Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 46

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




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


 * 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. -- M h hossein   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)


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

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

If there is another fair/neutral phrasing option, then I'd be open to it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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. -- M h hossein   talk 04:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How's my suggestion "factually wrong"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. -- M h hossein   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:



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 . 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:

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:
 * 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:
 * 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, 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)
 * 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".
 * "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. -- M h hossein   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."

Idealigic (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Near the end o the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Baghdad armed MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces"
 * 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.   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. --  M h hossein   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)
 * Considering the sources I provided, there's not strong reason why the longstanding version should be altered. -- M h hossein   talk 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

June 7 break

 * I'm going to go ahead and partially re-instate my edits that you reverted. Regarding those edits, Vanamonde said VR's edits are very obviously helpful without changing content; SB, I'm really not seeing a substantive objection. That comment and all succeeding comments have only objected to the interchanging "Iraq" with "Saddam" in the context of the Iran-Iraq war. I have not seen any objections since to my grammatical fixes. If you disagree with my edit please explain why.VR talk 23:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * VR, by restoring content without having gained consensus after it has been reverted, you are breaking the article's "consensus required restrictions". You can't do that. About the edit, don't you see all the sources I gave about the MEK siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? Why would you think it's ok to restore your edit? You are also making the lead longer, when it should be shortened. Why is the expansion is necessary. Idealigic (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Idealigic, did you even read my edit before reverting? My edit had nothing to do with "MEK siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war". I didn't change that. Secondly, my edit reduced the size of the lead by 153 characters, so your claim You are also making the lead longer is false. Thirdly my edit fixed some grammatical and linking issues. had explicitly said my edit "very obviously helpful". Idealigic, you also removed the link to Tariq Aziz and re-introduced other grammatical issues that I've explained in detail above. Why can't we link Tariq Aziz in the lead? Why should we only refer to him as "Aziz", that's ambiguous. It is very obvious to me you didn't read my edit before reverting. I'm really, really frustrated by you blindly reverting.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * VR, I have no issues with fixing the grammatical errors and linking (that's not what my edit was about, and I'll fix them shortly). Your edit added text like "The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran" (where does it say that in the sources?). Also why did you remove "the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris"? Idealigic (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * False. I never removed it, but instead wrote it more concisely.
 * There are several sources for "The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran" given below.
 * Operation Forty Stars: "On June 18, it [Iraq] launched a new offensive it called "Forty Stars"...A combination of Iraqi forces and Mujahideen e-Kalq forces, which had been trained and supported in Iraq, attacked the Iranian positions in the area.", you can see it on page 38 of this pdf
 * Operation Sunshine:"With the Iranian armed forces spread out from Fao to Kurdestan, Iraq at last went on the offensive to recapture its territory. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi artillery...Ten days later, the Mojahedin “National Liberation Army,” which had been established with Saddam’s help at a camp north of Baghdad and provided with miscellaneous munitions, overran the Fakkeh sector in a twelve-hour attack called “Operation Sunshine,” taking four hundred prisoners."
 * Operation Eternal Light: "To increase the pressure on Tehran, Saddam played his final card: Operation Eternal Light.On July 26 he [Saddam] launched Massoud Rajavi’s People’s Mujahidin along the recently reopened road to Kermanshah. " (page 466 of ) VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Operation Sunshine:"With the Iranian armed forces spread out from Fao to Kurdestan, Iraq at last went on the offensive to recapture its territory. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi artillery...Ten days later, the Mojahedin “National Liberation Army,” which had been established with Saddam’s help at a camp north of Baghdad and provided with miscellaneous munitions, overran the Fakkeh sector in a twelve-hour attack called “Operation Sunshine,” taking four hundred prisoners."
 * Operation Eternal Light: "To increase the pressure on Tehran, Saddam played his final card: Operation Eternal Light.On July 26 he [Saddam] launched Massoud Rajavi’s People’s Mujahidin along the recently reopened road to Kermanshah. " (page 466 of ) VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First point. It was the IRI that requested France to expel the MEK. Before the IRI, it was the Shah's government that governed Iran, and that was not the government that requested France to expel the MEK. That distinction is important.


 * Second point. I think the sources establish that the MEK received support from Iraq, but that Iraq took part in these particular battles is disputed:

Why don't we add this to the article? Do the majority of sources say the NLA were involved in these operations, or that Iraq took part directly as well?

