Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

RfC about removing contentious content from the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC closers are instructed to: ...judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Even after discounting such irrelevant arguments, the disucssion below is almost exactly evenly divided between those editors who wish to remove the disputed text and those that wish to retain it. The arguments on each side are rooted in Core Content Policies which provides no policy-based reason to distinguish between them. Multiple sources have been produced and disputed so there is no clear sourcing basis on which a consensus can be discerned. Taking this all together, the only accurate way to judge this discussion is that there is No Consensus to remove the disputed text. The usual result In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Edited to add: After discussion at my talk page, it has been pointed out that the disagreement between participants on whether these statements are supported by reliable sources has a solution. Any challenges to the reliability of the sourcing should refer to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard after consulting the List of Perennial Sources. I hope that helps future discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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."

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

References
References

• 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"; and that has also been described as "the largest Iranian opposition group".

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, among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support”) 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." 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)

Stefka Bulgaria quoted a few sources above in a misleading way.

• He said that Ronan Cohen says MEK's loss in popularity is "difficult to prove". But I found that Cohen says "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war", The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, page 174.
• He quoted Nader Uskowi saying MEK is the "largest opposition group", but Uskowi is only referring to "opposition outside Iranian borders" (page 174, Temperature Rising).VR _talk 15:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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: 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)

@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)

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)

@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, 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."

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

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)

• 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)

@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[2]. Even the MEK's official website admits that Rajavi met the Iraqi PM in December 1982 and negotiated an agreement with Iraq[3]. 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)

• 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)

Only one source? LOL! Please follow the previous comments before commenting. Vice Regent clearly showed there are numerous sources for that ([4] and here). --Mhhossein ^talk 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

*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)

@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”, how the MEK has remained Tehran's biggest political opposition, and how determining the MEK's popularity in Iran is basically impossible because of the nature of the government there.Idealigic (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@Idealigic:, I took a closer look at this source you cited. The source quotes someone calling MEK the biggest group but simultaneously agrees that their association with Saddam alienated many Iranians. Is this necessarily a contradiction?

“The PMOI’s former association with Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, when the group conducted raids into Iran during the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq war, alienated many Iranians, some of whom see them as “betrayers of the nation” according to Clement Therme, researcher fellow for Iran at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. But Rafizadeh said they remain “the largest and most organized opposition group outside and inside Iran.”

VR _talk 22:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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[5]. 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)

I already explained that the MEK being considered the Islamic Republic's "biggest and most active political opposition group" is not disputed, while the MEK being unpopular is disputed. If you keep playing these WP:IDHT games you will lose any form of credibility here. Alex-h (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

But it is disputed! The NYT calls the MEK "a fringe Iranian opposition group". MEK has also been called "fringe" by CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted inNBC News. And if you are not even willing to acknowledge that an opposing POV exists, then we should take it to WP:NPOVN.VR _talk 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If you really believe that is disputed, then open a RFC about it. This RFC is about different part of the article, so don't bludgeon the process. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h This is about the same POV in the same part of the article (lead). See my explanation in the section below.VR _talk 02:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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

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)

There are three sources that say that mention the Iraq-MEK alliance developing in 1982-83. The reason for the difference in dates is that the meeting between Iraq and MEK happened in December 1982/January 1983, so some sources say 1982, some 1983, and some simply refer to the meeting.VR _talk 17:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• Yes: Per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• No: Looking at the reliable sources provided in abundance that detail both MEK-Saddam collaboration and the fact that it was viewed as treason, it's never an exceptional claim. Even these sources justify its inclusion per WP:Due weight. POVs should be weighed according to their support by the reliable sources, hence this one is worthy of inclusion.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes As per WP:UNDUE especially in the WP:LEAD Shrike (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• No: The disputed content is consisted of two sentences. Both of them were shown to be backed by plenty of reliable sources and hence WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply here. According to the mentioned sources MEK and Saddam had collaborations over a span of some years. It's interesting that I asked multiple times if their issue was solely with the word "1983" and no one replied (Brustopher also raised similar concerns and my conversation with MA Javadi clarifies my point). MEK-Saddam collaborations is a well-established fact and we don't remove the whole sentence only because of one word. For "treason" sentence, OP argues by WP:Original Research that since MEK is described as "the largest Iranian opposition group" we should ignore the very well-referenced fact that this collaboration is viewed as "treason" or "betrayal" by most of the Iranian people (Pahlevun provided a list of reliable sources for this). I will add some more:

"Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians."Newsweek

"Today they are seen as traitors by much of the Iranian public." University of Chicago Pres- P. 78

"...turned the MEK into traitors in the eyes of the Iranian public."NYBooks

"But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors."The Guardian

"who see this group as having betrayed them fundamentally by allying with Saddam against Iran during the Iran Iraq War" P.63

--Mhhossein ^talk 04:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I found a simple mistake (and fixed it)! The source for In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support actually says By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support. This difference is critical because "by" implies anytime upto and including 1983. This would include 1982 and thus it means there are many sources for this statement. Stefka Bulgaria and BarcrMac, what do you think? I also found this claim in Ervand Abrahamian's book (page 248, Yale University Press):

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

VR _talk 19:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria, I took a look at Ronen Cohen source you quote above and found yet another source for MEK-Iraq alliance in 1983:

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

VR _talk 23:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• To the closing admin/editor: these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of the overwhelming bludgeoning with confusing claims, to which an easy solution often ends up being closing with "no-consensus" (something that has been happening with most of these RfCs for the past year or so). It will take some time to weight votes/consensus carefully and weed out the bludgeoning, but that's the only way to close this RfC effectively. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, both of the facts that the proposer wants to remove are well sourced as shown by mhosein and others. They're important to the notability of the People Mujahedin of Iran, and therefore should remain in the lead. Moreover, given the larger number of sources that support these statements, this should definitely remain in the lead. Maqdisi117 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• No: They are not exceptioanl or undue. This edit attarcted my attention. If we should give weight to independent reliable sources then I see a lot of sources in this discussison speaking about close relationships of Mujahedin and Saddam. Their act of treason is described by neutral and reliable sources as well.
• The following source may be useful:

"Rajavi's decision to link the council to Iraq, which at the time was embroiled in a war with Iran, is another reason. Although many Iranians had already lost their initial sympathy for the Khomeini regime in Tehran, they considered the linkage of the council to Iraq an act of treason. In June 1986, the French government—under pressure from Tehran—forced Rajavi to leave the country. Along with approximately 1,000 members of the MEK, Rajavi then accepted an offer from Saddam Husayn to move to Baghdad. Since 1982, the MEK has been politically, militarily, and financially supported by the Iraqi regime, and since 1986 it has maintained a 3,000-to 5,000-man so-called "national liberation army" in Iraq. Rajavi alone controls the MEK, which he has organized into a Stalinist-type personality cult centered on himself."(Page 113 and 114)

"The large majority of Iranians inside and outside of the country reject the MEK because of its support for Baghdad during the IranIraq War and its continuing alliance with Saddam" (Page 116) Shiasun (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, remove. Also per Stefka Bulgaria, who explained it well. The MEK siding with Hussein is in the lead already, and the sources provided here for "by 1983" are indeed inconsistent with what they say (and most talk about Rajavi and not the MEK, so it may even be unrelated to the MEK). That is defo WP:UNDUE especially in the WP:LEAD. The sentence is then somehow WP:SYNTHED to say that the Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983 was "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland", so suddenly we are talking about the MEK and not Rajavi, and none of those given sources support that by 1983 the MEK's appeal had been destroyed for siding with Hussein. Too much lack of consistent narrative, not lead material, and MEK siding with Hussein is already mentioned there anyways. Poya-P (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Poya-P That last part was actually restored into the article by Stefka Bulgaria. So, Stefka claims the source is misrepresented, then reverts any attempts to correct the misrepresentation. Making a simple edit to that sentence can alleviate any concerns about WP:SYNTH or inconsistency.VR _talk 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, do not remove Pahlevun, VR and Mhhossein have provided many sources for these points. Well sourced points should remain.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes.

• ""In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support".

The sources about this concern a "meeting between Rajavi and Tariq Aziz", "Rajavi building connections with Iraqi leadership", and the two other sources can be added with "since the 1980s it was involved alongside Saddam Hussein in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

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

The "NO" votes say this should be given more WP:WEIGHT than the sources saying the MEK is popular, but that is not neutral (NPOV violation) and the sources saying the Iranian regime is spending millions to "portray the MEK without popular support" is also a big red flag about why this should be avoided in the lead. PRDM__9 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha? No where in the page 'No voters' said UNDUE weight should be paid to that portion, rather they support DUE coverage of the content and they present numerous sources for their arguments (see comments by Me, Vice Regent and Pahlevun). Also, comments like yours, which are not supported by reliable sources or policies will be ignored by the closer. We don't do WP:OR here, so the so-called "red-flag" has no place here.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment It should be clarified that the vast majority of sources are saying something while one source is adding that probably the issue is not accurate — even that source does not reject the POV of those majority of sources. According to WP:DUE, it is clear that we should go by the most pronounced voice, i.e. MEK's sidding with Saddam bought them unpopularity.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• No It is factually and historically correct, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and has been extensively commented on and referenced by numerous journalists, historians, geopolitical commentators, and authors in academia. There is no dispute among experts in the field that the MEK aligned itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, operated from Iraqi soil with Saddam's permission, and lent substantive support to the Iraqi army during its war against Iran. Moreover it's copiously documented that this alone cost the MEK an immense amount of support from Iranians who viewed them as traitors. A search through the Washington Post alone gives multiple mentions alliance with Saddam. Example: [6]

"Historians said the decision to side with Iraq cost the group most of its support inside Iran. At the same time, former insiders said the group grew into a hermitic society controlled by its only surviving leader."

See also, [7] "Rajavi found a friend in Saddam Hussein and began to build up an army in Iraq."

This information clearly belongs in the lede, it's relevant and accurate. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• No to removal. The content is supported by a wide range of sources so it is not exceptional. To the best of my knowledge, this inclusion is not against WP:NPOV, unless there are other counter point of views which are as strong. No one in this discussion presented counter viewpoints. So, don't remove it please. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to removal. The MEK aligning itself with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War is already in the lead. Iranians viewing them as traiters is not NPOV and is not telling the whole story. Read the sources. There is no doubt the MEK was and is the main political opposition in Iran even though it is outlawed by the Iranian government. Rondolinda (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Rondolinda (talk · contribs) To clarify, what do you support be removed from the lead?

• 1. [MEK is] considered the Islamic Republic of Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group
• 2. [MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians

One of them or both? If you support one removed from the lead but not the other, can you explain why?VR _talk 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello VR, to clarify, I support the whole sentence be removed from the lead. Rondolinda (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Rondolinda Which sentence? I provided two (and have now numbered them). Do you support removing both of them or only one?VR _talk 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, remove the whole sentence. Rondolinda's reasoning is correct, the main information about Hussein and MEK is already is in the lead, and MEK being considered "traitors" only tells one one aspect of a bigger picture. This would be like putting in the lead of Anwar Sadat that he was considered a traitor for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Yes, some people may have said this, and some sources may have covered this, but this does not represent the full picture of what happened, and putting only one side of the picture is a neutral editing violation. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. TheDreamBoat is a dromant account which comes to the RFCs whenever needed. Previously, he !voted after more than one year of dormancy and the current one comes after around a 6-month-long hiatus. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: if you're going to accuse another editor of being canvassed to this discussion, you should at least ping them. @TheDreamBoat: were you canvassed to vote here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The {{Canvassed}} template already automatically attaches a ping, Stefka Bulgaria. El_C 19:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

