|topic= not specified. Available options:

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Terrorism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Iran B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Socialism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

@Idealigic: At first you removed the "Operation Shining sun" from the body and the infobox, alleging the source was not reliable. Now, after I have found a reliable source for that, you claim it's not enough. Please explain why there should be more than one source for that? I see your edits are becoming tendentious. You have recently reverted a user without explaining why! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: You tried to use this theglobepost link to put in the lead that the MEK was involved in a battle. If you insist that this is a reliable source for this, my suggestion is that you ask at RSN and see what they will say there about that. Then you used another source that looks more reliable (I cannot access it though), and I reverted you with edit summary "One source for to say the MEK participated in "Operation Shining Sun" gives it undue weight." You also have removed single reliable sources claiming "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources", as such if you want to put in the article that the MEK took part in a battle, you need "multiple high-quality sources". And if you think this means my editing is "tendentious", then this would mean your editing is also tendentious, and werent you blocked for tendentious editing in April? Upon request, I can provide more ways in which I think your editing has been tendentious, if tendentious editing is what you really want to discuss. Idealigic (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Idealigic. I've submitted the RfC below taking note of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This straw man fallacy mixed with a battleground language won't be an improvement to this discussion. It's hopeless to see the portion of your comment saying MEK's participation in the operation is an exceptional claim. Cohen's scholarly work, which you removed, is just reliable enough for this. @Vanamonde93: Can I have your insights please? Should I really find more than one source saying MEK started "Operation Shining Sun" against Iran? The Globepost and this scholarly work both support this statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Can you show me where your scholarly source supports your assertion? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: Sure, you can see it in P. 5 "In the document, which was exposed after Operation Shining Sun which took place in April 1988 and probably referred to that operation as well, the Komite’s advice to their leadership...". The context is on the MEK's activities against Iran. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that quote, but I don't buy it, sorry. The source is not explicitly saying the MEK initiated that, and if it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly, then you should be able to find a source making it explicit without trouble. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that source says that the MEK were involved in Operation Shining Sun. Ypatch (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: The users supporting pro-MEK POVs here are well aware of the operation. They know it well. Yes, "it's so well-known a fact that the source does not need to say it explicitly." I could find more sources [24] and [25]. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have provided those sources upfront, instead of the one you did...I can verify the first, I don't have access to the second. @Idealigic and Stefka Bulgaria: I think the onus is now on you to say why you oppose the inclusion of this content. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second source mentions “Operation Bright Sun” (a different name) on page 22.VR _talk 02:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde: Can I insert it into the article? It's well verified by, at least, three reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: Yes, both “Operation Bright Sun” and "Operation shining sun" are the translations for the original title of the operation, i.e. "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Well, the content was objected to by Idealigic before, so you've to give them a chance to respond. If they continue to remain active but do not engage here, then yes, you may reinstate that content. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein removed a reliable source from the article with the edit summary "seems like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources")". Now Mhhossein wants to add in the lead "Operation Sunshine", but this looks to be supported by one reliable source. Can somebody explain why WP:EXCEPTIONAL can be applied in some instances, but not for others? If "Operation Sunshine" is to be added in the lead and infobox, shouldn't it "require multiple high-quality sources"?Idealigic (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because it's not an exceptional claim. I could show, at least, three sources for that. Vanamonde: Just see he has never followed our comments and still says there's only ONE source. Moreover, Idealigic objection is not substantiated. Time to insert the material? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cohen source does not say the MEK were in "Operation Sunshine", the Piazza source says "Operation Bright Sun", and the Buchan source is the only source that mentions (only once) "Operation Shining Sun". If there is consensus that one mention in one source is enough to put something in the lead and infobox, then why not the other information that Mhhossein removed? Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). Your objections are becoming some sort of stone-walling. Vanamonde: Insights please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idealigic is asking a reasonable question, not "stone-walling". I think a good compromise would be to add “Operation Bright Sun” in the body for now, and if more sources are found, then we can also add this in the lead. I will use the Piazza article Mhhossein provided since it's the source with the most detail and put this information in the corresponding section. But since we are adding this, I also think the information Mhhossein removed should be put back. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic and MA Javadi: "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation Shining Sun" are quite the same. They're both translations for "Persian: عملیات آفتاب تابان". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "Persian: تابان" (see the Google translate results). So, this source should be counted. I will insert it back into the info box and the body if you fail to raise a reasonable objection for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words "bright" and "shining" have the same meaning. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the (body) section about this information which had big problems such as certain things not being in the source and copy-right violations. I have added "operation Bright Sun" in the title of the section (Operation Bright Sun, Operation 40 Stars, and Operation Mersad) and in the section itself. I used mainly the Piazza scholarly article that Mhhossein provided here since it's the source with the most detail. I also removed "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses" based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL since, like Mhhossein in their edit here, I have not been able to find other sources to prove this information is supported in other sources except this one. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are those copyright violations and/or non-verified contents? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @idealigic: You were asking for more sources on MEK's operation shining Sun. Now, you have removed those reliable sources from the article. Why? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I think I may have made as mistake there. I wanted to remove your original research that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same (this is not in the sources, it's your own claim). I think we should be faithful to the sources. Maybe something like "Piazza called this operation bright sun", and others called it "shining sun"? we need to be careful that the dates match though. Additionally, you added the Ronen Cohen source and the Piazza source in the lead section supporting Shining Sun. Vanmonde told you that Cohen did not explicitly say the MEK initiated Shining Sun, and Piazza says Bright Sun, so please remove these two sources from the lead section since they don't match with what you are trying to say. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than clear that "Bright sun" and "Shining sun" are the same. Don't say that excuse again. Actually, "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" !!! Vanamonde correctly asked to find another source explicitly saying MEK launched the operation, and I did. Are there further reasons behind your removal of the reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question that in your mind you see things in a particular way, but we don't follow that. No matter how many "!!!" exclamations you use, we follow the reliable sources. I suggested one solution that follows the information in the sources, so I am waiting for your answer why you don't think this is a good proposition. Idealigic (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I am going to restore those reliable sources if you have no guideline based explanations for your removal of sources which lies against your own claim.--Mhhossein ^talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be faithful to the sources and quote what is in each one instead of coming to our own conclusions about what they mean? Idealigic (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary since we're not making a conclusion ("the sky is blue"). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are making your own conclusion that "Operation bright sun" and "Operation shining sun" are the same. I don't think there is anything wrong with being faithful to the information in the sources. Idealigic (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have partly restored my own removal per your notice of my mistake of removing this from the article, and attributed "Bright sun" to Piazza since he is the only source using this name "The operation was named "Shining Sun" and according to James Piazza, "Operation Bright Sun". "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added." If you think we should restore your version without attributions to Piazza, then maybe best to start a rfc. Idealigic (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic: Do you want me to report your edit which was inserted unilaterally in a partial manner without building consensus? You have inserted your own version without reaching a compromise. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: In this edit I removed some text from the article by mistake (I wanted to remove that Operation Bright sun and Shining sun are the same thing, something not supported by the sources). When I realised my mistake, I self reverted most of the edit, and attributed "Operation Bright sun" to Piazza since that's the source using this name. Did I breach the article's restrictions? I can self revert my last edit if so. Idealigic (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned by those edits with respect to the article's restrictions, but if other editors believe that change was unnecessary, you should self-revert before discussing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we remove the following from the lede?:

"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

^[1]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Per: WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:UNDUE and WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT:

• About the first part of the sentence in question:

"In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"

There is only a single source that passingly mentions "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support." Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires "multiple high-quality sources""), this is a major/contentious and WP:UNDUE claim. Besides this passing mention, no other source has been found describing the MEK siding with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

About counter-arguments saying that the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein, please note that this is already described in detail in the lede: ("In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris. In response, it re-established its base in Iraq, where it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.")

