Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 18

The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war
As you picked up material as to the assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war, Can you explain based on which sides you do that?Saff V. (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of the same repeated Saddam Hussein text throughout the article:
























 * Lots of repetitive text here. Will clean up accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The time is vital key so they are not duplicated. None of the above sentences include assistance in 1986.Saff V. (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They can hardly be considered as duplicates. Some are talking about MEK's helping Saddam in suppressing the uprisings in Iraq, some others about MEK's assisting Saddam to fight against Iran, some speak about creation of NLA while some others include opinions of some figures on the MEK's siding with Iraq. Though, all others which say nothing than MEK's siding with Saddam can be considered as duplicate. -- M h hossein   talk 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These all repeat Saddam Hussain's alliance with the MEK. We certainly don't need to mention 11 times that Saddam Hussain allied with the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I already explained why one could not say they're all duplicates. -- M h hossein   talk 11:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I chek 11 items provided by Stefka. Except for the first and last item, rest of them are not duplicated, some of them is the reaction of people or organization. In my edit, I stress on the equipping of MEK BY Saddam (with protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use (but not ownership) of land) on 1986.But about 11 provided items: Saff V. (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) it is true that the first and last options are the same.
 * 2) MEK assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.
 * 3) MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
 * 4) A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people because of supporting Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War.
 * 5) The reaction of Pahlavi about Mek for supporting Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War
 * 6) In 1983, the MEK's support of  Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, described as treason by the vast majority of Iranians.
 * 7) Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and went into action.
 * 8) In number nine the alliance between MEK and Saddam is confirmed by Iran.
 * 9) Number 10 pointed to the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem for the alliance between MEK and Saddam.

These are all repeated statements:

















They can be combined into this:

"In 1983, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War. A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War."

Or is there anything that's been left out? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fisrt of all, "A wide range of sources state" is an example of Weasel words. Then the quote of Pahlavi and Djavad Khadem or equipping of 7,000 members of the MEK are left. Also in your text, it is Pretended that the collaboration between MEK and Sadam just refer to 1983, but in fact, it is not true.Saff V. (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you rephrase it then? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I do this? there is no need to rephrase!Saff V. (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I've objected that these statements come across as repeated information:

















That can be combined into this:

"In 1983, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War. A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War."

Saff V. doesn't agree that these are repeated statements, and that they should be combined into something less repetitive. What do you think? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Stefka Bulgaria's version looks like it can become a decent compromise. Saff V and Mhhossein, what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it? Not to sound like a broken record, but maybe consider explanatory notes to, at least partially, serve this purpose...? El_C 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the first point, In the provided text by Stefka, it is pretended the collaboration between MEK and Saddam was beginning from 1983. Is it true? Is not any collaboration BEFORE that? Secondly, the reaction of Pahlavi or Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem needs to keep. It is important people with different views how describe this collaboration. As well as equipping 7,000 members of the MEK by shows the level of this support and citing the exact number makes clear how the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein. It is not detailed INFO! Please pay attention to this sentence "MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising". Is it really duplicated?Saff V. (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Saff V., as El_C suggests (and as I mentioned earlier), what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it?? There is certainly no need to have this repeated 8 times in the article when it can be phrased in one paragraph that includes all necessary information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you make me repeat my opinion again and again. I read the opinion of you and El_C then I presented my idea. Your paraphrasing doesn't contain some vital point. WHICH POINT, please read my previous comment.Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a paragraph (as I did above) that doesn't include repeated text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but my time is limited. here I mentioned vital points you can use it in paraphrasing.Saff V. (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you need to make the time (a week more than suffices), or you risk forfeiting your position. El_C 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I really apologize, but as wp:BURDEN demands, it is the responsibility of Stefka to provide the text. As I have done already and presented my notes, I will help to get conclusion ASAP. Finally, I will do what you know is right. Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I already provided a proposed text, which you objected. Then I asked you to provide a proposed text, and you said that you have not time. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with current material about MEK collaboration with Sadam and If you ask me I don't agree they are duplicated, but you agree and tried to pick them up as a repetitive texts. So why I must to provide a text while I don't see duplicated material.Saff V. (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have presented an objection, which you are failing to address. In the lede section alone, the word "Saddam" is mentioned 4 times in a single paragraph:




 * That seems unnecessary. I propose that we resume that into the following:




 * Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is good but there is a problem needs to other user's opinion. You removed that MEK fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army (after expelling from Paris) and replaced it with Operation Mersad. In another hand, we have in the first sentence that Saddam and MEK collaboration belongs to 1983. So isn't it pretend that Saddam sided MEK only in 1983? My suggestion is that:
 * Saff V. (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the wording on the MEK's suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam should not have been touched. I'm against changing it; it must be clear that the uprising was against Saddam, showing what dog did MEK have in the fight. -- M h hossein   talk 13:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I proposed a text, then Saff V. proposed corrections, and just like that we reached a majority consensus over this. You don't have to agree with the majority consensus, but it's a consensus nonetheless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: I was busy with some off wiki issues and am partially against this change which removes some longstanding texts. I already elaborated on. -- M h hossein   talk 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't start edit warring now, everyone! But Mhhossein, I'm not seeing much basis to your objection, which you ought to write out, anyway, not link to. El_C 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Definetly there were not any consensus  with me and Stefka. Yes! he proposed a text, then I proposed corrections and I said that there is a problem needs to other user's opinion.Without waiting for others, he edit the article! Until the consensus will be achived, I revert it to longstanding version. In addition why was the NYT source removed?!Saff V. (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But Stefka Bulgaria was pretending as if the every thing was settled down! Anyway, I explained why the proposed text needs more edits. Actually:
 * that MEK "fought against Iran" should not be removed, since the wording is supported by the reliable sources. Also, we have previously discussed this matter (it should be somewhere in the archive).
 * 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam should stay with the wikilink (why was the wikilink removed?)
 * -- M h hossein   talk 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you checked how many times it's already wikilinked in the article? Anyway, it seems to me that Saff V. (who was so very close to being blocked for edit warring — brazenly ignoring my warning here from a day before!) agreed to a compromise, now they go back on it? Then Mhhossein arrives with objections that involve some minor adjustments, but rather than try to integrate these, reverts the entire thing? No, this is not reflected well on either of you, Saff V. and Mhhossein. Rather than collaborate, you are effectively obstructing. I expect more constructive efforts at reaching a compromise. One which tones down all the repetition and which condenses the major points under contention in a concise and cogent manner. Please do better. El_C 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: I just reverted since there were no consensus and note that I did not make further edits. I did not know it would be counted as edit war or things like this! As for Saff V., he had asked for opinion by other users, which means things were not settled down. 1991 uprisings in Iraq is linked once in the lead, one in the infobox, twice in the body. I think we may reduce the mentions in the body, since lead would probably the first place the readers will encounter the title. I have more objections; MEK launched three major military operations against, not one, with the most known one being Mersad Operation. Why should not not they be mentioned in the lead. -- M h hossein   talk 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein, as I have already said, I have presented an objection (which you are repeatedly failing to address). In the lede section alone, the word "Saddam" is mentioned 4 times in a single paragraph:




 * That seems unnecessary. I propose that we resume that into the following:




 * If you don't think that is a fair compromise, then propose your own text addressing these concerns. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I'm delayed. I'll come with my proposal.

It's been over week since there was a response about this. Can I go ahead an insert Saff V.'s last proposed text?:

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. A week is more than enough time to wait for talk page editorial input. El_C 06:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C: I was on a trip and I could not comment here. '1991 nationwide uprisings' needs to get linked to its article. 1991 uprisings in Iraq is linked once in the infobox and twice in the body. I think we may reduce the mentions in the body and instead have a link in the lead, since lead would probably the first place the readers will encounter the term. Also, can anyone tell me why just one of the MEK's operations against Iran is mentioned here (MEK launched three major offensives against Iran, e.g see Operation Forty Stars? - M h hossein   talk 02:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just linked it. Will look into this about the operations and get back to you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: I've just added Operation Forty stars in the lede as requested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * operations Aftab (Sunshine) is missing. Saff V. (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Having another look at this, I'm starting to see that the MEK's involvement in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq seems to derive from unconfirmed allegations, which the MEK denies. Can someone provide a RS that confirms the MEK took part in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq? Also, the MEK's collaboration with Saddam is still repeated in the article more than required:


 * "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
 * "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
 * "it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
 * "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
 * "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
 * "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
 * "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
 * "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"
 * "...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"

Can someone justify why each of these needs inclusion? (alternatively, we should remove some). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We need a couple of RSs that confirm the MEK was involved in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq. Without this, this allegation should be removed from the lede and corrected in the body. Someone also needs to justify why the collaboration with Saddam Hussain needs to be repeated so many times in the article as shown above. Lack of reply implies consent for me to go ahead and fix this in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide RS(es) for your claim, "which the MEK denies" to collaborate in the 1991 uprisings?Saff V. (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the sources mentioned in the lead (time, parliamentary library and Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin), the following sources confirm the cooperation of the Mojahedin with Saddam in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq:
 * he organosation had committed itself to armed struggle against the Iranian regime and had allowed itself to be used by Saddam in repressing the 1991 uprising and as a tool to pressurize Iran. In exchange, Saddam allowed the MEK the use of a military base in Diyala … source
 * The Iraq government accuses the MEK of supporting Saddam’s regime against the people of Iraq during the March 1991 uprising source
 * Iraqis for example have little interest for good or ill in the fate of the MEK the aging Iranian militant group and quasicult that split from the Iranian regime shortly after the Islamic revolution and spent the 1980s and 90s inside Iraq as favored clients of Saddam, who used them as fighters in the Iran-Iraq war and in the crushing of the 1991 uprising. source Saff V. (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You had more completely listed all the duplicates in this edit that did not result in any consequences. I have to say again that not all of them is duplicated, some referring to the collaborate of Saddam and MEK at different times (1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime, human rights abuses in the early 1990s, In 1983, Near the end of the 1980–88 war) and some belongs to the reaction of the people for this cooperation (the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem or reaction of Pahlavi).Saff V. (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lets do one at a time. How are these different from each other? (please address one by one, explaining why each is different from the next):


 * "the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."
 * "MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."
 * "siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"
 * "so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"
 * "they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"
 * "...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"
 * "assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is better to provide a complete sentence instead of picking up a part of it as well as discuss one by one:

Saff V. (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I also think those portions should not be used out of context. For example, the fort sentence is on NLA's activities and the second one is on MEK's involvement in crushing the uprising in Iraq. It's not clear why, for instance, why "assisted the Republican Guard" should be removed. -- M h hossein   talk 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka: You asked for a reliable source that confirms MEK collaborated with Saddam against the 1991 uprisings. I think you already know, but to refresh your memory, here it goes: "In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991" I find it hypocritical that you first object to including the above quote in the article on the basis of having already existing similar statements. And later you say the quote is not supported by the very same sentences.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Saff V. put the statement in context, but that still doesn't address the fact that the particular parts that I've outlined are unnecessarily repeated. Addressing each point raised, please explain how the parts specific to "Saddam Hussain" are not repeated in the text I've pointed out above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to pick up some sentecse from article because they contain "Saddam Hussain" word?Really? I told you multitime (1 and 2) that not all of them is duplicated, some referring to the collaborate of Saddam and MEK at different times (1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime, human rights abuses in the early 1990s, In 1983, Near the end of the 1980–88 war) and some belongs to the reaction of the people for this support (the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem or reaction of Pahlavi).Saff V. (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you finally got it, the word "Saddam Hussain" is repeated unnecessarily throughout the article, and I'm not referring to the times where it's used to describe a specific event, but when it's used to describe the same event (ie. the Iran-Iraq war). This is why I provided a list above, and asked you to address why each individual line was different from the next. You still haven't addressed that though. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no same event,
 * The first sentence belongs to the foundation of NLA (at the end of Iraq and Iran) with siding of Saddam.
 * Second is the reaction of the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia to support of Saddam in the 1991 nationwide uprisings
 * The third is the reaction of Pahlavi to the collaboration of Saddam and MEK in Iraq and Iran war.
 * At the Forth, participate of MEK in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings is mentioned as well as it belongs to lead (the section is the summary of whole article)
 * The fifth and sixth sentences are a little similar but you have to pay attention that one of them belongs to the lead which is the summary of all material of the article, as a result, they are not repeated.Saff V. (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I second that. Besides, here are a few more sources that confirm MEK's assistance to Saddam in supressing the 1991 uprisings:


 * "1991: The MEK participates in suppressing the Shi'ite and Kurdish uprising", The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women, Volume 2: Extremist Groups, By Cengage Gale


 * "Saddam supported the MEK for twenty years, and they repaid his loyalty in 1991 by helping suppress the Kurdish uprising.", The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End By Peter W. Galbraith


 * "In 1991, the group reportedly assisted in the Iraqi Republican Guard's bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein", Terrorism Documents of International and Local Control: Volumes 90 and 91, Page 340, Howard S. Levie, Donald J. Musch, Douglas C. Lovelace, Yonah Alexander


 * "The Kurds and Shiite Arabs have long reviled the MEK because Saddam Hussein used it to help put down their uprising", Historical Dictionary of the Kurds - Page 217, Michael M. Gunter

--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's do two at a time:






 * Please explain in some detail how these two statements are not repeated statements. Failure to address the specific concern will lead to the removal of one of these statements. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You sound irrelevant. I am saying MEK helped Saddam suppress Kurds (as well as Shias and Turkmen). A fact that was not stated in the article so far.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria why dont pay attention you to responses and then warn if there was any sufficient answer, you will remove! you have to wait for a consequence and paying attention to answers!As I said 4 dayes ago, they are not repeated, the first (In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein...) belongs to the lead which is the summary of all material of the article, and the secound belonges to rhe body. All of material included in the lead repeats in the body, Are you ging to remove all material from lead because they are mentioned in to body?!
 * I wonder if you devote another disscusion to death of Kurdish or others in another secteion. It might help us to follow disscusions sufficiently.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so we've established the MEK's collaboration with Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war in the lede and in the body. Can you then justify why it's repeated here again:







Please don't say that this is to "illustrate the author's POV". We've established the MEK collaborated with Saddam already during the Iraq-Iran war, we don't need a statement from every author to confirm this over and over again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained you multi time, the foundation of NLA (at the end of Iraq and Iran) with siding of Saddam or reaction of Pahlavi for Saddam and MEK collaboration or attack of MEK to civilians during Iran Iraq war are not duplicated, each of them emphasises on the specific issue.  It really bothers me to repat same answers for Stefka again and again because he repeats your question without paying attention to user's answer!(1, 2, 3).Saff V. (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., I understand your point that each mention of the MEK's collaboration with Saddam Hussain reflects a particular event. However, that doesn't resolve the issue that all these points can be resumed without repeating the same information so many times. Let's take the lede for example"



That can be resumed into the following:



If you have a particular objection with this, please present it in a clear and concise manner so we may discuss it properly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You just removed the Saddam name, didn't it?all these points can be resumed without repeating the same information so many times, because there is no information. Do you want to summarize the single sentences which of them belongs to unique sections.Saff V. (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying. Please present a clear and concise objection (if you have one). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You just remove the name of Saddam, dosnot is?I cannot understand why it is important to remove the name of Saddam?!Saff V. (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just odd to me seeing the guy in favor of keeping the chrono order of the events is now violating his own rule for the sake of having the desired version. The current text is quite good. -- M h hossein   talk 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Saff V.: It's important to remove because it's repeated unnecessarily. @Mhhossein: I don't see you presenting a substantiated objection to this edit. sorry to keep pinging you, but Mhhossein and Saff V. just won't comprise one bit. I don't see a substantiated objection on their last responses; do you? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do. The argument is to retain the chronological order. El_C 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, if chronological order is the issue, then this would solve it:


 * Any (clear and concise) objections with this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said befor you did not pay attention to my word! The first sentence STARTED with Saddam and MEK collaboration on 1983 but you brought at the end of sentence some operations occurred on 1988! So retaining the chronological order has been denied! Stefka started this discussion to pick up duplicated material, but I explained to him that there is no duplicated material which of them refer to specific operation or year or some of them are reaction of individuals to describe this collaboration between Saddam and MEK, I repeated it multi-times (1, 2, 3 since 22 July! Please leave a comment to stop this loop! In addition, does not Stefka's attempt to just remove the name of Saddam interpreted as tendentious?Thanks any way!Saff V. (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Saff V., it's difficult to understand you. What exactly is my proposed text missing? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka consider this sentence: "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War including Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. you wrote in 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein, while Operation Mersad and Operation Forty Stars took place on 1988!is it clear!?your summarization is not true.Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Stefka consider this sentence: "In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War including Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings. you wrote in 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein, while Operation Mersad and Operation Forty Stars took place on 1988!is it clear!?your summarization is not true.Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V., didn't the Iran–Iraq War continue up until 1988? My summary aims to include all the events the MEK was involved with (chronologically) in regards to its cooperation with Saddam Hussain. I've redrafted it, I don't think it can be clearer:

Is that better? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Pardon, have you seen the notification of pinging?Saff V. (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've seen it, but I was (briefly) on strike! Again, Stefka Bulgaria, the arguments made against your redrafting is that the original is doing it better, both in providing more detail and in outlining events in a more orderly chronological flow (you go from 1983 to 1991, then back to 1986). Myself, I do find it a bit jumbled, sorry. El_C 15:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit by Ypatch
would you provide the text from Time which support added sentence (These are charges that the MEK has denied). I didn't find any related material to verify in the source!Saff V. (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "At the same time, it's a win-win for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who gets to burnish his tough-guy credentials ahead of national elections early next year as well as please his allies, the ayatullahs. There's little love in Iraq for the MEK, which was welcomed by Saddam Hussein in the mid-'80s, when he was at war with Iran, and supplied with a training camp and armaments. The group is accused of repaying its benefactor by helping quash Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions — charges the MEK has denied." Ypatch (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamian 1982
Does anybody know which book is referred to in the article by that name?--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be this one as well as this tool can be useful.Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saff V. I went ahead and checked. It appears some of the material that is attributed to the 1982 book written by Abrahamian is actually from the 1989 book, i.e. Radical Islam. For example the following piece is indeed in the pages 233-234 of the 1989 book:

"In 1982, historian Ervand Abrahamian wrote that 'the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadership. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions'" I will go ahead and fix the wrong attribution.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Ok. I found another piece that is from 1989 book and is wrongly attributed to the 1982 one: "Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the 'ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist." I will go ahead and fix the wrong attribution.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Material
You picked up According to Arron Merat, Iraqi human rights tribunal has accused MEK leaders for their role in participating the uprisings. from the article, because it is repeated and we already have "In July 2010, the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal issued an arrest warrant for 39 MEK members, including Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, for crimes against humanity committed while suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[187] ") in article. But how are you sure that "the accusation of Iraqi human rights tribunal" which was mentioned in the removed sentence belongs to July 2010?

Guardian Wrote that In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north. According to the New York Times, Maryam Rajavi told her fighters: “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian revolutionary guards.” The MEK vehemently denies it participated in Saddam’s campaigns to put down the Shia and Kurdish rebellions, but an Iraqi human rights tribunal has indicted MEK leaders for their role in suppressing the uprisings.Saff V. (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to an Iraqi tribunal accusing the MEK of participating in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, then yes, it looks like both quotes are referring to the same event. If you can show how Arron Merat's quote refers to a different event, then by all means provide the relevant source/text that shows this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)