Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Classification as "violent non-state actor"

MEK's classification as a "violent non-state actor" was removed in this edit. It's clearly classified as such in this reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also in this edit, other two reliable sources is seen.All in all it is amazing to remove material with inline citation without any explanation.Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining these edits in more detail; was just a response at Mhhossein´s unexplained removal of other sourced material, but will explain all my edits in detail from now on. For the "violent non-state actor", the source gives a passing mention of the MEK without providing any evidence or details as to why it is mentioned in the first place. On the other hand, we have numerous RS confirming that the MEK was disarmed in 2003 and that it hasn´t been involved in any armed conflict since. Describing it as a "violent non-state actor" on the article´s first paragraph suggests that the group is currently involved in armed conflict, which is both innacurate and misleading (this also applies to describing the group as "advocating the violent overthrow of the IRI", as oppose to Katzman´s more neutral ""overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership." quote):

• in 2003, following the occupation of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces, the MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and put their arms down in Camp of Ashraf.

• Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular;... from violent to peaceful.

• The United States military disarmed the group after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, assuming responsibility for security at Camp Ashraf.

• In May 2003, in an effort both to assure the Iranian regime that the United States was not looking for supporting groups that seek to topple the Iranian regime and also to pacify the Iranian regime from meddling in Iraq, the White House asked the Pentagon to disarm the MEK. Major General Ray Odierno later told the journalists "It is not a surrender. It is an agreement to disarm and consolidate".

• Shortly after the [Iraq] invasion, coalition forces accepted a cease-fire from the MeK, disarmed the group, and consolidated its members at one of the MeK’s camps.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

You need to be careful when commenting on editors. As far I see, user:Mhhossein explained his edits on the talk page. For example, the edit was expounded by him. Anyway this source was published in 2016 but listed MeK as "violent non-state actor", So disarming of MEK in 2003 has been considered. It is challenging to nominate it in the first paragraph, while being violent non-state actor is not opinion and illustrate the nature of MEK briefly.Saff V. (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a gross misrepresentation of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism study which lists MEK, one, in appendix A as one of a long list of organizations considered for 1998 - 2012 - the period of the study. It is probably fairly clear that MEK was a non-state actor up until 2003 (the beginning of the study). It is far from clear (due to their current lack of active military forces with actual control turf) they are now. The cited study does not even make clear which years are included or excluded. Per the cited PDF - The extract contains 203 VNSAs that conducted 10 or more attacks or killed 25 or more people in battle between 1998 and 2012 .... The list of organizations may be found in Appendix A. The data is organized as an unbalanced panel – that is, organizations may enter the sample after the first year and/or depart the sample before the last year.. So no - this source actually tells us nothing at all about their 2012 designation - let alone their 2016 designation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite the so many sources I provided and the comments I made, it was a clear dishonest claim to say I had not explained my revisions. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes need to be checked

In the absence of active users like Pahlevun, Stefka Bulgaria has engaged in highly questionable mass changes. I've addressed some of them and found some contradictions. I've fixed the issues and will report the user at the ANI.

• Encyclopedia of Terrorism was removed here in this edit alleging it's a self-published source and hence not reliable. This is while Dr. Martin Slann is an expert author in the terrorism subject and per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
• Contents cited to Jamestown Foundation was removed on a bizarre allegation. JF is a reputable reliable source. Also, see this RSN discussion in this regard. Another general discussion regarding Think Tanks supports its usage. I've reinserted the materials supported by the Jamestown Foundation.
• It was tried to remove a section dealing with MEK's armed act against U.S. and I restored the section with a descriptive title for the sake of neutrality. Certainly, those well recorded bombings and assassinations can't be in a section titled "Relations with U.S.".
• RAND source, page 80, does not say the attack on Gen. Price is attributed to MEK, rather it says the attack is done by MEK.
• In this edit, Abrahamian's book is misinterpreted. The book says MEK "fought two street battles" against Tehran Police AND bombed 10 major american buildings. So, bombings was not part of fighting against police.
• In this edit a well sourced sentence is removed, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable."

Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait for his response instead of reverting and taking this to ANI, it's really not necessary. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What I reported at ANI, was his behavioral issues, not a content dispute. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What was reported to ANI was content. I will repeat my comment from there - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language - is a blatant misrepresentation and NPOV problem.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If I were you, I would not comment on things and make accusations before carefully addressing them. this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties of their own.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's super interesting Icewhiz is doing his best to make us think he has not seen this scholarly source which had been in the article prior to the disputes and I've just provided in two boards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein - Did you see my response to this at ANI ? Just in case, here it is:

According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).
Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that The Iran Times was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government? If I were you, I would strike the above in vain 'censorship' accusations. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Iran Times is not RS, and no link/reference is provided to the alleged US report (all of which simply reflects on the author). Your Piazza source has a number of other fascinating statements such as:

• "This resistance is depicted as the vanguard of a popular struggle against a traitorous clique that has betrayed both ideals of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the memories of those martyred in it." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin present themselves as a liberating Islamist alternative." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine."(page 11)
• "Specifically, the MEK look toward the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."(page 11)

And many more.... Can you guess why I haven't included these in the article, despite it coming from a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Other points aside, I don't actually think the Encyclopedia of Terrorism is self published. Unless I've missed something Infobase Publishing seems to be a legitimate non-vanity press publisher? Brustopher (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Second round of review

• As far as I see, I have to provide another review. Edits are exposed to others, thanks to the 'Watch list' feature. So, there are some more points needing to be addressed:

• Here a well-sourced material is removed in exchange for the so-called "Establishing MEK's ideology" which is not at odd with saying MEK was advocating the violent overthrow of Iran. So, I'll restore the contents which was dubioulsy removed by Stefka. By the way, this source does not support "a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam". So, I'm removing it. In this source, P:99, it reads "Scholars generally describe PMOI ideology as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism" which is quite different from "revolutionary Islam". Also, I did not find this source supporting "modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam" rather It says (on P230) "Mojahedin, with its radical interpretation of Shiism." This shows how Stefk's edits are blatant misinterpretation of the sources and how they need to be checked.
• This is the 2nd time this content is replaced against the other editors. Consensus should be sought before repeating this edit.
• I did not have time to review this edit. There might be some misinterpretations.
• The material removed in this edit is saying "two members of the organization were found dead in Idlib" and "They fought alongside insurgents seeking to overthrow the Syrian regime." The source is already discussed at the RSN. Moreover, the material is attributed to the writer. So, don't remove the whole section before discussing it with other editors.
• In this edit, a well-sourced content was removed based on self-interpretations. It should be discussed, too. Taghi Shahram was originally a MEK member. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, this looks a lot more neutral. It's not like reading a article from the media of the Islamic Republic at all. On a serious note, you basically almost changed it back to its older version, which several users agreed that definitely wasn't neutral. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, we can't change the version into the one YOU and STEFKA prefer by doing OR. All of the sources discussed above are independent and reliable. What? "several users agreed"??? Ha? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

On the balance, Stefka's edit is much more NPOV. "don't have time to review" is perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP, but is definitely not an editing rationale or a talk page issue. MEK's ideology is clearly not "the violent overthrow of Iran" - but a more nuanced view of the world. MEK clearly supports the overthrow (violent or non-violent) of the current Iranian regime - but that is a goal that stems from its ideology - not its ideology. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that his version is mostly not verified by the sources. We can't achieve the so-called NPOV by making Original Research. You were probably hasty by saying ""don't have time to review" is perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP," since that edit by Stefka (which I did not have time to review) is left untouched. If there's a point regarding the above bullets, let us know. Genera comments certainly don't help. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes - we should stick to the sources. "a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam" is mildly different from "Scholars generally describe PMOI ideology as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism" - however I'm not sure I'd call this OR (Islam+revolutionary Marxism seems quite close to "revolutionary Islam" - unless one frames "revolutionary Islam" as exclusively the "Islamic Revolution" led by Khomeini - a distinctly Iranian government view. Stating "that advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran" is a NPOV issue - we should not be framing this political group through the eyes of the current government of Iran. Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree that "advocating the violent (or otherwise) overthrow of the IRI" is a NPOV issue and it´s not what defines the group´s ideology. The group´s ideology is what ultimately led to the conflicts with Khomeini (who the MEK accused of having hijacked the revolution). As professor Abrahamian put it, "in criticizing the regime´s politcial record, the Mojahedin moved the issue of democracy to centre stage. They argued that... the issue of democracy was of fundamental importance". (1989, p.209) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Here´s another RS that Mhhossein also removed from the lede that describes the MEK´s ideology:

"The MEK in exile has advocated for a democratic, free and secular state, which has been in opposition to the Islamic regime in Iran. However, the delegitimisation of the MEK as a legitimate actor, and its terrorist classification, has not allowed politiciation to occur." (Isak Svensson, 141) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but who said the phrase "that advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran" is showing the groups ideology? Neither does "advocated for a democratic, free and secular state". However, we can combine them to have more accurate definition of what MEK advocates. As for the "revolutionary Islam"; It's never close to Islam combined with the revolutionary Marxism, I'd prefer to use "radical interpretation of Shiism" which is certainly what the source says. So, in whole, if the ideology is to be reflected in the lead, we shall use exactly what the sources say, i.e. "radical interpretation of Shiism" and "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The MEK originally derive from a radical Islam ideology, which is made evident by Abrahamian’s book title “Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin”. The MeK’s ideology initially borrowed from Marxim and Islam, although they never referred to their ideology as Marxist. In fact, in 1972 there was an ideological split within the group that led to two very different groups being formed: the current (Islamic) MEK and the Marxist Peykar (this already in the artilce). Already pointed out by Svenson and Abrahamian, the MEK advocated for a democratic state, while Khomeini for a fundamentalist state. This ideological difference is what initiated the conflict that led to Khomeini banning the group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Third round of review

Unfortunately, Stefka is stretching the limits of POV to its limits. Nevermind, I'll perform another review:

• Another misleading edit summary. Stefka is alleging he's "Organizing the lede chronologically", but the fact is otherwise. He's in fact removing the contents he probably dislikes. As far as I see, Stefka is doing his best to show the hands of MEK clean and to show that the group had been a peaceful and kind organization (this was seen in his past edits, too). That's why he removes the terms "political–militant organization", "advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran", "the organization has built a cult of personality" and etc. Are removing these well-sourced contents called "Organizing the lede chronologically"?
• Here, he removes the reference to Operation Mersad, an action which Stefka knows led to the hatred of many Iranian people towards MEK more than before. The edit summary is very bizarre: "The MEK has always been at conflict with the IRI, not Iran." Should we ignore what the reliable sources say? What's wrong really? Why is this well-sourced content removed?
• In this edit, Stefka uses a self-made policy according to which our own understating of the subjects is priorred over what the reliable sources say. Islamic Marxism, which is already removed by Stefka, is exactly what the sources says ("Scholars generally describe PMOI ideology as an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism").
• This edit is VERY interesting!!! In the edit, he admits to use a source he was objecting severely at the RSN, i.e. infoplease.com, at the expense of citing the causalities of the MEK group. I don't know what to say. If, as he said, infoplease.com is not reliable, why is he using it now?
• In this edit, which is also interesting, Stefka tries to show that the MEK organization had not killed "Iranian civilians", which is clearly supported by the cited source.
• Here, he removes a well referenced section which was aimed at showing MEK's position towards the 'Syrian Civil War'. This is while, the cited source, is supporting MEK's involvement in Syrian war. I'll add the materials showing this.
• A bad attempt at removing the well-sourced MEK's position regarding ISIL.

Admins need to take action against this editor and his unilateral mass edits. I'm reverting most of the edits as per the above explanations. I'm leaving the MEK's causalities, since I agree it's needed for neutrality. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - you are basically reverting all of Stefka's edits (e.g. this blanlet reverted a whole chain of edits). You've reverted back in the "MEK and Syrian Civil War" which is sourced to a blog and is one big meh in content (random rumor two MEK persons died in undetermined circumstances in Idlib). You have also reverted back in "MEK and ISIL" which is at least sourced to a aingle NEWSORG item but also does not say much (some affilate website was somewhat supportive in 2014 when ISIL won against MEK's enemies). How about trying to compromise and being a bit more selective in reverts? Try to meet some middle ground. Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I assessed and explained almost every single edits he made and I was selective enough by leaving the causalities. Moreover, I checked the sources before coming here. "MEK and Syrian Civil War" is cited to a reliable source, as per RSN and its known author. I'm open to removing "MEK and ISIL" section though and restoring it if there were enough well-source materials in this regard. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

On this removal; See this this discussion shwoing how reliable the author is. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"MEK and Syrian Civil War" - is sourced to a journalist's blog (usable if attributed, possibly also unattributed) who himself is reporting a second hand rumor (saying unnamed Syrians told Europeans) - and the rumor itself is insignifcant (two MEKs killed in Idlib, without even info on how and on what side (if any)) - this is ridiclously UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• It seems that the following is the version would be a suitable version:

'MEK is the best and most peaceful organization the history have seen. Reliable sources say that they had been very democratic and moderate, but in some incidents, people hit themselves to the nice bullets of MEK kind agents and died. But, this was the problem of the people themselves, since they must have been careful about the bullets. There were some bombings which led to the death of some people, but neither were they the faults by MEK. Since, these were the faults of the people who were located in a wrong place at a wrong time. All in all, MEK had been following establishing a free and democratic state.'

That's a fair narration...!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reverting some parts of this edit, since:

- Not only RAND, but also other sources like CFR, Global Security, Washingtonpost and etc say they are militant.

- They are not merely "political opposition group", rather a "political–militant organization".

- since "The organization has built a cult of personality around its leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" is not some thing to be ignored.

- Groups ideology was dubiously removed.

- The link to Operation Mersad was removed from the lead.

- Designation as terrorist and the subsequent de-listing is important enough to come after the first paragraph. Chronological order is a self-made and bizarre argument.

That said, I have left some of the recently added lines. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm reverting back since:

- I don't say that the MEK advocates "democratic and secular Islam", sources say this. Sources also say that these ideological differences is what then led to conflicts between the MEK and Khomeini. Khomeini banned the group, and the MEK demonstrated peacefully (Abrahamian 1989, pp. 218-19), which led to killings of MEK sympathizers. The MEK then retaliated, and the IRI retaliated back, which ultimately drove the group into exile. This is all in the sources provided and explains chronologically why things unfolded the way they did.

- As your Washington Post source outlines, they were "a onetime militant group" ("onetime" meaning they're no longer this). As the lede says, "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and put their arms down in Camp of Ashraf." (Varasteh, 2013, pp.89)

- The lede should describe major incidents; "building a cult personality around its leaders" is not a major incident, particularly since the cult assignation is already mentioned in the lede.

- I've added the groups ideology (the MEK's version, not what others presume it to be), and it's backed up by RS.

- I can't see the link to Operation Mersad you claim was removed from the lede; could you please specify which statement this pertains to?

- Designation as a terrorist / de-listing needs to be in the lede, but we first need some explanation as to why this happened considering that this isn't your average terrorist group. In fact, as outlined in the Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. chart concerning "US and European diplomacy with Tehran with 'deliverables' involving the MEK", on numerous occasions the IRI requested the MEK's terrorist designation in the West, so we need to explain conflicts with the IRI first.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What I suggested at the ANI about your not being here, is now getting clearer, since:

- Unlike what you said, the source says: "...and describing itself as belonging to "democratic and secular Islam," the group has subsequently sought to overthrow the country's current Islamic republic." There's a LARGE difference between what they describe themselves and what the reliable sources say about them.

- Besides the Washington Post, I just provided links to CFR describing the group as "...the largest militant Iranian opposition group committed to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic," or which describe it as "...the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran."

- The lead should certainly include who the cult is built around. Without mentioning the core character, the sentence would be vague.

- You've again removed the sentence on ideology: "The group's ideology is described as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism," backed by this source. Is it not interesting you removed it? It's more interesting that there's no mention of ideology in the lead.

- This is the link to Operation Mersad: "Later, the MEK took base in Iraq, took military action against Iran." Don't remove this significant point anymore.

- No, this is just your favorite version that we need some explanation at first. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram where designation as terrorist identity is mentioned in the second paragraph.

Read the above before making more reverts. One more thing, you're GAMING us by removing the aforementioned points and pretending to be fixing the chronological order. As I said, "chronological order" is a bizarre and self-made guideline. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't support by source "democractic and secular" interpretation of Islam that differed from both the old conservative Islam and the version formulated by Ayatollah Khomeini. Saff V. (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein,

- So let's include what the source says.

- As previously pointed out, Following the occupation of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces, the MEK signs a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and coalition forces and put their arms down in the Camp of Ashraf. If they are still a militant group, can you specify where their military forces/bases are held (there needs to be a military force in order for a group to be labeled as 'military')?

- We don't need two sentences in the lede for this, but I'll rephrase to include what you've requested

- It has been pointed out repeatedly that the MEK originally drew from Marxism, but then there was an ideological split within the group where some members with Marxist ideologies left the organization and began to work with the clerics close to Ayatollah Khomeini. Simply stating that their ideology is "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism" lacks nuance and overlooks what other RS are more eloquently saying.

- The MEK took military action against the IRI, not Iran.

- Chronological order would be:

1) What the group advocated (their ideology)

2) What drove it into conflict with the IRI

3) What came it out of that conflict (their terrorist designation)

Your current version puts point 3 first, which is not correct. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• You're just ignoring the reliable sources and that's some sort of edit warring:

- I (Wikipedia) don't care where their bases are. Only reliable sources matter. I already provided multiple reliable sources saying they're a militant group. So, don't revert it anymore. Btw, their "ceasefire agreement with U.S." does not show anything...We have sources at hand showing they're a militant group.

- So, you need to mention "MEK originally drew from Marxism".

- "The MEK took military action against the IRI, not Iran" is a ridiculous argument showing you're escaping a fact that MEK fought against Iran and made joint military actions with Iraqi army. Let's see the sources:

+ "MEK tried to invade Iran in the last stage of the Iran-Iraq war" Aljazeera

+ "During the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MeK, by then sheltered in camps in Iraq, fought against Iran alongside the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein" The Guardian

+ "And with the support of Saddam Hussein, the MEK launched attacks on Iran beginning in 1987, during the brutal endgame of the Iran-Iraq war, later claiming that they killed 40,000 of their countrymen during these campaigns." Foreign policy

+ "The MEK supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War" National Interest

+ "...it supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran (1980-88)..." CFR

+ "The group sided with Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war with Iran in the 1980s" The Reuters

+ "It is seen as collaborators with the Saddam regime during the Iran-Iraq war..." pbs

+ "During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK fought against its own country alongside the Saddam Hussein regime..." [1]

+ " and fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s" Nationalpost

+ "...the MEK fought alongside Saddam Hussein, against Iran..." [2]

+ "Many took up arms and fought against their Iranian countrymen, earning the group the unofficial nickname monafegheen, or the "hypocrites"." Washingtonpost,

- You also reverted my fully explained edits [3] & [4] which were done against source forgery.

- As I said n times, "Chronological order" is your self-made argument aimed at hiding the fact that MEK was once listed as a terrorist organization by US and EU. No, there's no such a guideline or ruling. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram and etc where designation as terrorist identity is mentioned in the second paragraph. Don't change this significant thing again.

As you see, the more you keep on edit warring, the more reliable sources are found against MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mhossein: You're mixing fringe sources and generalizations from RS to try to put together an outline that is flawed on many levels and that overlooks what expert academics in the field have examined in better detail. I will outline these points more thoroughly below. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fringe source? Which of Washingtonpost, The Reuters, Aljazeera, Foreign policy, CFR, The Guardian and etc is fringe? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Lets Keep It Friendly...

The nature of Mhhossein's edit summaries directed towards me are starting to border ad hominem. Making statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth" for including a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery" for quoting from RS are uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not ad hominem. I'm commenting on your edits, not you. My edit summaries were accurate and quite right. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"Violent" overthrow of Iranian government

There are numerous reliable sources verifying the fact the MEK is still advocating the "violent" overthrow of the current government in Iran:

• "Maryam Rajavi has acted as the deputy commander of the National Liberation Army ... and even today she believes in changing the system in Iran by violence." Routledge, 2008.
• "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.
• "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian government." Scarecrow Press, 2010.
• "The group advocates the violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran." International Policy Digest, 2018.
• "It advocates resistance and the violent overthrow of the Ayatollah regime..."The Jerusalem Post, 2018.
• "...The MEK sided with the Iraqi government, hoping to achieve their goal of a violent overthrow of the post-Revolution Iranian government. Global Security
• "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.
• "...organized by an exiled opposition group that calls for the regime's violent overthrow..." AbcNews, 2018.
• "...a militant group of Iranian exiles that agitates for the violent overthrow..." Opinion piece by The Week, 2018
• "...the MEK is advocating the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime." Opinion piece by JPOST, 2018.

The above sources are from diverse variety of reliable sources and credible publishers. This well-established fact is not in contradiction with other sources like the so-called "well-respected academic" Katzman. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Overthrow implies in and of itself violent. There is no need to scare quote this, or stress this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"Violent overthrow" is backed by reliable sources. So, there's no concern regarding SYNTH. Overthrow can be either soft or violent. So, yes we need to stress that. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly MEK doesn't oppose "soft" overthrow if that is possible. They are advocating for overthrow of the regime - by any means (soft or violent). Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we ignore the sources saying their advocating "violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran"? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a list of RS that dismiss scare-quoting the statement:

• " an exiled opposition group that backs the overthrow of the Islamic Republic." BBC
• "an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government." RAND
• " the Mujahedin Khalq organization, which seeks to overthrow the Iranian government" LA Times
• "the group has subsequently sought to overthrow the country's current Islamic republic." France24
• "with the principal objective to overthrow the existing Iranian regime." CBC
• " The group’s aim is to the overthrow the current regime in Iran." NY Times
• "the group in its ambition to overthrow the regime in Iran" Newsweek
• exiled PMOI advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime" Dailystar
• who seek the overthrow of Iran’s clerical leadership established by the 1979 Islamic revolution" Reuters
• the MEK seeks to overthrow Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and construct a new “economic and social order based on freedom” that eliminates both sharia law and nuclear weapons." The Observer

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Your sources does are not in contradiction with those of mines. Yours say they advocate the overthrow, mine verify the avocation for the overthrow and and describe it more accurately. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As multiple sources do not use violent, there is no need for us to add this rather obious qualifier.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

...and multiple high quality sources do use. It's not obvious as I said, there are some soft ways of overthrow which is far different from that of MEK's. That's why we need to determine MEK's exact approach. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It has already been outlined that the MEK was disarmed in 2003 and has not been involved in any military conflict since. Katzman, a respected academic in the field, resumes it eloquently and neutrally. No need to scare quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Katzman, Katzman, Katzman, Katzman, Katzman...He's not the best author in the world. There are at least 10 reliable and high quality sources supporting their "violent" approach. Btw, their ceasefire agreement with the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with this case. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The first quote at the top of the page is by Seyed Hossein Mousavian (described merely as Routledge). Mousavian at the time was an Iranian regime diplomat (he was ambassador to Germany, and then a variety of roles in Iran + negotiatioh team). Using Mousavian for the POV of anything other than the regime's POV is an issue. The book has a forward and endorsement by Rafsanjani who endorses the study and its accuracy. Certainly represents what Iranian diplomats represent MEK to be,but not much beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Routledge is a credible and reliable publisher and there are multiple other sources saying the same thing, you're doing your last efforts...good luck. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly a reliable source for Iranian views on relations with Europe - but hardly a neutral source for framing MEK.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

...and more efforts at ignoring the sources I provided. That's meaningful, isn't it?--Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

When it was considered as violent overthrow in RS (1 and 2), why it was not nominated in the article?Saff V. (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The Appeals Court brief on July 16, 2010 cited the MEK´s petition arguing that more than a decade earlier, in 2001, it had ceased military operations against the Iranian regime, disbanded military units and renounced violence, and had turned its weapons to US forces in Iraq in 2003." The BBC also confirms the group transitioned to become a peaceful organization. Overlooking this and trying to brand the group "Violent" based on the previous armed struggle it had with the IRI is misleading. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

See No Original Research. You're trying to object this well-established fact just based on your own analysis. At the moment, there are numerous reliable sources saying they're advocating a violent overthrow. Some of the sources are as new as 2018, and almost all of them are independent from Iranian government. So, try to respect what the reliable sources say and stop making more edit wars. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It is nor OR to state circumstances have changed since the camp closures in Iraq.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In 2008, we have this sentence "Maryam Rajavi has acted as the deputy commander of the National Liberation Army ... and even today she believes in changing the system in Iran by violence" nominated in Routledge.All in all if MEK's approach have been changed in 2003, why we face with Violent overthrow in the published sources after 2003? Saff V. (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's not OR to say "state circumstances have changed", if there's a reliable source. But, it does not mean those numerous Reliable Sources saying MEK is advocating the "violent" overthrow of the current government are not correct, only because some other sources say "circumstances have changed". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Saff V.: You've restored the disputed wording saying in your edit summary "Per RFC" - which RfC? Please provide a link. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It was a small mistake to write edit summary, Sorry! But this is undeniable which was mentioned in the article formly and is supported by valid sources. Any way, we have to wait for the RFC result.Saff V. (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this really peaceful

While at this edit you emphasized that the communique was peaceful, I faced with this article and peace has been used for one time, just in Tariq Aziz's description! Is the communique really peaceful? Saff V. (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That edit has various issues such as WP:QUOTE FARM, WP:UNDUE, WP:SCAREQUOTES and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: hmm right... this is the same Piazza source you defended at ANI. @Saff V.: I'll include it as reference to help support the statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about reliability? I don't think so. Finding new sources does not resolve the above issues. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Now it looks more ballanced. Saff V. (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Spam