• About the second part of the sentence in question:

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

This goes against our WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT policies.

The MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country";^[1] and that has also been described as "the largest Iranian opposition group".^[2]

Making any contention about the MEK's popularity (within an authoritarian regime that has banned the MEK and that is running a disinformation campaign against it to,^[3][4] among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”^[5]) would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede).

An actual poll to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran would be very difficult to do; as Ronen Cohen notes: "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."^[6] Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth without opposing views; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes to removing this sentence. For the first part of the sentence, WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems the relevant policy for why this should not be there. For the second part of the sentence, the other sources given by Stefka (specially the one about the Iranian regime spending hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portray it as a group without popular support) should be enough to consider this inapropriate for the lead. Idealigic (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Stefka Bulgaria many, many sources for that content have been repeatedly presented. For example, three sources were provided for MEK's ties to Saddam pre-1986 at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran/Archive_33#Different_proposal (edit: I have provided a total of four sources for this claim below). Similarly, I provided fourteen (14) sources saying that MEK's popularity significantly declined due to its collaboration with Saddam. Here they are:^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]} Are there reliable sources that say MEK's popularity wasn't hurt by siding with Iraq? MEK being the largest opposition group doesn't directly contradict this statement.VR _talk 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: can you please present the "many, many sources" that say the MEK collaborated with Saddam Hussein in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presented fourteen (14) sources for the second part of the sentence you want to remove. Here are four sources for the first part:

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

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

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

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

^The meeting referred to by Taheri was a highly publicized meeting that took place in January 1983.VR _talk 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VR: I was specific when I asked for (what you referred to as) the "many, many sources" which confirm a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK in 1983 (besides the one that's already in the lede). Instead, you mention 14 sources that have nothing to do with the question, present 3 sources (none of which say anything about 1983 specifically), and present the one source that's already in the lede about 1983.

Since WP:bludgeoning the process is a recurring problem in these RfCs, I'll get straight to the point:

1) The collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the MEK is already mentioned in the lede. If there are 3 other sources giving inconsistent dates prior to 1986 (which is what you've presented), these can go in the body where they can be contextualised according to their WP:WEIGHT, but in the lede they are WP:UNDUE. More specifically, the problem is that currently in the lede we have an allegation that the MEK collaborated with Hussein in 1983; this is backed by a single source and therefore constitutes an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (and is also WP:UNDUE), hence this proposal to remove it from the lede.

2) About the "14 sources" you presented to support "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland": these are not polls or collected data; but rather these are opinions from different analysts. I have presented other opinion/reports that contradict this POV, for example the MEK being considered the Iranian regime's largest opposition group,^[21] or Iran blaming the MEK for the recent wave of major protests in Iran, or the following:

• "After two years of political struggle, the ayatollahs could not tolerate the growing, nationwide popularity of the MEK, and so they unleashed unbridled terror against it in the summer of 1981. The reign of terror has continued unabated. Tens of thousands of MEK activists, men and women, have fallen victim to brutal crackdowns. In the summer of 1988 alone, with a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, some 30,000 political prisoners – primarily MEK activists – were massacred. Most of those arrested and sentenced to death after the 2009 uprising belonged to the MEK. [...] Although it is irrefutable that the MEK enjoyed a constant and formidable presence in Iran, the regime has sought to ignore the MEK in its public positions, as part of an effort to eliminate its archenemy through simultaneous repression and propaganda. Toward that end, Tehran implausibly claims that the MEK lacks popular support and is inconsequential to Iranian affairs."

  ^[22]

• "The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”

  ^[23]

Sources representing both sides of the argument could all be teased out and contextualized in the body; instead, yourself and Mhhossein have argued that this one-sided POV be left in the lede as an undisputed fact; but it isn't an undisputed fact.

Also some of the sources you've presented are problematic. Trita Parsi, for example is the founder of NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime (the same Iranian regime that's running a disinformation campaign to brand the MEK "unpopular" and a "cult", and the same regime that is using "intimidation tactics" against journalists in the West and also in Iran).

To conclude: (and this is the last I'll say here to prevent further bludgeoing) there isn't official data or polls to determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. We have sources saying the MEK remains popular, and we have other sources saying the MEK remains unpopular. What's most concerning is the −disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime to label the MEK unpopular (with Mhhossein removing this information from the article), and the fact that this "MEK is unpopular" POV is being pushed in the lede of this Wikipedia article as an objective truth (when it isn't). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shedding light on a repeated scenario: You have repeatedly repeated the nonsense Original Research that we should be concerned about a disinformation campaign which aims MEK. You have of course received DUE and proportionate replies each time. In this comment, you have made concluding remark talking about "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign". It's quite interesting for others to realize you did pretty much the same concluding remark here (just see "bludgeoing" and "disinformation campaign" being repeated there). So, my response would be almost the same:"These argument are just original research. Likewise we should be careful about the MEK's propaganda campaign...Using this [your] argument, how many Heshmat Alavi are we faced with? We don't know!". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure (or organization). For example, Yasser Arafat says most Israelis came to regard him as an unrepentant terrorist, but the sources given don't cite any poll. There are many other examples on wikipedia where the (un)popularity of a group is supported by reliable sources that don't cite opinion polls. The fourteen reliable sources I cited for MEK's unpopularity are all independent of the Iranian government.