Etc. Idealigic (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The MEK expulsion (1986) has nothing to do with the Shah (who left in 1979). Since 1979, IRI has been considered synonymous with "Iran". Post-1979 titles continue to use "Iran": Iran-Iraq war, Iran–Contra affair, Iran nuclear deal, Iran hostage crisis, 1985 Iranian presidential election.
 * Secondly, none of your sources deny Iraqi participation in their own voice. At most they report denials by Saddam and PMOI. Yet I provided scholarly sources that say, in their own voice, that Iraq took part. You can't compare a book published by Harvard University Press to the official statements of Baathist Iraq (a genocidal regime known for lying). If you disagree, we can take this to WP:RSN.
 * Finally you still haven't explained all aspects of your revert (I justified my edit in detail earlier on this talk page).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I said: The MEK expulsion (1986) has nothing to do with Shah (1979). This is why the IRI distinction is necessary. The recent protests in Iran against the IRI alone make a distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just the same way, the MEK are an Iranian political group. This article has a lot about the power struggle between the IRI and the MEK. It was the IRI that banned the MEK from elections in Iran. It was the IRI that requested France to expel the MEK. It was the IRI that has been making attacks on the MEK in Europe in recent years. The MEK in fact received a lot of the Iranian people’s support before the IRI banned it in Iran.

Secondly, in this and other talk page discussions you keep saying that the sources need to “endorse” whatever it is that they are reporting. I don’t know where you got that from, but please explain what policy indicates that the source needs to “endorse” what they are reporting on in order for the RS to be valid. Unless I have it backwards, we report on what the sources write, not what the sources “endorse” or “don’t endorse”. Even then, I see most sources here saying it was the MEK/NLA that made these attacks, not that Saddam ordered the attacks through the NLA/MEK.

Finally, I don’t know what aspects of the revert need further explaining, but you need to make specific questions if you want me to give specific answers.

You also haven’t answered why we cannot add the sources I provided to the article, which are more WP:DUE than the claims you added of Saddam ordering the MEK/NLA to attack Iran at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Idealigic (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of consensus at RSN that the sources for Iraqi involvement are reliable enough to make this a fact that can be stated in wikivoice, do you have any further objections? Do you also have any objections to any other part of my edit besides the IRI vs Iran naming? If not, I can go ahead and restore my edit except for the IRI part.VR talk 04:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the edit as before but, in compromise with Idealigic, referred to Iran as "Islamic Republic of Iran". I would hope that we can consider this to be a compromise version and finally end this really long discussion.VR talk 03:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Vice regent, that is another WP:CRP violation that you have done here. You seem to have lost all regards for this restriction in this article. There are other problems with your edits too, like only adding the POV you want and excluding other POVs. Also Iran is the MEK's homeland. Also the link to the battles, why did you remove that? I am reverting your violation. Idealigic (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have literally run out of all objections against my edit: your only substantial objection is the removal of links, which is a minor issue.
 * If you are going to use CRP to stonewall, then we will have no choice but to go back to the longstanding version, which will render this entire discussion futile. Do you really want that to happen?VR talk 02:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , (I'd ping Vanamonde but I feel he doesn't want to be pinged): I feel I have tried my best to salvage this discussion, make compromises. I've sought external opinion and found consensus at RSN that Iraq was involved in MEK's Iran-Iraq war battles. But I'm running out of patience in face of Idealigic's persistent WP:stonewalling. The last option remaining here would be go back to the longstanding version. I don't want that, as then we'll be back to square one. Please weigh in.VR talk 02:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stability matters: I am pretty much sure that Idealigic is persistently violating the page restrictions. Likewise, I don't suggest going to the first version. I believe there had been enough discussions here and your attempts at reaching a compromise is evident from your words and patience. You waited almost a month before implementing the consensus and sought 3rd opinions (which were all ignored by Idealigic). Idealigic's persistent reverts is giving me the impression that getting blocked or banned is not a concern for them. I can list the occasions where he has received tough ban warnings from admins but he is still continuing with the previous editing pattern. That is why I think we should consider the page stability as an important criteria and seek venues for having a comprehensive judgement in over the issues of this page. This can happen by asking admins, going to Arb or other things. I am ready to work on an optimized solution, if it is needed. -- M h hossein   talk 15:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Revert in violation of CRP?
@idealigic: AFAIK, your latest revert can bring you a block or Tban given the fact that you breached the restriction of the page in the past. Are you willing to make a self revert or should I report it? -- M h hossein   talk 15:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC) user:Vice regent can you explain this?


