Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 40

New restriction proposal
I have been editing this page since ~3 years ago. Since then, I have been experiencing a continuous effort aimed at reshaping the history of the subject. I addressed multiple series of unilateral mass edits (For instance see "Shedding light on the 5th round of dubious edits"-It was followed by 6th round!). At last long, a very helpful restriction, i.e. Consensus required, was implemented after I complained about the edit war waves by the pro-MEK users (see "New wave of edit war"). It was a great improvement indeed, thanks to El C's suggestion.

I hope I can express the current concern clearly in the following sentences. Despite the aforementioned restrictions there's still something wrong with the procedures here. Looking at the edits by the Stefka Bulgaria, there are numerous occasions where they carried out large diffs so that even Icewhiz who used to hold closely similar POV as Stefka Bulgaria advised him to avoid a "very large diff, with an even larger talk page wall of text", a request which was accepted by Stefka Bulgaria at the time. However, the user has been trying recently to mass remove a lot of well-sourced content all of a sudden, mostly without going through the details of as to why: Most of these discussions will just waste a lot of energy and time mostly because the OP fails to explain his suggested removals. While, if there are limitations regarding the amount content to be discussed each time, users have to address the dispute in a more specific manner which certainly results in more suitable outcomes. This is what came to my mind after some years of being involved here and I hope it leads to betterment of the page. Your thoughts please. -- M h hossein   talk 19:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 32
 * Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 33
 * RfC about more allegations from former MEK members
 * RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article
 * special:diff/996965892
 * special:diff/997411214
 * , I don't understand your proposal in any concrete sense. I don't understand how you expect the notion of limitations regarding the amount content to be discussed each time is to be codified. Not saying the idea is necessarily a dead-end, but my immediate sense is that as far adopting such a moratorium, it does seem rather novel. El_C 19:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear enough. Actually, if something like this is implemented here, the users don't have to deal with a huge amount of changes at once. See this for instance. The OP says he is going to remove a lot of well sourced content because he thinks they are redundant (without even trying to say why and how!). Discussion over mass changes to the longstanding version should be avoided in this page since it has shown to be just energy/time wasting and also makes consensus building very difficult. We can determine a criteria for this based on the bytes to be added/removed/changed. - M h hossein   talk 07:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: you continue to make baseless accusations against me here. I recently opened two new talk page discussions, and we've just started discussing cleaning them up through a summary style approach (something suggested by here). I will explain why the specific sections require clean up, and any change made will be done through the usual consensus building process. Threatening to ban users for doing this (like you've done here) or trying to get admins to censor such talk page practices (which are common throughout Wikipedia particularly when cleaning up articles with major POV/editing problems) is... well, I'll let the admins here decide what that is. I have in fact cleaned up a lot of POV and unverified claims from the page through consensus (much of it which you were against removing, such trying to suggest that black people in a picture are a crowd rented by the MEK, which is completely WP:OR). So please stop casting aspersions against me. Any edit made here is explained and done through a consensus building process, and just because you don't agree with them does not give you grounds to make baseless accusations against me or to try and implement absurd restrictions to the talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My proposal is not going to prevent the summarization of the content, rather it functions to pave the way towards this goal. So you should not be concerned. However, the trend of your edits are clear enough so let's not go through them (so my words are not aspersions or accusations). Also I would like to ask you not label your mass removals as "a summary style approach". A suitable "summary style approach" should be accompanied by substantiations, preferably based on the reliable sources. However, you tend to organize poorly discussed mass removal discussions, which in turn would create a lot of unnecessary back and forth for the users. You are describing those RFCs accompanied by tag teaming as consensus building process. -- M h hossein   talk 13:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether 's new restriction proposal is practical —my sense is that it isn't, at least in its current form— does not mean that the impetus behind it isn't real and pressing. To me, it looks like it is. That there is a problem, which mostly revolves around 's overzealous trimming. El_C 18:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: Many thanks for the insights. I know there are vague points in this restriction, but I meant to point out a serious issue happening here. Do you have any suggestions so that we can let this impetus turn into a practical framework? -- M h hossein   talk 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Can I have your insights please? Thanks. --  M h hossein   talk 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a proposal about byte-count is going to be helpful here. I recognize where the impetus is coming from, but such a proposal is only going to make it easier for any and all proposals to be stuck in limbo forever. This is not to say smaller proposals are not better; they are; but legislating against large ones isn't going to be helpful, and is near-impossible to enforce. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: Thanks so much for your input. Do you have any suggestions avoiding the messy RFCs nearly always aimed at making overzealous trimmings? There's a trend in this talk page. You don't need to discuss the changes anymore. Start a RFC, bludgeon the discussion, increase the number of !votes and there's a 50% chance of winning! In this way, you even don't need to justify your proposed mass changes. Discussion is being undermined continuously in this talk page. I guess something like El C's suggestion of "a pre-RfC consultation" should be taken more seriously. I am just saying my thoughts and always need your insights. -- M h hossein   talk 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't really intend that as an outright requirement when I suggested that, though in the case of, maybe it should be...? El_C 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like Barca says, Stefka is a good editor and they have been a great contributor to this page. Opposing POV editors might disagree, but IMO he has been a needed presence in this page. Instead of singling out editors (I don't think any editor here has their hands clean, specially Mhhossein), it would be good to have a roadmap worked out so that we can all work better together instead of against each other. Alex-h (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To know him better see this bizarre SPI. -- M h hossein   talk 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you see this bizarre SPI? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Mhhossein. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What a funny comparison! I could guess you would raise this well evidenced SPI report up. My reports had an interesting feedback; It seems like a fact that pro-MEK socks are always here to support the agenda of MEK. I suggest you put the battleground language aside. -- M h hossein   talk 12:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your report was closed for negative findings and the check user told you "fish CheckUser is not for fishing". I have not idea how you construe that as "interesting feedback" or how that backs up your aspersions that there is sockpupettry in this page. Alex-h (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There had been a dozens of sock-puppets pushing pro-MEK POVs and they were discovered (which is not weird given MEK's Propaganda campaign). So, yes, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK (People's Mujahedin)". -- M h hossein   talk 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't count "dozens", and it's good that they're blocked, just like it's good that anti-MEK users and  (editors which you've sided with a lot by the way) were also blocked for suspected sockpupetry. If you have any other suspicions, post your concerns at WP:SPI. Alex-h (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Basic principles for working together here
I have gone through this page’s archives and here is a list of Vanamonde’s suggestions about working together and also about how we should be editing the article. I think that we can use this as “basic principles” we should all be following here. if you have any other suggestions, it would be great to have your input too (also you, ).