And why is MEK collaborating with Saddam in 1983 an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 was reported in newspapers[26]. Even the MEK's official website admits that Rajavi met the Iraqi PM in December 1982 and negotiated an agreement with Iraq[27]. Because this meeting was publicized in the first days of January 1983, many sources date it to 1982 instead.VR _talk 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - The stuff about 1983 is WP:UNDUE because only one source is backing this up, so this should not be in the lead of the article, and the MEK-Saddam cooperation is already in that section anyways. Then the stuff about the MEK's popularity, VR is saying that "there is no requirement that reliable sources necessarily have a "poll" in order to determine the popularity of a figure", but he is not taking into consideration other sources that say the MEK is a popular political opposition to the present-day Iranian government. To bluntly label a political organization popular or unpopular in the lead of a Wikipedia page, when there are sources that say both, should be taken with caution. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source? LOL! Please follow the previous comments before commenting. Vice Regent clearly showed there are numerous sources for that ([28] and here). --Mhhossein ^talk 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein: I did read all comments very carefully before voting. The meeting between Rajavi and the Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz in January 1983 is not the same as 'In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War' (and the Tariq Aziz meeting with Rajavi is in the article already anyways). The RAND report talks about funding the MEK in 1980, and Terrornomics talks about the MEK receiving financial support 'since 1982'. In the lead there already are many reliable sources about the MEK-Hussein cooperation saying they were involved in the 1980s and 1990s in Operation Mersad, 1991 uprisings, and Operation Forty Stars. The only other unquestionable event before 1986 is the meeting with Iraqi PM Tariq Aziz, and this is already in the article. That leaves only one source to support that in 1983 Hussein funded the MEK, and this is why that is an WP:UNDUE statement for the lead. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify it for you for in another way. Please respond: Is mentioning of 1983 the only issue you are pointing to? Since, even your own comment is proving MEK was receiving supports from Saddam multiple times. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment is clear. I don't think I will change your mind no matter what I write so I won't encourage this conversation further. - MA Javadi (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you did not say if mentioning of 1983 is the only issue you are pointing to. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Per VR Above. There's extensive sourcing that siding with Saddam made them deeply unpopular. It is also not an exceptional claim to make, and I find the citing of WP:EXCEPTIONAL strange. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about a political party becoming unpopular after siding with an invading military force. I also must say I don't see the logic Stefka's objection that sources saying there was collaboration in 1980, 1981 and 1982, don't somehow support the source also saying there was collaboration in 1983. --Brustopher (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher you have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence, not about the MEK's popularity. You have also misunderstood the popularity portion, which is about representing all the sources, and not just a single view. Idealigic (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher is hitting the nail on the head by saying MEK-Saddam collaborations is not a big deal or an exceptional claim. Are all these wall of texts raised by OP aimed to remove 1983? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, do not make faulty generalizations that don't represent all the sources, least of all in the lead. If the MEK is the biggest opposition to the Iranian leadership, then saying that its appeal has been destroyed in Iran just doesn't make sense. According to the sources, it is unpopular for some but popular for others. When in doubt, like here, best to avoid making generalisations in the lead. The same about dates before 1986, they do not coincide, which can be maybe ok for other sections but not the lead. Nika2020 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*No also per VR. It is strange to cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL for the MEK siding with Saddam and becoming unpopular. I also don't understand why 1983 collaboration with Saddam cannot be in the article. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes thank you Idealigic for explaining, i am changing my vote because it looks like I did misread the proposal. The exceptional claim about 1983 can be in the body, and also the opinions about popularity since in the lead it doesn't reflect all information about this. Bahar1397 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahar1397: You also have misunderstood this rfc. The exceptional claim is about the 1983 sentence (there is only one source for the 1983 sentence, and the rfc is about putting this in the body since in the lead it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and that the other sources that talk about before 1986 do not support the statement about 1983). About the MEK's popularity (which is unrelated to WP:EXCEPTIONAL), the debate is that there are sources saying both that the MEK is the most popular political opposition to Tehran's government, and that it's popularity was destroyed after siding with Iraq in the 80s, so determining in the lead that the MEK has remained unpopular doesn't tell the whole story about how Tehran has "spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”^[24], how the MEK has remained Tehran's biggest political opposition^[25], and how determining the MEK's popularity in Iran is basically impossible because of the nature of the government there.^[26]Idealigic (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahar1397: and @Idealigic:, there is not a single source that contradicts the assertion that the MEK had connections with Iraq by December 1982/January 1983 (the meeting in France happened right around New Year's so some sources say 1982 and others 1983 - this is not a contradiction). Yet there are multiple sources that support this claim. So this can't be considered an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim.

Regarding MEK's popularity, the lead already says "It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group". Should we remove that too from the lead? If we remove one of those statements but keep the other then we violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The statement that MEK's popularity was destroyed by allying with Saddam is backed by at least 13 reliable sources.VR _talk 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: there doesn't need to be other sources contradicting that the MEK had connections with Iraq in 1983. There is no escaping from the fact that only one source talking about a major incident in 1983 incident is WP:UNDUE for the lead. About the popularity of the MEK, this is also disputed in the sources. Saying that POV from one side is the only truth is again POV pushing, specially when Mhhossein removes from the article that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.” Ypatch (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, because multiple high-quality sources (both newsorg and academic) stress on this when describing what MEK is. These are only a few examples:

The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.

— Yeganeh Torbati (16 January 2017), Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

...the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors.

— "Iranian dissidents in Iraq: Where will they all go?", The Economist, 11 April 2009

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.

— Afshon Ostovar (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.

With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq.

— Magdalena Kirchner (2017). "'A good investment?' State sponsorship of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi foreign policy (1979–1991)". In Christian Kaunert, Sarah Leonard, Lars Berger, Gaynor Johnson (ed.). Western Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781317499701.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.

— Jonathan R. White (2016), Terrorism and Homeland Security, Cengage, p. 239, ISBN 978-1-305-63377-3

–Pahlevun (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Pahlevun's !vote provides a number of publications characterizing the MEK as unpopular. Stefka's !vote provides a number of publications saying the MEK's popularity is disputed and also that the Islamic Republic runs a campaign of disinformation to characterize the MEK without popular support. All of this can be disentangled in Perception, but the lead is not the right place. About the 1983 quote, there is only one source backing this so that is unquestionably WP:UNDUE. Alex-h (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex-h, so why does the lead currently say It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group? Do you also support removing that from the lead and disentangling it lower below?VR _talk 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MEK being considered the Islamic Republic's "biggest and most active political opposition group" is not disputed, but you are encouraged to open a new RfC about that if you think it's needed. Alex-h (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that MEK "the largest Iranian opposition group" and MEK is unpopular in Iran are directly contradictory. In fact, Stefka said that in his opening statement[29]. WP:NPOV requires as to present all significant viewpoints covered in WP:RS. If you present one POV in the lead but remove a contradicting POV from the lead, then you are violating WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. One passing mention in one source that "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War" makes this undue for the lead part. The same for the popularity statement, there are other sources challenging this point, so to put it in the lead fails the NPOV editing guideline. Barca (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, I have presented four sources, not just one.VR _talk 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR please stop repeating the same thing over and over. From the four sources you presented only one source is supporting (in passing mention) that "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War". That means it is undue for the lead part. Also the lead part of the article is not the place give a false conclusion that the MEK is not popular. It does not violate WP:WEIGHT if we summarize the sources according to WP:WEIGHT in the body of the article, something other editors suggested here. Barca (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, in case my position is not clear. The RfC proposes removal of two things:

• "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War".

I gave four reliable sources for this. It is not disputed by a single reliable source.

• "[Rajavi siding with Saddam was] viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland"

I gave fourteen (14) reliable sources for this and many more can be found. In opposition to this only a few reliable sources have been provided (and even those don't clearly state that MEK is popular). So clearly, the view that MEK is not popular should be given more WP:WEIGHT.

But even if we treat both views (MEK is unpopular and MEK is popular) as equally prevalent in WP:RS, removing this sentence would still violate WP:WEIGHT. This is because the lead mentions the POV that MEK is popular: It is also considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group. Keeping one POV but removing the other violates WP:WEIGHT all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.VR _talk 05:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No: the mentioned sentence says "vast-majority" of Iranian viewed MEK that is helping Saddam as a practice of treason, and it made the group unpopular-- it does not mention all the people. Other users have named plenty of sources which are verifying this sentence. Hence I disagree with the users who say it's "exceptional". We ought to give these amounts of sources a due weight, and this sentence is considered to be accurate/due. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: it seems most of these were already addressed in a previous RfC

Shall we summarize the following allegations from former MEK members:

• "an incident which Masoud Banisadr described as changing into "ant-like human beings", i.e. following orders by their instinct."
• "Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others."
• "In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as this:

• "Batoul Soltani, one of three women to claim to have escaped from Camp Ashraf, alleged that Massoud Rajavi sexually assaulted her multiple times over the span of a number of years. Zahra Moini, another former female member who served as a bodyguard for Maryam Rajavi said that women were disappeared if they refused to "marry" Massoud. She also accused Maryam of being complicit in this practice. Fereshteh Hedayati, another defector, says that she avoided being "sexually abused"."
• "MEK members forced to reveal any errant sexual thought publicly by its commanders. Hassan Heyrany, a defected member of MEK, stated that the MEK inhibited romantic relationships and marriage for members and that the members had a little notebook for recording "sexual moments". Heyrani added that it was hard for everyone to read the notes for their commander and comrades at the daily meeting."

*"In February 2020, 10 ex-MEK members living in Albania stated to the New York Times (NYT) that they had been brainwashed by the MEK. Romantic behaviour was banned, family contacts had been tightly restricted, friendships had been discouraged, and the former members had been forced to confess sexual and disloyal thoughts to commanders. MEK denied the brainwashing claims and described the former members as Iranian spies"

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

Into this?:

Allegations of human right abuses and cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization.^[1][2] Such accusations include a ban on romantic relationships and control over contact with family.^[3][4] According to a BBC report, "a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."^[5] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid. This RFC seems to have a similar form of the problem reported here by the closing admin. The RFC is proposing the following:

US and UK politicians have denied these claims saying said "MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

This is while the source reads as such:

There are many other stories.
Children who never forgave their parents for abandoning them. Children who did forgive and are now joyously reunited. Divorcees who have got out of the organisation saying they still love their former spouses who are still in.
In over 25 years of reporting, I have been lied to often enough but, as successive former MEK members told what they had been through, their tears seemed real enough to me.
And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents.
Again, who to believe?

In contrast to what the OP is trying to imply, the source is not saying it as a fact that the UK and US politicians deny these statements. The author, in fact, is trying to portray various probabilities and is not saying which side is right nor he says he did ask the politicians. Actually, to show the doubt, he's asking "Who to believe"? Moreover, regarding the former members he says:

And the former members?
Some are embittered, others just seem broken.

That's why this RFC seems misleading. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted that out for you amending the proposal. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it's not amended. The source does not say the politicians said such a thing. The biggest problem with the porposal, among other things which I will comprehensively explain in my comment, is that ONE source is cherry picked to push a certain POV. This is source can not be used in face multiple other scholarly works saying actually the opposite. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended this for you once again, though I doubt you'll be happy even with quoting the source directly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria You want to have a lengthy quote from one source that opposes the allegations yet you want to summarize all the multiple sources that make that allegations into two sentences. That seems obviously against WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes:

  1) Per WP:NOT and NPOV: we are not including claims by current members, so we should not include detailed allegations by former members either.

  2) In the last RfC, Mhhossein argued that these are "major points reported by multiple reliable sources"; but they are not major points. These mostly constitute allegations by random people who have defected the MEK (or claim to have defected from the MEK) and lack any sort of fact-checking, and fact-checking is needed in a controversial article such as this one where there is a misinformation issue.

  3) Per the previously-closed RfC about removing statements from former members, which concluded in that those statements didn't need to be included in the article.

  4) This RfC takes into account the points made and closing remarks in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article" that suggested the final text be longer than the previous proposed text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Yes. I don't know what Mhhossein is talking about here but the BBC is talking about the MEK's internal social policies that some have interpreted as "cultish" characteristics (like requiring members in Iraq to divorce because it was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs and sending their children away because it would be safer for them). It then describes former members saying they participated in public confessions about sexual fantasies, then that

"And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents."

So the politicians are saying this, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that report which also hints at why we don't need so many redundant allegations all replicating the same cult material. The issue is not this BBC source, the issue is the abundant cult redundancy that needs to be abreviated.

In the previous RFC, Mhhossein wrote that "WP:DUE demands fairly representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.", but then Mhossein appears to remove the "weight to opposing POVs".

It is worrying to see an editor doing all this to pack the article with allegations that the MEK is a cult while at the same time removing the reports indicating that the Tehran government is trying to designate the MEK as a cult. Idealigic (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an ANI comment or an RFC one? Also, "So the politicians are saying this"? Where in the source you found that? There's absolutely no factual statement. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, I've now amended the text so it quotes the BBC source directly, so that's been fixed for you. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read it once again, it seems even more nonsense than before. This is the third time you are proposing misleading proposals for RFCs. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - Mhhossein just seems unwilling to reach any form of compromise. If we are not including claims from current MeK members, then by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members. We either include both (current and former member claims), or neither. Including both would open a can of worms, while excluding both POV sides solves this problem. The article needs fact-based information from authors such as scholars, not all this POV from COI interviewees. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said excluding all the POVs resolves the problem? is a new rule? No, you're certainly wrong. POVs should be used according to their weights.--Mhhossein ^talk 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed, and that NPOV is a problem with these allegations from MEK members. These allegations are coming from people who have vested interests on this topic and could just be making things up. Like Javadi is saying only facts should be in the article, and these are just POV allegations, so all of this can be shorter. Nika2020 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No; Again! The problematic RFC is repeated-- again. Which parts of the contents are considered to be redundant and why? Likewise, I agree with User:Vice Regent. The RFC is fundamentally against WP:DUE. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes; I think WP:ADVOCACY also applies here. We know that the Iranian regime recruits people that have left the MEK to spread fake information about the MEK (it's in the article!). A mention that former members have protested human right abuses is what we need in the article (per WP:DUE), the rest is a mess of malicious POV quotes. Ypatch (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet what you call "malicious POV" is widely covered in WP:RS and would be therefore WP:DUE for inclusion. Many arguments against the content seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you give some policy reasons for removing content critical of MEK? VR _talk 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) the content proposed here to be shortened consist of a handful of unproven claims from people with a conflict of interest (not critical or DUE unless you're trying to fill a controversial article with such content). 2) policy reasons for shortening this content have been given in this RfC: Nika2020 proposed shortening it per NPOV; Ypatch proposed shortening it per WP:ADVOCACY; I proposed shortening it per WP:NOT and NPOV, making a similar case as Ypatch that fact-checking is a basic requirement in a controversial article where there is a misinformation problem (a point also raised by Idealigic). MA Javadi proposed that if "we are not including claims from current MeK members, then by the same rule, the article should also not include claims from ex members". These are all perfectly valid policy reasons to shorten POV from former MEK members. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Stefka Bulgaria et al. are repeatedly failing to address the reality of the reliable sources. I could substantiate that your proposed text is essentially another misleading proposal (I think it's the third time you're doing it and you need to be careful since you need to be responsive at ANI for the fourth). Actually, as opposed to your misleading proposal, "the source does not say the politicians said such a thing". Hahahah, aren't NOT and ADVOCACY referring to the same thing? None of them apply here. As for DUE, "You want to have a lengthy quote from one source that opposes the allegations yet you want to summarize all the multiple sources that make that allegations into two sentences. That seems obviously against WP:UNDUE". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because the proposed version is trying to use the tone of Wikipedia for an improper conclusion made by an editor from reliable secondary sources. The book used for the first sentence (about ant-like human beings) is edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge, which certainly meets WP:RS criteria. The second is also backed up by another peer-reviewed source (Asian Politics & Policy) even though it is a scholarly source, it is said that the author is an ex-member. For the third sentence that the proposal intends to remove (about sexual controls) there are reliable sources available that assert this part of the "ideological revolution" as facts, not as allegations made by ex-members. If you are unhappy with ex-members, I can bring some content from Ronen Cohen's book on the MEK that I have, The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, which discusses sexual control practices as a fact. Pahlevun (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No. As I pointed out above (more than a month ago and to which Stefka never responded), the proposed wording violates WP:UNDUE.VR _talk 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Stefka Bulgaria: this RfC looks malformed. It seems you are trying to replace some lengthy content in the article by a shorter version. But most of that lengthy content is simply not in the article. I think you need to make a clearer RfC in terms of what exactly you want to remove/replace in the article.VR _talk 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR: Recently Mhhossein removed a lot of information that wasn't in the article, to which admin Vanamonde explained that "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)".