 * [diff] VR adds: “The MEK and Iraq jointly several operations against Iran” and “After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress...”


 * [diff] The edit is reverted.


 * [diff] Without consensus, VR adds again to the article “The MEK and Iraq jointly launched several operations against Iran” and “After the war, the MEK helped Saddam suppress...”

That appears to be a violation of the article’s restrictions (something you have been warned not to do).

user:Mhhossein can you explain this?


 * [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 saying the source he used (The Globe Post) was not reliable.
 * [diff]: Without consensus, Mhhossein restored content using a new source (by Ronen Cohen, that by Vanamonde's own assessment, did not even support the edit).

You also did this despite prior warnings (such as this one, and actually did it more times).

So If you think I have something to explain then please ask me (here or at WP:ANI). But before you do, please explain the above. Idealigic (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the Mhhossein reverts you're referring to are back from Aug and Sep of 2020. As for my edits, I find that you, not me, have violated the CRP because as I explained on your talk page, my edit was merely restoring the longstanding version. The longstanding version says:
 * Stefka removed this saying none of these sources seem to say MEK was involved with Hussein in these operations. I restored this as
 * Note I changed the original wording from "[MEK] was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein," to "MEK and Iraq, jointly" to respect your argument that "Saddam" should be replaced by "Iraq". Please don't attack me for trying to compromise with you. Stefka reverted me. I explained my edit on the talk page on May 3. Vanadmonde responded, calling the edit helpful (except where I replaced "Iraq" with "Saddam"). I waited for a month, but Stefka never responded nor did anyone object to this aspect of my edit. So on June 7, I posted a message that I had assumed Silent consensus and diff restored my edit. Then Idealigic reverted me - this last revert looks like a breach of CRP. So Idealigic kindly revert yourself. We should be able to do the right thing without constantly having to "report" each other.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vice regent, I see that current version has been in the article for over a month, which makes it part of the long-standing version. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&oldid=922243555#Defining_longstanding_text_for_this_article The edits are also different (one distinctively names Saddam, and the other distinctively names Iraq - something that has been of much debate in this talk page, so there was no "Silent-consensus"). Barca (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Barca, when Stefka introduced the current version on May 1, I reverted him on May 3. When he reverted me again on May 3, I decided to discuss and not engage in edit-war. You can't define as long-standing a version that was challenged via reversion only 2 days after it was introduced.VR talk 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Idealigic: Given the explanations by VR, I am giving you another chance of performing a self revert. -- M h hossein   talk 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Barca, when Stefka introduced the current version on May 1, I reverted him on May 3. When he reverted me again on May 3, I decided to discuss and not engage in edit-war. You can't define as long-standing a version that was challenged via reversion only 2 days after it was introduced.VR talk 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Idealigic: Given the explanations by VR, I am giving you another chance of performing a self revert. -- M h hossein   talk 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@VR: The version before May 1st said "where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein", and the version you inserted on may 3rd said "The MEK and Iraq jointly several operations against Iran:". So you did not perform a revert to the original version like you are claiming. That would mean that it is you in fact who is breaking the article's restrictions now by inserting your edit again (also like Barca said, the current version has been in the article for more than a month so it's now part of the longstanding text). I don't know why you and Mhhossein keep trying to blame me for this (even threatening to report me). I'm not interested in reporting you though, just please stop all the distorted accusations. We currently have a RFC about the 1991 Uprisings in the lead, so that is where your vote should explain why your edit has more merit than the current version. Idealigic (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Distorting article

 * 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)

”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 removed it because it’s repeated here:
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)":


 * "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"
 * "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.
 * "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":


 * "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"."
 * "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""
 * "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  show that you increased it? Ghazaalch (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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. -- M h hossein   talk 11:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * , 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 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"? -- M h hossein   talk 05:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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
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. -- M h hossein   talk 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (*sigh*), 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. -- M h hossein   talk 14:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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. -- M h hossein   talk 12:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.-- M h hossein   talk 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab
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 <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * .VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 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 <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 17:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any further comment to be made here?VR talk 04:47, 30 June 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%27s Mujahedin of Iran). In response,, and  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 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 <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . 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 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 <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 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, here, and  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?".
 * 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.
 * 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. VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "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."
 * 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 (Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) 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.
 * the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications.
 * Just because Iran is trying to do something doesn't make it false. The sources I provided were not connected to Iran.
 * @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)