Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

RfC follow-up

In closure of the last RfC on cult claims, Chetsford encouraged us to "open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK [VR]."

My proposal is given below and would replace "Designation as a cult" section. Currently that section has 342 words (2200 characters). My proposal would reduce it to 227 words (1600 characters). Please give specific feedback on what is good about it, what is not good about it, and how the not good part can be changed. Please do not simply "support" or "oppose" it, this is not a vote. Proposal:

The MEK has been described as a "cult" by governments and officials in Iran, the United States, France, United Kingdom, and Iraq. It has also been described as a cult by numerous academics, by former MEK members who defected, and by journalists who visited MEK camps in Iraq. Some sources argue that the Iranian government regularly exploits such allegations to demonize the MEK.

According to a US government report, the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". Critics often describe the MEK as the "cult of Rajavi", arguing that it revolves around the husband-and-wife duo, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, to whom members must give "near-religious devotion". Members reportedly had to participate in regular "ideological cleansings". Members are forbidden from marrying and those already married were ordered to divorce and are not allowed to see their children. They must suppress all sexual thoughts. According to RAND Corporation members were lured in through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries" and then prevented from leaving.

The MEK is believed to have become a cult to survive. After a major defeat in 1990, MEK leadership ordered all couples to divorce and send away their children.

I am very willing to compromise the text of this proposal to reach consensus. I would be grateful if an outside party (polite mentions of Chetsford, Vanamonde93 and Fences and windows) can help guide our discussion. If this discussion stalls, my next step would be WP:DRN.VR _talk 16:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

VR: you are overlooking the main issues with this section: the title, counter views, summary of major points (removing redundancy). For over a year now we've known that the title "Designation as a cult" is not supported by a single source (which would make this heading WP:OR and WP:ATTACK); yet it has not been changed despite my efforts to correct this. You are also not acknowledging the many RSs available that say the IRI pays international press to discredit the MEK through propaganda (which, among other things, involve characterizing the MEK as a cult). Vanamonde already suggested the article is "twice as long as it should be, and is mired in allegations, counter-allegations, and denials by all parties involved" (here is another list of recommendations complied by Idealigic that Vanamonde made to help us fix the article). Let's summarize this text with views on both sides of the argument, remove the misleading heading, and put this text in another section where it makes more sense (like "Perception"; which is what Vanamonde and Bahar have suggested). That is what I'd support. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Stefka, I did not propose (in this section) a name or location for the text. I proposed replacing what I feel is poorly written text with better written text. In my proposed text I did include a sentence on Iran exploiting cult allegations to demonize the MEK. Once again, what specifically do you dislike here?VR _talk 18:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I was specific in last comment. If it hasn't been obvious already by the countless talk page discussions here, I'll make it obvious now: for a long time there has been relentless attempts to change the narrative of this page, from the MEK being the Islamic Republic's main democratic political opposition, into the MEK "being nothing more than a cult" (the same narrative that the Islamic Republic has spent millions in getting the international press to say about the MEK). I really don't understand why that has been tolerated here. It wouldn't have been tolerated with a Western political group; there are many sources calling the Trump administration a "Cult" ([1] [2] [3] [4] etc...); yet there isn't a single mention about that in that article, and rightly so. Your proposed "better written text" does just that: compiles allegations of entities that have called the MEK a cult, even though there have been US, UK, France officials dismissing such claims (something you fail to say in your version). You're also WP:IDHT the issue with the title. To close, your text uses cherry picked sentences from cherry picked sources to give prominence to a narrative that the MEK is a nothing more than a cult, and that's the equivalent of using Wikipedia as a platform for mischaracterisation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria you yourself admitted, after input from Vanamonde, that none of the sources "dismissed" claims that MEK was a cult. I don't believe I cherrypicked sources. I have yet to find a single scholarly source that says MEK is not a cult. Which scholarly sources have I missed on this topic? VR _talk 13:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

VR, you keep responding with WP:IDHT. To put it another way (and that's the last I'll say here) I could use the sources I provided here on the Donald Trump administration being called a cult, and create a narrative (even a section titled "Designation as a cult", as it has happened here) on that article saying the Trump administration is a cult. But obviously, that wouldn't fly. Yet, you are trying to do just that here. Through RfC consensus, we determined to summarise a vast amount of POV pushing into "The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."[337][338] Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”,[339][340] “cult-like",[341][342] or having a “cult of personality”,[343][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[344][345][346]. We really don't need more than this in the article (Vanamonde has been repeating that the article needs to be summarised). Yet here you continue to try to develop a narrative that the MEK is a cult (as well as that the MEK is unpopular). That infringes WP:NPOV.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria I am trying to reduce the size: the current version is 342 words (2200 characters), my proposal is 227 words (1600 characters). Unless my word counts are wrong, you seem to have misunderstood. Consider that Ghazaalch just pointed out an entire chapter devoted to MEK's cultishness in the RAND report, and I recently found a book that extensively covers MEK's cultishness (that book is published by Routledge and got a positive review in the Journal of Mental Health). I think 1600 characters (just 0.6% of the article size) is a fair proposal.VR _talk 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: It seems that you would like to summarize the section "Designation as a Cult" to Various sources have described the MEK as a “cult”,[339][340] “cult-like",[341][342] or having a “cult of personality”,[343][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[344][345][346] which roughly means Some say MEK is a cult and some say no. Is it the way people write an article? Shouldn't we explain different aspects of cultic characteristics of MeK to the readers who want to know why MEK is called a cult, and why some others say it is not a cult? So I am going to use the chapter Cultic Characteristics of the MeK in the RAND report to improve this section, as I proposed below. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• While the suggestion is brief enough – in accordance with the consensus among the users – it is in accordance with WP:DUE and hence WP:NPOV by mentioning all the major viewpoints mentioned by the reliable sources. Digging through the comments, there's NO compelling argument why these well-sourced but brief material should be included in the text. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, I think this version is highly in accordance with the notion by Someguy (that's endorsed by Vanamonde) since VR's version takes the "broad sources" to determine due weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• At the previous RFC, the matter/suggestion of VR is completely reasonable -- according to the comment of the administrator who closed the previous discussion. This suggestion specifically complies with WP: DUE and WP: Verifiability policies. Not only the current version is brief, but also due to the agreement between all users to use scholarly-sources, this version makes good use of those sources and expresses very important content without mentioning unnecessary details. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The most neutral version is the one that already received consensus through the RfC. If VR is interested in cleaning up the article from redundancy, then why not focus on the "Human Rights record" section? There is a lot of redundancy there. Idealigic (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What is clear is that the sources disagree with you. In truth, I mean that the decision for neutrality ought to be based on sources. Deleting some outstanding views can make neutrality problem. Currently, the outstanding comments have been removed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This proposal has many problems. It isn’t neutral. It starts with the “governments and officials” that described the MEK as a “cult”. What about the government officials that have negated these allegations? The same thing with “academics”, “journalists”, and the rest. Also “former MEK members who defected” - have you read the Disinformation through recruited MEK members in the article? Also it’s not that the Iranian government “regularly exploits such allegations to demonize the MEK”, the Iranian government makes up these allegations and pays the press to publish them through a disinformation campaign (). This proposal focuses on all the sources that call the MEK a cult, and leaves out all the ones that say these allegations are disinformation from the Iranian government. It violates neutrality guidelines. I am in favor of making that section shorter, but this is not the way to do it. Barca (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Barca can you present the sources that deny that MEK is a cult? I provided 15 scholarly sources that describe MEK as a cult (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult). How many scholarly sources say that it is not? If you can't find a similar number of scholarly sources that deny the cult allegation then your argument amounts to WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR _talk 02:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have already given sources in my last comment (and linked to sections with even more sources). You can also see the sources Mhhossein removed from the article that say the Iranian regime pays the press to say the MEK is a cult, and you can see the past discussions where editors have talked about this, like this RFC for example, where Nika2020 provided sources like these.

• "retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".
• "Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a ″cult nature”; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was “ashamed” by this statement.
• "Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".
• "An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK", not addressing claims of being a cult by various journalists.".

That amounts to a lot of sources. Barca (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We were actually expecting to see scholarly sources on your part. It is clear that these claims can safely be ignored in the face of the strong scholarly sources provided by me and Vice Regent. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Do you have comments on this? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

BarcrMac recently Vanamonde closed an RfC where they said The sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor. That RfC included the very sources you mentioned above. Do you have any other objections to the proposal?VR _talk 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The MEK is believed to have become a cult to survive"? Then " Critics often describe the MEK as the "cult of Rajavi" That is only two sources that have said this according to what you've provided. Then all the things you write about marriage? why? it's already starting to look like the other section about 'Ideological revolution and women's rights'. Would it be acceptable if I propose a way to shorten this section that is not as biased? Bahar1397 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bahar1397 I provided 15 scholarly sources that call MEK a cult, in which 7 scholarly sources refer to it as either "Rajavi cult" or "cult of personality [around Rajavi]". Is that not enough?VR _talk 17:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My objection with your proposal, VR, os that it isn't neutral. It starts with the “governments and officials” that described the MEK as a “cult”, when there are other government officials that negated these allegations. The same thing with “academics”, “journalists”, and the rest. Also “former MEK members who defected” (see Disinformation through recruited MEK members). Like I already said, this proposal focuses on all the sources that call the MEK a cult, and leaves out all the ones that say these allegations are disinformation from the Iranian government. It violates neutrality guidelines. I am in favor of making that section shorter, but if we do that, it also needs to be neutral, which now it clearly lacks.

Here are balancing sources copy pasted from other posts:

1* "The United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, and Committee on Foreign Affairs published an enquiry on derogatory descriptions of the MEK, including "cult"-like allegations. The enquiry found that since 1979, the Iranian government had gone through "extraordinary lengths to shape the international perception and narrative attached to the MEK/PMOI", adding that for years, MOIS had conducted an "information operations' campaign in the West aimed at discrediting and defaming the MEK/PMOI.""

2* "According to Majid Rafizadeh, there is an organized and well-funded misinformation campaign aimed at demonizing the MEK. On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"

3* "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

4* "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."

5* "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”

6* "According to Hamid Bahrami the Iranian regime has ran "a vast and costly demonization campaign against the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", adding that Iran's propaganda against the MEK has spread also in Western and Middle Eastern media."

7*"retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".

8*"Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a ″cult nature”; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was “ashamed” by this statement.

9*"Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".

10*"An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK", not addressing claims of being a cult by various journalists.". Barca (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

These "denies " that you mentioned above, have been denied by sources more reliable than what you provided above. According to RAND report for example, MEK's supporters "vigorously deny that the MeK is a cult. They allege that former MeK members and critics of the MeK are either Iranian agents or their dupes. However, interviews with U.S. military and civilian officials, information voluntarily furnished by former MeK members at the ARC, and visits to Camp Ashraf suggest that these denials are not credible. The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch.(For example, see Singleton, 2003; Banisadr, 2004, Iran-Interlink, undated, 2008; and Human Rights Watch, 2005. For typical characteristics of cults, see, e.g., Bale, 2001; Lalich, 2004; and Lalich and Langone, undated.) They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping below from Vice Regent. I don't personally give two hoots whether the MEK is called a cult or not, or how its organizational aspects are analyzed in this article. However, given weighty sources making a given argument, e.g., the MEK shares organizational aspects of a cult, anyone disputing that narrative needs to provide equally weight sources either making the opposite argument, or covering the same aspects of the organization while coming to very different conclusions. In particular, academic sources need to be answered by academic sources. I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism. Reliable sources discussing such propaganda belong in the article, duly weighted, but they are not directly germane to this discussion unless they are explicitly also discussing the cult-like nature, or lack thereof, of the MEK. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@VR: What is it that you're trying to add to the article, that isn't already in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

As TheTimesAreAChanging correctly points out, the current version (that you wrote) "grossly minimizes the many cult-like features of the MEK described in academic sources". Scholars are clear that MEK is a cult. Vanamonde's analysis of sources is consistent with this. At this point any attempts to impede this consensus are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:STONEWALLING.VR _talk 02:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to add MEK's ideological revolution during which its members had to surrender their individuality to the organization,[2][3] to the lead, since it was omitted based on the same accusation. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@VR: We currently have this much in the article about this (in an article that Vanamonde has said repeated times needs trimming):

• Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".

• The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"." Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like", or having a “cult of personality”,[353][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".

• According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war. During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

• Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani's younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."[297] Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.

• In 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki told the MEK it had to leave Iraq, but the MEK responded that the "request violated their status under the Geneva Convention". Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shia uprising. According to Time magazine, the MEK has denied aiding Saddam in quashing Kurdish and Shia rebellions.

• In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports[by whom?] of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members.[445] In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981.

• In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.

• The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[448] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[448] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[449] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.

• Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report.