This RfC proposes to do just that: summarize the excessive details while keeping the main points (thus conforming to WP:DUE, as Alex-h pointed out below). You and Mhhossein are entitled to disagree with this proposal, but the majority of voters here are currently in favor of it, so this RfC is perfectly valid. Since WP:BLUDGEONING is an all too common practice in these RfCs (yourself and Mhhossein have already commented a total of 10 times here), if you want to discuss Vanamonde's "summary style" suggestion in more detail, please open a new TP discussion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, you are misunderstanding my question. The problem here is that your proposal is unclear. The content you want "summarize" simply doesn't exist in the article. For example, you implied the article contains this sentence: Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. But I can not find this sentence or any mention of "erection" anywhere. Why are you trying to remove something that does't exist?VR _talk 14:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria, you are correct; it seems I missed these being sorted out in a previous RfC. I have withdrawn the RfC. Thanks for your feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The RFC does not violate WP:UNDUE because the principal viewpoints are represented. This content is made up of allegations (not facts) from people that have left the MEK. It uses highly POV language violating NPOV. An abbreviation of it is enough to neutrally represent the viewpoints. Alex-h (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - Please explain these recent removals you did [30][31]

1* "On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

2* "while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

3* "In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

4* "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

5* "on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

6* "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

7* "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8* "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Also you should explain why you added back the exceptional claim - "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses.".

Also please show where this is supported - "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." - MA Javadi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained my edits. As for this one, you can see my edit summary; the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere, also "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department" (this quote is from the Cohen source). Why should this pro-MEK propagandistic claim be inserted into the page? As for this one, it's being discussed elsewhere. Moreover, you can see a link to my explanations in the edit summary. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: - I have presented each removal with a number. Please answer clearly to each one of your removals. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find Mhhossein's explanations for this. @Mhhossein: can you please explain step by step why you removed this? Idealigic (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. As far as I see, I have addressed all my edits. For instance, just ctr+f "Psychological", "Komite". Can you show where I did 1-5? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: here is where you did 1-5. Please explain them step by step.

About points 6, 7, 8, is this your explanation? "Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". Also, can you find another reliable source talking about this so-called Komite report? So much detail was added on a claim by MEK"?

The information about "the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades"." is not repeated anywhere else in the article.

We also have MEK propaganda section in this article.

Please provide a policy based rationale explaining why you removed all this material from the article. Idealigic (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are really getting very annoying. You guys don't follow the comments carefully. Forty stars operation is already included. Karand and Islamabad-e Gharb is already included. The source for Latif Nusayyif Jasim's claims are Rajavi's speech. Can you find an independent source for that? You can find my explanations for the rest, including "Psychological", "Komite", in this TP. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you still are not explaining a lot of the text you removed.

1"On June 19, 1988, the NLA launched another offensive called “Chetel Setareh or “Operation Forty Stars” where twenty-two MEK brigades recaptured Mehran."

Neither the date, the additional name (“Chetel Setareh"), or the part about recapturing Mehran is already included in the article.

2"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.”

Why can't this be attributed to Rajavi?

3"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.

Nothing about Kerand and Eslamabad being liberated from regime's troops, or about NLA destroying Iranian regime weapons and equipment is in the article.

4"According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."

You have not provided an explanation for removing this.

5"on 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal from Islamabad-e Gharb and Karand"

This is not in the article.

6"According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".

Why can't this be attributed to the MEK?

7"In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran"."

8"A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"

Are you saying we need more than this one source (a source which you provided) to be able to add the information in 7 and 8 to the article? If so, you need to explain why you restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses." (which is only mentioned by one source).

You also still have not responded to what source is supporting "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.", something you restored in the article. Idealigic (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bludgeon the process. You are repeating the old questions over and over in frustrating manner. I have already explained my edits. I told you two three days ago (see '06:47, 4 November 2020') about "Islamabad-e Gharb" and you're again repeating it. I told you multiple times that the "Psychological Welfare" claim is already mentioned in the page. Also it's not my fault you fail to understand "Operation Forty Stars", which is already included, is in fact "Operation Chehel setareh". It's not my fault you can't find "On 29 July the NLA announced a voluntary withdrawal back to Iraq" in the page. As for the Komite see my '13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)' comment. As for the ""Near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK..." it's MA Javadi who should explain his removal, not me (I just restored an unexplained removal of a longstanding content- though I think "the longest war" should be the source). Rajavi's claim regarding the eternal light operation is not a big deal and the New York Times source is well supporting it. For Montazeri's comment, I have no objection against the inclusion --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book titled Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, has two big problems:

1. It is published by Troubador Publishing Ltd. On its website, the company introduces itself as a self-publishing company. It is also described by BBC as "one of the UK's leading self-publishing houses". As a result, this work is subject to WP:SPS and not acceptable for this controversial article.
2. The author of this book, Manshour Varasteh, is linked to the subject of this article and thus has an apparent conflict of interest. Here, in this MEK-affiliated website it is said that this person has paid tribute to the "martyrs of the resistance and PMOI (MEK)". Moreover, he has published a work with an organization affiliated with the MEK. Per WP:QS, such sources are not acceptable.

Back in 2018, I raised this same issue at reliable sources noticeboard and uninvolved users giving a third opinion agreed that the argument was fair enough (here). Whoever has used this source in this article, should consider either replacing it with a reliable source or expecting it removed soon from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pahlevun: Thanks. I will tag the contents related to this source. But looking at the page some of the contents are supported by other reliable sources, too.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No response here. I removed the citations and content backed up only by this source from the article. Pahlevun (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, this article uses the word "claim" more than 50 times and a glance shows that the majority of uses are illegitimate (i.e. they are not quotes). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, I encourage editors to replace the word with unloaded terms. Pahlevun (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am restarting the discussion above, that hinges on the content added here by Stefka Bulgaria and removed by Mhhossein. The discussion above has become unconstructive. Here's a few things everyone needs to keep in mind to keep round 2 productive: 1) Editors seeking to include content need to establish consensus for it. 2) Source reliability, not POV, is what matters for establishing due weight; reliable sources should not be discounted for their POV, but nor should unreliable sources be included just to provide a "balancing" POV. 3) Opinion pieces and other primary sources generally ought to be avoided; they may be acceptable only when the authors are authorities in their fields, and even then not always. So, with that in mind, if there is content about MEK-related disinformation that anyone seeks to include, please post those pieces here, but only if the sourcing for that content meets the criteria I've listed above. And if the reliability of the source isn't clear, please explain why you think it is reliable and worthy of inclusion when posting the source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, for the sake of collaboration, and without assuming any wrongdoing on your part, I would like you to describe your objections to the content below, without reference to any previous comments made by anybody. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Had I not been here to collaborate, I would not reply to the queries. Though I am ready to keep on the job, why should I repeat my self over and over? I have already explained these things multiple times. Do you think it would be helpful to do it once again? Competence is required specially for such a challenging subject.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Yes, I think it would be helpful for you to do it once again, which is why I am asking you to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Vanamonde, I will do it. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamone93: I have not ignored Mhhossein's answers. He says the information he removed was "dubious and repeated materials"[32] from ""MEK-sympathetic sources"[33]. I am providing here the information Mhhossein removed once again, and @Mhhossein: with honestly the best collaborative spirit I can give, I ask you again to please indicate which source here are "MEK-sympathetic", or "dubious", or "repeated", and explain why. I will provide an explanation next to each about why I can't understand your removal.