@Stefka Bulgaria: About to this edit, Why is the site of Maryam Rajavi considered as a spam link that you referred it to wp:RS?Saff V. (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Blogs and personal websites are not RS, particularly in controversial articles such as this one. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you create this guideline, i.e. "Blogs and personal websites are not RS"? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPS is policy.Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Where's it exactly mentioned that "Blogs and personal websites are not RS"? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So, as you said "Blogs and personal websites are not RS" is not found in this policy. There's a "largely" which can't be generalized. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Right... just considering WP:SPS and the controversial aspect of this article, starting to quote from blogs and personal websites would simply be a silly thing to do! Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"Largely not" = NOT, unless there are some exceptional circumstances. We generally do not use self published sources - the exceptions are rather few and far between. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

According to SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, ...", But the blog was applied to publish Maryam Rajavi's opinion (from her own blog). So it is allowed because of this guidelines. Saff V. (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"These guidelines" states that so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Additionally, if we start to use Rajavi's blogs about her views on the IRI, this will create more problems than solve them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

All of the above bullets are true here. Additionally, we're not going to base the article on the questioned sources, because of the last bullet. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Right... starting with the first bullet point, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;: see exceptional claims require sources where extra caution includes challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional claim. Do you know about Marayam Rajavi more than she does about herself? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Exceptional: unusual; not typical. If you can't find other sources where she has made similar claims, then this is an unusual/not typical claim = exceptional claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying she is lying about what she thinks? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to use Rajavi's blog we should not lend UNDUE emphasis on a Syria snippet which received little attention, Futhermore if we to use such a primary source - we should use it to reflect the full range of MEK's stmts regarding the Iranian regime and other issues.Icewhiz (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not think, it was possible to "reflect the full range of MEK's stmts regarding the Iranian regime".( Really do you want me to add another opinion of MEK, becuse I nominated the de- facto leader statement just about one issue?) In other word I want to publish her opinion about Syria. There isn't any undue weight, it is just her opinion and the most trustable source is her blog.Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion

This edit is such as unbalanced one. According to RS (1 2), Ramzi Yousef (with MEK aid) was responsible for 1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion, while you try to emphasize to this part of the analysis that Iran government was accused. Saff V. (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Your ABC Clio and Rockcenter.msnbc are not RS. Please read WP:RS (you´ve also just included a blog as a source in the article). I provided 3 RS to back up this claim (Palgrave Macmillan, Forbes, and NBCNEWS). Do not remove just because you don´t like the statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You may use Heshmat Alavi's stories in your blog, but certainly not here. Same is true for Shahin Gobadi's fringe claims. Oh, 'Palgrave Macmillan' is really "something". Come back with a reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree better sources are needed here. The book is written by a NCRI figure (did not see the contents, but the authorship here gives me pause). We treat Forbes contributors with suspicion - part of Forbes is a blog by contributors. NBC is useless - it is a response by NCRI. We can say NCRI have claimed this - but not much else with these sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok. If there´s consensus that we can include this as a claim made by the NCRI (according to the NCRI...), then I´ll include it that way. Objections? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to lend undue weight to such a fringe claim? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, so according to you, even as a NCRI quote this would be invalid? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not talk about validity, just stressed undue weight. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hard to claim MEK claims are undue on MEK's page. Yes, we can definitely include the attributed claim.Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And of course I did not say that "MEK claims are undue on MEK's page", while it can be... --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

How much valuable is this, opinion of interior minister Abdullah Nouri that is reported by NCRI? Saff V. (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This third hand reporting supported by such sources, is really good for nothing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:, why do you emphasize to keep such as invaluable sentence, "According to the NCRI, in a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image"?Saff V. (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC about the article's lead section

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the lead section of this article resume how the organization started, its ideology, how it got into conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and what resulted from this conflict? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC) The text in question is:

1. paragraph on MEK's Ideology:

   The MEK was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that deferred sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government. The organization has been described as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.

2. paragraph on MEK's fall out with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

   Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government. Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.

Note I copied the proposed text from the threaded discussion below, so that the two paragraphs considered will be clearly presented in the survey question.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support paragraph 1 as the opening paragraph. It is essential to introduce the concept before getting into the ideology.