• In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". The United Nations spokesperson defended Kobler and his allegations, stating: "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq".

• Hyeran Jo, in her work examining humanitarian violations of rebel groups to international law, states that the MEK has not accepted International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits to its detention centers.[452] According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK controlled their people most importantly by "abuse of women".[428] According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp.[453] Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings".

• Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured".[455][456] Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution.[270] MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[313] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"

• Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime.

• In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.

As this shows, the article has been filled with text suggestive of so-called MEK cult attributes. This should be summarized in a more clear manner, but you are trying to add more instead. So I need to ask again: what is it that you are trying to add that isn't already in the article? Once you provide that response, I'll do my best to offer a compromise proposing a trim of what you are trying to add together with what's already in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to clean up some of this, but Mhhossein won't accept any of my proposals or propose anything himself even though he agrees that this needs trimming. Isn't that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:STONEWALLING? All this content should be in one place and trimmed to keep the most important points only. That is the guiding format used for most Wikipedia articles and it is common sense editing. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Shedding light on the Stefka Bulgaria's Feb-Mar edits

• @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you say which of these sources support "The Swiss government named thirteen Iranian officials, with special mission stamped into their passports as participants in the assassination." Please be specific by naming the source and mentioning the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

First, please change your discussion heading. Second, I just added the source; not the content, and the source says: "The United States on Friday said it was imposing visa restrictions on 13 Iranian officials it accused of involvement in “gross violations of human rights” for a 1990 assassination of an Iranian opposition figure in Switzerland. The U.S. State Department did not name the 13, but in a statement said it was also designating a 14th Iranian, Hojatollah Khodaei Souri, who it said as director of Iran’s Evin Prison ran an institution “synonymous with torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” “The United States will continue to pressure Iran to treat its own people with dignity and respect,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said." REUTERS

• Are you sure you are only performing a "Sentence fix" here? You have also removed the "desiring to gather Iranian opposition at home and overthrow the Islamic Republic". Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. I don't know if you have been following the discussions in this talk page, but we need to remove redundancy from the article (i.e. things that are repeated, etc.). The MEK looking to overthrow the Islamic Republic is overtly covered in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Stefka, you are on very thin ice here. If you remove content, your edit summary needs to explain why. If you replace a CN tag with a source, the source needs to cover all the content, and if it does not, the content needs to be modified to reflect the source. And if other editors have made similar errors here, that's reason to communicate that to them, but it's no excuse for your edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, understood.. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 24#Misleading edit summary and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 21#Deceptive edit summary. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria why did you say this has nothing to do with MEK's ideology? It seems relevant, though I think it can be summarized.VR _talk 06:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Observers noting Israel's support of MEK" has nothing to do with the MEK's ideology; this is the typical redundant sort of allegations that is plaguing this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Idealigic: You need to revert your recent edit which is clearly a violation of the page restriction. Being totally relevant to the context of the para, the disputed content is not redundant. Before a consensus is reached you should not have moved against the page restriction. Considering this recent warning by Vanamonde93, I guess this removal is not accepted. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Your comment please. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I didn’t think I was breaking the article’s restrictions since I was reverting your edit, which I thought we were allowed to do (if I am breaking the restrictions, I will self revert). Also observers saying Israel is supporting the MEK does not seem to belong with text about the founding of the NCRI (where you put the text). Also observers saying Israel is supporting the MEK is already in the article:

• "According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this."
• "Israel's foreign intelligence agency Mossad maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s."
• "Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel."
• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials[who?], who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists."
• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Idealigic (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, Given that Mhhossein's edit was itself a revert of a previous change by Stefka, your removal was indeed a violation of the restrictions, so please self-revert. However, given that this content has been challenged, Mhhossein, you really should also provide a justification of the content on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, didn't Stefka removed this from the "Ideology" section, and Mhhossein put it back in the "History" section? Since the text was put back in a different section, does that count as a revert? (if it does, then like I said, I will self revert right away). Idealigic (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, If you really want to get into the weeds; Mhhossein's edit had the effect of a) replacing the content in the article, and b) moving it. Action (a) was essentially a revert of SB. Action (b) was effectively a new edit. So, if you want to be pedantic, you could move the content back to where Stefka removed it from, in the ideology section, and demand that Mhhossein obtain consensus for the move. Removing it altogether is not an option sans consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was mainly trying to understand what constitutes a revert. I self reverted. Mhhossein please provide justification of why the content should be where you have placed it. Idealigic (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Razavi's portion seems like being repeated, though the second part saying "Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection" is not redundant. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Does Mhhossein's response provide a justification for their edit? I don't know how to follow this up, but if you think it has been answered I'll just let this go. Idealigic (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point none of the arguments provided are strong enough for any sort of consensus to be discernible. Feel free to discuss it further, but please stop running to me for input after every other response. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you are saying "Razavi's portion seems like being repeated", so does that mean that this can be removed for clearing redundancy in the article? How is the second part not redundant? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Likewise, I'd like to ask you stop pinging Vanamonde93 for every single issue you face here. Instead, you're advised to engage in constructive discussions over that issue. As for your question, The second part is not redundant because it's providing unique info, i.e. Israeli commentators confirming the MEK-Israel connection is not repeated anywhere in the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Do you then agree we can remove "According to Sam Razavi, observers have noted Israel's support of the MEK after their exile from Iran."? - MA Javadi (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's removable. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, done. Now about the second part:

• "According to Patrick Cockburn "Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection", although the MEK have denied any association with Israel."

And the other excepts that Idealigic pointed to:

• "According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this."
• "Israel's foreign intelligence agency Mossad maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s."
• "Journalists Seymour Hersh and Connie Bruck have written that the information was given to the MEK by Israel."
• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials[who?], who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being "financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service" to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists."
• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer said that the perpetrators "could only be Israel", and that "it is quite likely Israel is acting in tandem with" the MEK."

Some of these can clearly be merged into something like "Some sources have said there is a connection between the MEK and Israel, including providing the group with financial support or a connection through Mossad. Other sources say that there is no proof about this and that the MEK have denied such claims."

@Mhhossein: do you agree these repetitive sentences can be merged? (if you do not agree with the way I have merged them, then please provide alternate proposal). - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, some differences are noticed between the above items. Like CIA describing Israel as the perpetrator, info being given to Israel by the MEK, MEK receiving training and arm support from Israel.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Shedding light on Mhhossein's Feb-Mar edits

@Mhhossein: Can you please explain this revert you did? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, MEK's refusal to participate in the referendum should not be removed since it's a noteworthy point in history of the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: when did I remove that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, here. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: this information is repeated several times in the article:

• "The MEK was then joined by other groups that opposed the new constitution, including the People's Fedayeen and the Muslim People's Republican Party. Despite the opposition, the 3 December 1979 referendum vote approved the new constitution.[1]"
• "The MEK was joined by other groups that vehemently opposed the new constitution and refuted to participate in the refrundum to ratify it. Despite the opposition, the 3 December 1979 referendum vote approved the new constitution.[38] As a result, Khomeini subsequently refused to permit Massoud Rajavi and MEK members to run in the 1980 Iranian presidential election.[39]"
• "The Mojahedin later refused to participate in the referendum held in December to ratify the Constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts, even when Ruhollah Khomeini had called upon "all good Muslims to vote 'yes'".[38] By boycotting the referendum, the MEK argued that the new Constitution had "failed to set up proper councils, nationalize foreign holdings, guarantee equal treatment to all nationalities, give 'land to the tiller', place a ceiling on agricultural holdings and accept the concept of the classless tawhidi society". Once the Constitution had been ratified, the MEK proposed Rajavi as their presidential candidate. In launching his presidential campaign, Rajavi promised to rectify the Constitution's shortcomings.[38]

So all I did was remove one of the repetitions, and replaced it with new information. Why did you revert it? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I've said elsewhere, redundancy is a serious problem in this article, with respect to content that is both supportive and critical of the MEK. If anyone has objections to removing a specific instance of content repeated in the article, I would expect engagement with respect to how that redundancy is to be reduced. That applies to Mhhossein here, but also to others elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the point Vanamonde, you're right. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Human Rights Record

Some editors have suggested that we remove redundancy in the Human rights records. I would like to get this proposal started. If there are significant disagreements, we can start a new RFC. If we can come to a compromise, then we won't need a RFC.

I think the following redundancy can be better edited:

• "In a 2004 public release, Amnesty International stated it continues to receive reports[by whom?] of human rights violations carried out by the MEK against its own members. In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981."

• "In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed."

• "The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[439] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK. In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations. Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities."

• "Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report."

• "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses, an allegation the MEK dismissed as "baseless" and "cover-up". The United Nations spokesperson defended Kobler and his allegations, stating: "We regret that MEK and its supporters continue to focus on public distortions of the U.N.'s efforts to promote a peaceful, humanitarian solution on Camp Ashraf and, in particular, its highly personalized attacks on the U.N. envoy for Iraq"."

• "Hyeran Jo, in her work examining humanitarian violations of rebel groups to international law, states that the MEK has not accepted International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits to its detention centers.[443] According to Ronen A. Cohen, the MEK controlled their people most importantly by "abuse of women". According to criticism of Human Right groups, marriage had been banned in the camp. Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in ideology and a revisionist history of Iran. All members are required to participate in weekly "ideologic cleansings"."

• "Journalist Jason Rezaian remarked in his detailing the connections between John R. Bolton and the MEK that "the few who were able to escape" were "cut off from their loved ones, forced into arranged marriages, brainwashed, sexually abused, and tortured". Members who defected from the MEK and some experts say that these Mao-style self-criticism sessions are intended to enforce control over sex and marriage in the organization as a total institution. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies,[303] also saying that "any cult' comparisons were coming from the Iranian regime as part of its 'misinformation campaign.'"

• "Some MEK defectors have accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime."

• "In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members."

I think this can be a decent summary:

• "In 2004, Amnesty International said it received reports from MEK defectors of human rights violations. In 2018, Amnesty International presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents. In 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the MEK had committed human rights violations against its members. The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs , who published a counter-report in September 2005 saying that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK. Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". Other MEK defectors have also accused the MEK of human right abuses, while the MEK has denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime. In March 2019 a Hamburg court ruled that Der Spiegel had "acted illegally in publishing false allegations of 'torture' and 'terrorist training' by the MEK in Albania". In July 2020 a German court ordered the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to remove false information about the MEK including untrue reports of human right abuses by the MEK against its members.""

- MA Javadi (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this section has a lot of redundant text; and agree with MA Javadi's proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I told Stefka Bulgaria–who used to propose such super trimmings in the past– you need to specify, by details, which portions are redundant and why they are so. This proposal, in this form, is going to remove a lot of longstanding text, without explaining why. Please, explain why every single portion needs to be removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: the portions I did not include are redundant because they don't add any significant new information, they only repeat what is already in that section. Is there any portion that I proposed removing that you think should be kept? MA Javadi (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: I suggest you take another look at the amount of longstanding content you wish to remove. If you think this super-trimming should be processed, then you need something more than they "are redundant because they don't add any significant new information". Actually, the onus of building consensus is on YOU. I see some of the removed content are not redundant and would better stay. Moreover, your proposal can be described as POVish and disingenous. It's conveying the false impression that the human rights reports are not true and they are dubious/fabricated. Among other things, you have removed phrases like "carried out by the MEK against its own members", "despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981", "severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed", "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses" and etc. These are not all, but some of the evidences showing your proposal is not applicable. Going through the archived discussions show Stefka Bulgaria tried to do a similar removal. To reach a compromise, I suggest you a case by case strategy. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - This is my reply to your points:

• "carried out by the MEK against its own members". Ok, if you want, then let us keep this.

• "despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981". This is covered in better detail in other parts of the article (see for example "Assassinations", or "Operations Shining sun, Forty Stars, and Mersad", or Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988))

• "In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses". The section already covers that the MEK is being accused of human right abuses.

• "severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed". These are allegations from phone interview of alleged former members, with the MEK denying this.

I am trying to summarise content and reduce redundancy that is both supportive and critical of the MEK, specially removing allegations from both the MEK and MEK defectors. If you don't agree, then explain what you would propose instead. Filibustering so that the section remains the same is not good. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite what you say, your proposal is suffering from POV issue. See my previous comment please. I did never say these were the only items making your proposal problematic. For instance, "Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981" contains two POVs that are meant to balance each other. You are proposing to remove one and leave the one in favor of MEK. Moreover, the third item should not be removed. The report by the Martin Kobler being the UN special envoy to Iraq at the time has in fact merit of inclusion. Lastly, parts of the "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps" should not be removed on the grounds that it's a phone interview or like. How about making proper attributions? It is also interesting that you have totally removed Jason Rezaian's remarks. No, this is not a correct approach. You can't selectively remove anti-MEK items. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - What would be a good compromise for you then? - MA Javadi (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - Do you intend to give a response for a compromise? MA Javadi (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. How about acting in a step by step manner. We can determine which portions are redundant, but one by one. We can also have classifications to facilitate the process. For instance, the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals. -Mhhossein ^talk 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: - I have already explained which parts I think are redundant and why. Since you have not agreed, can you then say which parts you think are redundant and why? (no stone walling please). MA Javadi (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not finding your explanations justifying removal of that huge amount texts. Please help me navigate that so-called explanation. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you asked me to take things case by case. I replied to to your case by case. What is your response about this please? MA Javadi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were given a due response at the time. For the points you raised:

"despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981" (I explained how removal of this goes against WP:NPOV).