1 “On July 5, 2010, during a testimony at the Canadian Parliament, John Thompson (head of the Mackenzie Institute) stated that he had been offered $80,000 by a man tied to Iran's mission in Canada, adding that "they wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”"^[1][2] (These are two opinion articles by Ivan Sascha Sheehan and J. Adam Ereli, both seem authorities in their fields.)

2 "According to a report by the General Intelligence and Security Service, Iranian intelligence services have targeted suspected and actual members of the MEK in the Netherlands, also attempting to gather information about political opposition groups and sometimes pressuring Iranians into conducting espionage."^[3] (There is no information in the article about Iranian Intelligence services targeting MEK in the Netherlands or pressuring other Iranians to conduct espionage there)

3 "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."^[4] (There is no information in the article about Iran government financing a campaign to undermine MEK through politicians or public servants)

4 "According to reports by Ministerium des Innern des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)'s main focus (in Iran and abroad) is to monitor and combat the main political opposition, and as of 2016, the Iranian intelligence service continued with its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda."^[5] (No information in the article about Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) continuing its strategy of discrediting the MEK through propaganda).

5 "Political scientist Dr. Majid Rafizadeh stated that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support.”^[6] (No information in the article about about Iran regime spending millions of dollars to portray the MEK as a group without popular support)

6 "According to MEK intelligence, the Islamic Republic set up a "Psychological Welfare Committee" made of clergymen chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini. This committee emerged as a think tank. An intelligence document gathered by the MEK said that the Komite advised their leadership that it "had to take the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades".^[7] (Mhhossein, You say "the so-called psychological warfare is already mentioned elsewhere", but the only quote in the article I have found about this is that "The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) cracked down on MEK activity, carrying out what a US Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Report referred to as "psychological warfare"". The information about the committee emerging as a think tank and its historical pursuit of taking "the Mojahedin’s speedy developments and attacks seriously as they had demonstrated their ability to penetrate Iranian territory and destroy one of the Iranian brigades" is not in the article.)

7 "In another report by the Komite presented to the Islamic Republic on 15 August 1988, it found that "the more people defected from the Iranian army as a result of the Mojahedin's operations, the more frequent and larger they became." Komite members said in the report that it didn’t know how to prevent MEK achievements, which "had enabled the NLA to conquer Mehran".^[8] (No information in the article about Komite's reporting on MEK achievements).

8 "A Komite report reached the conclusion that in order to prevent the MEK from achieving its goals, a strategy for collecting intelligence needed to be created. The Iran regime carried out the Komite's recommendation and started focusing its activities on MEK supporters in Iran (particularly in Iranian jailhouses). After the Iran-Iraq ceasefire agreement, the regime started executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran"^[9] (No information in the article about the Komite's report recommending focus on MEK activities and supporters in Iranian jailhouses or about the regime executing Iranian citizens accused of assisting the MEK in Western Iran) Idealigic (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please notice that Competence is required. Responding to your repetitive questions has already wasted my time and I hope this would be the final time. I repeat my explanations (I will gradually respond all of the items and please wait so that I am done):

1- A work by Sheehan is already used in the page saying "There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK." This is saying pretty much the same thing as the disputed content. Moreover, it's more general and is supported by a reliable source so we don't need opinionated pieces. As for Ereli is a MEK sympathetic author. That's why his work is not a suitable inclusion for balancing the page. See this and this to know about how MEK sympathetic the source is. For instance "...In contrast to Katzman, J. Adam Ereli, another MEK panelist..." and "The Thursday appearance on the panel won’t be the first time that Ereli has participated in one of MEK’s events. In July, 2014, Ereli appeared at a Capitol Hill event hosted by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, a coalition whose sole purpose is supporting the MEK, and praised the NCRI."

2, 3 & 4- These items are already covered by the article. Briefly, these quote say MOIS targets MEK members and try to demonize them. Now check out the page:

• "A 2001 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service said that "one of the tasks of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is to track down and identify those who are in contact with opposition groups abroad. Supporters of the most important opposition group, the PMOI [MEK], are especially under scrutiny of Iranian Security Services more than any other group,"
• "A 2005 report added that "for collecting information and spying activities, Iran's intelligence service (MOIS) uses a network of agents who have defected from these organizations"
• "The Iranian regime is concerned about MEK activities in Iran, and MEK supporters are a major target of Iran's internal security apparatus and its campaign of assassinating opponents abroad."
• "Yonah Alexander has stated that Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) agents have conducted "intelligence gathering, disinformation, and subversive operations against individual regime opponents and opposition governments. [...] According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution"
• "A December 2012 report by the US library of Congress’s Federal Research Division profiling the MOIS describes how the MOIS recruited former MEK members and "used them to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK". MOIS has also been known to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK"
• "The report also said that officials of the Iranian regime place pressure on Western countries to ban the MEK in order to "destabilise the organisation and demonise the MEK in the host country and thus end their political and social activities"
• "A report named "People's Mojahedin of Iran" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said that "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign, which is also carried out through former opponents of the regime."

Please check out People's Mujahedin of Iran § Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK and People's Mujahedin of Iran § Disinformation through recruited MEK members. You see, the paper is already overwhelmed with these MOIS-is-targeting-MEK allegations. I will start a clean up! Also, please don't say mentioning Netherland is making a difference. I will respond to the rest very soon.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Next items:

5- Firstly, why do you think the opinion of Rafizadeh should be included? Secondly, the page already includes closely similar items such as "VAVAK is directing and financing a misinformation campaign.." and "The report also said that officials of the Iranian regime place pressure on Western countries to ban the MEK in order to "destabilise the organisation and demonise the MEK in the host country and thus end their political and social activities."

6, 7 & 8- Yes "psychological warfare" is already included in the page. But for more details on the so-called committee (or Komite) I say, accorindg to Cohen, the only source regarding these allegations is MEK itself. So, adding a huge amount of details on a matter solely claimed by MEK is not logical. Specill sine Cohen says "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department". So, what do you think? Did you find any other reliable sources saying something the so-called Komite and its report? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93:: Some of the responses by Mhhossein here do not address that he is removing specified counter viewpoints and other information from reliable sources not mentioned in the article.

1.- source by Sacha Sheehan

disputed content: “In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

Mhhossein says that he removed the information by Sacha Sheehan because there is already another source by this author in the article that says “There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK". However, John Thompson’s testimony that Iran is trying to get other countries to label the MEK “as a terrorist cult” provides a specific counter viewpoint to the whole “MEK cult” debate, which is something that is not in the article or in the excerpt examples Mhhossein provided (and also something that Mhhossein has consistently challenged in this talk page).