— is this about me? @Mhhossein: I was not canvassed to edit here. You don't know my situation or the reasons why I edit when I edit, so please remove this comment right away. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but Your edits are speaking for themselves. After more than 1 year of being dormant you sudenly jump into a RFC followed by another jump after a 6-months-long dromancy. This discussion may also be helpful for the closing admin. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Isn't Mhhossein "poisoning" the RfC process here by making canvassing accusations or linking failed SPIs without providing any evidence whatsoever to support his accusation? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, as it looks like VR has provided plenty of sources to support this sentence. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing MEK popularity from lead and WP:DUE

My point about this RfC violating WP:DUE keeps getting lost, so I'll make it here. The lead currently contains two statements on MEK's popularity:

1.

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

2.

[MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.

Many users have used sources that say MEK is Iran's biggest opposition group to say that phrase #2 is disputed, including Stefka Bulgaria,[8] and Idealigic,[9]. In fact, Nika2020 said 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. All of this implies that #1 and #2 are contradictory POVs. But WP:DUE requires us to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So removing #2 while leaving in #1 is a clear violation of WP:DUE. And removing any mention of popularity might violate WP:LEAD which asks us to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. If there is such a big controversy over MEK's popularity then we have to cover it in the lead.

Finally, #2 does represent a significant viewpoint, because it has been covered in many, many sources.

Sources that say MEK-Saddam alliance made it unpopular with Iranians

"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. "...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 "the Mojahedin’s decision to set up bases in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and fight against Khomeini from that side of the border turned out to be fatal for their sympathy amongst the Iranian people, who considered this national treason." page of 47 of Master's thesis "The Iranian Mojahedin´s struggle for legitimacy" at University of Oslo "But after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors." Guardian "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" "Many independent scholars say the MEK's alliance with Saddam in that long and bloody war turned the group into traitors in the eyes of most Iranians." Newsweek "The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy [Saddam Hussein]." Jason Rezaian in the Washington Post "More important, most Iranians disdain the MEK because it sided with Saddam Hussein in the bloody eight-year war between Iraq and Iran," Hamid Biglari in Foreign Affairs magazine "And to make up for a drop in popularity tied to its alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the group started recruiting Iranian economic migrants in the Middle East under false pretences..." MiddleEast Eye "During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process." BBC News "They don't have a following in Iran; in fact, they are widely detested for siding with the regime of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war." said by Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council "That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said." Al-Jazeera "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..." Business Insider "The MEK’s supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran’s theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians." Reuters "...most Iranians regard the MEK as traitors aided by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war or, at best, a sadistic cult." Globe and Mail "And one of the reasons they have virtually zero public support in Iran these days is that they're seen as traitors having fought on the Iraqi side in the Iran-Iraq war." Paul R. Pillar in NPR "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 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) "While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran." Sandra Mackey "The Iranians", page 372

VR _talk 02:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

VR: That MEK is considered as "Iran's biggest and most active political opposition group" is a disputed as far as I know. For instance, take a look at this UN report:

"There are two major groups in Iran which oppose the present regime, namely the MEK and the monarchists. The MEK has been involved in terrorist activities and is therefore a less legitimate replacement for the current regime. Monarchists operate several television stations in different countries and are actively involved in disseminating information criticizing the current Iranian regime."

--Mhhossein ^talk 22:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is disputed. But WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be presented and WP:DUE tells us that a prominent viewpoint in WP:RS must be given "prominence of placement". So it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to remove one prominent viewpoint from the lead but leave the opposing prominent viewpoint there.VR _talk 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes VR that's it, but looking at the discussions it seems Stefka Bulgaria et al. are changing their minds from time to time. First they said it's exceptional, now they say it's SYNTH (LOL!). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressing VR's and Mhhossein's concerns (part 1)

VR and Mhhossein have a history of complaining that their concerns are usually not addressed in these RfCs, so for the sake of not bludgeoning this RfC further, I'll address their concerns here as brief and to the point as I can:

This RfC proposes removing the following from the lede:

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

Two main reasons have been presented for endorsing this removal:

1) We already have in the lede that the MEK was

“involved, alongside Saddam Hussein, in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings."

