself as a front/political wing of the MEK, in contrast to and the NLA, the military wing. Abrahamian (pp. 247–248; which you did not add to the article despite using material on pp. 245–246) describes how the MEK used its fronts to take over NCRI from the first day. Mark Edmond Clark (pp. 70–73) goes from that time to the most recent years about these. There are only a handful of the sources. Pahlevun (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: maybe you did not understand my question, so I will try to make it clearer. The section you added in the article, "Front and shell organizations", lists a number of orgnizations, but in many the sources don't mention either "Front" or "Shell" or "NCRI". For that reason, creating a section "Front and shell organizations" seems like UNDUE (and inaccurate), wouldn't you say? Barca (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the term "shell" is used by Mark Edmond Clark only (while "front" is also used), others use "front". Many reliable sources state that use of such organizations is a major characteristic of MEK activities, this section names them at the moment and I can add a summary backed by reliable sources for that if you want. I am really surprised because you have removed multiple reliable sources that say NCRI is a front for the MEK, and replaced them with "political coalition" stuff without discussion; yet you say it is undue. As you can see, from the very beginning of this article there was doubts about necessity of having an article for NCRI: Talk:National Council of Resistance of Iran#NCRI = MEK = MKO = ...?. Pahlevun (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: I have said that it is UNDUE because the majority of reliable sources say the MEK and the NCRI are two separate organizations. This is the reason why we have two separate Wikipedia articles. But you have added a lot of stuff to this article that does not even mention the NCRI. You also added "doubtful" to 3 reliable sources saying that the NCRI is a coalition of Iranian dissident groups. [6] Why? Barca (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The majority of sources don't say that, only MEK claims what you said. Your earliest excuse for removal was that this is only supported by one source, then it became duplicate content and now it is undue. Before you remove a whole lot of well-sourced information about synonymity of MEK and NCRI without an explained reason, an "Update" that removed content backed by Katzman, Fayazmanesh, Ansari, Hantschel and Rand corporation. At 10:37, 10 April 2020 you removed A large majority of Iran's population regards it as a terrorist group, disliking the assistance it provided to Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein in the wake of the Iraqi invasion of Iran backed by Pedde (which you used in another edits. Pahlevun (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: you have not replied to my questions. Why have you added "doubtful"[7] to those sources? and why are you adding so much content to the article using sources that don't mention the NCRI? Barca (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered you. The reason for adding doubtful tag is because you have removed contradicting content backed by reliable sources without an explanation, which you should do now. Don't evade answering my question with asking the same question again and again. Pahlevun (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: please list exactly which sources and content you are talking about. Barca (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, could you please take a look at this? Pahlevun added substantial amounts of material to "Front and Shell organizations" (of the NCRI) but most of it does not mention the NCRI at all. Some examples -

Organization of Iranian American Communities

[Source] “As of June 2016 the MEK website listed a new name and address in Washington: Organization of Iranian American Communities.”

Colorado's Iranian American Community

[Source] “Colorado's Iranian American Community. In the weeks before Filner spoke at an event in support of delisting the MEK last year he was the recipient of several thousand dollars in donations from Iranian Americans living outside his district.”

[Source] “In 2004, this Colorado group was among 23 co-sponsors of a fundraiser for Iran's Bam earthquake victims that turned into a “night of resistance.” Seventeen were found to have MEK connections, including the Colorado group, according to news reports at the time.”

Iranian American Cultural Society of Michigan

[Source] “Jones was a keynote speaker Tuesday at a Nowrouz lunch reception hosted by the Iranian American Cultural Society of Michigan, a group that advocates on behalf of the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK)...”

Iranian American Community of Northern California

[Source] “Several speakers at MEK-linked events told the Monitor they were paid by the Iranian American Community of Northern California.”

[Source] “The Iranian American Community of Northern California. It paid $400,000 over the past year to a Washington lobby group, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, to work on Capitol Hill to work for the removal of the MEK from the list of foreign terrorist organisations.”

Organizing Committee for Convention for Democracy in Iran

[Source] “Many were invited by suspected MEK front groups with names such as the Organizing Committee for Convention for Democracy in Iran ...”

Iranian American Society of Texas

[Source] “Those groups cosponsoring the fundraiser included several that the FBI described as MEK front organisations or as linked to prominent supporters. These included … the Iranian-American Society of Texas ....”