2.- This point does not need to be discussed further.

3.- source by General Intelligence and Security Service, Ministry of Interior and kingdom Relations

disputed content: “Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light.”

The excerpt examples Mhhossein provided talk about MOIS and VAVAK recruiting former MEK members to launch a disinformation campaign against the MEK, but there is nothing about the Iranian intelligence services running a campaign against the MEK that involves politicians and public servants.

4.- This point does not need to be discussed further.

5.- source by Arab News

disputed content:“Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and president of the International American Council, described the “paranoia with which the Iranian regime officials constantly speak about the group at home, including the most recent appeal to the French president by Hassan Rouhani, in which he blamed the MEK for its role in the unrest that has engulfed Iran over the past eight years. “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added.”

By removing Rafizadeh’s testimony that the Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to portray the MEK as a group without popular support, Mhhossein is omitting an important counter view to the (painstaking) “MEK is unpopular” debate (a counter view that is not in the excerpt examples Mhhossein provided)

6.7.8.- source by Ronen Cohen

If Mhhossein’s problem with this information was that “adding a huge amount of details on a matter solely claimed by MEK is not logical”, then shouldn’t he have shortened or edited the text instead of removing it all?

I am making a legitimate effort to read carefully and acknowledge Mhhossein’s responses, but some of these lack a valid explanation for removing essential information that is not in the article, that has been central to talk page RFCs, and that comes from reliable sources (or authorities in their fields). Idealigic (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will need an RfC or equivalent to establish consensus for this material, because I'm not seeing anything above besides a disagreement about how much detail is needed, which is entirely a content matter and not a conduct matter. As an aside, and 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). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic: Can you stop over repeating those long quote? This has turned the whole talkpage into a real mess. #1- Are you struggling over "Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult"? This is already included (in different wordings, e.g "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies...")! #2 Isn't it already said here: "MOIS has also been known to recruit and extort non-Iranians to demonize the MEK"? #5 I still believe this does not need to be included for the reasons I said. Also, you did not say why you think Rafizadeh’s comment merits inclusion (also conisder the sourcing!). Moreover, the key points by major authorities regarding MEK's popularity inside and outside Iran is included in "Perception" section. #6,7 & 8: You were trying to Wikivoice a huge amount of MEK's POVs while Cohen is casting doubt over the so-called report by saying "thus it stands to reason that the Mojahedin’s interpretation of the Komite report was a product of their propaganda department." I asked you to find another reliable source given the this fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: can we agree shortening POV in the article instead of bloating it with details? Idealigic (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per DUE sometimes we need to expand and sometimes we need to shorten the some certain portions of text. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can edit according to DUE by covering the major points without bloating the article with details; which I think is what's being proposed here. I support the summary style approach . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says the guy who "bloated" the page with unnecessary details. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, I'm willing to make modifications to my editing based on feedback. It would be good for the article and the collaborative process if you were too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka, I've been offering to collaborate with you (and others) for a while now. But even the smallest edits I make (for example formatting sentences) keep getting reverted. Are you actually serious about your offer to collaborate this time?VR _talk 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent Are you in agreement with Vanamonde's suggestion to trim the article through summary style? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also support fixing article issues through summary style editing. Alex-h (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a very long time ago that this article should contain summaries over various topics and the details of those topics should be expanded out in articles that are more narrowly focused (e.g. History of the People's Mujahedin of Iran).

Also, Stefka Bulgaria, can you respond to my question here[34] when you get the chance?VR _talk 02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR: The history of this article shows efforts are done to change the history of MEK. It's by pretended these are for following a so-called "summary style", which is not right. Vanamonde never supported such a bogus style, I believe he's favoring the DUE version. Stefka Bulgaria's definition of summary (which he shows at the RFCs) is totally against WP:DUE, that's what I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: if you recall, I offered to help in that proposal, and just like here, Mhhossein refused my help. By the way, it wasn't me who proposed a summary style to fix the excessive detail and POV in the article, it was Vanamonde. Despite Mhhossein being against this, a couple of other editors here support this approach. If you support this approach too (I can't tell by your response), then we can work on cleaning the article together. Please let me know (I'll respond to your other question now). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: also please explain why you have removed:

1 "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division"^[1] (You say "it promoting the POV of MEK. Who says it was heavy?". The author is saying "heavy", so why do you think it's promoting the POV of MEK?)

2"In July of 1988, the NLA carried out Operation Mersad (also known as "operation Eternal Light) “in which the two Khuzestani towns of Kerand and Eslamabad were ‘liberated’ from the regime’s troops”. MEK press displayed photos of NLA troops in action and destroyed Iranian regime weapons and equipment.^[2] (No information in the article about Kerand and Eslamabad being 'liberated' from regime's troops)

3"while according to the MEK, “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”. Iraqi Minister Latif Nassif Jassim too denied Iraq deploying air units to help the NLA or that it used chemical weapons to drive Islamic Republic soldiers from Mehran.” ^[3] (MEK and Jassim's testimonies about this are not in the article)

4"In 2019, the EU placed sanctions against Iran for state terrorist activities that involved the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) (MOIS) and an Iranian diplomat in Austria being placed on the EU terrorist list. The diplomat is said to have worked for MOIS and was involved in planning an attack against the MEK in 2018."^[4] (I read [35] your answer about this but still can't understand why you think this should not be in the article)

5 "According to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, this was also carried out with the support of Iraqi government."^[5] (are you now saying you removed this by mistake and this can be put back in the article?)

6 You restored "Rajavi stated that the failure of Eternal Light was not a military blunder, but was instead rooted in the members’ thoughts for their spouses."[36], which is supported by one source, with edit summary "is not an exceptional claim- it's not a big deal". Can you please explain when WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applied and when is not? Idealigic (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: can you please say when you plan to respond? Idealigic (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be snarky, Idealigic, but when do you plan to respond to my questions to you? I pinged you in a question on Nov 1,[37] then I reminded you again on Nov 10,[38]. No problem if you got busy, but give others the same consideration. Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:DEADLINE.VR _talk 21:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VR: Voting in a RFC (where I have already explained my vote and also where I'm not interested in engaging in bludgeoning behavior) is one thing, and removing information from the article is another very different thing. @Mhhossein:, can you please respond to the 6 points in this section? Thank you kindly. Idealigic (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your comment in question advocated removing certain content from the lead and Mhhossein is also advocating removing content from the article. Both Idealigic and Mhhossein need to answer questions clearly about content they don't want in the article.VR _talk 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: do you consider these also to be unnecessary details, or should Mhhossein answer for these edits he did? Idealigic (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking a position on any specific content; rather, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: but what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did to the article, like here for example? Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ping him again, maybe he missed the first one. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic: I wonder you are saying "what if Mhhossein won't participate in the talk page discussions about the edits that he did". It's nonesense. Just look at the level of my contributions:

1:- The level of causalities is already covered. Given those details, I don't know why an extra descriptive phrase should be included. It hurts the NPOV of the page, I believe.

2:- "Liberation" is a ridiculous word scare quote in this context. Were those cities captured by Iran and then liberated by MEK? Of course not. LOL! By the, this comment shows you need to take 'Wikipedia:Competence is required' very seriously. Islamabad-e Gharb is already mentioned (is it not similar to Eslamabad?). So, you can add the name Karand to "It seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb."

