Talk:Alireza Jafarzadeh

message: I have removed the following two paragraphs on grounds that they are not relevant to the subject of the article. We can add this information to People's Mujahedin of Iran or National Council of Resistance of Iran if we want, but should try to stay on topic. Here they are:
It is broadly believed that inclusion of NCRI and MEK in the list was a token offered to the theocratic regime of Iran rather than based the facts of the matter. According to the Wall Street Journal:  "Senior diplomats in the Clinton administration say the MEK figured prominently as a bargaining chip in a bridge-building effort with Tehran." The Journal added that: In 1997, the State Department added the MEK to a list of global terrorist organizations as "a signal" of the U.S.'s desire for rapprochement with Tehran's reformists, says Martin Indyk, who at the time was assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs. President Khatami's government "considered it a pretty big deal," Mr. Indyk says.
Regardless of what may be "claimed", legally, as recent at mid-2004, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the MKO & NCRI's designation as a 'foreign terrorist organization', thereby putting the NCRI and its controlling organization, the MKO, on par with foreign terrorist organizations such as al Qaeada (responsible for 9/11), the Tamil Tigers ( respondible for the deaths of 10's of 1000's of civilians), and Jemaah Islamiyah (responsible for the Bali bombings). Given that this court decision was made by an independent court ruling made by the US Appeals Court and during the Bush Administration's rule, it is difficult to understand how how it could or might be "broadly believed that inclusion of NCRI and MEK in the [Foreign Terrorist Organization] list was a token offered to the theocratic regime of Iran rather than based the facts of the matter." Indeed, in entirely rejecting the NCRI's challenge of its status as a terrorist organization, paragraph 25 of the judgement decisively states: "The State Department acknowledged that "NCRI has submitted numerous affidavits purporting to show that it is not controlled by the MEK and is not an MEK front," and even credited some of NCRI's "subsidiary points." Action Mem., Tab 2 at 12, 9. The agency, however, concluded that "the evidence developed by the FBI is convincingly to the contrary." Id. Tab 2 at 12. It may be true that the State Department relied very heavily on the conclusions of the counterterrorism experts of the FBI. As noted above, though, under the narrow powers of judicial review Congress has accorded to us under AEDPA, it is emphatically not our province to second-guess the Secretary's judgment as to which affidavits to credit and upon whose conclusions to rely. We are to judge only whether the "support" marshaled for the Secretary's designation was "substantial." 8 U.S.C. § 1189(b)(3)(D). 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." One can only wonder what those classified FBI documents hold.
Khoikhoi 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed the following sentence: For more than two decades, Alireza Jafarzadeh has been an active consultant and authority on terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Iraq with numerous media presence (see media activities section below). It sounded like something ripped off of Jafarzadeh's official website, which also refers to him as "a well-known authority in issues relating to terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East". Sentences such as these violate WP:NPOV, and should not be included in this article. Khoikhoi 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraphs 

message: Jafarzadeh's biography at The Intelligence Summit website () appears to be copied from his official website () and the website of his company, Strategic Policy Consulting (). I don't think this can be mentioned in the article, as it violates WP:NOR, but I do think that the quotes from the Intelligence Summit website should be replaced with links to his own biography from his website, since they appear to be the original source. Khoikhoi 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Summit biography 

message: There are numerous problems with the section "Jafarzadeh, NCRI and the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran (MOIS)." First off, the main article cited, "Iran's spies", does not even mention Jafarzadeh once. If someone wants to make the claim that he "has been particularly singled out and targeted by Iran's government", you're going to have to cite an article that directly points out Jafarzadeh being targeted by the government. The Sunday Hearld article just talks about dissidents in general. I can't even find a mention of NCRI either. Also, I forgot to mention that one of the paragraphs is almost an exact copy/paste job from the article, with the exception of 2-3 words. I'm going to have to delete it as it's most likely a copyright violation. Khoikhoi 06:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iran's spies" 

message: I've moved this paragraph to the "Controversy" section of the article:
The conservative daily newspaper in Iran revealed in 1999 that Jafarzadeh's name has been in the hit list of Saeed Emami, the deputy minister of intelligence (under Ali Fallahian), and an intelligence officer under Ghorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, who was charged with self-organized assassinations of dissidents by the Islamic Republic.
However, I'm not 100% sure if this is the right place for it. If anyone has any suggestions as to what we should do with this paragraph, please feel free to bring them up here. It now seems out-of-lace since the three paragraphs from the Sunday Hearld article have been removed. However, as I've mentioned above, those paragraphs were inappropriate as the article did not mention Jafarzadeh at all. Khoikhoi 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, since there is no link to the Ettela'at article, there is no way to verify the authenticity of this statement. I'm going to have to delete it until someone comes up with something more substantiative. Khoikhoi 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saeed Emami 

message: I re-wrote the Controversy section and restored its previous name.  (There is obviously controversy... the edit wars are evidence of that if nothing else.)  All the material is sourced.
I looked for some sources to update the biographical material, but could not find them.  Specifically, when was Jafarzadeh born?  Google says 1957, but its not clear where this date is sourced from.  When did he immigrate to the US?  "before 1979" is referenced in the article and sourced apparently to Jafarzadeh himself, but how long before 1979?  Why the vagueness?  Per the University of Texas website he began work on his Master's degree in the Spring of 1979.  Assuming he had to attend University of Michigan for at least a year to receive a degree from there, that puts the latest he could have left as Fall of 1977.  I think the article would benefit from this information as it would give some context to the numerous assertions about Iran made by Jafarzadeh repeated in the article.  For the most part, these assertions are unsourced except as statements he made.  But given that he has not been (?) to Iran for 30 or more years (and before the current government came to power), where does he get this information?  Is it appropriate to repeat all these statements in the article if they aren't sourced beyond something that Jafarzadeh said?  Is he a reliable source himself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaun (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article edits and some questions 

message: Deleted the sentence "A very large campaign was staged in the United States to remove the designation, with celebrities and journalist being paid to participate." from the Controversy section as it doesn't reflect the info in the source.  The source indicates former government officials were paid to speak at MEK events (in Paris, not the US), but doesn't mention journalist being paid.  Two journalist are mentioned as speaking, but not as having been paid.  No celebrities are mentioned at all.  The original sentence seems misleading based on the source, but I couldn't think how best to capture the information in the source without being wordy.  It kind of seems a bit off-topic.  Why are we talking about MEK's terrorist organization status in this article? Klaun (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted from Controversy Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alireza Jafarzadeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060308093955/http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/657/657p16.htm to http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/657/657p16.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified