Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

MEK's relations with the Kurds

I found two scholarly sources that say the MEK supported the Kurdish rebellion, which I added to the article.

• "The Mojahedin's support of the Kurdish rebellion, their opposition to the Velayat-e Faqih, and their boycott of the constituional referendum in 1979 further strained their fragile relationship with the fundamentalists."
• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings; … violating the rights of the national minorities, especially of the Kurds"

Also the sources in the article say that the MEK deny fighting against the Kurds. Idealigic (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked Mhhossein about the sources supporting the current statement in the lead about the Kurds, but he never responded. Abrahamian (p. 208) doesn't look like it's supporting this. The second source, which is no longer live, says the US accused the MEK in the early 1990s of participating in this, but that is only an accusation. The third source, which is also no longer live, it also says this is an allegation. And concur with Idealigic that these last two sources say the MEK deny these allegations. I will fix to better reflect the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of more sources about the Kurds-MEK conundrum:

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."
• "In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. The report refers to “certain misrepresentations of events in the area, particularly allegations made that the [MEK] has collaborated with the armed forces of the Government of Iraq, by participating in attacks against Kurdish people in Kirkut, Qara Hanjeer, Kifri and Altun Kopir in April 1991."

• "From our independent investigation and discussion with parties involved, we find these allegations false . . . Most of the allegations made against the BNAA regarding the Kurdish people come from a man named Jamshid Tafrishi- Enginee, who was cited by people at this session of the sub-commission as a former leader of the Iranian Resistance. Our investigation indicates that Mr Tafrishi-Enginee joined the Resistance in 1988, but left after 19 months with a low rank. In his letter of resignation, hand-written and dated 23 September 1990, he sites personal problems and requests leave to transfer to a refugee camp. He then traveled to Europe where he began to campaign publicly against the NLA. There is compelling evidence that he is in fact an agent of the Khomeini regime's Ministry of Intelligence. In a letter dated l4 July 1999, Mr Hoshyar Zebari, then head of the Kurdish Democratic Party's international relations and presently Foreign Minister of Iraq (see document [97]), wrote, The KDP as a major Kurdish political party has led and participated in the Kurdish Spring uprising of 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan . . . The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin-e-khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing multiple low valued allegations and interviews which are tried to be used against dozens of reliable scholarly sources. Stefka Bulgaria is repeating the old argument of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government". However, the following items should be treated as concrete evidences saying MEK helped Saddam suppress the Kurdish uprisings:

I would not used these two quotes to reach such a strong conclusion, i.e. "MEK never took part in the Kurdish uprising". This claim seems silly in face of vast number of sources saying MEK were involved in cracking the Kurdish uprising in Iraq. Here are some of the sources:

• "It aided Saddam with operations against the Kurds in the north..."by Oxford University Press, P. 250
• "MEK terrorism has declined since late 2001. Incidents linked to the group include:...Saddam Hussein's suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings."–by ABC-CLIO, P.337
• "For instance , their units provided effective assistance to Saddam ' s forces in the violent suppression of the Kurdish uprisings that broke out in March 1991 in northern Iraq."–by Washington Institute for Near East Policy, P.114
• "MEK fighters not only assisted the Iraqis in the Iran - Iraq War but also helped Saddam put down the 1991 Kurdish uprising."–by The New York Review Books, P.76
• " ... to Saddam that MEK fighters not onlyassisted the Iraqis inthe IranIraqWar but also helped Saddam putdownthe 1991 Kurdish uprising"[1]
• "the report, drawing on U.S. government sources, notes, “Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, ‘a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border.’” The report goes on to cite the Kurdish leader—and first president of Iraq after the fall of Saddam—Jalal Talabani, as telling reporters at the time that “5,000 Iranian Mojahedin [MEK] joined Saddam’s forces in the battle for Kirkuk” and points to Wall Street Journal reporting as well on the MEK’s part in this bloody campaign"–by POLITICO
• "... The Kurds and Shiite Arabs have long reviled the MEK because Saddam Hussein used it to help put down their uprisings ..."–P.217
• "In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north."–By the Guardian
• "where it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88) and reportedly helped quash Kurdish uprisings in the north and Shia unrest in the south (1991)."by Council of Foreign Relations.
• "They were helped out by Arabs, and then turned themselves over to the Kurds, ..."–by the New York Times
• "In March 1991, Saddam deployed the MEK to help quell the armed Kurdish independence movement in the north."–by The Guardian
• "After the First Gulf War, Hussein reportedly used the Mojahedin as a militia to quell sectarian and ethnic uprisings, alienating many Iraqis. “Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” Maryam Rajavi told her followers during the attacks, according to the The New York Times Magazine."–by The Intercept

Given the fact that there are weighty sources saying MEK did assist Saddam with suppression of the Kurds in 1981, any counter counter POVs should be supported by strong sources. @Vanamonde93: I think the behavior of Idealigic, whom you warned a couple of months ago, is against the limitations we agreed upon. In his latest violation, he inserted a content which was followed by my revert. Next, he restored the disputed content without effectively trying to build consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mhhossein: I added to the article that "The MEK's support of the Kurdish rebellion also further strained their relationship with the fundamentalists.", something that is supported by a scholarly source. You reverted me saying this is WP:FRINGE, so I added ANOTHER SCHOLARLY SOURCE to support this, and then Ghazaalch removes this again now saying that the sections need to be shortened? Then you make this revert from the lead also (what you restored in the lead does not reflect what is in the sources about the Kurds or other POVs except the one you seem to want in the article). And then you accuse me to Vanamonde. ?? Idealigic (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You violated the page's restriction:

• You inserted a content
• I reverted your action
• You restored the disputed content again without trying to build consensus.

You have repeated this violation a couple of times in the past. My understanding of your latest "disingenous" comment is that it's trying to GAME us by adding irrelevant sources to this dispute, since NONE of your sources say MEK helped Kurds during the 1991 uprising in Iraq. That said, Ghazaalch's edit is well justified. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

• First - You restored the Abrahamian 1989 source to the lead to support that the MEK participated in “the 1991 nationwide uprisings.” I don't see Abrahamian supports this, but he apparently says the opposite.

• Second - You removed from the lead "although the MEK deny this.", but there is a source there that supports this.

• Third - Idealigic does not seem to be violating the restrictions of the article - you reverted their edit because you said what he added was “Fringe”, so he added another sources to show this statement was not “Fringe”.

• Fourth - Multiple reliable sources have been provided here showing friendly relations between the MEK and the Kurds, and you and Ghazaalch removed them. MA Javadi (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not rocket science. Despite being reverted, Idealigic has restored an already reverted content for which he had not gained consensus. Also, I did NOT make a new change, be it removal or addition. I juts kept the longstanding version accompanied by explanations. Lastly, the lead content is on the MEK-assisted suppression of Kurds during the 1991 upheavels in Iraq and NONE of the sources added by Idealigic concern the 1991 uprisings in Iraq and this action can be described as GAMING other users. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say that Idealigic was recently warned by Vanamonde93 for a closely similar mistake. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources Idealigic used for the content are reliable and support the content. Idealigic restored content with a new source (the reason you initially reverted him), so he was complying with your own request and now you are trying to report him because of it. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, please explain how this is not a violation of the consensus required restriction on this article. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde,

I restored the edit with a new scholarly source - I thought this was allowed.

To explain myself, I first added to the article that "The MEK's support of the Kurdish rebellion also further strained their relationship with the fundamentalists." [diff] (supported by scholarly source by Mohsen Milani who is an expert in this field).

Mhhossein reverted this edit saying it seemed like “WP:FRINGE” theory. [diff]

To address Mhhossein’s “WP:FRINGE” theory concern and show this was supported by other scholarly sources, I added another source to the edit (by Ervand Abrahamian, who also supports this content). [diff]

My rationale was that I was making the second edit different from the first by adding another scholarly source to support the material (addressing Mhhossein’s WP:FRINGE concern). If I broke any restrictions, I would have self-reverted, but Ghazaalch reverted my edit soon after (saying “The sections need to be shortened“. [diff])

I also thought this method of restoring the content with new sources was ok to do because Mhhossein did something similar before:

• [diff]: Mhhossein uses deceptive edit summary (according to special:diff/969798085" - which is about "MEK's designation as a terrorist organization by the Japanese government") to add "Operation Shining Sun" to the lead of the article.
• [diff]: I revert him saying the source he used (The Globe Post) was not reliable.
• [diff]: Mhhossein restored content using a new source (by Ronen Cohen, that by your own assessment, did not even support Mhhossein's edit).

Mhhossein did this despite prior warnings (such as this one), so I was surprised to see him accusing me of this now. I can't speak on why Mhhossein restored that content while accusing me here (he actually did it more times), but speaking on my own behalf, I would have self reverted if I'd sincerely known I was breaking any restriction. Idealigic (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry for pinging you again. I think this pattern of misleading should stop somewhere.

• There's a fine point which Idealigic is evading from, despite the fact that I tried to clarify it. Actually, Idealigic explained himself once. Look at the content and the sources he has provided here, where NONE were related to 1991 uprisings – probably they are related to MEK-Kurds relationships before the Iranian revolution during the Shah period, according to the context. As I said here and here, the sources (and the content) which Idealigic added to the page were irrelevant to the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, a time span we are specifically talking about. He's again repeating his false comment. He did quite the same thing in the past and received a warning by you. I have provided a lot of reliable sources explicitly stressing that MEK did assist Saddam with suppressing the Kurds' uprising in 1991.
• So, he inserted a content and I reverted his action. He had to build consensus for adding this challenging claim to the lead, before anything else. However, he restored the disputed content again.

• I am not going through Idealigic's baseless accusations. Though I am ready to explain how false these accusations are.

Hope every thign is exaplained well. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mhhossein, Where did I say that my edits were related to the 1991 uprisings?
• I showed in my previous comment how you restored reverted content to the article (more times than me actually), so you should indeed explain yourself. Idealigic (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Compilation of reliable sources concerning MEK and the Kurds

I've put together the sources above and some I found.

• “The IPC [Iran Policy Committee] Task Force also conducted its own investigation of charges of MEK collaboration against the Kurds. The IPC collected statements from credible Iraqi sources and American military officers who served at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The IPC also held 8 direct discussions with current and former MEK members. The findings confirm Iraqi and MEK denials of any such role by the MEK in suppression of the Kurdish people.In 2002, Reuters obtained a document from a civil suit being conducted in the Netherlands testifying that the MEK had no part in Saddam's brutal operations against the Kurds. The document, signed by a principal Kurdish political official, said that the MEK was not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath.”[2][archived from: https://www.economist.com/newsbook/2011/02/27/grim-decision-making ] by Professor Raymond Tanter

• "The Mojahedin's support of the Kurdish rebellion, their opposition to the Velayat-e Faqih, and their boycott of the constituional referendum in 1979 further strained their fragile relationship with the fundamentalists."

• "In the political sphere, the Mojahedin attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings; … violating the rights of the national minorities, especially of the Kurds"

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."
• "In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. The report refers to “certain misrepresentations of events in the area, particularly allegations made that the [MEK] has collaborated with the armed forces of the Government of Iraq, by participating in attacks against Kurdish people in Kirkut, Qara Hanjeer, Kifri and Altun Kopir in April 1991."

• "From our independent investigation and discussion with parties involved, we find these allegations false . . . Most of the allegations made against the BNAA regarding the Kurdish people come from a man named Jamshid Tafrishi- Enginee, who was cited by people at this session of the sub-commission as a former leader of the Iranian Resistance. Our investigation indicates that Mr Tafrishi-Enginee joined the Resistance in 1988, but left after 19 months with a low rank. In his letter of resignation, hand-written and dated 23 September 1990, he sites personal problems and requests leave to transfer to a refugee camp. He then traveled to Europe where he began to campaign publicly against the NLA. There is compelling evidence that he is in fact an agent of the Khomeini regime's Ministry of Intelligence. In a letter dated l4 July 1999, Mr Hoshyar Zebari, then head of the Kurdish Democratic Party's international relations and presently Foreign Minister of Iraq (see document [97]), wrote, The KDP as a major Kurdish political party has led and participated in the Kurdish Spring uprising of 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan . . . The KDP can confirm that the Mujahedin were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Mujahedin-e-khalq has its own political agenda in Iran and its members do not interfere in Iraqi internal affairs."

• "Reuters separately obtained a copy of a 1999 legal document signed by a senior official of a major Iraqi Kurdish group that said there was no evidence the Mujahideen took part in the Iraqi government's 1991 campaign against the Kurds. The document, which was part of a lawsuit in the Netherlands, was received on condition that the author and the original recipient remain anonymous. The Iraqi Kurds have regular contacts with the Iranian government. "(We) can confirm that the Mujahedin (sic) were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan," it said." White Paper from [Iran Policy Committee]

• "Some of the nationalist Kurds have cooperated with Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a socialist group that attacks government officials and installations in oppostion to the Islamic regime. By The Middle East and South Asia, 1988, Stryker-Post Publications , Ray L Cleveland (Author)

• "the MeK was alleged to have assisted the Iraqi Republican Guard in suppressing Shiite and Kurdish uprisings, although this has always been denied by the MeK".

@Mhhossein: None of this is in the article. Please give an explanation why a short summary of this can’t be in the article. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of information that could be added to this article including different Cultic Characteristics of the MeK, which RAND report, for example, has dedicated a whole chapter to it. But the answer they gave me was that The sections need to be shortened. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You might also like to add the following to the article, but you can't. They won't let you to.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the MeK is widely believed to have assisted Saddam in the violent suppression of the Shia and Kurdish uprisings of 1991.21 MeK officials strenuously deny any involvement in the atrocities against the Shia and Kurds, alleging that they were attacked by combined Kurdish and Iranian forces and that the MeK did not even defend itself.22 However, the allegations of the group’s complicity with Saddam are corroborated by press reports that quote Maryam Rajavi encouraging MeK members to “take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,”23 as well as the timing of Saddam’s conferring the Rafedeen Medallion—a high honor in the Iraqi military—on Masoud Rajavi. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: You still have not explained why you restored the Abrahamian 1989 source to the lead to support that the MEK participated in “the 1991 nationwide uprisings.” I don't see Abrahamian supports this. Please explain. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Can you please respond why you restored a source that does not seem to support the content in the lead. If you fail to respond, I'll have to request admin involvement. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, you can remove the citation if you think that's not supporting. The content is, however, supported by reliable sources.--Mhhossein ^talk 06:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal of MA Javadi's sources

MA Javadi provided sources above that he uses as a basis for an RfC to remove MEK's participation in "the 1991 nationwide uprisings". But MEK's participation is an established fact and MA Javadi is distorting sources to counter this fact. He presents multiple pre-1991 sources to rebut an event that hadn't even occurred! He also uses the Economist to endorse a view that is opposite of what the Economist is saying. Rebuttal:

• 1. This source is an excerpt published by The Economist. The Economist actually supports the view that MEK attacked the Kurds. It says:

• The Economist replies:...Nibras Kadhimi, a scholar at the Hudson Institute who is a respected analyst of Iraqi affairs, has testified that the MEK was Saddam Hussein's main force in recapturing the towns of Kifri and Kalar and their surrounding villages, as well as parts of Kirkuk, from the Iraqis rebelling against Saddam in 1991. There are many such documented testimonies in this regard. A New York Times correspondent in Iraq, Elizabeth Rubin, who visited Camp Ashraf, the MEK's base in Iraq, and wrote an exhaustively researched article on it published on July 13th 2003, quoted Mariam Rajavi making the statement denied in the letter (published above) from the MEK's supporters. She also wrote: “Everyone I spoke to—Iraq intelligence officers, Kurdish commanders and human rights groups—said that in 1991 Hussein used the Mujahideen and its tanks as advance forces to crush the Kurdish uprisings in the north and the Shia uprisings in the south.” In her book Why does the west forget?, Baroness Nicholson includes further testimony of the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq, lending weight to the array of allegations against the MEK cited above. This was based on interviews she conducted during many visits to Iraq in the past 20 years.

  1. With regards to the Tanter excerpt, The Economist publishes it alongside his student's excerpt Following their expulsion from Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini in the early 1980s, the MEK allied with Saddam Hussein and, in exchange for providing domestic security operations against Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, Saddam gave the MEK millions of dollars, protection, and bases along the Iranian border from which the MEK could launch their frequent attacks against the clerical regime.” The same allegation is made again in the US State Department's “Patterns of Global Terrorism” published in 2002. There is no endorsement of Tanter's views, which seem to be published in a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source called "Appeasing the Ayatollahs and Suppressing Democracy: U.S. Policy and the Iranian Opposition : a White Paper". This can't be used to rebut scholarly sources.

• 2. Is this source (Milani Mohsen) even talking about the 1991 uprisings?? If not what is the point of presenting a totally irrelevant source?
• 3. Again this source (Abrahamian) can't be talking about the 1991 uprisings and was actually published in 1989.
• 4. No citation is given.
• 5. "In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. I read the letter and ECOSCOC is merely conveying the views of "International Educational Development" but not endorsing the views in any way. Who is "International Educational Development"? I googled it but could find nothing on them. The link MA Javadi provided was to a US Congress report entitled "Camp Ashraf: Iraqi Obligations and State Department Accountability", which lists both views that MEK attacked the Kurds and that MEK didn't attack them. It doesn't endorse either view.
• 6. This source is literally written by the "National Council of Resistance of Iran" which is a WP:COISOURCE.
• 7. The Middle East and South Asia, 1988 was published in 1988. Judging from the date it can't be referring to the 1991 uprisings.
• 8. The MEK indeed has denied the 1991 uprisings, but that doesn't mean their denials are true.

VR _talk 17:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal of VR's rebuttal

VR, thank you for your points. Here is my reply about each of the sources.

• I don’t know where you got that the Economist needs to “endorse” Tanter’s views in order for his views to be valid. The Economist are not required to either endorse or refute Tanter’s views. Raymond Tanter is a “professor Emeritus of Political Science and Research Associate at the Middle East Center at The University of Michigan, and his analysis on the claim that the MEK participate in the 1991 Uprisings is that:

“The IPC [Iran Policy Committee] Task Force also conducted its own investigation of charges of MEK collaboration against the Kurds. The IPC collected statements from credible Iraqi sources and American military officers who served at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The IPC also held 8 direct discussions with current and former MEK members. The findings confirm Iraqi and MEK denials of any such role by the MEK in suppression of the Kurdish people.In 2002, Reuters obtained a document from a civil suit being conducted in the Netherlands testifying that the MEK had no part in Saddam's brutal operations against the Kurds. The document, signed by a principal Kurdish political official, said that the MEK was not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath.”

That is a report by a scholar who has all the qualifications to be a reliable author (despite endorsement or lack thereof by the Economist).

• Milani Mohsen and Abrahamian appear to be talking about the MEK’s relationship with the Kurds prior to 1991 (not about the 1991 Uprisings), so it can’t be linked to the 1991 Uprisings. Yet this narrative that the MEK supported the Kurds prior to 1991 has also been completely removed from the article. This is supported by two sources by reliable academics. Why was it removed? We are omitting an important part of the picture in terms of the relationship between the MEK and the Kurds, that though may not be related to the 1991 Uprisings, it still leaves to wonder why certain editors may not want to include in the article that the MEK backed the Kurds during the 1980s.

• "One of our tasks was to discredit the PMOI among members of parliaments and governments in Europe and the United States.. I was assigned to inform international organisations as well as foreign governments that PMOI was involved in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. This plan was conducted under the supervision of Nasser Khajeh-Nouri, who was the regime's agent in the Untied States. He organised interiew for me and other agents with an Iranian radio station in Los Angeles to tell our story that PMOI suppressed the Kurdish people along with the Iraqi forces. Khajeh-Nouri consequently prepared a report under my name on this issue and sent it to US intelligene and government agencies as well as the United Nations."}

This is taken from “ CAMP ASHRAF: IRAQI OBLIGATIONS AND STATE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABILITY” by the “United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations”. Page 113.

• ""In August 1995, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) distributed a report prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US. The report refers to “certain misrepresentations of events in the area, particularly allegations made that the [MEK] has collaborated with the armed forces of the Government of Iraq, by participating in attacks against Kurdish people in Kirkut, Qara Hanjeer, Kifri and Altun Kopir in April 1991.

Once again, the source doesn’t need to “endorse” a particular view. It provides a report distributed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSCOC) prepared for the UN Secretary General by International Educational Development, a UN-accredited non-governmental organization based in the US.

• Yes, this source presents the MEK’s side (written by the NCRI). Just like we use Islamic Republic press to present the Islamic Republic's side.

• "Reuters separately obtained a copy of a 1999 legal document signed by a senior official of a major Iraqi Kurdish group that said there was no evidence the Mujahideen took part in the Iraqi government's 1991 campaign against the Kurds. The document, which was part of a lawsuit in the Netherlands, was received on condition that the author and the original recipient remain anonymous. The Iraqi Kurds have regular contacts with the Iranian government. "(We) can confirm that the Mujahedin (sic) were not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. We have not come across any evidence to suggest that the Mujahedin have exercised any hostility towards the people of Iraqi Kurdistan," it said." White Paper from [Iran Policy Committee]

You skipped this one!

• "Some of the nationalist Kurds have cooperated with Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a socialist group that attacks government officials and installations in oppostion to the Islamic regime. By The Middle East and South Asia, 1988, Stryker-Post Publications , Ray L Cleveland (Author)

This is not about the 1991 Uprisings but about the MEK-Kurds relationship prior to the uprisings.

• "the MeK was alleged to have assisted the Iraqi Republican Guard in suppressing Shiite and Kurdish uprisings, although this has always been denied by the MeK".

This is the MEK’s version. It doesn’t need to be either “true” or “false” (just like the accusations against the MEK don’t need to be either “true” or “false”). We just report on what is in the sources (without cherry picking please!). - MA Javadi (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

MA Javadi when it comes to determining facts, we need to consider whether a source is merely reporting a view or endorsing it. Hundreds of reliable and scholarly views report on holocaust denial and climate change denial without endorsing them. You are only finding sources that report on MEK's denials but don't endorse MEK's denials that it was involved in the 1991 uprisings. In contrast, Mhhossein provided 12 sources, including a source published by Oxford University Press, that state MEK's involvement as a fact. You are trying to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between a view that is endorsed by scholarship and a denials that are merely reported by reliable sources (but not endorsed by them).VR _talk 14:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent it is not our job to "determine facts", but rather as editors we focus on reporting what the majority scholarship says about a particular subject (in a WP:NPOV manner, that is, including more than one of the side's POVs). This article is about the MEK, and trying to exclude the MEK's take about a particular incident is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Moreover, the MEK are not the only source denying that they took part in the 1991 Uprisings. The sources provided by MA Javadi include testimonies by qualified academics and independent organizations; which yourself and Mhhossein are trying to exclude from the article for whatever reason (see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: "editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole."). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria you are trying to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Do you agree that scholarship treats MEK's participation in the 1991 uprisings as a fact? We can include MEK's denial, but it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE to give that the same weight as scholarly consensus that MEK took part in the uprisings. So far MA Javadi has not produced scholarly sources that say that MEK didn't participate in the 1991 uprisings. The reliable sources, at most, note that denials of MEK taking part while still upholding the view that MEK did take part. This is not much different from scholarly sources that will talk about Holocaust denial but still uphold the consensus view that Holocaust happened.VR _talk 00:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Sentence in the lede

This sentence in lede currently reads:

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

I think this version is more neutral:

• which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."

This is based on the following sources:

• “This has further weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.”

• "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war."

• "...its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq”

• "“During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process.”

For those wishing to keep the lede as is, can you provide the sources and respective quotes that supports the current wording? I'm trying to present a WP:NPOV version that represenent the majority of RSs (and not just the ones that are the harshest; which I think is what we currently have in the lede). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that description now in the lead is taken from the more severe sounding quotes and not the more neutral ones. Ronen Conen for example writes "It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization"["The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy" by Ronen Cohen]. I think something more in the middle would be neutral reflection of all the sources, and not just the most critical ones. Idealigic (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulagria and Idealigic: Why do you think your suggestion is more neutral? Did you know that removal of a well-sourced POV is against WP:NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria How do you expect the RSs against a cultic militant group which committed lots of assassinations, to be less harsh? However here is an example of a more reliable source, if it would satisfy your non-harsh attitude:

• Prior to its exile, the MeK was the most popular dissident group in Iran. It lost much of its popularity due to its willingness to fight with Saddam—the instigator of the destructive Iran-Iraq War—and to kill Iranian conscripts

• MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.

Ghazaalch (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Besides, do you think the following long quotation should be in the lede? And all the given references support the exact quote?

The MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists".

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch and Mhhossein: so far there are 5 RSs in this section that support a more neutral wording. Ghazaalch only provided one (that also doesn't quite support what's currently in the lede). Do you have any other sources to support the version you want to keep in the lede? If not, I will go ahead and change to the proposed version here per WP:BOLD. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "more neutral wording"? Please let me know what your criteria is for determining how "neutral" the wording is. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria The word treason in the existing wording, is just a short form of the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.(copy-pasted from an online dictionary), which is supported by the above-mentioned sources. Your interpretation from the provided sources is too mild.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV; "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.", "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Stefka, WP:BALANCE requires us to "assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". In an earlier analysis I found that 9 sources used "traitor" or "treason" to describe MEK's perception and an additional 5 sources use strong adjectives like "disdain", "detested", "discredited", "strongly opposed", "magnified Iranian public opinion against".VR _talk 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@VR: can you please list here the 9 sources you say used "traitor" or "treason" and explain how they WP:BALANCE against the academic sources listed here and in the article using more neutral terminology? I see a Masters thesis among your sources, while we have a lot of academic sources proposing a more neutral wording:

• This has weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.
• there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war.
• its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
• During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process
• It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization
• Prior to its exile, the MeK was the most popular dissident group in Iran. It lost much of its popularity due to its willingness to fight with Saddam—the instigator of the destructive Iran-Iraq War—and to kill Iranian conscripts
• MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
• However, the envisaged military and popular support in Iran did not materialize.
• MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
• 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
• its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
• 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)
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• "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
• That decision by the MEK to collaborate with Saddam only magnified Iranian public opinion against the group, Javadi said. Al-Jazeera
• 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
• 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)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria As I pointed out here, there are three groups of sources regarding the disputed sentence in the lede. The first group say that Mek's popularity is weakened, but MeK could be popular to some extent. The second group say Mek is not popular(...group is not popular in Iran because...popular support in Iran did not materialize...). The third group say that Mek is hated (...Iranians disdain the MEK ...were strongly opposed by...). So as you could see, only the first group support your proposal. But you are trying to omit the other two groups from the lede, which I do not think is an smart way of proving yourself. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, "strongly opposed" is more in sync with what Stefka is proposing. These sources are not divided into "groups", they just use more neutral terminology. Barca (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So if I'm strongly opposing you in this discussion, it means that I am in favor of you but in a weakened version? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page archive, it appears this change had been of interest to Pro-MEK socks since 2016 !!! It's interesting to me. Anyway, as for the sources saying supporting the current wording in the lead, here you are plenty of reliable sources, among them dozens of scholarly and credible books:

1. "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.

2. "Today they are seen as traitors by much of the Iranian public."
   — Beeman, William O. (2008-04-15). The Great Satan Vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. University of Chicago Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-226-04147-6. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

3. "Most Iranians, regardless of their views concerning their own government, have seen the MEK as traitors ... ."
   — Foltz, Richard C. (2016). Iran in World History. Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-19-933550-3. Retrieved 29 May 2021.

4. "More important, as far as ordinary Iranians were concerned, was their decision to to enjoy Saddam Hossein's patronage at the time...Most Iranians, whatever their feelings towards the Islamic Republic, could not side with an organization that was effectively committing treason."
   — Ansari, Ali M. (2006). Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Roots of Mistrust. C. Hurst & Company. p. 198. ISBN 978-1-85065-809-2. Retrieved 29 May 2021.

5. "When Radjavi relocated to Iraq and openly sided with Saddam Hussein during the war, his treason alienated the vast majority of Iranians."
   — Timmerman, Kenneth R. (2006). Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-1-4000-5369-8. Retrieved 29 May 2021.

6. "...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

7. "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."
   — Merat, Arron (2018-11-09). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

8. "By MEK’s own estimate, it killed over 50,000 Iranian troops—a decision seen as a betrayal by many Iranians..."
   — "What John Bolton's Iranian Regime Change Looks Like". Observer. 2019-05-22. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

9. "Rajavi, in return, betrayed his own countrymen, identifying Iranian military targets for Iraq to bomb, a move most Iranians will never forgive."
   — Rubin, Elizabeth (2003-07-13). "The Cult of Rajavi". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

10. "That's because in Iran, MEK is regarded as a bunch of traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein..."
    — Prothero, Mitch. "US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will attend a meeting linked to a terror cult that has murdered 6 Americans". Business Insider. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

11. "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 "U.S. Removes Iranian Group From Terrorism List". NPR.org. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

12. "...a group that until 2011 was listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization and is despised by all Iranians due to its alliance with the regime of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War and other acts viewed by virtually all Iranians as treason."
    — "Trying to Exploit Iran's Diverse Ethnic Population to Advance a War Agenda". LobeLog. 2019-10-16. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

13. "The group is loathed by most Iranians, mainly for the traitorous act of fighting alongside the enemy."
    — Jason Rezaian in "John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him". Washington Post. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

14. "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."
    — EDT, Jonathan Broder On 08/27/19 at 5:08 PM (2019-08-27). "As Iran's opposition groups prepare for the regime's collapse, who else is ready?". Newsweek. Retrieved 28 May 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

15. "Given the highly nationalistic nature of the Iranian populace such an act was viewed as a betrayal of the homeland."
    — Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy : Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, July 7, 2011. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2011. ISBN 978-0-16-089489-3. Retrieved 28 May 2021.

More sources can be found saying the act of MEK's siding with the enemy of its homeland was viewed as "treason" by it's countrymen – and it's something logical. One may find more sources, using different keywords. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you've presented 5 academic sources, while I've presented 9 academic sources. As it stands, a more neutral wording is warranted per the available academic sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. That "more neutral wording" is your own creation. You are even failing to support your point using policies. Actually, that the majority of people in Iran view MEK's action as being treacherous is well established fact according to the sources. I know it's bad for MEK to see this, but that is not violating the NPOV. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you don't need to agree; the number of academic sources presented here speak for themselves. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of our agreement or lack thereof. I should repeat, I know it's annoying for MEK to be described as traitor because of invading his country. But, this is not against NPOV and you are still failing to show how these two are related. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What's "annoying for the MEK" (or the IRI) is of no importance here. What the majority of academic sources say is the only relevant point here, and the majority of academic sources use neutral wording to explain the MEK's attempts towards toppling the IRI. So the lede should reflect what the majority of academic sources say per WP:NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria The 9 academic sources you presented do not say that MeK's act is not traitorous, so you cannot use them against the 5 academic sources.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, this is what I meant to say but preferred to make Stefka Bulgaria understand it himself. Moreover, if annoying things are not of importance here, then stop saying that the current wording is not "neutral". --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Weakened" "decreased" "opposed" "minimized" "losing much domestic support" is neutral. "Traitorous" is POVish. Most of the scholarly sources support the neutral version. It's clear and simple. Idealigic (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No. This is not what neutrality means – WP:NPOV is the balance of POVs. FYI, "Traitorous" is negative, probably, but not partial. Actually, that the people viewed MEK's action as being "Traitorous" is completely neutral. I already provided 15 Ultra Reliable source for that. Can I know why you guys can not accept this is well supported by the sources? Also, we don't care that MEK would be annoyed by that. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Mhhossein: we've been through this already several times. You provided 5 academic sources, and I provided 9 that use more neutral wording. But I don't think I will convince you even with academic sources, so we'll let a DR or RfC resolve this. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, none of your sources contradict Mhhossein's view about MEK's actions being viewed as treasonous. In fact, the sources that you provided use substantially stronger language than your proposal of "a lasting negative impact". They say things like "strongly opposed", "lost nearly all the support", "disdained the MEK", "discredited" etc.VR _talk 14:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@VR: That's (yet another) Straw man argument: the sources I provided are not meant to contradict Mhhossein's sources; they are meant to quote what's prominently used in the scholarship. If you find I'm not quoting the majority of the scholarship properly (I disagree), then we can take a quote from one of the authors ("there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support" - that's Cohen, Ronen 2009, Sussex Academic Press - so doesn't get more RS than that). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: When an academic source (Cohen, Ronen 2009, Sussex Academic Press, for example, which you like much) say that "there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support, it does not mean that the source is against MeK's actions being viewed as traitorous, since the same source(page 123) also says "many Iranians who lived in Europe would not come because of their revulsion toward the organization and becaus they perceived the Mojahedin as traitors who had joined their worst enemy" Another example is RAND report, which you quoted four times above. It says that MeK's popularity eroded(page 77), But it does not mean that it just eroded, since the same source ( page 38) says in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people, which is more than "weakening MeK's popularity" and is even more than "losing MeK's popularity". So it is even harsher than what we currently have in the Lede. So, in the same way, we could check all the academic sources you provided above and prove that they are not against the current wording in the Lede Ghazaalch (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

RAND is a think tank, not as good as peer-reviewed academic sources. We'll let this be decided by DR or RfC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Despite being asked several times, you have never explained how your wording is more neutral? Also, RAND is a strong and reliable source. Also, that the majority of people in Iran view MEK's action as being treacherous is well established fact according to the sources that I provided. Why should it be removed? The current wording is being supported both by Verifiability – it's well-sourced – and NPOV – this viewpoint is well covered by 15 strong sources and has almost no counterviews. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: the wording I'm proposing represents what the majority scholarship says about this incident; that's how it is more neutral. That's my answer to your question. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You are speaking as if there are two opposing views and we need to chose one of them based on their weight – which is not the case here. I have to ask again, can you support yourself by referring to policies and guidelines? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Responding your question, again: I am not speaking "as if there were two opposing views"; I'm speaking as if there were two contrasting wordings. I'll repeat just in case: the issue is the wording (not the view). See WP:IMPARTIAL: "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone". If that still isn't clear, ask someone else to explain to you the difference between partial and impartial (I have already tried my best to explain it to you multiple times). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

So that's your confusion is coming from. Can you realize the differences between the following items:

A: 'MEK's decision that was an act of treason'

B: 'Vast majority of Iraniansa viewed MEK's decision as treason'

The second is impartial and neutral since it is just reflecting the viewpoint of the Iranian people with suitable attribution. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• More scholarly sources:

• "This move to Iraq and taking part in the fighting against its own nation led to a denunciation and denial from the Iranian people who saw this move as a 'betrayal' and as helping their most cruel and persistent enemy - Saddam Hussein."
  — COHEN, RONEN A. (2013). "The Triple Exclusion of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization – Their Activities for Human Rights in Iran as a Voice in the Wilderness". Middle Eastern Studies. 49 (6): 941–957. ISSN 0026-3206. Retrieved 6 June 2021.

• "An incident in July 1988 indicates how far out of touch the organization had become with Iranian sentiment. Accompanying Iraqi forces on their offensives into Iran after Tehran had announced its acceptance of Resolution 598...It seems that most Iranians, whether they are fanatical supporters of the Islamic Republic, indifferent to politics or even opposed to the regime, including monarchists and leftists, consider the actions of the Mojahedin as unforgivable treason."
  — Hooglund, Eric (1989). "The Islamic Republic at War and Peace". Middle East Report (156): 4–12. doi:10.2307/3012806. ISSN 0899-2851. Retrieved 6 June 2021.

• "...many ordinary Iranians who see this group as having betrayed them fundamentally by allying with Saddam against Iran during the Iran Iraq War."
  — Iranian nuclear crisis : latest developments and next steps : joint hearing. DIANE Publishing. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-4223-2202-4. Retrieved 6 June 2021.

• "...They then worked with the mullahs for a time before betraying them for Saddam Hussein, where ..."
  — Horton, Scott (2021-01-16). Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism. The Libertarian Institute. ISBN 978-1-7336473-4-2. Retrieved 6 June 2021.

• "...and increasingly consider Mojahedin activity to be treacherous in its opposition to the national interest."
  — Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle; Mohammadi, Ali (1987). "Post-Revolutionary Iranian Exiles: A Study in Impotence" (PDF). Third World Quarterly. 9 (1): 108–129. ISSN 0143-6597. Retrieved 6 June 2021.

See? There are a lot of scholarly peer-reviewed sources supporting the longstanding version of the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

and I provided 9 academic sources that use a more impartial tone; but I've already said this multiple times. We're going around in circles, again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Stefka, perhaps you are misunderstanding what neutrality means. Neutrality doesn't means that we must attribute biased statements. In this case the article doesn't say that the MEK were treacherous for siding with Saddam - only that most Iranians viewed them as such. Thus it is properly attributed.VR _talk 00:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mhhossein and Stefka, how about a compromise version: "[MEK's decision] was viewed as an act of treason by most Iranians and has had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."? VR _talk 00:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To support the current wording, I have presented ([3], [4]) 20 highly reliable sources, 10 of them being scholarly ones (10>9). It's not difficult to find even more sources. @VR: To reach a compromise, I have no problem with your suggestion only if " has had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran" is supported by scholarly sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 00:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References