"In July 2013, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, accused the leaders the group of human rights abuses" (Is there any other sentences directly accusing the leader(s) of human right abuses?)

Moreover, I told you why the mentioned portions of "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps" should not be removed completely. To go ahead towards a compromise, I suggest you list the identical or redundant portions in a classified manner (I am not asking to copy/paste all of the section here). For instance, I already asked you to show the portions which are similar to the Kobler's report. I suggest to move step by step since this would make the work simpler. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I proposed one way of improving the section, but you didn't accept my proposal by saying I should take this step by step. So I then tried taking this step by step, but you also refused my proposal saying some specific parts of information remain missing. There is no question that this section has redundancy. Since I have already tried to solve this in all ways that I can but you keep refusing my proposals, then how would you solve the redundancy problem in that section? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not "keep refusing your proposals". You did not actually follow a step by step approach. In contrast, you failed to respond to my latest comments. For instance you did not say why "you were proposing to remove one and leave the one in favor of MEK". To show my good faith I suggested to categorize the section into two parts; "the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals. I have also gone through your proposed change and explained how it's not a suitable change. Can you please specifically explain which portions are redundant and why? I am really willing to see your explanations. That will boost the consensus building process. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I already said, step by step, some portions that are redundant in this section, and you rejected my step by step saying they are not redundant. So if you don't think any portions are redundant in "Human Rights Record", just say it instead of asking me for step by steps that you will just continue to reject. And if you think some portions in "Human Rights Record" are redundant, then just say which, so we can work on fixing it (which is what I have been trying to do here since early March). - MA Javadi (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I said "your proposal is suffering from POV issue." --Mhhossein ^talk 05:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This text is out of place and no well sourced: In 2018, Amnesty International also condemned the government of Iran for executing MEK prisoners in 1988 and presented the MEK as being mainly peaceful political dissidents despite reports that they have killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqis since 1981. The report doesn't say that MEK is peaceful, but rather the MEK members imprisoned by Iran were peaceful. This also looks like redundant as it already covered in People's Mujahedin of Iran#1988_execution of MEK prisoners.VR _talk 18:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: @Vice regent: Ok but can we remove redundant POV from both sides? or do you intend to leave in the redundant POV that is critical of the MEK and remove the rest? I am ok to compromise, but you first need to offer a compromise. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the redundancies should be remove. But the problem is that those redundancies should be identified. Till now, you have rejected my proposals and that's really boring. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What proposal did you make? where is your proposal to reduce redundancy in this section? - MA Javadi (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the case you have failed to notice my suggestions for reaching a compromise:

"How about acting in a step by step manner. We can determine which portions are redundant, but one by one. We can also have classifications to facilitate the process. For instance, the materials in question can be divided into two categories, one being the reports by organizations with the other being those of the individuals."

"To go ahead towards a compromise, I suggest you list the identical or redundant portions in a classified manner (I am not asking to copy/paste all of the section here). For instance, I already asked you to show the portions which are similar to the Kobler's report."

"Can you please specifically explain which portions are redundant and why? I am really willing to see your explanations."

Look, if you think this super-trimming should be processed, then you need something more than they "are redundant". I could show some of the materials are not redundant. For the sake of compromise, can you determine one redundant portion at a time? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq war

The lead currently states By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland". Discussions about this piece of content have gone in circles. I am going to attempt a more closely monitored discussion about it. As I see it, there's some facts that are not contested. 1) The MEK's support declined during the 1980s, as the result of something. 2) The MEK collaborated with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. 3) The decision to collaborate with Hussein was made in 1983. The questions that remain to be answered are; 1) Why did the support decline? 2) How is this to be phrased in the lead, if at all? In support of the current wording, or VR's proposal above, or Fences&Windows wording, supporters have presented the Ronan Cohen source. If you think there are other weighty sources supporting this content, or a similar version, please present it here. If you think there are sources supporting a radically different version, including removal, please present those. Please keep the discussion focused on this short time-period, and on heavy-weight, directly-relevant, sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the moderated discussion. I presented 19 reliable sources that say the MEK became unpopular (see Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 39#Mek Unpopular) and observe that:

• 19/19 of them say the decrease in popularity happened due to collaboration with Saddam.
• 16/19 say the MEK came to be viewed negatively by at least "most" (if not more) Iranians.
• In terms of intensity of their unpopularity, 9/19 use the word "traitor" or "treason" to describe the perception of the Iranian people towards the MEK, 5/19 use adjectives like "disdain", "detested", "discredited", "strongly opposed", "magnified Iranian public opinion against", while 5/19 do not use any adjective to describe drop in popularity.
• 11/19 implied (through tense or otherwise) that MEK's unpopularity had remained as of the time of source publication (10 out of 11 of such sources were published in last 20 years).

If needed, I can post a detailed source analysis below. In conclusion I think 1) the support declined due to their collaboration with Saddam. 2) The wording belongs in the lead and should include their unpopularity among most Iranians, the Iranian perception of MEK's collaboration as treacherous and that this unpopularity has lasted to present day.VR _talk 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde by "heavy-weight" sources do you mean we should focus on scholarly sources as opposed to news/magazine articles? VR _talk 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: we can certainly consider non-scholarly sources, but where they exist, academic sources need to be given more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Meeting with Tariq Aziz

1. “The organizations' ties with Iraq (mainly Rajavi's meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983) were exploited to demonstrate the organizations betrayal due to its willingness to join forces with Iran's enemies on the outside.
2. “At the beginning of January of 1983, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tarqi Aziz, which culminated in the signing of a peace communique on January 9 of that year. Rajavi, acting as the chairman of the NCR, co-outlined a peace plan with Aziz based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Treaty.
3. “The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the exiled leader of an Iranian leftist group met for four hours today and said afterward that the war between their countries should brought to an end. The conversations between Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz of Iraq and Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedeen, an organization that includes a guerrilla wing active in Iran, were described by Mr. Rajavi as the first of thier kind. He said the exhcnage of views had been "an important political turning point on the regional level and for the wrold in relation to the Iran-Iraq War"
4. “Despite the mortal blow inflicted on the organization, the Iranian regime continued to regard the Mujahidin as a real threat, and therefore continued to persecute its followers and damage their public image. The organizations' ties with Iraq (mainly Rajavi's meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983) were exploited to demonstrate the organizations betrayal due to its willingness to join forces with Iran's enemies on the outside.
5. “The Paris meeting between Rajavi and Iraqi Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz in December 1982 was widely criticized. The Mujahidin justified it on the grounds that it highlighted their desire for peace.”
6. “The peace formula which was thrashed out after nine hours of talks between Masood Rajavi (who heads the coalition of Irnanianb opposition between called National Council of Resistance) and Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Foreign Minister in Paris last year includes points (a) Declaration of immediate ceasefire. (b) Formation of a Commission to supervise the ceasefire. c) withdrawal of forces behind the borders, both on land and the river, as stipulated by the 1975 Algiers Accord. d) Exchange of all Prisoners of War....”
7. “Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran's civilian areas.”
8. “In January 1983 Masood Rajavi, the leader of the exiled Mujahedeen National Council of Resistance (NCR), one of the principal forces of opposition to Khomeini's Islamic regime, met in Paris with Iraqi Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz. The Two issued a joint call for peace between their countries.”
9. “The Paris meeting between Rajavi and Iraqi Vice Premier Tariq Aziz in December 1982 was widely criticized. The Mojahedin justified it on the grounds that it highlighted their desire for peace. According to the Mojahedin, the Iraqis initially promised to halt attacks on civilian targets inside Iran, but they did not keep to this when the war flared up again in February 1983”. * Middle East Research and Information Project [Quotes: Point 4 of the Joint Communique issued by Tariq Aziz and Masud Rajavi on January 9, 1983, stated that Rajavi had asked the Iraqis not to attack Iranian cities and villages. Reports from the front stated that on February 10 Iraqi planes attacked the cities of Abadan, Dezful and Khvaz (International Herald Tribune, February 11, 1983)].
10. “The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the exiled leader of an Iranian leftist group met for four hours today and said afterward that the war between their countries should be brought to an end. The conversations between Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz of Iraq and Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedeen, an organization that includes a guerrilla wing active in Iran, were described by Mr. Rajavi as the first of their kind. He said the exchange of views had been an important political turning point on the regional level and for the world in relation to the Iran-Iraq war.New York Times
11. “The Iranian guerrilla chief opposing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni's regime met unexpectedly Sunday with the Iraqi deputy prime minister and said afterwards the 28-month Iran-Iraq war could be ended by negotiations. Massoud Rajavi, head of the Iranian Mojahideen Khalq guerrilla group, met for four hours with Iraqi Deputy Priem Minister Tarek Aziz at Rajavi's exile home in Auvers-sur-Oise outside Paris”UPI

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Stefka, that's a lot of sources; but what is the narrative being offered here that contradicts the narrative in the content being discussed? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but to me it looks like the most significant and definite episode between the MEK and Iraq prior to 1986 pertains to this meeting between Massoud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz. This narrative is currently missing from the relevant section in the lede:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

Then in 1986, this happened:

• “In June of 1986, the conservative French rime Minister formally expelled the Mojahedin, justifying his decision by statin that their last actions, including their role in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the bombing of the IRP headquarters in 1981, were to be considered, "actions contrary to the standing of political refugees." The Islamic Republic had further encouraged France's complicity in granting the request to deport the Mojahedin by promising to use its influence on Shi'i mmilitias in southern Lebanon to relinquish French hostages whcih they were holding. On June 8, Rajavi visited Baghdad and held a series of publicized meetings with various high-ranking Ba'athist officials in which he effectively secured Iraq as a base for the opposition and cultivated what was to be a long-lasting, relationship with the Iraqi regime. The Mojahedin, effectively backtracking Khomeyni's move a decade before, had secured a desirable base for their paramilitary operations and a valuable patron in Baghdad. The deportation from Paris and move to Baghdad remains an intriguing and crucial episode in the history of the Mojahedin's exile. In Examining both the accounts provided by the Islamic Republic's media sources and the press organs of the Mojahedin, it seems clear that they Khomeyni regime intended the Mojahedin to be exiled to an obscure and distant country which would weaken their contacts with allied oppositions and keep them out of the European limelight. Instead, Iraq hastened to court the Mojahedin prior to its outsting, and the Islamic Republic found the opposition moved to a location which allowed the Mojahedin to resume its border raids"  

I think we need to determine if the matter concerning the MEK's popularity derives from events occurring from 1986 onwards, or from events that occurred prior to 1986. Determining this would help us formulate a more accurate narrative of events as they unfolded. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Stefka, you've provided a number of sources discussing the occurrence of a meeting in 1983. The content we are discussing here presumably refers to the outcome of that meeting. If the meeting had other outcomes that the current content does not discuss, then you need to elaborate on what those were, with sources. Likewise, VR above has provided sources stating that a decision the MEK (or their leader) made in 1983 led to a decline in popularity. If you believe there is evidence directly supporting a different narrative, please provide it. I want to emphasize the need for direct evidence. Weighty sources discussing the Iranian governments attemps to portray the MEK in a poor light are worthy of inclusion in the article in their own right, but the mere existence of propaganda does not obviate other sources provided above. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. As far as I can see, the only source that VR provided "stating that a decision the MEK (or their leader) made in 1983 led to a decline in popularity" is this one (which does not mention anything about the MEK's decline in popularity):

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support.
— Vanguard of the Imam

Then there are these two sources, which basically say the MEK received financial support from Hussein since 1980?:

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terronomics

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

And then there is this last source by Amir Taheri (who has been said to fabricate stories; so we should consider better sources).

The majority of remaining sources refer to a decline in popularity as a result of collaborating with Iraq/Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but as far as I can see, are vague about weather this is about before or after 1986 (this year is significant because that was when the MEK was kicked out of France and put its hearquarters in Iraq, launching raids agains the IRI from then until the end of the Iran-Iraq war). These are the sources I've found that are a bit more specific about the MEK losing popularity in Iran after it based in Iraq:

• "Following exile from Iran and Paris, the MEK relocated to Iraq and provided Saddam Hussein’s regime support against Iran. By MEK’s own estimate, it killed over 50,000 Iranian troops—a decision seen as a betrayal by many Iranians, which Tehran continues to weaponize as a narrative against the group."