About general collaboration -


 * "Discussions here are meant to build consensus, not to devolve into continuous accusation. This means you've to make proposals, and counter-proposals, and try to find a middle ground; and if there isn't a middle ground that you believe to be policy-compliant, solicit outside opinion via an RfC. I suggest you begin by proposing ways to a) create a reasonably logical flow in the article, and b) reduce it to a reasonable size."


 * "Taking a collaborative approach here would mean proposing a modified version, rather than just saying "no"."

About RFCs -


 * "A very specific proposal with a very wide scope is less likely to gain consensus than a series of proposal addressing the various parts of the issues you bring up. There is nothing stopping you from continuing this RfC, but please bear this in mind."


 * "An RfC determines fresh consensus. As such, arguments about how long something has been in the article carry exactly zero weight."


 * "Repetition is an obvious reason to ignore the "longstanding" rule We need to represent sources accurately, but that does not mean every sentence for which a source is used needs to represent the totality of the source."


 * "you keep talking about the longstanding version even though El C and myself have both made it clear at various points that there need to be other reasons to keep content in the article"

About problems in the article we can focus on fixing -


 * "First, the article is way too long. 50kb of prose is a good target; 60-70kb is not a disaster; 106kb is indicative of a serious need for pruning and/or spinning off subsidiary articles. Second, it's an organizational nightmare. The ideology section, for instance, has so many overlapping sections ("current" overlaps with "after the revolution", and the three topic-specific sections overlap with each of the earlier ones). The "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception".


 * "I could go on; but the basis of the problem is that supporters and detractors alike have just stuffed this full of "X said Y about the MEK", which doesn't make for a coherent narrative at all. At the risk of sounding cynical, a lack of clarity in the prose doesn't help either POV, so the lot of you ought to be working on this issue."