2) The sources presented talking about a MEK-Saddam Hussein collaboration in 1983 and prior are inconsistent (many talk about Rajavi and not the MEK per se, and most of the sources simply don’t support what's currently in the lede). It has been proposed that these sources be summarized in the body since in the lede they are WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH for the statement in question.

Here is a list of the sources presented for supporting this statement, and why they are problematic:

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

(This talks about a meeting between Rajavi with Tariq Aziz and analysts suspecting that Iraqi money funded MEK projects; it would be WP:SYNTH to say this source asserts that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”.)

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

(This talks about Rajavi starting connections with Iraqi leadership and Iraq allowing the MEK to set up bases in Iraqi Kuristan; it would be WP:SYNTH to assert this source supports that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”.)

• "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

(It would be WP:SYNTH to say this source supports that Rajavi “sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”)

• "Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein."[Terrornomics By Sean S. Costigan, David Gold]

(This consists of a single mention in the whole book that doesn’t support “...in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War”)

• "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."[Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards]

(This consists of a single mention in the whole book about Massoud Rajavi siding with Saddam Hussein by 1983 which doesn’t say anything about “financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran-Iraq war”.)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

First you forgot this source (WSJ) that I mentioned above:

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.

This is also the first time in the RfC that you've brought up WP:SYNTH concerns and we should get an outside opinion at WP:NORN. But would you agree that a slight rewording of the sentence would eliminate any such concerns:

By 1983, Masud Rajavi had openly sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war and received financial support from him...

VR _talk 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That source is an opinion piece by an author known for ontroversies and fabrications; so best to avoid that one. About your other suggestions, I'm not interested in bludgeoning this RfC more than it already has been. All points have been addressed, and as it was explained to you already, a RfC "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog.". Let an experienced editor/admin close this already before it drags into "a mess that nobody can follow anymore" territory. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria you raised concerns about WP:SYNTH for the very first time on December 6. Prior to that no one in this RfC had talked about SYNTH. But just one hour after raising that concern you said "let an experienced editor/admin close this". WP:Communication is required. There has been no discussion over possible SYNTH. Now, what is your opinion on the small modification I proposed above?VR _talk 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Others have presented objections to removing this from the lede besides my WP:SYNTH argument. The reality is that the quote voted to be removed:

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

remains WP:UNDUE for the lede: only a couple of sources support "by 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support", and neither of them say anything about "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." (the sources that talk about the MEK losing popularity in Iran refer to the MEK collaborating with Hussein - something that's is already in the lede - and not about Massud Rajavi siding with Hussein by 1983).

I hope I have been clear here. Please let someone close this already. I won't respond to any more pings. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria I have tweaked the text to more closely reflect the source, so that should no longer be a concern. We can reword "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam" to "MEK's alliance with Saddam" etc.

Solid WP:RS have been provided for all the following facts: by 1983 MEK and Iraq had a relationship that consisted of Iraq giving money and material support to MEK, MEK giving intelligence to Iraq, and Rajavi and Iraqi Deputy PM had met and formed an agreement (Jan 1983). Three of the sources say Rajavi had "sided" with Iraq by 1983, which is what is already there, but I'm open to a different wording.VR _talk 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is yet another source:

As it went into exile, MEK’s willingness to side with Saddam’s Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war disturbed its already diminished cadre. During a key 1983 meeting between Masud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz, an alliance was forged.
— Ray Takeyh, Council of Foreign Relations,[10]

VR _talk 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressing VR's and Mhhossein's concerns (part 2)

This RfC also proposes removing the following from the lede:

"[MEK-Iraq alliance] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

Iran is unfortunately one of the worst censored countries by their governments (see Censorship in Iran). The regime in Iran has outlawed the MEK there, so to wiki-voice in the lede of the article "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." would be a gross misrepresentation of all the RSs.