  The Observer

• "Prior to establishing an alliance with Saddam, the MEK had been a popular organization. However, once it settled in Iraq and fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people and, as a result, faced a shortfall of volunteers."

  RAND

• "At the height of the war between Iran and Iraq, the MEK sided with Baghdad, sending as many as 7,000 of its members to Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran... That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said."

  Al Jazeera

So my arguments are the following:

• If we include anything prior to 1986 in the lede, WP:DUEWEIGHT would suggest it'd be about Rajavi and Tariq's peace treaty meeting; which, according to James Piazza,

  "was highly significant in that it marked the beginning of what was to become a long-term relationship between Baghdad and the Mojahedin, one which would guarantee future Mojahedin funding and military support, and it marked the first diplomatic act of the NCR as a true government in exile"

• We can then include the circumstances that led to the MEK moving to Iraq in 1986 (kicked out of France / support from Iraq / launch raids against the IRI / etc.), and the impact sources say this had on its popularity in Iran (also considering the sources that say the IRI used this as propaganda against the MEK).

There are considerable amounts of sources/details here, so sorry if I missed anything. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are getting at. However, the only portions of the current content your sources challenge are a) the date "1983", and b) the use of Rajavi's name in place of "the MEK" or equivalent. I am still not seeing evidence against the strength of the language used about the decline in support. ViceRegent, do you you have sources specifically stating that the 1983 is the correct one? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde I agree with Stefka that most sources attribute decline in popularity as a result of collaborating with Iraq/Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war as opposed to being specific about a date. So I changed the wording to say that in this edit (which stefka reverted). Can we agree that edit was correct and should be restored?

On the other hand, we have solid scholarly evidence of MEK-Iraq collaboration by (meaning on or before) 1983. Stefka already presented 3 scholarly sources that discuss MEK-Iraq collaboration as happening "by 1983", "since 1982" and "after 1980". Here are 4 other scholarly sources on this collaboration:

• During 1983, Rajavi began building connections with the Iraqi leadership. This was done through KDPI, who were connected to Saddam Hussein. Iraq and the DPI allowed the Mojahedin to set up bases in the northern part of Iraqi Kurdistan. During the first phase, these bases were used for training and military coaching.
  — Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. p 60

• Third, the Mojahedin's unbashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some of their allies. The issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst of some of the most intense fighting of the war, Rajavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. Many observers suspected that it was predominantly Iraqi money that funded the expensive projects undertaken by the Mojahedin...[long list of MEK projects that Iraq funded]
  — Ervand Abrahamian, The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, p 248

• As it went into exile, MEK’s willingness to side with Saddam’s Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war disturbed its already diminished cadre. During a key 1983 meeting between Masud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz, an alliance was forged.
  — Ray Takeyh, Council of Foreign Relations,[5]

• In his opposition to Khomeini, Masoud Rajavi had taken to cooperating with the Iraqi leadership. In January 1983 Rajavi had a publicly acknowledged meeting with Tariq Aziz, deputy premier of Iraq, in Paris.
  — Dilip Hiro, Iran under the Ayatollahs (Routledge Revivals), p 230

VR _talk 02:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@VR: you were trying to modify this text during an active RfC specifically about editing this text, which would render that whole RfC void. That's why I reverted you, and that's what I told you was the reason why I reverted you. There are also several other problems with the text you are proposing:

• Most of the sources you provided in your last post re-inforce my argument that the most significant event that happened between the MEK and Iraq prior to 1986 involves Masoud Rajavi's peace treaty with Tariq Aziz.
• In your proposed edit, you've placed the mention of the MEK's decline in popularity right after the quote saying that Masoud Rajavi "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support", which chronologically gives the misleading impression that this pertains to 1983 (and, by your own account, that doesn't reflect what the majority scholarship says).
• Your proposed edit also doesn't solve the issue with the proceeding statement in the lede: "...where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." - can you provide the sources that say the MEK "was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein" in these operations? I think wording here is important, and needs to reflect concrete scholarship narrative. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You are both being unnecessarily stubborn here. It's patently obvious, based on most of the sources presented in this section, that the alliance between the MEK and Iraq being initiated in 1983 was a significant point in the MEK's history. It's also clear, again based on these sources, that the MEK's alliance with Iraq during the war was what led to it's decline in support, and most of these sources do not provide a clear date for when the MEK was fighting with Iraq in the war. Essentially, there is consensus to say, in the lead, that a) the MEK and Iraq forged an alliance in 1983, following a meeting between Rajavi and Aziz; b) the MEK fought alongside Iraq in the war, with consequences as already stated in the lead. I am not seeing consensus to imply that the MEK fought in the war beginning in 1983, as the current version does. I am not seeing an issue with the ordering of sentences (Stefka's second bullet point above); these are successive events in the history; they will necessarily be in successive sentences. The issue about the different operations is a separate point; Stefka, if you take issue with the current wording, please raise it separately; this discussion is about the first two sentences in that paragraph, and does not establish consensus for anything else. Please craft a proposal along those lines, and please be aware that I have little patience for further stonewalling. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria and Vice regent: I would hope you both intend to follow through here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde: sorry for the late response; off-wiki life getting in the way. I agree with both your points in your last comment. Shall we go with that? Shall we also mention that the meeting in 1983 was "justified" by the MEK "on the grounds that it highlighted their desire for peace.")? (...Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised not to attack Iran's civilian areas.”) ("The Two issued a joint call for peace between their countries.”)(“...which culminated in the signing of a peace communique on January 9 of that year. Rajavi, acting as the chairman of the NCR, co-outlined a peace plan with Aziz based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Treaty.) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

One of your sources also adds that this was a part of MEK's propaganda plan. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry everyone for the late response. Like Stefka, off-wiki life getting in the way. I agree with Vanamonde's points a and b and agree that the lead shouldn't imply MEK fought in the war beginning in 1983. I agree that operations should be covered in a different subsection.

Regarding MEK's view that the 1983 meeting "highlighted their desire for peace": that is a significant POV but not the only one regarding the meeting. As Mhhossein points out, Dilip Hiro calls this MEK's "propaganda". Several of Stefka's sources (#5, #9 etc) say this meeting was "widely criticized". There are a lot of sources that cover opposition by Bani-Sadr (a major partner in MEK's NCRI) to both the meeting and MEK's agreement with Iraq. Ronan Cohen argues MEK's agreement with Saddam constituted Rajavi’s virtual concession regarding Iran's territorial lands (p 63). All of these aspects of the MEK-Iraq agreement should be covered in the body but not sure if they belong in the lead.VR _talk 01:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Stefka, any analysis of the motivations behind that meeting will require a separate discussion. This discussion has clearly established consensus for modifying one extremely contentious sentence in a manner that is consistent with the sources all of you have provided. Anyone is free to implement this consensus in a reasonable way. If you have disagreements about the phrasing, further discussion may be required, but again, I will not look kindly on stone-walling. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde: would this implement the consensus in a reasonable way?:

In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq following a meeting between Rajavi and Aziz.

Then for the second part, could this phrasing be considered neutral/representative of the sources?:

The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran.

If there is another fair/neutral phrasing option, then I'd be open to it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, You've considerably watered down the language currently in the article in the second part of your proposal. I have no opinion on the specific wording, but unless you persuade Viceregent and others that this is the correct wording, a reformulation that more closely approximates the current wording has a stronger claim to consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Cherry picking some handful of sources against a lot of other reliable sources looks like in vain (though none of the provided sources are saying MEK was not seen as a betrayer). In other words, your suggestion is not representing most of the scholarly sources. Needless to say your suggestion is factually wrong. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein How's my suggestion "factually wrong"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein pinging you again. How's my suggestion "factually wrong"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy is the least problem with your suggestion. However, no one can find sources supporting the statement that MEK's siding with Iraq during the war had "a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran". I believe it's made/synthesized by you. The soul of your suggestion goes against the vast amount of reliable sources commenting on the consequences of the MEK supporting Iraq in attacks against Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up and implemented some of the consensus, leaving the current "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" as is. My proposal offered this version:

• which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."

This was based on the following sources:

• “This has further weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.”

• "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war."

• "...its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq”

• "“During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process.”

For those wishing to keep the lede as is, can you provide the sources and respective quotes that supports the current wording? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on the proposal, obviously; but since I am so frequently critical of behavior on this page, I wanted to commend both this post and the edits implementing consensus from this discussion. If more of you folks were willing to implement a consensus that you didn't like, progress here would be quicker. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I mainly agree with your edit Stefka, but have made a few edits of my own. If I made an error, feel free to point it out. I kept my edit summaries detailed enough to speak for themselves but if something is unclear lemme know and I'll explain.VR _talk 00:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@VR: you changed text that we had consensus for (and some long standing text) but said nothing about the part I’m trying to get consensus for (see my last post above). I’ve reverted you. Please discuss providing sources for any proposed changes (as I've done above). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your revert is not constructive. Can you give an actual reason for reverting me? I gave three detailed edit summaries explaining my changes ([6], [7], [8]). What exactly do you not like about my edit?

Can you point me to where we have consensus for the exact wording that you prefer? I see broad consensus for certain things but not for exact wording.

Which changes of mine do you think were unsourced? I didn't introduce any new content, but only worded it differently and removed one logical error that you introduced.VR _talk 14:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We had consensus for:

"The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war"

You also changed "Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)" to "Iran" (it was the government who made that request). Then, the lede already establishes that "The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. It was involved in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings"; so saying that The MEK and Iraq jointly conducted several operations against Iran" is not needed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall consensus for any exact wording but instead consensus for certain concepts. If you disagree please provide talk page comment links. This wording:

"The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war..."

implies two contradictory things. The paragraph starts with In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq, meaning the MEK had sided with Iraq by 1983. But your additional wording implies that MEK "then sided with Iraq" after 1986 and hadn't sided with Iraq before then (that's what "then" implies). That doesn't make sense as it implies the MEK hadn't sided with Iraq prior to 1986. I believe consensus was that MEK had formed an alliance with Iraq (and therefore sided with Iraq) by 1983. Reflecting this consensus, I wrote:

MEK's decision to side with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war was...

My version is actually shorter and makes more sense. Secondly, shortening "Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)" to "Iran" is very common all over wikipedia, news and books. Thirdly, your version of the lead lumps the post-Iran-Iraq War 1991 Iraq uprisings with the rest of Iran-Iraq war even though they happened in separate periods. My wording merely clarified it. Also why are you separating mention of operations to two different parts of the paragraph? Your wording seems disorganized. Finally you removed all mentions of Saddam from the paragraph. Did you have consensus to do so? It wasn't just MEK's alliance with Iraq that was so repugnant to Iranians but in particular their collaboration with Saddam. Of the 19 reliable sources I presented at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 39#Mek Unpopular, 15 explicitly used Saddam's name when describing MEK's alliance with Iraq.VR _talk 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

VR, SB, enough already. The substance of VR's edits are very obviously helpful without changing content; SB, I'm really not seeing a substantive objection. Conversely, VR, you really ought not to be changing terminology without a proper explanation; why change "Iraq" to "Saddam", in particular? I'm trying to AGF here, but the most obvious explanation is that "Saddam" has a negative emotional association that "Iraq" does not. At the very least it should have been "Hussein". Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the belief that "Hussein" is Saddam's last name is a common misconception, but nothing more; in fact, Hussein is the name of Saddam's father, and it would make no sense to refer to him as such. Considering that Saddam's actual last name (more accurately rendered as "al-Tikriti") was suppressed during the period of Ba'athist rule in Iraq, most reliable sources—and virtually all Iraqis—generally refer to him as "Saddam."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, point taken about Saddam's name, but the rest of my post stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

My point about this is that the war was not known as the "Khomeini-Saddam war" but as the "Iran-Iraq war" (which is something that VR himself argued in a previous post). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I just came across a source that says that the MEK supported the Kurdish rebellion (I added this to the article). Idealigic (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As opposed to Stefka Bulgaria's original research, the reliable sources say something different:

• "Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland." -Vanguard of the Imam
• "The MEK was then welcomed into Iraq, where it supported Saddam Hussein's war..." -CFR
• "The MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army"BBC
• "MEK supported Saddam..."Operation Iraqi Freedom and the New Iraq
• "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support." -Vanguard of the Imam
• "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." -Business Insider
• "The group later broke with the regime and sided with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when more than a million Iranians died"P.532
• "...the move towards saddam hussein was allegedly an attempt by the MEK an attempt by the MEK to maneuver against the government, with the goal of acquiring arms, training facilities, and financial resources."P.67
• "According to the RAND Corporation think-tank, the MEK launched numerous raids across the border into Iran. In exchange for its support of Saddam Hussein, MEK received "protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use of land".[9][10]
• "After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran."-RAND report

These are just some of the sources using "Saddam" when referring to Iraq under Saddam. That said, the longstanding version should be restored. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Iran-Iraq war being internationally known as the Iran-Iraq war is not original research.