 * "There are way too many quotes, and way too much he-said-she-said, for this to be helpful to the general reader."


 * "as I've repeated any number of times, this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here)."


 * "Redundancy in any article is a problem regardless of POV."


 * "I'm making a general observation that the article covers allegations and counter-allegations in far too much detail. Which ones are removed or kept is for talk page discussion to determine."


 * "Fringe points of view need to be excluded entirely. For instance, if the article is discussing supposed propaganda by the MEK; a title such as "propaganda campaign" should only be used if a preponderance of high-quality sources agree that such a campaign exists. The allegations still need to be described even if the sources supporting them are only a substantial minority; and in that case, "propaganda campaign" would no longer be appropriate as a title. I am not in a position to comment on which of these outcomes is appropriate; if you cannot come to an agreement, an RFC is indicated. If you need help framing a neutral RfC that would attract substantial community input, feel free to ping me again."

If we don't take admin's advice, then what is the point of asking for it? So I think if we all are in accord with these basic principles from Vanamonde (and hopefully also from El_C), this would help us work together and we wouldn't have to ping admins for every little thing in the future. Idealigic (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support following this list of advice. I cannot think of why we wouldn't use the advice provided by admins here. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Suppport ALL editors in this talk page seem to want more admin involvement. Here is a lexicon of ways to improve the page and the collaboration from one of the involved admins. It's an obvious support. Barca (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Ypatch (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * are you selectively quoting the admins? For example, you quote this comment from Vanamonde93, but fail to mention where he says In general, scholarly sources are better than media sources in neutral countries, which are better than media sources in countries involved in a geopolitical conflict. But in one of the RfCs Stefka proposed balancing scholarly views against media sources. And among the media sources, he used Arab News - which is controlled by a party to the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. I agree with applying admins' advice, but lets not be selective about it.VR talk 07:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I saw your post at RSN, which did not receive consensus for saying that Arab News was unreliable for the MEK article. About that RfC, it did not "proposed balancing scholarly views against media sources", it just provided an additional view from media sources (written by qualified authors) that wasn't covered in scholarly sources, and there's nothing wrong with that. So I agree that we can add this suggestion from Vanamonde to the list. Do you have any other suggestion from Vanamonde that you think should be in the list? Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact the fact that some desired comments by admin is being cherry-picked, an important consensus of avoiding super-trim RFCs is ignored. LOL! -- M h hossein   talk 12:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Stefka Bulgaria telling El_C that he wouldn't open RFCs with a wide scope anymore does not mean that there is a restriction or consensus on the article prohibiting such RFCs. As you already know, Vanamonde initially told Stefka Bulgaria that there was nothing stopping him from opening such RFCs, and as both admins have already informed you, putting such a restriction to this article is not enforceable. I think the best thing to do with this is to take RFCs on a case by case basis and opening preliminary pre-RFC discussions like El_C suggested. If you have any other suggestions let me know. Idealigic (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't twist the facts please by cherry picking the admin's comments. El_C is clearly against Stefka Bulgaria's super-trim RFCs. I am even going to say that, since this page is under WP:Consensus Required resctriction, ultra large RFCs should not be misused as a "shortcut" to reach your goals. So, be it Stefka Bulgaria or others, pure discussion (without "railroading") should be adopted as the only tool for building consensus in this TP. The very fact that you tried 1st) taking me to the ANI, 2nd) reporting me at the SPI, 3rd) attacking El_C and have now adopted another strategy–just after I tried to propose a new restriction– is very meaningful. I hope it would led to betterment of the page. After all, in your bullet points you said nothing regarding the problems behind these trimmings. Stability is the most important thing which is required here.


 * But if you need to know which is the best framework here, I tell You stability should be the most important criteria, as El_C said and I agreed with him. -- M h hossein   talk 13:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. We'll add "Stability" as another criteria (although this is a hazy term, but we could just ask El_C when we need a clearer explanation). If you have any other criteria you'd like to add let us know! Thanks! Idealigic (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good to see that editors are working it out together in this talk page thanks to advice from administrators. Hopefully there won't be so much disagreement in the next RFC. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to watchers
The quality of the interactions on this page has degraded once again. I want to remind everyone, particularly those of you in the section immediately above, that personal commentary here is not acceptable. Comments need to be strictly about content; commentary about users needs to go to the appropriate admin noticeboard, or user talk, or to be left out altogether. I will sanction further ad hominem commentary on this talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring again
Dear This looks like more edit warring in the article:

- At 09:26, 2 January 2021, added this text to the article.