Iranian Society of South Florida (ISSF)

[Source] “Those groups cosponsoring the fundraiser included several that the FBI described as MEK front organisations or as linked to prominent supporters. These included Iranian Society of South Florida...”

Iranian American Community of North Texas

[Source] “Many were invited by suspected MEK front groups with names such as … the Iranian American Community of North Texas..."

There are more examples. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There's severa distinct disputes here, most of which are about what constitutes due weight, and those questions I am not getting into. If you're saying Pahlevun is indulging in original research, you need to explain more clearly why this is the case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde: Pahlevun seems to have filled the article with alleged "Front and Shell organizations" of the NCRI using sources that do not talk about the the NCRI at all (I provided some examples in my previous post). - MA Javadi (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: please explain yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

MEK/NCRI synonymy

@Vanamonde93: I find it really a bad idea to call an admin for every single content dispute, but since you are already pinged and asked me to explain, I am pinging you too. @BarcrMac and MA Javadi: As I said before, the mainstream view is that the MEK and NCRI are synonymous. Here are some sources to prove that:

Official designations

Aside from annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which say MEK is aka NCRI (example), this is a specific announcement from United States Department of State:

The Secretary of State has amended the designation, under Executive Order 13224 on terrorist financing, of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, known as the MEK, to add its aliases National Council of Resistance (NCR) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
— [8]

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also ruled that:

We conclude that the support for the Secretary’s conclusion that NCRI was dominated and controlled by, and thus was an alias of, MEK was indeed substantial, and we therefore reject NCRI’s statutory challenge to its designation as an FTO.
— [9]

Media

Here are dozens of media sources stating that:

- NCRI is the "political wing" of MEK:

- NCRI is the "political arm" of MEK:

- NCRI is a "front" of MEK:

Scholarly sources

Here are some scholarly sources to prove that, dozens more are available:

In August 2002, the Iranian opposition movement in exile, the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – a cover organisation for the People’s Mojahedin – revealed details of two secretnuclear sites that were under construction in Iran.
— EU-Iran relations: options for future dialogue (PDF), JSTOR esrep07012.12
...made very publicly by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq's (MEK's) political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI).
— The Bottom Line on Iran: The Costs and Benefits of Preventive War versus Deterrence, JSTOR resrep04862
Despite the designation of the MKO as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the group continues to lobby U.S. lawmakers through its front group, the National Council of Resistance, which allegedly has provided the U.S. government with ...
— Stephen Sloan; Sean K. Anderson (2009). Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest (3 ed.). Scarecrow Press. p. 454. ISBN 0810863111.
In 2002, the MeK’s political branch, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), revealed two...
— Other side of the Iranian coin: Iran’s counterterrorism apparatus, doi:10.1080/01402390.2017.1283613
People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), also known as the MKO (Mojahedin Khalq Organization) or MeK (Mojahedin e Khalq), or NCRI (National Council of Resistence of Iran), is led by Masoud Rajavi and his wife, Ms. Maryam Azadanlou-Rajavi
— The Perils and Costs of a Grand Bargain with the Islamic Republic of Iran, doi:10.1080/10803920701681352
One group that has hounded Iran is the National Council for Resistance on Iran (NCRI), the political arm for the People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, or the People's Mujahedin, the MEK)...
— Michael D. Evans. Showdown with Nuclear Iran: Radical Islam's Messianic Mission to Destroy Israel and Cripple the United States. p. 29
MEK's political arm, the National Council for Resistance on Iran (NCRI), has a global support network with active lobbying
— Anthony H. Cordesman; Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, p. 327, ISBN 9780313380884
As Rajavi increasingly transformed the NCRI from an umbrella organization into a MeK subsidiary, early partners separated from the consortium... (p. 59) However, the MeK itself, through its NCRI, claimed responsibility for more than 350 attacks in 2000 and 2001 alone (p. 62) After DOS added the U.S. branch of the NCRI to the FTO list as a component of the MeK in 2003, the MeK continued its U.S. efforts by creating technically unaffiliated lobbying groups, such as the Iran Policy Committee in the United States and Friends of a Free Iran in Europe, by indirectly funding allegedly “independent” analyses of the MeK by firms such as DLA Piper and Global Security Options, and by “astroturf ” campaigning (artificial grassroots campaigns) (p. 65)
— The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum

The section is hugely based on two of the sources cited, one writes in a under the title "The MEK’s Use of Aliases and Other Deceptive Practices"

The MEK’s outreach and lobbying efforts are critical to its existence. Using aliases to take on the guise of other, unrelated groups, the organization has sought to exploit fears in Western capitals about Iran’s government. By doing so, the MEK hopes that it can also attract support for itself as an alternative to the government in Tehran (US Department of State, 1994, 14). However, under those aliases, the MEK often disseminates false and misleading information about Iran. It was the MEK that presented satellite imagery that allegedly showed Iranian nuclear facilities; the group also reported on alleged “secret” Iranian weapons laboratories (Jehl, 2004). [My note: It was NCRI that did that] ... The MEK actually became an organization of many names as early as 1981, when other key opposition elements initially united with the MEK to form the NCR, referred to in more recent times as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) (US Department of State, Ofﬁce of the Coordinator of Counterterrorism, 2004; Salhani, 2006). In spite of the departure of numerous organizations from the NCRI’s ranks that occurred after 1983, when the MEK formally sided with Saddam’s Iraq against Iran, the MEK-controlled NCRI still claims that it includes multiple member groups under its umbrella (US Department of State, 1994, 18). Most are in fact shell organizations, established by the MEK to make the NCRI appear more representative (ibid). [Footnote from the book: Other organizations in the NCRI that supported the MEK included: the Muslim Student Association, the Towhidi Society of Guilds, the Movement of Muslim Teachers, the Union of Instructors in Universities and Institutions of Higher Learning, and the Society for the Defense of Democracy and Independence in Iran (US Department of State, 1994, 18).] The NCRI has formed associated groups with innocuous names, such as the “Association of Iranian Scholars and Professionals” and the “Association of Iranian Women” (US Department of State, 1994, 18). To promote itself, the MEK has also taken on the names of unafﬁliated professional associations. In California, the MEK once applied for a demonstration permit using the name of “The Society of Iranian Professionals.” California state ofﬁcials alerted the actual organization with that name, which later issued a statement explaining it had no direct or indirect connections to the MEK (ibid).
— Terrornomics, pp. 69–71.

The other says:

[Speaking about MEK in the previous sentences]... There are many fronts, especially the main political entity, a long-running National Council for Resistance on Iran. It is an unusual front in that it does not avoid equation with the MEK. There are also organizations of academics, especially the National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain, the entity usually listed on myriad full-page advertisements in American newspapers such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post. [Footnote from the book: Other MEK front organizations have included the Association of Iranian Scholars and Professionals, the Association of Women, Iran Aid, the California Society for Democracy in Iran, the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia and the Union Against Fundamentalism.]
— The Terrorist Argument: Modern Advocacy and Propaganda, p. 170.

Conclusion

Above-mentioned sources taken into consideration, MEK/NCRI equivalence is not my idea, it is a well-known fact. In Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information, it is stated that: Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Pahlevun (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Yes, the sources seem to say that the NCRI is more or less a front for the MEK, at the moment. That does not automatically make anything with an MEK connection a front for the NCRI. If you are listing an organization as a "front" or a "shell" for the NCRI, your source needs to use that description specifically, as in, either "front for the NCRI" or "front for the MEK". @BarcrMac and MA Javadi: seem to be saying that the sources don't support that piece. Regardless, you need to make sure the sources do in fact do that. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The sources don't support that this section is related to the NCRI. Pahlevun is coming to his own conclusions using his chosen sources. Some sources say the NCRI is the MEK’s political wing, and others say the NCRI is a coalition or umbrella of exiled coalition:

1* France24: "The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled coalition of Iranian opposition groups"

2* Journal of the US Army War College: "The NCRI serves as an umbrella movement representing various Iranian dissident groups"

3* The Guardian: "National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an umbrella coalition largely controlled by the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK)"

4* Baghdad Post: "the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) coalition"

5* The Globe post: "an activist coalition known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)"

6* Reuters: "the NCRI, an umbrella bloc of opposition exiles that seek an end to almost 40 years of Shi’ite Muslim clerical rule in Iran."