With respect to the sources you have presented, you used "Vanguard of the Imam" twice, RAND report twice (and it is also quoted by the Al Jazeera which also says "At the height of the war between Iran and Iraq, the MEK sided with Baghdad, sending as many as 7,000 of its members to Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran.") Also RAND and "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" look like think tanks that lack peer-review? The Business Insider link looks like questionable source by an author who does not look like an authority in their field.

This does not mean that there aren't some reliable sources (here or otherwise) saying "Saddam Hussein" instead of "Iraq". But there are many scholarly sources written by authorities in their field using "Iraq" or "Baghdad":

• "The Mojahedin's unabashed willingness to openly side with the Iraqi regime in the war against Iran disturbed some o their allies. This issue came to the fore in January 1983 when, in the midst o some o the most intense fighting o the war, Raavi held a highly publicized meeting with Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister."

• "Many analysts believe the PMOI's decision to ally with Iraq caused its support inside Iran to evaporate."

• "Within seven days, Soviet Radio carried an official notice that Iraq had expelled the Mojahedin, disclaiming Iraq's convenient use of the movement during the Iran-Iraq War"

• "The opposition based on the Mojahedin's alliance with the Ba'athist Republic o Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war"

• "soon siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and remaining in Iraq after the end o the conflict."

• "Since 1986, when the Iraq-Iran war was at its climax, the Mojahedin organization and its private army, the National Liberation Army (NLA), were fortunate to gain Iraq's financial support as well as the supply of equipment that was needed for the foundation of the army and for its continuous operations. Iraq's motives for supporting the Mojahedin are unknown, but it can be assumed that their existence justified the Iraqi struggle against the Iranian Islamic religious regime since it feared that that regime was trying to control the Iraqi Shi'ite majority and establish in it a Shi'ite Islamic Republic."

• "This has further weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War."

• "Bani Sadr left the NCR after the MEK formally sided with Iraq against Iran in 1983"

• "The alignment with the MEK provided a strategic advantage for Iraq, including in prodding Iran towards further radicalization and increasing the international isolation of Tehran."

• "Near the end o the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Baghdad armed MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces"

Idealigic (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I presented more sources and some of your sources are irrelevant cause they use alternative terms such as "Ba'athist Republic of Iraq", "Baghdad". Also, the sixth bullet point can be effectively omitted since it's not directly talking about MEK's "siding" with the Iran's enemy during the war. @Vanamonde93: Given the sources I provided, can I restore the longstanding version which say "MEK sided with Saddam" until a consensus is built? That version is both longstanding and supported by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

All the sources I listed are relevant since they all talk about the MEK's relation with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Also please look at the authors and publishers of the sources I listed against the ones Mhhossein listed. The ones I listed look more scholarly and peer-reviewed (and are not repeated). Idealigic (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References
References

Distorting article

@Vanamonde93: Some one is picking up information from its place, under the pretext of shortening article, and put it in the wrong place, under the pretext of self revert. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I removed it because it’s repeated here:

”The MEK is accused of detonating a bomb at the Islamic Republican Party headquarters on 28 June 1981. Two days later after the incident, Ruhollah Khomeini accused the MEK. The incident, called Hafte Tir bombing in Iran, killed 73, including Mohammad Beheshti, the party's secretary-general and Chief Justice of Iran, 4 cabinet ministers, 10 vice ministers and 27 members of the Parliament of Iran.”

• I then realized that the part ”From 26 August 1981 to December 1982, it orchestrated 336 attacks.” was not repeated, so I restored this (my logic was to restore according to date, but perhaps the text should have been modified to explain that it was the MEK who carried out these attacks?).
• Ghazaalch then undid my restore saying “The sections need to be shortened”.
• Then Ghazaalch put everything back in the article again saying “You are picking up information from its place and put it in a irrelevant place.”
• Then Ghazaalch reports me here to Vanamonde instead of just putting the text where they think it should go or making it clear that it was the MEK who carried out these attacks.
• Currently the information about 1981 remains repeated in the article. Bahar1397 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: you are repeating the information that already exist in another section, in a new section. Then you delete the old information. This is a kind of moving information to another section, without consensus. The following part however should move, since it is more related to the new section. I'll do it for you.

On 22 June 1981, IRGC and Hezbollahis responded to anti-regime demonstrations against the dismissal of President Abolhassan Banisadr, to what came to be known as "reign of terror" in Iran. The Warden of Evin prison announced the firing squad executions of demonstrators, including teenage girls.[citation needed]

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I was actually trying to put everything in one place so that we don't have repeated information in the article.

Now we have this in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)":

1. "On 30 August a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Khomeini's government identified Massoud Keshmiri (secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active MEK member) as the perpetrator"
2. "although there has been much speculation among academics and observers that the bombings may have been carried out by IRP leaders to rid themselves of political rivals.
3. "The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of Mujahedin and other leftist groups, but "assassinations of leading officials and active supporters of the government by the Mujahedin were to continue for the next year or two"."

And this in "Assassinations":

1. "On 30 August 1981, a bomb was detonated killing the elected President Rajai and Premier Mohammad Javad Bahonar. Iranian authorities announced that Massoud Keshmiri, "a close aide to the late President Muhammad Ali Rajai and secretary of the Supreme Security Council, had been responsible"."
2. "According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP""
3. "The reaction to both bombings was intense with many arrests and executions of MEK and other leftist groups."

This information is also repeated in "History":

"until June 1981, when they declared war against the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran and initiated a number of bombings and assassinations targeting the clerical leadership. Many MEK sympathizers and middle-level organizers were detained and executed after June 1981."

Please explain your revert. Barca (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you pretend that you were trying to reduce repetitions, while you your edits [11] [12] show that you increased it? Ghazaalch (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: As I say in my last message, I was actually trying to put everything in place so that the information is not repeated. Do you agree or disagree that the information I showed in my last message is repeated? If you agree that it's repeated, then we should remove one of the repetitions. If you don't agree, then maybe RFC is the next step. Barca (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You could delete the repeated information, as I did. What I objected here was another subject. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: With your revert, you put back in the beginning of section Assassinations that "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government." "MEK responded" to what exactly? Can you please explain how it makes sense to have this at the beginning of that section? Barca (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It was not because of my revert. however, I made it right.Ghazaalch (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I think the remaining problem is that now the section Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) is missing all this information about attacks and counter-attacks between the MEK and the Iranian regime. Is there a reason why this information can't be part of "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ghazaalch stopped responding. My question was if there is a valid reason why the information in "Assassinations" can't be part of "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)". It isn't necessary to have two separate sections since the assassinations that took place around that time form part of the "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)". Having all the information in one place also provides better context for the reader. Do I have consensus to make this edit? or should I start a RfC? Barca (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

BarcrMac, Ghazaalch seems to have agreed above that removing repetitions is okay. However, please interpret very very narrowly; we have had far too many conflicts over edits that some see as reducing repetition, and others see as removing important content. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: My question was if it was ok to move the information in "Assassinations" to the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" since having all the information in one place provides better context for the reader. Can I go ahead with this edit, or do I need to start a RFC? Barca (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

BarcrMac, all this discussion has done is establish that reducing redundancy is okay. Any other edit will have to follow the usual BRD process. You may make it, but if it is challenged, you will have to obtain consensus here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The proposed edit and the justification provided is not acceptable. In other words, "having all the information in one place" makes the sections unnecessarily long and make the navigation of the page more difficult for the readers. Needless to say that the "Assassination" section is well justified given the history of MEK reflected in the sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I argued that having all the information about the 1981 conflicts between the MEK and the Islamic Republic in "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" provides a context to these conflicts, but Mhhossein is saying now that the won't give consensus for this (not that he has to), but the way it is now in "Assassinations" reads like the MEK and the Islamic Republic attacked each other without reason, and the reasons why they attacked each other are listed in “Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" (a section that is also missing these important attacks). What do you suggest I do here please? Barca (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried pointing to specific redundancies, and asking Mhhossein how he would resolve them? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93: yes, I do believe I have tried this. In this instance the problem is not redundancies, the problem is that we have a section with information about attacks between the MEK and the Islamic Republic but the section doesn't have any context about the attacks ("Assassinations"), and then we have another section with information about the context of the attacks, but the section does not mention the attacks ("Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"). I have offered to solve this by combining information about the attacks and their context in one section, having all the information in one place, but Mhhossein is saying this is not acceptable (see his objection). I disagree with Mhhossein's objection. What do you suggest I do here now? Barca (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

BarcrMac, a discussion requires more than just one post and one reply. I don't see either of your positions as unreasonable, so maybe you can come to an agreement. If you can't, obviously, an RfC is the next step. Regardless, running to me every day or so isn't going to get you anywhere; given the attitudes of all the editors involved, this page is likely to remain deadlocked for the foreseeable future, and there's nothing I can do about it. If anyone was interested in seeing large changes made, they're going to have to offer compromises. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mhhossein: can we come to some kind of agreement or compromise in moving some of this information to "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, if you are actually asking to remove a well sourced section so that there's effectively no "Assassination" section, then such a move is not in accordance with the scholarly sources and WP:DUE should be applied. However, what do you mean exactly by "some of this information"? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• BarcrMac The section ("Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)") need to be shortened but you want to embed more information into it. You are saying the "Assassinations" section doesn't have any context about the attacks. Could you name the contexts related to assassinations, one by one? Then we can discuss which information are related together, and would decide on moving them to the section they belong.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Chrono-order

@Vanamonde93: Am I correct saying that in a talk page discussion, older comments should be placed at the bottom of the discussion as per WP:BOTTOMPOST? I was reverted. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(*sigh*) Stefka Bulgaria, that was unnecessary. WP:TPO allows for chronological reordering, when that does not change the meaning of a comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Vanamonde; just thought that "Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult" is a subsection or threaded discussion within the RfC? (shouldn't votes go where the RFC is being proposed rather than in subsections or threaded discussions?) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, then you ought to have moved all the !votes, not just one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Never mind, I have that backwards. This is a silly dispute, but it comes down to poor organization in that section. The subsection is bloody confusing for anyone trying to get a sense of the whole discussion. I have moved all !votes into the main section; let this be an end to this particular dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde. I know it was silly and sorry for pinging you for such a clear thing. I can't realize how there could be an objection to what the MOS says. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In this RFC Mhhossein also writes that my vote is "original research" following with "There's a trend in this TP by the pro-MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources because allegedly there is a propaganda against MEK." Can you please comment about this? Nika2020 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nika2020, I see a lot of poor arguments by all parties in that thread, but I do not see the need for admin intervention. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, poor arguments aside, writing "pro MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources" - isn't that Ad hominem? (I never said that I'm either a pro MEK user or that we should ignore a lot of reliable sources) Nika2020 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a particularly helpful manner of speaking, but none of you have been discussing this dispute in a helpful manner, and I am sick to the teeth of it. When some users have been continuously seeking to minimize criticism of the MEK, and others continuously seeking to maximise it, that language still isn't ideal but isn't something I can sanction over. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Vanamonde, why are you grouping me with Mhhossein or others here? All I did was write a (civil) vote in a RFC, and Mhhossein then alluded that I (and others in that RFC) said something that nobody really said. That's a considerable difference. Nika2020 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think these sort of comments are not helpful to our discussion. But, I don't see a considerable difference and I did not describe you in person. Needless to mention that this description was also used by an admin here referring to the parties being involved here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein which admin used the description "There's a trend in this TP by the pro-MEK users saying we should ignore a lot of reliable sources because allegedly there is a propaganda against MEK."? Nika2020 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not willing to continue this useless discussion.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab

Stefka Bulgaria can you explain why you reverted this? There is a scholarly source that says MeK considered Shatt al-Arab as belonging to Iraq, not Iran, and this was recognition was significant. So why did you remove it from the article?VR _talk 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:.VR _talk 22:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

VR, In your edit you removed "that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders"; why? You also added "Rajavi and Aziz held another meeting sometime before 1986. The agreement between MEK and Iraq in this meeting "went beyond" the 1975 Algiers Accords and guaranteed Iraq's military support for the MEK."; why? I wrote in my edit summary that the section was "less redundant before"; which is the reason why I reverted you. About the MeK considering Shatt al-Arab as belonging to Iraq, is there more than just one source supporting this? If not, we could ask others to see if this one source is enough to include this in the article. I mainly reverted you for the first points, but don't really mind if others think it's ok to add the Shatt al-Arab part back to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Because the previous reversion stated as fact something that is actually disputed by at least one scholarly source. Hence the previous version violated WP:NPOV. The "one source" you are referring to appears to be one of the most scholarly sources on the MEK and so its views are DUE if we are going to talk about MEK and the Algiers Accord.VR _talk 17:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any scholarly dispute that MEK is a cult?