(Above) VR made the argument that removing this would be a "violation of WP:DUE" because we need to "represent all significant viewpoints", but he is suggesting we only represent the sources arguing that the MEK is unpopular, he is not asking that we also include the sources that argue the MEK is popular (which have been provided throughout this RfC) or the sources saying that “The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI [MEK and portrayed it as a group without popular support”].

For that reason, this is a problematic statement for the lede that would be better teased out and explained by all viewpoints in the body. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, I'm in favor of the status quo (and against your proposal), because currently the lead presents both viewpoints. You want to remove one viewpoint but not the other. Doesn't that violate WP:DUE?VR _talk 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone who voted in this RfC has already made their positions clear, including myself. I have addressed both yours and Mhhossein's concerns, and now it's time for an experienced editor/admin to close this RfC, so I won't comment here further for the sake of that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources are provided for "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland" you are saying it's being wiki-voiced? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: You say the following sentence is disputed:

Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians

Can ONE of you say which sources have disputed this? In what terms is it disputed? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The RFC is still open. Who would have thought? Likewise I think this question should be replied. They say it's disputed but what are the sources against it? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes Ali Ahwazi and it seems there are more things to be discussed yet. Stefka Bulgaria you need to reply this question. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Read the numerous votes/comments in the RFC explaining why this sentence is problematic for the lede of the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No one asked for why the sentence is problematic. Please, bring ONE source saying "Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians" is disputed. I am assuming you are failing to support your position by reliable sources. No where in this RFC it was shown the this sentence is disputed. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria If you have missed this comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, read the RFC's comments. Nobody is saying this is disputed or unsupported by sources. I've said this should be removed per WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT: If we have sources saying the MEK is a group that "remains deeply divisive inside the country" and also that the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign against it to, among other things, "demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support” then saying they're considered "traitors" in their own country would constitute a one-sided POV assertion (specially problematic for the lede). 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." Yet, in this Wikipedia article it has been asserted in the lede as if were an objective truth; and (as other sources argue here) that's not the case. Like Nika2020 said, this is a "faulty generalization". In another RFC closed last year here, the closing admin said "It would also be quite possible to give neither figure in the lede, and just describe the controversy in the body text, although nobody in the discussion even considers this. I don't know why not." So we are here trying to take such advice on board, and put controversial generalisations in the body (along with POVs from other RSs, so it's better contextualized there). Also, this text is talking about Rajavi siding with Hussein and not the MEK per se, which is even more problematic for the lede and needs to be better explained in the body. I doubt you'll be happy with this or any explanation I give, so I won't be responding here anymore hoping that someone will close this RFC. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I will give you a thorough response. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I will address your comment segment by segment:

• #1-The first five lines your comment (from "For the last time,..." up to "As Ronen Cohen notes:"...because of the nature of the government in Iran."[5])

In this segment, you are combining materials from multiple sources, some of them being news sources, "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is a clear a SYNTHESIS and should be avoided. As you already said. "Nobody is saying this ["Rajavi's decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians"] is disputed or unsupported by source." So, no synthesis please. Moreover, WP:POV / WP:WEIGHT is not applied here because there's no counter viewpoint against the the disputed content in the scholarly or news sources.

• #2- The rest of your comment (from "For the last time,..." up to the end).

In this part you are referring to "faulty generalization". Actually, no generalization is done. There are vast amount of scholarly sources saying Saddam-MEK's collaborations led to MEK being called traitor (which you said is not disputed anywhere by no one). This text is so strongly supported by the various sources, be it scholarly or not, that is never problematic for the lead. Finally, if your issue has now condensed to the level of 'names should change', then it shows you are now accepting the issue is generally not refutable but the details should be changed. So, again, "faulty generalization" is just a baseless pretext.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References
References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.