7* ABC: "Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) — an umbrella bloc of opposition groups in exile"

8* Fox News: "gathering of Iranian dissident groups (under the umbrella of the NCRI)"

9* France 24: "The NCRI is an umbrella group for exiled opposition organisations"

10* Haaretz: (NCRI), "an umbrella bloc of opposition groups in exile"

11* The Hill: "The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an umbrella group of Iranian dissident groups founded by the leader of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)"

12* SBS News: "the NCRI, a Paris-based umbrella group of exiled Iranian opposition political organisations"

13* Washington Examiner: "Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, which falls under the NCRI umbrella"

14* Yahoo News: "(NCRI) - an umbrella bloc of opposition groups in exile"

15* North Korean Military Proliferation in the Middle East and Africa: “(NCRI), a dissident group”

16* Nuclear Safeguards, Security and Nonproliferation: “the dissident group, the NCRI”

17* Deterrence in an Era of Iranian Nuclear Proliferation: “Iranian dissident group - the NCRI”

18* Newsweek: “the dissident group cited ... is the NCRI”

The point is that the NCRI has its own history and its own sources, and this is why it has its own article. Putting content in the article using sources that don’t mention the NCRI is not cool, just like putting "doubtful" tags [10] next to reliable sources is also not cool. I suggest we undo all these edits from Pahlevun. Barca (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Vanamonde and Barca. Pahlevun's edits should be reverted. I hope he understands that he can't continue to waffle his way into misrepresenting sources. MA Javadi (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Source is missing

I cannot find the source for this -

"The European Union in May 2004 implied that NCRI is part of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (rather than vice versa) and excluded the NCRI itself from a list of organisations considered to be terrorist organisations, including the People's Mujahedin of Iran "minus the National Council of Resistance of Iran" on its list of terrorist organisations."^[5]

Can someone find it? otherwise it should be removed. Barca (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are my edits being reverted?

It's very curious that my edit is being reverted for no clear reason. My edits can be viewed [11] All I did was provide some links for further edification, so I think the reverts have no real basis. Maqdisi117 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Those links are not necessary. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Can you elaborate how Maqdisi117's edit was adding an unnecessary link? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The type of "marxism" adopted by the NCRI is not equivalent to the one linked by Maqdisi117; and "gender segregation" refers to socially constructed roles (what is in the source). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:: From this scholarly work "housing is segregated by gender, and in other buildings, lines are painted down the middle of hallways, separating them into men’s and women’s sides. Men and women below the leadership level are prohibited from contact with one another unless they have obtained official case-by-case permission. Shaking hands is prohibited across genders. Even the gas station at Camp Ashraf has separate hours for men and women." You say this is not gender segregation? I refer you to page 72.Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

^ El País: El exilio iraní financió el 80% de la campaña de Vox de 2014
^ El Mundo: Alejo Vidal-Quadras, fundador de Vox: "Abascal sabía que el dinero era iraní y le parecía muy bien"
^ La Vanguardia: Vox recibió en sus inicios más de un millón de euros del exilio iraní
^ Cite error: The named reference ic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Council Common Position 2004/500/CESP of 17 May 2004" (pdf). Council of the European Union. May 17, 2004. Retrieved 2006-12-28.

Neutrality tag

@Iskandar323: since you restored the tag, what aspect of the article are you saying isn’t neutral? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well for starters, the mission statement that you restored needs rationalizing and turning into prose. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: that is not a mission statement, it's the group's concepts and ideology, and I don't see a problem with the way it's written. But if you have a problem with the current prose of that information, then provide a prose that would be acceptable and retains the information. WP:DRIVEBYTAG is not acceptable. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag. I simply restored it after you drive-by deleted it. Did you even bother to review the talk page's numerous neutrality discussions? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I did review this talk page before removing the tag. I don't have a problem with the way the group's concepts and ideology is written, but if you have a problem with the current prose of that information, then provide a prose that would be acceptable and retains the information. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: If you have a problem with the current prose of that information, then provide a prose that would be acceptable and retains the information, otherwise I will remove the tag since WP:DRIVEBYTAG is not acceptable. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with that prose or the original short description. Poya-P (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Logo