I provided a list of 15 scholarly sources that clearly say the MEK is a cult (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Scholarly sources describe MEK as a cult). In response, Nika2020, Ypatch and BarcrMac argued that this assertion was disputed and provided some sources. But looking at their sources (below) it should be obvious that this argument violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. None of their sources (except one) are scholarly and many of their sources aren't even WP:RS. I would like Vanamonde93 to advise whether Nika's, Ypatch's and Barca's sources are as strong as the sources I provided and if not then can we safely say that the view that MEK is a cult is much more common among scholars than the view that MEK is not a cult?VR _talk 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93:. After I posted my source analysis below you closed an RfC writing that {[tq|The sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor.}} I thought that settled the issue regarding the sources, yet BarcrMac continues to repeatedly present the exact same unreliable sources as they presented at the RfC you closed. Here they presented Rudy Guiliani, "retired US general" (who is unnamed) etc as counter-weight to sources that call MEK a cult. This is going in circles and seems like WP:STONEWALLING. Barca didn't even bother responding to my detailed rebuttal below.VR _talk 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@VR: unless I've missed something, I see several editors already responded to you about this already including myself here, @Idealigic: here, and @Nika2020: here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka, your proposal—"The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being 'cultish'.[337][338] Various sources have also described the MEK as a 'cult',[339][340] 'cult-like',[341][342] or having a 'cult of personality',[343][13] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a 'cult'.[344][345][346]"—is a textbook violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE and also grossly minimizes the many cult-like features of the MEK described in academic sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This was the consensus of a lengthy RFC. Like other editors have already said here, sources calling the MEK a cult are already in the article. Moreover, I invite you to read the article (sections like "Cult of Personality", Human rights record, or even the Ideological revolution and women's rights sections) - all already robust with "cult" pov. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Source analysis

Nika2020's and Barca's provided sources are weak:

• "retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".[13]
  • This US general is unnamed and described by the source as an "active lobbyist on the MEK's behalf" (which would make him a WP:COISOURCE). The fact that he's anonymous makes it impossible to verify any scholarly credentials he may hold.
• "Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a ″cult nature”; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was “ashamed” by this statement.[14]
  • Barca didn't fully quote the the source which says French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, for “its violent and non-democratic inspirations,” ″cult nature” and “intense campaign of influence and disinformation.” The terms were unusually harsh for the French government...Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was “ashamed” by the French government statement. It would be a stretch to say that Kouchner specifically denied that MEK was a cult based on this alone. In any case Kouchner is not a scholarly source.
• "Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".
  • Rudy Guiliani is not a reliable source (let alone a scholarly source), and is accused by PolitiFact of frequently making inaccurate statements.
• An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded.
  • Once again Barca didn't quote the source fully. According to Stefka, the book's position is more complicated: "In terms of the accusation that the organization operates like a cult, there is no question that the MEK commands strong dedication to its cause and to the organization, perhaps to an extent that can strike observers as cult-like. However, no hard evidence has been found to support the claims, occasionally forwarded by their opponents, that the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like. A delegation of the European Parliament and the U.S. military investigated the claims and concluded that they were unfounded: the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (“MOI”). Indeed, accusations that the group operates like a cult represent a degree of confusion about the organization. The discipline and dedication shown by MEK members is more akin to what one might observe within..." Stefka's quote cut off here and I have no idea what the authors say after this. So the source says that some of the claims behind the cult assertion are unfounded but we also need the full quote to evaluate the source's position.
  • Two of the authors of the source (Cheryl Benard and Austin Long) are professors. But who is the publisher? According to Amazon, it is "Metis Analytics" but when I google "Metis Analytics" publisher this book shows as the top result. Has this publisher published any other books? According to this site the author of the book "Cheryl Benard is the president of Metis Analytics, a Washington, DC-based research company." So is this akin to a WP:Self-published source?
• According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK".
  • Nowhere is Tanter saying the MEK is not a cult.

Ypatch provided some additional sources. But none of these sources deny that MEK is a cult, only that Iran wants MEK to be labelled as a cult. There is no logic to the idea that just because Iran says something it must necessarily be false.

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."[15]
  • Arab News is definitely not a peer-reviewed scholarly source. In fact it is not even a reliable source for topics related to the Saudi government (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Arab_News) and MEK is funded by the Saudi government. The author, Majid Rafizadeh, appears to have not published peer-reviewed publications (I couldn't find any) and Stefka acknowledged he's not an expert on the MEK.
• Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.[16]
• the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications.[17]
  • Just because Iran is trying to do something doesn't make it false. The sources I provided were not connected to Iran.

VR _talk 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Sources that say the MEK is cult-like are already represented in the article. Vanamonde also suggested that the article needs trimming, not expanding. Nika2020 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal A and Proposal B after RFC

Thank you Vanamonde for closing the RFC.

I have removed "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."" from the main-space per the closing consensus.

About the first part of that sentence, "During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization", are there any other better sources supporting this?

And about Proposal A, I would like to get a dialogue started with suggestions to present the information in a more compact manner that better reflects the sources. Bahar1397 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bahar1937, if you want to better organize the cult section there is already a discussion at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC follow-up. So far there have been no good arguments against that proposal.VR _talk 15:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Vanamonde stated As such, I would say that consensus has not been established to remove it entirely, but there aren't strong arguments for keeping the simile in the second piece of the sentence. So I don't think there is consensus to simply remove it, so lets replace the simile with something that is better sourced? Terror, Love and Brainwashing is a scholarly, in-depth account of MEK's cult practices and we can find something similar in it that would be sourced to Alexandra Stein, an unaffiliated scholar who has published in peer-reviewed publications on the topic of cults. The book repeatedly gives examples of MEK's "brainwashing" and emotional and psychological manipulation. Would that be better source?VR _talk 16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will take a look and comment there. What about ""During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization"? I am seeing that the author of the book you propose is using examples from Masoud Banisadr? What is your proposition here? Bahar1397 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: hello? Bahar1397 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I found the following in the RAND report, page 4 :

Rajavi instituted what he termed an “ideological revolution” in 1985, which, over time, imbued the MeK with many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labor, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and limited exit options.

The second bold part simply means surrender of their individuality, which we can replace with the existing phrase, if RAND report is a better reference.Ghazaalch (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

VR Can I replace the sentence that Bahar1397 says is less reliable with the above mentioned sentence from RAND report? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's a good temporary solution. But I would still prefer some unified consensus over MEK's personality cult.VR _talk 03:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"biggest and most active political opposition group"

The first paragraph of the article currently says

It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group.

This is both poorly sourced and a violation of WP:NPOV.

Abrahamian is referring to MEK's popularity in the early 1980s, a long time ago. Katzman only describes MEK as Iran's "most active" opposition group, not the biggest, and is dated to 2001 (20 years ago). This source describes MEK as The MEK, which has been in exile for years, is Iran’s most organised and only armed opposition group. It makes no mention of MEK being the biggest.

Having this statement at the top of the lead without any indication of MEK's unpopularity is very WP:BIASED. High quality journalistic sources published in recent years have called the MEK a "fringe" group: New York Times, CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted inNBC News. We have consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Iran-Iraq war that MEK became unpopular inside Iran due to its collaboration with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.

I was able to find only one source (currently not in the article) that refers to MEK as the "largest Iranian opposition group" in the context of "opposition outside Iranian borders". But if we include it, we should also consider sources that give the opposite view.VR _talk 22:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The MEK has been the Islamic Republic's main political opposition since the revolution.

• "The MEK has been the leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic for years."
• "The People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, also known as Mujahedin-e-Khalq or MEK, comprised most of the victims of 1988’s “summer of blood,” and it has been expressly identified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as the driving force behind the recent uprisings. His warnings no doubt helped to justify the killing of 1,500 peaceful protesters last November, as well as the imposition of multiple death sentences in the ensuing months. Ever since coming to power, Iran’s clerical leaders have claimed that the MEK is a cult that lacks meaningful support inside Iran. If that is the case, how can they logically claim that the group is responsible for the ongoing protests in Iran? Why would Tehran spend massive sums of money and decades of political energy on demonizing a movement that allegedly has only a marginal impact? Why would the regime risk its already heavily damaged relations with the international community by using its embassies and diplomats in 2018 to execute terrorist attacks on the MEK in Europe?"
• "But it also continued its anti-regime activities within Iran, where it had emerged as the clerical regime’s most potent and capable foe—the “public enemy number one” of Iran’s ayatollahs."
• "Having been removed from the US list of terrorist organizations in 2012, the NCRI is increasingly being recognized as the most important player in the landscape of resistance to Tehran’s clerical regime — both at home and abroad."

It is a an established fact. Ypatch (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ypatch you have quoted the sourced improperly and some of your sources aren't reliable.

• "The MEK has been the leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic for years."

This source also says Many former U.S. officials and Iran experts question the MEK's democratic credentials, as well as the depth of its support base inside Iran...Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians. In the 1990s, the Rajavis instituted a number of cult-like measures to prevent defections.

• This source simply questions Iran's claims about MEK without saying MEK is the largest opposition group.
• You took the third quote out of context, here is the full quote: "But it also continued its anti-regime activities within Iran, where it had emerged as the clerical regime’s most potent and capable foe—the “public enemy number one” of Iran’s ayatollahs. Then, in the late 1990s, the MeK became..." Obviously, this is a reference to MEK's potency before the 1990s. It has no relevance to today. In fact, the same source also says "To its detractors, MEK represents a fringe element that promotes an unpopular, unworkable vision of Iran’s future." And also, Iranian opposition elements remain deeply distrustful of the organization, citing its insular, exclusionary nature and claiming that, among other things, it fundamentally lacks support on the Iranian “street.”
• This source is not reliable as it is controlled by the Saudi gov't, which also funds the MEK.VR _talk 23:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I quoted directly from the sources. About Arab News, show me where it says this is not not a reliable source. Ypatch (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Arab_News, Arab News is not a good source for matters related to Saudi govt. We have New York Times, Washington Post, CBC News, NBC News all saying MEK is fringe vs Arab News saying they are popular. Which sources are more reliable? NYT or Arab News? So which source should be given more weight?VR _talk 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The International Policy Digest link provided by Ypatch: "Ever since coming to power, Iran’s clerical leaders have claimed that the MEK is a cult that lacks meaningful support inside Iran. If that is the case, how can they logically claim that the group is responsible for the ongoing protests in Iran? Why would Tehran spend massive sums of money and decades of political energy on demonizing a movement that allegedly has only a marginal impact?" Exactly. Idealigic (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Idealigic Can you remember your discussion here, when you wrote If we add one POV, then we need to add all, and the lead is not for that? Ghazaalch (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we now omit the disputed sentence from the lede? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

MEK's relations with the Kurds

I found two scholarly sources that say the MEK supported the Kurdish rebellion, which I added to the article.

• "The Mojahedin's support of the Kurdish rebellion, their opposition to the Velayat-e Faqih, and their boycott of the constituional referendum in 1979 further strained their fragile relationship with the fundamentalists."
• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings; … violating the rights of the national minorities, especially of the Kurds"

Also the sources in the article say that the MEK deny fighting against the Kurds. Idealigic (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked Mhhossein about the sources supporting the current statement in the lead about the Kurds, but he never responded. Abrahamian (p. 208) doesn't look like it's supporting this. The second source, which is no longer live, says the US accused the MEK in the early 1990s of participating in this, but that is only an accusation. The third source, which is also no longer live, it also says this is an allegation. And concur with Idealigic that these last two sources say the MEK deny these allegations. I will fix to better reflect the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of more sources about the Kurds-MEK conundrum:

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."
• "In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. The report refers to “certain misrepresentations of events in the area, particularly allegations made that the [MEK] has collaborated with the armed forces of the Government of Iraq, by participating in attacks against Kurdish people in Kirkut, Qara Hanjeer, Kifri and Altun Kopir in April 1991."