- At 19:00, 2 January 2021, reverted this edit with the claim that the text is "not relevant to today's MEK or to the lead".

- At 08:38, 6 February 2021, Ghazaalch reinstated the edit to the article (without consensus).

Barca (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There was no objection to my last comment here so I thought it was kind of consensus. In any case I reverted my edit. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, please obtain consensus here before reinstating contentious content in the future; Barca, did you ask Ghazaalch about their reinstatement before bringing me in? And did you check that they knew about the page-level sanctions? Unnecessary escalation isn't a good way of signalling a collaborative intent. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I will. I did not know on what condition a consensus is obtained. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch: You need to build consensus before adding new things or removing longstanding contents. If you think this change should be reinstated, open a topic and try to substantiate your change build consensus. -- M h hossein   talk 12:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought the big banner at the top of this talk page was enough for them to know about this, but I have also let them know now in their talk page. Thank you. Barca (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the use of opening topics when people avoid talking/reaching consensus? I have already opened two topics here and here.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch: Then you should see if you have substantiated your proposed change. If you think this is the case, you can kindly ask Vanamonde93 to assess the consensus in that discussion. -- M h hossein   talk 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I will. Thank you. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Quesitonable Potentially Self-Published Sources
For example, " Alireza Jafarzadeh (2008). The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis. St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 205–6. ISBN 978-0230601284" is actually a self-publication of one of the PMOI's affiliates. This article is littered all throughout with giant blocs of non-NPOV text cited to self-published resources or resources that are unavailable for scrutiny when you try to confirm them. I think this article necessitates a template of questionable factual validity and a request for other editors to improve its integrity. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your baseless revert has removed tags from the paper which were fully explained before your prompt action. What did you mean by "tags need to be discussed"? You need to perform self revert.-- M h hossein   talk 12:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The (now banned) editor who added those tags was vague about how the whole of the article suffered from factual inaccuracies.


 * You then made a revert that looks like a violation of the article's restrictions:


 * - At 07:02 - 18 January 2021, an IP (216.15.119.215) added a tehrantimes.com source to the article (to say that France is an ally of this organization).


 * - At 17:02 - 22 January 2021‎, I reverted this edit with claim that Tehrantimes.com is not a good source for that.


 * - At 12:09 - 23 January 2021, Mhhossein reinstated the edit to the article (without first obtaining consensus for it on the talk page).


 * - You were informed of the article's restrictions in your talk page, and were previously warned to stop making inappropriate reverts to this article. You need to self revert ASAP. Barca (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Barca: I was not aware of this edit, which shows the removed content was not longstanding. I have no problem with a self-revert via a single click, but, sources like this are still supporting this fact. Right? -- M h hossein   talk 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your link is not working. and  did Mhhossein technically violate the restrictions to the article again? shouldn't he self-revert?  Barca (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, I'm not seeing consensus for that edit here, so yes, please revert yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted myself, but am going to restore this well sourced fact given the following reliable sources, , . It's a well established fact that MEK were based in France before relocation to Iraq so it needs to be mentioned in the infobox France had been once an ally of MEK.-- M h hossein   talk 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Barca: I told you I was ready to revert and your act of pinging an admin for such a simple thing is very disgusting. -- M h hossein   talk 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Barca: I am going to restore the content given my explanations and the reliable source supporting it. -- M h hossein   talk 06:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein:Can you at least say what exactly you want to add to the article? Barca (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Barca: You know it well since it's already discussed in details (why are you asking again?). France should be added to the infobox as the ally of MEK per sources like, , . -- M h hossein   talk 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Mhhossein, if I ask you, it's because it's not clear, so comments about pretending to know what I know are uncivil. You also need to read the sources with more care. Not one of the sources you provided says that France is an ally of the MEK. Having a base in France is not the same as being an ally of France. France–Iran relations are in good standing, so trying to WP:OR France as an ally of the MEK (who are the Islamic Republic's nemesis) can be seen as a serious misjudgement and misuse of Wikipedia. Barca (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Protests against the Ayatollah Khomeini government (20 June 1981).jpg