Paragraph 2 could then say: This Iranian political–militant organization[6] in exile advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.[31][32] It is classified as a violent non-state actor,[33] and it has had headquarters located in France (1981–1986; since 2003), Iraq (1986–2016) and Albania (since 2016). (Citation numbers would change, of course)

Your paragraph 2 could then be paragraph 3: Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[9][10] After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,[11] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.[12] Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.[13][14][15] (Citation numbers would change, of course)

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support both paragraphs - certainly the common underpinnings between MEK and the Islamic republic, as well as early cooperation between the two, is highly uncomfortable and suppressed by the Iranian regime which has turned MEK into one of perennial bogeyman upon which various calamities in the republic are pinned. However, this content is well sourced and highly relevant for any understanding on MEK's origin and continuing operations - this is certainly lede worthy, and should of course be expanded on in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have explained there have been no willing cooperation between the Islamic Republic and MKO since the 1979 revolution. They have been always looked with suspicion by the clerical leadership ever since their 1976 bloody atheist coup, but still given their powerful past experience with propaganda and campaigning they could blame the atheist coup on "rogue elements" and build a following among young people by citing contributions of their past Muslim martyrs before the group was hijacked in 1976 by atheists. The new government from the beginning was trying to prevent their ambitions for power but they could got themselves through. As you see it's a very detailed and complex history and organization. PSRI study that I desire to use in this page has documented these in great detail. So does Ervand Abrahamian but partly and in smaller details whose account is also more sympathetic with MKO than PSRI, despite him saying he was neutral. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if you want real consensus you have to wait until @CaroleHenson:'s initiative for dispute resolution over the sources and other disputes reach a conclusion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I will write with more details later. Pahlevun (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I have no problem with a summary of the page content in the lead but the problem is the organization has a very long and colorful history and on top of that we have different POVs. So if we want to add them the lead would become very long. Among the sources, the PSRI scholarly study must be definitely used across the article for balance if not for its genuine information. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Stefka Bulgaria: - the obvious answer would be yes, However, the question is exactly which formulation. I suggest you propose the specific text you are proposing for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's an obvious question, though it's currently being rejected by certain users in any form of proposed formulation. This is the specifics I would propose for now:

• MEK's Ideology:

The MEK was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that deferred sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government. The organization has been described as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.

• MEK's fall out with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government, Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government. Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have problem with that either provided that you also allow major facts about their criminal activities, their 1976 bloody ideological coup, their ambitious quest for power post-revolution despite their little role in the revolution to be also added to the lead. But that would also make the lead very long. So that could be a reason to keep their long, multi-phased history out of the lead entirely. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with this, then why do you keep removing it? About your suggestions, I think we should add anything that describes the organization's major characteristics and that is backed up by reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

About what? I didn't remove Abrahamian from the lead since you insisted on it. It was Pahlevun who did. But I was still concerned about its lacking context. At any rate you didn't have consensus and still don't on what to include and not to include in the lead. You kept removing PSRI narrative about their 1976 ideological coup. And you keep reverting the IRI views section and government suppression section against consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just today, you've reverted the MEK protests and executions twice. About your other comments, IRI views/sources need to be identified, as well as the suppression of the MEK. What you call "consensus" is really 3 editors ganging up against reliable sources backing up NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my revert. Your version includes two sections "Suppression by IRI" and "IRI views" for which you had lost consensus in this past talk. I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! As long as you behave like that and as long as you think when you lose consensus it is because others ganged up on you, you will fail to attract good faith of others and you will end up in ANI until you're blocked or learn to behave! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

My version included more than just that; it also included the information described above, which you've apparently removed without even reading the edits properly. Also, calling me "pretending deaf and blind!" is uncalled for. Weren't you blocked on the Persian Wiki for calling other editors names? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior for which you have faced two ANI complaint but continue despite an advise by an uninvolved editor to move by consensus. It doesn't matter what good edits your version might have included. I remember Pahlevun disagreed with some of your other changes. On a disputed page like this, you have to move step by step, not lumping together all your edits and then expecting others to dissect your good edits from bad ones. That's not how it works. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think it's about time someone reports Expectant for his ad hominem and aggressive behaviour on the English Wikipedia as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead! By also heed WP:BOOMERANG --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with HistoryofIran. Passive-agressive behavour / POV pushing by Expectant of Light is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead @Stefka Bulgaria and HistoryofIran: Open up an ANI and complain about my "aggressive behavior" using diffs to support your case! It is indeed mind-blowing that a disruptive editor along with someone who has contributed nothing to this page but accusing my of bias are projecting their own faults on me! Do go ahead all and open up an ANI if you think you have a good case! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This Rfc seems to me to be a waste of time. Don't we have to first resolve the "Article issues" (section below), and then decide what to leave in the lede? Correct me if I'm wrong. Jzsj (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

References