3:- The Iraqi official's claims are cited to Rjavi! ("Rajavi makes statement. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 0835 GMT. 19 June, 1988. and Chemical Warfare Denied. Baghdad: INA in Arabic. 1344 GMT. 19 June, 1988.") Moreover, AFAIS, this claim goes against thoes of '"The Combination of Iraqi offensives and Western intervention force Iran to accept a cease-fire: September 1987 to March 1989" (PDF). The Lessons of Modern War – Volume II: Iran–Iraq War. Center for Strategic and International Studies.' and 'Siavoshi, Sussan (2017). Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-1316509463.'

I will respond the rest very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, thanks for responding, but please stop making allusions to CIR here. If there are competence issues severe enough that something needs to be done about them, please ask for assistance from uninvolved administrators. And I'll save you some time by telling you there's no substantive competence issues here, just battleground mentalities and a lack of commitment to NPOV. Idealigic, please respond to Mhhossein's comments about the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: 1:- In the article the level of casualties are given as a quote from Rajavi, "2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers were killed and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment was captured and displayed for foreign journalists," Masoud Rajavi added. The report in dispute is saying the MEK inflicted "heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division". The difference is that this is a report by something other than Rajavi's account, but you first said you removed it because it was "promoting the POV of MEK", and now you say "The level of casualties is already covered." I don't wish to engage in battleground behavior, but the report in dispute seems like a reliable account by a reliable source that provides information from something other than Rajavi's words (which can be interpreted as just a primary source).

2:- "Liberated" is the word used by the neutral and reliable source, not by me. What we have in the article now is that the MEK "seized and razed to the ground the Iranian town of Islamabad-e Gharb", and you seem to be ok with that POV, but when we add a different POV from another reliable source you remove it saying it's a "scare quote". We could have both POVs in the article, wouldn't that would make things more NPOV?

3:- Why is it wrong to add an account by the MEK leadership in an article about the MEK? The MEK are making the claim that “absolutely no Iraqi soldiers participated in this operation”, why are they not entitled to present their version of the event? Idealigic (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1:- I realized, on the second thought, that the phrase "heavy" is the author's POV but I still am not seeing in your comments why an extra descriptive should be added. So you think Rajavi's account should be replaced by Omar Al-Hassan's?

2:- No, as I said "liberated" is a scare quote and should not be used. Moreover, I explained how it's meaning is matching the context. Moreover, I have no idea about that longstanding text (did I say it's a scare quote? I does not seem to be such, I think).

3:- Who said you can't use the Rajavi's account? The only issue is that you can't use them as a fact (it should be used in an attributed manner). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:

1:- "Inflicting casualties" could mean 1 or 2 people. "Inflicting heavy casualties" means many people. This one word provides better description, why would you want to leave it out? I would use both Rajavi's and Omar Al-Hassan's account - "inflicting heavy casualties on the 77 Khorassan Division, which according to Masoud Rajavi resulted in the killing of 2,000 Islamic Republic soldiers and $100 million worth of regime weaponry and equipment captured"

2:- Where does it say that "liberated" is a "scare quote"? One source is saying "seized and razed to the ground", and the other source is saying "liberated". We have two reliable sources saying two different things. Why not include both POVs (in an attributed manner)?

3:- So you are now ok to add Rajavi's account if we attribute it to him? Idealigic (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the section #Human rights record there is mention of a report by the HRW named 'No Exit', and while there is little said about the content of the report (cases are only briefly named, with zero depth), there is an extensive coverage of opposition to the report, which comes from a political arena (from parliamentary advocates of the MEK) rather than human right activists.

The article currently reads:

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report named "No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the MKO Camps", describing prison camps run by the MEK and severe human rights violations committed by the group against its members, ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death.[437] However, disagreements over this provided evidence has been expressed.[298]

The report prompted a response by the MEK and four European MPs named "Friends of a Free Iran" (FOFI), who published a counter-report in September 2005.[438] They stated that HRW had "relied only on 12 hours [sic] interviews with 12 suspicious individuals", and stated that "a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq" and "conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses". Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PP), one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Parliament, said that Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was the source of the evidence against the MEK.[438] In a letter of May 2005 to HRW, the senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, Brigadier General David Phillips, who had been in charge during 2004 for the protective custody of the MEK members in the camp, disputed the alleged human rights violations.[439] Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities.[294]

Human Rights Watch released a statement in February 2006, stating: "We have investigated with care the criticisms we received concerning the substance and methodology of the [No Exit] report, and find those criticisms to be unwarranted". It provided responses to the FOFI document, whose findings "have no relevance" to the HRW report.[440]

There are several issues here:

1. As you can see from above, HRW positions is written in less than 5 lines, 118 words, 759 characters (in green) while the anti-HRW views is in more than 7 lines, 192 words 1,181 characters (in red). This is not even a false balance, the latter view is clearly given an undue weight. This WP:NPOV problem should be solved.
2. The part it says Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities is NOT what the source says. I thoroughly read the article by Patrick Kingsley, in which he says "After I left, the group put me in touch with three former American military officers who had helped guard an M.E.K. camp in Iraq after the American invasion." It later adds "But other records and witnesses gave a more complex account... Capt. Matthew Woodside, a former naval reservist who oversaw American policy at the Iraqi camp between 2004 and 2005, was not one of those whom the M.E.K. suggested I contact. He said that in reality American troops did not have regular access to camp buildings or to group members whose relatives said they were held by force. The M.E.K. leadership tended to let members meet American officials and relatives only after a delay of several days, Captain Woodside said. “They fight for every single one of them,” he said. It became so hard for some members, particularly women, to flee that two of them ended up trying to escape in a delivery truck, he recalled." Looks like a one-sided story, and a cherry-picked narrative, from what the source says.
3. The book used for the view of General Phillips (not surprisingly the same official that was put in touch Patrick Kingsley of The New York Times) is published by New Generation Publishing, a leading UK book publisher dedicated to self publishing your book, and is a violation of WP:SPS for this controversial article. That being said, the opinion of Phillips is already cited twice in the article (only one time under his own name), and while it is rebuffed by another official. Pahlevun (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for suggestions for any of the three points raised above. Pahlevun (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there is exceeding detail in the article attributed to the RAND report that could be summarized/merged with other information already in the article:

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

• "The RAND Corporation policy report on the group suggests that between 1979 and 1981 it was the most popular dissident group in Iran, however, the former reputation is diminished to the extent that it is now "the only entity less popular" than the Iranian government."

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds.

• "As RAND Corporation policy reported, MEK supporters seek donations at public places, often showing "gruesome pictures" of human rights victims in Iran and claiming to raise money for them but funnelling it to MEK.

• "The High Court ruled to close several MEK compounds after investigations revealed that the organization fraudulently collected between $5 million and $10 million in social welfare benefits for children of its members sent to Europe."

• "after finding no "verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran""

I propose summarizing this information and removing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims; this is my proposal:

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution".Massoud Rajavi appointed Maryam Azodanlu as his co-equal leader. The announcement, stated that this would give women equal say within the organization and thereby 'would launch a great ideological revolution within Mojahedin, the Iranian public and the whole Muslim World'. It also required members increased devotion to the organization and its leaders."

  (I propose moving this to the section Ideological revolution and women's rights, where the "Ideological revolution" is discussed).

• "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds.

• "According to a report by RAND Corporation policy reported, the MEK has engaged in fund raising, some of which have been found to be fraudulent."

Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]