Summarize intelligence campaign
Would you like to help me summarize the section People's Mujahedin of Iran I would like to preserve all the facts in that section while reducing the number of words and removing redundancies.VR talk 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, would be glad to help; should I propose something? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's start small and work paragraph by paragraph. Here's a simple one. Summarize this:

Into:

VR talk 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if there is no objection I will assume there is consensus for this edit and go ahead and make it.VR talk 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * VR, if we're starting to remove certain author introductions such as "terrorism specialist", then we should also do that to the many other such author introductions in the article; do you agree? About your proposal, I think we could do better on the overall syntax/clarity. Let me draft a proposal. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We would have to evaluate author introductions on a case by case basis. Which other examples do you have in mind?VR talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * did you get a chance to draft a proposal? If not, I'll go ahead with mine and we can always improve it later.VR talk 01:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * VR, the same problem as before. If we remove author introductions, then we should do that to the entire article (and not just cherry picked authors). For example, "the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh "; is that intro really necessary in an article about the MEK? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is not necessary. I have removed the intro for Hersh and implemented the change I proposed.VR talk 19:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Baseless revert
you made this revert. But scholarly sources say the MEK has an Islamist ideology:
 * "[MEK] is a militant Islamic-Marxist organization that seeks to overthrow the Shi'ite Muslim government in Iran."

"the MEK with its...Marxist-Islamist ideology inspired by Shariati...the MEK's Islamist dimension made it difficult for Khomeini and the IRP to label the organization as the enemy of Islam. "

"The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that was formed to opposed Western influence in the shah's regime."

"...the Marxist Islamist group the People's Mujahedin of Iran..." Ghazaalch (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with . Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with . MEK ideology is too complicated to be reduced to "Islamist ideology". Barca (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

what exactly are your objections to 's sources?VR talk 01:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is not a matter of voting right or wrong. We should refer to neutral sources for the right answer.Ghazaalch (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

would you explain why you made this revert? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch: The MEK is not a "militant Islamist" group. They gave their weapons up in 2003, and have since been under U.S. protection. That's why I reverted your edit. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

RAND report

 * User:Ypatch you made this revert. Are you saying there is a limitation for using a book? This book dedicated one chapter namely "Cultic Characteristics of the MeK" to this subject. Don't you think we could use one or two page of it for this article? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ghazaalch You are adding a lot of redundant things to the article. Please read the discussions above. The sections need to be shortened, not expanded with more redundancy. Please propose here first before adding more of such content to the article. Idealigic (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If other parts of this article are expanded more than it needed, it does not mean that we should leave this section incomplete. As I think all cultic aspects of MEK is not covered in the section "Designation as a cult". So my proposal here is to add the following subsections, which are in accordance to the sections in the RAND report.

Denial of Cultic Tendencies
Current version of the section is mostly about Recruitment which should go under Deceptive Recruitment. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * we are trying to reduce the size of this article as it is currently too big. If you think this information is reliably sourced then it might be better to create a separate article for this topic, like Human rights in the MEK or add sections to Camp Ashraf like "Human rights" etc. Some of it can also be added to the articles on Maryam Rajavi (and someone actually proposed that).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:V fail?
"Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded."

This is in the article, but can't see it to be verified by the source. If a source can't be provided, it should be removed per WP:V violation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I found the following in the page3:
 * In 1986, the MeK leadership accepted an invitation from Saddam to relocate to Iraq to join forces with Saddam’s military and fight against the IRI. Saddam provided the MeK with protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use (but not ownership) of land. With these resources, the MeK established several compounds in Iraq and encouraged its members and supporters in Iran and elsewhere to relocate there. Approximately 7,000 members, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the exiled MeK population, went to these camps. Rajavi made them soldiers in his new National Liberation Army (NLA).