• "From our independent investigation and discussion with parties involved, we find these allegations false . . . Most of the allegations made against the BNAA regarding the Kurdish people come from a man named Jamshid Tafrishi- Enginee, who was cited by people at this session of the sub-commission as a former leader of the Iranian Resistance. Our investigation indicates that Mr Tafrishi-Enginee joined the Resistance in 1988, but left after 19 months with a low rank. In his letter of resignation, hand-written and dated 23 September 1990, he sites personal problems and requests leave to transfer to a refugee camp. He then traveled to Europe where he began to campaign publicly against the NLA. There is compelling evidence that he is in fact an agent of the Khomeini regime's Ministry of Intelligence. In a letter dated l4 July 1999, Mr Hoshyar Zebari, then head of the Kurdish Democratic Party's international relations and presently Foreign Minister of Iraq (see document [97]), wrote, The KDP as a major Kurdish political party has led and participated in the Kurdish Spring uprising of 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan . . . The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin-e-khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing multiple low valued allegations and interviews which are tried to be used against dozens of reliable scholarly sources. Stefka Bulgaria is repeating the old argument of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government". However, the following items should be treated as concrete evidences saying MEK helped Saddam suppress the Kurdish uprisings:

I would not used these two quotes to reach such a strong conclusion, i.e. "MEK never took part in the Kurdish uprising". This claim seems silly in face of vast number of sources saying MEK were involved in cracking the Kurdish uprising in Iraq. Here are some of the sources:

• "It aided Saddam with operations against the Kurds in the north..."by Oxford University Press, P. 250
• "MEK terrorism has declined since late 2001. Incidents linked to the group include:...Saddam Hussein's suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings."–by ABC-CLIO, P.337
• "For instance , their units provided effective assistance to Saddam ' s forces in the violent suppression of the Kurdish uprisings that broke out in March 1991 in northern Iraq."–by Washington Institute for Near East Policy, P.114
• "MEK fighters not only assisted the Iraqis in the Iran - Iraq War but also helped Saddam put down the 1991 Kurdish uprising."–by The New York Review Books, P.76
• " ... to Saddam that MEK fighters not onlyassisted the Iraqis inthe IranIraqWar but also helped Saddam putdownthe 1991 Kurdish uprising"[18]
• "the report, drawing on U.S. government sources, notes, “Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, ‘a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border.’” The report goes on to cite the Kurdish leader—and first president of Iraq after the fall of Saddam—Jalal Talabani, as telling reporters at the time that “5,000 Iranian Mojahedin [MEK] joined Saddam’s forces in the battle for Kirkuk” and points to Wall Street Journal reporting as well on the MEK’s part in this bloody campaign"–by POLITICO
• "... The Kurds and Shiite Arabs have long reviled the MEK because Saddam Hussein used it to help put down their uprisings ..."–P.217
• "In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north."–By the Guardian
• "where it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88) and reportedly helped quash Kurdish uprisings in the north and Shia unrest in the south (1991)."by Council of Foreign Relations.
• "They were helped out by Arabs, and then turned themselves over to the Kurds, ..."–by the New York Times
• "In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north."–by The Guardian
• "After the First Gulf War, Hussein reportedly used the Mojahedin as a militia to quell sectarian and ethnic uprisings, alienating many Iraqis. “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” Maryam Rajavi told her followers during the attacks, according to the The New York Times Magazine."–by The Intercept

Given the fact that there are weighty sources saying MEK did assist Saddam with suppression of the Kurds in 1981, any counter counter POVs should be supported by strong sources. @Vanamonde93: I think the behavior of Idealigic, whom you warned a couple of months ago, is against the limitations we agreed upon. In his latest violation, he inserted a content which was followed by my revert. Next, he restored the disputed content without effectively trying to build consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mhhossein: I added to the article that "The MEK's support of the Kurdish rebellion also further strained their relationship with the fundamentalists.", something that is supported by a scholarly source. You reverted me saying this is WP:FRINGE, so I added ANOTHER SCHOLARLY SOURCE to support this, and then Ghazaalch removes this again now saying that the sections need to be shortened? Then you make this revert from the lead also (what you restored in the lead does not reflect what is in the sources about the Kurds or other POVs except the one you seem to want in the article). And then you accuse me to Vanamonde. ?? Idealigic (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You violated the page's restriction:

• You inserted a content
• I reverted your action
• You restored the disputed content again without trying to build consensus.

You have repeated this violation a couple of times in the past. My understanding of your latest "disingenous" comment is that it's trying to GAME us by adding irrelevant sources to this dispute, since NONE of your sources say MEK helped Kurds during the 1991 uprising in Iraq. That said, Ghazaalch's edit is well justified. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

• First - You restored the Abrahamian 1989 source to the lead to support that the MEK participated in “the 1991 nationwide uprisings.” I don't see Abrahamian supports this, but he apparently says the opposite.

• Second - You removed from the lead "although the MEK deny this.", but there is a source there that supports this.

• Third - Idealigic does not seem to be violating the restrictions of the article - you reverted their edit because you said what he added was “Fringe”, so he added another sources to show this statement was not “Fringe”.

• Fourth - Multiple reliable sources have been provided here showing friendly relations between the MEK and the Kurds, and you and Ghazaalch removed them. MA Javadi (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not rocket science. Despite being reverted, Idealigic has restored an already reverted content for which he had not gained consensus. Also, I did NOT make a new change, be it removal or addition. I juts kept the longstanding version accompanied by explanations. Lastly, the lead content is on the MEK-assisted suppression of Kurds during the 1991 upheavels in Iraq and NONE of the sources added by Idealigic concern the 1991 uprisings in Iraq and this action can be described as GAMING other users. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say that Idealigic was recently warned by Vanamonde93 for a closely similar mistake. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources Idealigic used for the content are reliable and support the content. Idealigic restored content with a new source (the reason you initially reverted him), so he was complying with your own request and now you are trying to report him because of it. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, please explain how this is not a violation of the consensus required restriction on this article. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde,

I restored the edit with a new scholarly source - I thought this was allowed.

To explain myself, I first added to the article that "The MEK's support of the Kurdish rebellion also further strained their relationship with the fundamentalists." [diff] (supported by scholarly source by Mohsen Milani who is an expert in this field).

Mhhossein reverted this edit saying it seemed like “WP:FRINGE” theory. [diff]

To address Mhhossein’s “WP:FRINGE” theory concern and show this was supported by other scholarly sources, I added another source to the edit (by Ervand Abrahamian, who also supports this content). [diff]

My rationale was that I was making the second edit different from the first by adding another scholarly source to support the material (addressing Mhhossein’s WP:FRINGE concern). If I broke any restrictions, I would have self-reverted, but Ghazaalch reverted my edit soon after (saying “The sections need to be shortened“. [diff])

I also thought this method of restoring the content with new sources was ok to do because Mhhossein did something similar before:

• [diff]: Mhhossein uses deceptive edit summary (according to special:diff/969798085" - which is about "MEK's designation as a terrorist organization by the Japanese government") to add "Operation Shining Sun" to the lead of the article.
• [diff]: I revert him saying the source he used (The Globe Post) was not reliable.
• [diff]: Mhhossein restored content using a new source (by Ronen Cohen, that by your own assessment, did not even support Mhhossein's edit).

Mhhossein did this despite prior warnings (such as this one), so I was surprised to see him accusing me of this now. I can't speak on why Mhhossein restored that content while accusing me here (he actually did it more times), but speaking on my own behalf, I would have self reverted if I'd sincerely known I was breaking any restriction. Idealigic (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry for pinging you again. I think this pattern of misleading should stop somewhere.

• There's a fine point which Idealigic is evading from, despite the fact that I tried to clarify it. Actually, Idealigic explained himself once. Look at the content and the sources he has provided here, where NONE were related to 1991 uprisings – probably they are related to MEK-Kurds relationships before the Iranian revolution during the Shah period, according to the context. As I said here and here, the sources (and the content) which Idealigic added to the page were irrelevant to the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, a time span we are specifically talking about. He's again repeating his false comment. He did quite the same thing in the past and received a warning by you. I have provided a lot of reliable sources explicitly stressing that MEK did assist Saddam with suppressing the Kurds' uprising in 1991.
• So, he inserted a content and I reverted his action. He had to build consensus for adding this challenging claim to the lead, before anything else. However, he restored the disputed content again.

• I am not going through Idealigic's baseless accusations. Though I am ready to explain how false these accusations are.

Hope every thign is exaplained well. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mhhossein, Where did I say that my edits were related to the 1991 uprisings?
• I showed in my previous comment how you restored reverted content to the article (more times than me actually), so you should indeed explain yourself. Idealigic (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Compilation of reliable sources concerning MEK and the Kurds

I've put together the sources above and some I found.

• “The IPC [Iran Policy Committee] Task Force also conducted its own investigation of charges of MEK collaboration against the Kurds. The IPC collected statements from credible Iraqi sources and American military officers who served at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The IPC also held 8 direct discussions with current and former MEK members. The findings confirm Iraqi and MEK denials of any such role by the MEK in suppression of the Kurdish people.In 2002, Reuters obtained a document from a civil suit being conducted in the Netherlands testifying that the MEK had no part in Saddam's brutal operations against the Kurds. The document, signed by a principal Kurdish political official, said that the MEK was not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath.”[19][archived from: https://www.economist.com/newsbook/2011/02/27/grim-decision-making ] by Professor Raymond Tanter

• "The Mojahedin's support of the Kurdish rebellion, their opposition to the Velayat-e Faqih, and their boycott of the constituional referendum in 1979 further strained their fragile relationship with the fundamentalists."

• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings; … violating the rights of the national minorities, especially of the Kurds"

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."
• "In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. The report refers to “certain misrepresentations of events in the area, particularly allegations made that the [MEK] has collaborated with the armed forces of the Government of Iraq, by participating in attacks against Kurdish people in Kirkut, Qara Hanjeer, Kifri and Altun Kopir in April 1991."

• "From our independent investigation and discussion with parties involved, we find these allegations false . . . Most of the allegations made against the BNAA regarding the Kurdish people come from a man named Jamshid Tafrishi- Enginee, who was cited by people at this session of the sub-commission as a former leader of the Iranian Resistance. Our investigation indicates that Mr Tafrishi-Enginee joined the Resistance in 1988, but left after 19 months with a low rank. In his letter of resignation, hand-written and dated 23 September 1990, he sites personal problems and requests leave to transfer to a refugee camp. He then traveled to Europe where he began to campaign publicly against the NLA. There is compelling evidence that he is in fact an agent of the Khomeini regime's Ministry of Intelligence. In a letter dated l4 July 1999, Mr Hoshyar Zebari, then head of the Kurdish Democratic Party's international relations and presently Foreign Minister of Iraq (see document [97]), wrote, The KDP as a major Kurdish political party has led and participated in the Kurdish Spring uprising of 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan . . . The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin-e-khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs."

• "Reuters separately obtained a copy of a 1999 legal document signed by a senior official of a major Iraqi Kurdish group that said there was no evidence the Mujahideen took part in the Iraqi government's 1991 campaign against the Kurds. The document, which was part of a lawsuit in the Netherlands, was received on condition that the author and the original recipient remain anonymous. The Iraqi Kurds have regular contacts with the Iranian government. "(We) can confirm that the Mujahedin (sic) were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan," it said." White Paper from [Iran Policy Committee]

• "Some of the nationalist Kurds have cooperated with Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a socialist group that attacks government officials and installations in oppostion to the Islamic regime. By The Middle East and South Asia, 1988, Stryker-Post Publications , Ray L Cleveland (Author)

• "the MeK was alleged to have assisted the Iraqi Republican Guard in suppressing Shiite and Kurdish uprisings, although this has always been denied by the MeK".

@Mhhossein: None of this is in the article. Please give an explanation why a short summary of this can’t be in the article. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of information that could be added to this article including different Cultic Characteristics of the MeK, which RAND report, for example, has dedicated a whole chapter to it. But the answer they gave me was that The sections need to be shortened. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You might also like to add the following to the article, but you can't. They won't let you to.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the MeK is widely believed to have assisted Saddam in the violent suppression of the Shia and Kurdish uprisings of 1991.21 MeK officials strenuously deny any involvement in the atrocities against the Shia and Kurds, alleging that they were attacked by combined Kurdish and Iranian forces and that the MeK did not even defend itself.22 However, the allegations of the group’s complicity with Saddam are corroborated by press reports that quote Maryam Rajavi encouraging MeK members to “take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,”23 as well as the timing of Saddam’s conferring the Rafedeen Medallion—a high honor in the Iraqi military—on Masoud Rajavi. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: You still have not explained why you restored the Abrahamian 1989 source to the lead to support that the MEK participated in “the 1991 nationwide uprisings.” I don't see Abrahamian supports this. Please explain. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Can you please respond why you restored a source that does not seem to support the content in the lead. If you fail to respond, I'll have to request admin involvement. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal of MA Javadi's sources

MA Javadi provided sources above that he uses as a basis for an RfC to remove MEK's participation in "the 1991 nationwide uprisings". But MEK's participation is an established fact and MA Javadi is distorting sources to counter this fact. He presents multiple pre-1991 sources to rebut an event that hadn't even occurred! He also uses the Economist to endorse a view that is opposite of what the Economist is saying. Rebuttal:

• 1. This source is an excerpt published by The Economist. The Economist actually supports the view that MEK attacked the Kurds. It says:

• The Economist replies:...Nibras Kadhimi, a scholar at the Hudson Institute who is a respected analyst of Iraqi affairs, has testified that the MEK was Saddam Hussein's main force in recapturing the towns of Kifri and Kalar and their surrounding villages, as well as parts of Kirkuk, from the Iraqis rebelling against Saddam in 1991. There are many such documented testimonies in this regard. A New York Times correspondent in Iraq, Elizabeth Rubin, who visited Camp Ashraf, the MEK's base in Iraq, and wrote an exhaustively researched article on it published on July 13th 2003, quoted Mariam Rajavi making the statement denied in the letter (published above) from the MEK's supporters. She also wrote: “Everyone I spoke to—Iraq intelligence officers, Kurdish commanders and human rights groups—said that in 1991 Hussein used the Mujahideen and its tanks as advance forces to crush the Kurdish uprisings in the north and the Shia uprisings in the south.” In her book Why does the west forget?, Baroness Nicholson includes further testimony of the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq, lending weight to the array of allegations against the MEK cited above. This was based on interviews she conducted during many visits to Iraq in the past 20 years.