@Havsjö: the problem with the logo you added is that it uses the same lion that was used during the Shah of Iran’s government (before the 1979 revolution [12]). The NCRI opposed the Shah’s government, so you can see the problems that arise from using the same logo that was used in its opposition group. Also going to the NCRI website you can see that the logo they use is the same one that was in this page before you changed it. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 U.S. House Resolution 100

House Resolution 100 was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., expresses Congress’ support of a democratic, secular and non-nuclear republic. There are 75 Democrats signed onto the resolution, among 222 members of the 435-member House.^[1]
The resolution voices “support for the opposition leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi’s 10-point plan for the future of Iran, which calls for the universal right to vote, free elections, and a market economy, and advocates gender, religious, and ethnic equality, a foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence, and a nonnuclear Iran.”^[2]

After I added this section under our /* Global Reception */ section, it was reverted by a user who claimed incorrectly in the edit summary that this is "forbidden synthesis".

But there is nothing synthetic about them: they are statements of bare fact, and they accurately represent the primary and secondary sources say about the events. This is a misapplication of our policy, by a user who is now policing this article without having even tried to contribute anything to it. And amounts to a denial of Verified facts.

@ParadaJulio is mis-representing the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement, in which we largely agreed to split the material contained in that article into the various existing articles on the Iranian opposition, such as this one. The only thing synthetic about that article was its name, which I offered to change: all the content in the article was well-sourced and well-cited.

@ParadaJulio has also never retracted the false allegations of "HOAX" that he made about the NCRI's leadership during that AfD, and now is suppressing verified facts about House Resolution 100, above. Presumably so that he can continue to frame the NCRI and its efforts at regime change as a mere "Hoax". Until that is retracted, editors will be entirely justified in disregarding these new false allegations of WP:Synth, which as you can easily see, HR 100 is not.

I will ask the closing admin @Vanamonde93 to please intervene and instruct us on how to proceed. I commit to following our Wikipedia:Content policy and abiding by the decision in that AfD close.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement

^ Shaw, Adam (2023-03-09). "Resolution backing secular, democratic Iran republic picks up majority bipartisan support in House". Fox News. Retrieved 2023-03-13.
^ "McClintock Introduced House Resolution With Over 160 Co-sponsors in Support of a Free, Democratic, and Secular Republic in Iran". Congressman Tom McClintock. 2023-02-08. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

ParadaJulio, if you remove content claiming that it is synthesis, you are expected to justify that claim in talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe, if you are talking about the "2023 U.S. House Resolution 100" edit: how do you justify creating a whole section based on a couple of passing mentions of Maryam Rajavi just saying she supports this resolution ? How is this resolution connected to the topic of this article? (and please don’t say the connection is based on Rajavi’s support for the resolution - that is not a reason to link that resolution to this article). ParadaJulio (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not merely that she supports the resolution, which justifies its inclusion here, its is that the resolution explicitly supports the NCRI's plan, and Senator McClintock's press release explicitly mentions Maryam Rajavi.

This was stated clearly in my contribution diffed above, it is clearly stated in the the two sources cited, and @ParadaJulio appears to simply be saying WP:IDHT. That is a form of WP:Tendentious editing. He has not yet retracted the allegations of "Hoax" and "Synthetic original research" therefore we have reason to suspect that there is a Conflict of Interest or some other motive, and that he is WP:NOTHERE to make an WP:Encyclopedia article. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not a place to discuss the conduct of another editor, particularly conduct that isn't directly relevant to the content you are disputing. Discuss that instead, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Jaredscribe, you were making original research in other articles, which is where I mentioned that. In this article, a mention about a free Iran gathering where people "supported advocates for a democratic, secular, and nonnuclear Republic of Iran, and showed support for the opposition leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi's 10-point plan for the future of Iran" from a press release does not provide any significant evidence about anything except that the NCRI's ideals are being advocated by supporters. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing

@ParadaJulio: You are deleting published information on funding and fraud for no good reason here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and you shouldn't be engaging in this kind of transparent whitewashing. That the NCRI was cleared of fraud in one instance in a French court, as you pointed out earlier, is neither here nor there. If you had checked the source being used here, none of the claims pertain to fund-raising in France, so it is wholly irrelevant. If you have information regarding the organization being cleared of fraud in France then you should add it, along with the original charges, as court cases are notable information. You should not be using it as part of a spurious attempt to delete demonstrably unrelated information from the page - thereby whitewashing it of any mention of fraud/court cases. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, that you don't agree doesn't mean that the reason for my revert isn't based on policy. You need multiple mainstream sources for serious claims. That is policy. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@ParadaJulio: The RAND report section in question links to six other sources from where the information was derived, so it is not single-sourced. The RAND report is an aggregation of pre-existing secondary sources that you could, were you so inclined, recover and also cite. And if sourcing is your sole interest here, that is what you will now go and do. If, on the other hand, you are using this single source claim as part of a wikilawyering effort to simply exclude the material, that is not acceptable. I see that you have not responded to my other point about the media coverage of the French fraud case making the fraud claims all the more notable [13]. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The source (and its footnotes) say that MeK supporters raised funds through alleged fake charities, information that’s already in the MeK article. About France, it wasn’t the organization that was "cleared of fraud", it was Maryam Rajavi and some MeK sympathizers or members, information that’s already in Rajavi's article as well as in the MeK's article. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Well then if the organization was not cleared of fraud, why are you removing reliably sourced information establishing links to fraud while citing an unrelated court case in France clearing others of fraud in your edit summary? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the NCRI was not involved in the French arrests, just Maryam Rajavi and some MeK sympathizers or members. I think we can now agree on that per the analysis of the sources. My challenge to using the RAND source nevertheless stands. If you're going to put in the article that the NCRI was involved in fraud, you still need multiple mainstream sources (RAND footnotes that don't mention the NCRI is not good enough). ParadaJulio (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Reuters article mentions the NCRI and is about the president of the NCRI. How does that not belong to the NCRI article? MarioGom (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The NCRI was not involved in the French arrests, just Maryam Rajavi and some MeK sympathizers or members. The Reuters article only mentions the NCRI because "Maryam Rajavi" is "the leader of the PMOI's political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)", but the charges were not made against the NCRI, they were made against the "167 sympathizers of the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) who were rounded up in 2003 during a police raid on the outskirts of Paris" (information that's already in the PMOI article). ParadaJulio (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

How does the arrest of an organization's president not involve the organization? That is a ridiculous statement. As you quote yourself, the NCRI is just the wing of the PMOI, so ... involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That Maryam Rajavi was accused does not mean the NCRI was accused (and the source certainly doesn't say the NCRI was accused). ParadaJulio (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@ParadaJulio: Imagine creating a section about "Financing" with dropped charges of money laundering where the NCRI was not even involved. That is ridiculous. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Reuters article discusses the NCRI as tightly related to this problem, for example in the following passage (but not limited to): 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”. The distinction between NCRI and MEK is an organic formalism, that is probably why Reuters reporters considered relevant to discuss the NCRI here. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I already quoted that, and already outlined how the no charges were filed against the NCRI but against 167 sympathizers of the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) who were rounded up in 2003 during a police raid on the outskirts of Paris (information that's already in the PMOI article). ParadaJulio (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the fact that the information is present on another page meant to be some sort of a point or mean something? Because it is highly irrelevant. This article, right here, is hardly so bursting at the seams that it cannot accommodate this information. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent revisions

Iskandar323, I have reviewed your edit summaries, but they are unclear to me. Could you please clarify why you perceive "www.parliament.uk" as an unreliable citation? Why did you think its 'contemporary platform' bullet point is 'puffery'? I also included additional citations as requested, despite my belief that they were unnecessary for that particular type of content. ParadaJulio (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

[1] El País: El exilio iraní financió el 80% de la campaña de Vox de 2014

[2] El Mundo: Alejo Vidal-Quadras, fundador de Vox: "Abascal sabía que el dinero era iraní y le parecía muy bien"

[3] La Vanguardia: Vox recibió en sus inicios más de un millón de euros del exilio iraní

[ic-4] Cite error: The named reference ic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[5] "Council Common Position 2004/500/CESP of 17 May 2004" (pdf). Council of the European Union. May 17, 2004. Retrieved 2006-12-28.

[6] Shaw, Adam (2023-03-09). "Resolution backing secular, democratic Iran republic picks up majority bipartisan support in House". Fox News. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

[7] "McClintock Introduced House Resolution With Over 160 Co-sponsors in Support of a Free, Democratic, and Secular Republic in Iran". Congressman Tom McClintock. 2023-02-08. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]