Ghazaalch (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Can someone find a verification for this? I cannot, and will remove it if a source isn't found for this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RAND report-P.88. But the text is already citing the RAND report, I wonder how you could not find it. -- M h hossein   talk 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RAND report-P.88. But the text is already citing the RAND report, I wonder how you could not find it. -- M h hossein   talk 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Modifying others' comments
I created a subsection in the RfC above to provide sources (it is customary in RfCs to have several sections and this is something that has been done by both Stefka and myself in this RfC). But on three occasions people have tried to move my comment out of the RfC (and into another section) claiming it wasn't relevant (Bahar and MA Javadi). Well I certainly think my comment is relevant to the RfC and so it should belong. can provide guidance.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Users should not be editing others' talk page comments without a very good reason, and I'm not seeing such a reason here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mhhossein: you have made many edits with inaccurate edit summaries: , so cool it down. Idealigic (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC about the lead
How should the text in the lead be changed? Idealigic (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

All parties involved in this talk page agree that this text in the lead needs to be changed:

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,[54][55] Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.

The proposals for modifying this have been:

Idealigic (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 4. The MEK-Iraq relations before 1986 were about Rajavi signing a peace treaty with Iraq, so that’s what should be in the lead. Also the lead needs to be shortened (this is also what all parties involved have said in this talk page) so this version helps with that. Also the level of popularity of the MEK in Iran is impossible to determine. As said in this talk page, Islamic Republic in fact finances publications to say the MEK is unpopular, so we're playing into a misinformation game if we add this to the lead of the article. Also there are minimal sources about the MEK being involved in the 1991 Uprisings, so this is WP:UNDUE for the lead. Most of the sources for this were provided by sockpuppet user:Kazemita1, and the ones in the lead right now do not confirm the MEK was involved in the Uprisings. Idealigic (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * we had an RfC on this just 2 months ago and you are repeating its fallacies.
 * The following claim you made makes no sense: As said in this talk page, Islamic Republic in fact finances publications to say the MEK is unpopular, so we're playing into a misinformation game. There are dozens of reliable sources (including very scholarly ones) that say the MEK became unpopular, see: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 39. In fact, administrator responded to a similar argument saying MEK's alliance with Hussein's Iraqi regime causing a precipitous decline in support and being viewed as treason by many/most Iranians...is also such a central part of the organisation's history that it needs to be in the lead.
 * Does Idealigic have any evidence that Oxford University Press, Routledge, Reuters, The Globe and Mail, BBC News, The Guardian etc are all "financed" by the Iranian government? Because each of those have published works calling the MEK utterly unpopular among the Iranian people (again see this list).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 02:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides the points raised by Vice Regent, I would like to add that the discussion is ongoing and there's already a consensus for the VR's version (given the fact there's a 3rd opinion by an uninvolved admin). So, this RFC is another attempt at railroading the other side. -- M h hossein   talk 19:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 4 because it's the most WP:DUE and neutral option. Idealigic is correct in saying that the most significant thing that happened between the MEK and Iraq before 1986 was about the signing of a peace agreement.



The last Routledge source explains how the Iranian regime continued to damage the MEK's public image by exploiting Rajavi's meeting with Aziz as "betrayal". Then there are also these sources about the Iranian regime trying to demonize the MEK and portray it as unpopular:





Bearing in mind all of this demonization and manipulation by the Iranian regime to portray the MEK as unpopular, we should aim to keep the lead as neutral as possible. Option 4 is the most neutral and WP:DUE of the options. Alex-h (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 1: Number one is the most factually correct and salient, and it plainly indicates the chief relevant facts without bias, that the MEK made an agreement with Saddam Hussein to side with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Technically this is in the context of a Peace Treaty but the agreement was factually more than this, it was an exchange of support for one side of the conflict for financial support. Reducing this to a Peace Treaty is simply euphemistic and a bit tendentious. Second, it's well established in the literature, objective foreign policy analysis and journalistic accounts as well as academic histories and geopolitical surveys, that this move eroded the MEK's popularity in Iran and was seen as treason by a significant portion of Iran's population. That isn't just a matter of the Iranian regime engaging in demonization and manipulation, it's actually widely published in sober objective historical and geopolitical analysis. Numbers 2 and 3 don't give the historical context for what occurred in 1986, which is the 1983 agreement to side with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Number 1 is factually correct and gives a better context. Leads 2, 3 and 4 actually display a subtle bias by exclusion and hence aren't really NPOV.  KJS ml343x (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)