  1. With regards to the Tanter excerpt, The Economist publishes it alongside his student's excerpt Following their expulsion from Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini in the early 1980s, the MEK allied with Saddam Hussein and, in exchange for providing domestic security operations against Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, Saddam gave the MEK millions of dollars, protection, and bases along the Iranian border from which the MEK could launch their frequent attacks against the clerical regime.” The same allegation is made again in the US State Department's “Patterns of Global Terrorism” published in 2002. There is no endorsement of Tanter's views, which seem to be published in a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source called "Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: U.S. Policy and the Iranian Opposition : a White Paper". This can't be used to rebut scholarly sources.

• 2. Is this source (Milani Mohsen) even talking about the 1991 uprisings?? If not what is the point of presenting a totally irrelevant source?
• 3. Again this source (Abrahamian) can't be talking about the 1991 uprisings and was actually published in 1989.
• 4. No citation is given.
• 5. "In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. I read the letter and ECOSCOC is merely conveying the views of "International Educational Development" but not endorsing the views in any way. Who is "International Educational Development"? I googled it but could find nothing on them. The link MA Javadi provided was to a US Congress report entitled "Camp Ashraf: Iraqi Obligations and State Department Accountability", which lists both views that MEK attacked the Kurds and that MEK didn't attack them. It doesn't endorse either view.
• 6. This source is literally written by the "National Council of Resistance of Iran" which is a WP:COISOURCE.
• 7. The Middle East and South Asia, 1988 was published in 1988. Judging from the date it can't be referring to the 1991 uprisings.
• 8. The MEK indeed has denied the 1991 uprisings, but that doesn't mean their denials are true.

VR _talk 17:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal of VR's rebuttal

VR, thank you for your points. Here is my reply about each of the sources.

• I don’t know where you got that the Economist needs to “endorse” Tanter’s views in order for his views to be valid. The Economist are not required to either endorse or refute Tanter’s views. Raymond Tanter is a “professor Emeritus of Political Science and Research Associate at the Middle East Center at The University of Michigan, and his analysis on the claim that the MEK participate in the 1991 Uprisings is that:

“The IPC [Iran Policy Committee] Task Force also conducted its own investigation of charges of MEK collaboration against the Kurds. The IPC collected statements from credible Iraqi sources and American military officers who served at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The IPC also held 8 direct discussions with current and former MEK members. The findings confirm Iraqi and MEK denials of any such role by the MEK in suppression of the Kurdish people.In 2002, Reuters obtained a document from a civil suit being conducted in the Netherlands testifying that the MEK had no part in Saddam's brutal operations against the Kurds. The document, signed by a principal Kurdish political official, said that the MEK was not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath.”

That is a report by a scholar who has all the qualifications to be a reliable author (despite endorsement or lack thereof by the Economist).

• Milani Mohsen and Abrahamian appear to be talking about the MEK’s relationship with the Kurds prior to 1991 (not about the 1991 Uprisings), so it can’t be linked to the 1991 Uprisings. Yet this narrative that the MEK supported the Kurds prior to 1991 has also been completely removed from the article. This is supported by two sources by reliable academics. Why was it removed? We are omitting an important part of the picture in terms of the relationship between the MEK and the Kurds, that though may not be related to the 1991 Uprisings, it still leaves to wonder why certain editors may not want to include in the article that the MEK backed the Kurds during the 1980s.

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."}

This is taken from “ CAMP ASHRAF: IRAQI OBLIGATIONS AND STATE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABILITY” by the “United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations”. Page 113.

• ""In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. The report refers to “certain misrepresentations of events in the area, particularly allegations made that the [MEK] has collaborated with the armed forces of the Government of Iraq, by participating in attacks against Kurdish people in Kirkut, Qara Hanjeer, Kifri and Altun Kopir in April 1991.

Once again, the source doesn’t need to “endorse” a particular view. It provides a report distributed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US.

• Yes, this source presents the MEK’s side (written by the NCRI). Just like we use Islamic Republic press to present the Islamic Republic's side.

• "Reuters separately obtained a copy of a 1999 legal document signed by a senior official of a major Iraqi Kurdish group that said there was no evidence the Mujahideen took part in the Iraqi government's 1991 campaign against the Kurds. The document, which was part of a lawsuit in the Netherlands, was received on condition that the author and the original recipient remain anonymous. The Iraqi Kurds have regular contacts with the Iranian government. "(We) can confirm that the Mujahedin (sic) were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan," it said." White Paper from [Iran Policy Committee]

You skipped this one!

• "Some of the nationalist Kurds have cooperated with Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a socialist group that attacks government officials and installations in oppostion to the Islamic regime. By The Middle East and South Asia, 1988, Stryker-Post Publications , Ray L Cleveland (Author)

This is not about the 1991 Uprisings but about the MEK-Kurds relationship prior to the uprisings.

• "the MeK was alleged to have assisted the Iraqi Republican Guard in suppressing Shiite and Kurdish uprisings, although this has always been denied by the MeK".

This is the MEK’s version. It doesn’t need to be either “true” or “false” (just like the accusations against the MEK don’t need to be either “true” or “false”). We just report on what is in the sources (without cherry picking please!). - MA Javadi (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Sentence in the lede

This sentence in lede currently reads:

• "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

I think this version is more neutral:

• which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."

This is based on the following sources:

• “This has further weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.”

• "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war."

• "...its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq”

• "“During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process.”

For those wishing to keep the lede as is, can you provide the sources and respective quotes that supports the current wording? I'm trying to present a WP:NPOV version that represenent the majority of RSs (and not just the ones that are the harshest; which I think is what we currently have in the lede). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that description now in the lead is taken from the more severe sounding quotes and not the more neutral ones. Ronen Conen for example writes "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization"["The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy" by Ronen Cohen]. I think something more in the middle would be neutral reflection of all the sources, and not just the most critical ones. Idealigic (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulagria and Idealigic: Why do you think your suggestion is more neutral? Did you know that removal of a well-sourced POV is against WP:NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria How do you expect the RSs against a cultic militant group which committed lots of assassinations, to be less harsh? However here is an example of a more reliable source, if it would satisfy your non-harsh attitude:

• Prior to its exile, the MeK was the most popular dissident group in Iran. It lost much of its popularity due to its willingness to fight with Saddam—the instigator of the destructive Iran-Iraq War—and to kill Iranian conscripts

• MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.

Ghazaalch (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Besides, do you think the following long quotation should be in the lede? And all the given references support the exact quote?

The MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists".

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch and Mhhossein: so far there are 5 RSs in this section that support a more neutral wording. Ghazaalch only provided one (that also doesn't quite support what's currently in the lede). Do you have any other sources to support the version you want to keep in the lede? If not, I will go ahead and change to the proposed version here per WP:BOLD. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "more neutral wording"? Please let me know what your criteria is for determining how "neutral" the wording is. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria The word treason in the existing wording, is just a short form of the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.(copy-pasted from an online dictionary), which is supported by the above-mentioned sources. Your interpretation from the provided sources is too mild.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV; "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.", "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Stefka, WP:BALANCE requires us to "assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". In an earlier analysis I found that 9 sources used "traitor" or "treason" to describe MEK's perception and an additional 5 sources use strong adjectives like "disdain", "detested", "discredited", "strongly opposed", "magnified Iranian public opinion against".VR _talk 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@VR: can you please list here the 9 sources you say used "traitor" or "treason" and explain how they WP:BALANCE against the academic sources listed here and in the article using more neutral terminology? I see a Masters thesis among your sources, while we have a lot of academic sources proposing a more neutral wording:

• This has weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.
• there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war.
• its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
• During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process
• It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization
• Prior to its exile, the MeK was the most popular dissident group in Iran. It lost much of its popularity due to its willingness to fight with Saddam—the instigator of the destructive Iran-Iraq War—and to kill Iranian conscripts
• MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
• However, the envisaged military and popular support in Iran did not materialize.
• MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
• During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process
• its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
• With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq.Magdalena Kirchner (2017). "'A good investment?' State sponsorship of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi foreign policy (1979–1991)". In Christian Kaunert, Sarah Leonard, Lars Berger, Gaynor Johnson (ed.). Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781317499701.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran. Sandra Mackey "The Iranians", page 372
• The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.Jonathan R. White (2016), Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage, p. 239, ISBN 978-1-305-63377-3
• But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors. Guardian
• More important, most Iranians disdain the MEK because it sided with Saddam Hussein in the bloody eight-year war between Iraq and Iran Hamid Biglari in Foreign Affairs magazine
• "During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process." BBC News
• That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said. Al-Jazeera
• The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians. Reuters
• The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria As I pointed out here, there are three groups of sources regarding the disputed sentence in the lede. The first group say that Mek's popularity is weakened, but MeK could be popular to some extent. The second group say Mek is not popular(...group is not popular in Iran because...popular support in Iran did not materialize...). The third group say that Mek is hated (...Iranians disdain the MEK ...were strongly opposed by...). So as you could see, only the first group support your proposal. But you are trying to omit the other two groups from the lede, which I do not think is an smart way of proving yourself. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, "strongly opposed" is more in sync with what Stefka is proposing. These sources are not divided into "groups", they just use more neutral terminology. Barca (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Request for comment

Should we move the information in "Assassinations" so that it reads chronologically within the section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"? Barca (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• The discussion regarding this move is ongoing in Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Distorting article where the OP failed to answer the last question. RFCs should not be misused as Shortcuts for reaching goals. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - the problem is that currently we have a section with information about attacks between the MEK and the Islamic Republic but the section doesn't have any context about the attacks ("Assassinations"), and then we have another section with information about the context of the attacks, but the section does not mention the attacks ("Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)"). Having all the information in one section provides better context for the reader. Barca (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't see why not. Since I have been involved here, "chrono order" has been something that's been constantly applied in this article, and having two separate sections in different parts of the article about the same incidents (as it is now) doesn't make any sense. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I agree it doesn't make sense to have information about the same topic spread in different sections throughout the article. This forces the reader to piece together bits of information from different parts of the article to get a general idea of what happened. That's the wrong way to layout an article. All the information about a topic should go in a single section about that topic. Idealigic (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• No. It was obvious form the very beginning, that you don't like the "Assassination" title (as you didn't like the "Cult" one) so you started to empty the section from its content,(via your smart job [20][21]) so that you could omit the title. I reverted and warned you, but you, instead of building consensus(You did not answer the last two questions here), brought the case here. I am repeating my question again: You are saying the "Assassinations" section doesn't have any context about the attacks. Could you name the contexts related to assassinations, one by one? Then we can discuss which information are related together, and would decide on moving them to the section they belong. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Kurds and the MEK in the lead

Should we remove from the lead "and the 1991 nationwide uprisings." and explain in the body of the article what all POVS from reliable sources say about this disputed statement? - MA Javadi (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - The sources I compiled here shows the disputed statement does not represent what all sides of the argument say about this. Because what is in the lead at this time does not represent all the reliable sources, I propose putting this information in an appropriate section within the body where the different narratives can be explained better. We can start a post-RFC discussion after this one about what would best reflect all the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. A statement that doesn't mirror the available sources is a misleading statement. That is the case here, where even the MEK's POV has been omitted from it. Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It should be removed and be inserted in the body of the article where all the relevant sources are presented. Sea Ane (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• No. These "denies" you provided here are denied by sources which are more reliable than what you provided above. For example RAND report writes: MeK officials strenuously deny any involvement in the atrocities against the Shia and Kurds, alleging that they were attacked by combined Kurdish and Iranian forces and that the MeK did not even defend itself.22 However, the allegations of the group’s complicity with Saddam are corroborated by press reports that quote Maryam Rajavi encouraging MeK members to “take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,”23 as well as the timing of Saddam’s conferring the Rafedeen Medallion—a high honor in the Iraqi military—on Masoud Rajavi. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)