User talk:Oskarimi

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page National Council of Resistance of Iran, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you detail issues you have with the latest changes I made to the lead and body section? All of my additions are well-sourced, and I've gone out of my way not to identify NCRI as an alias of MEK (although academic sourcing to that end exists). Basically the only substantive non-stylistic change I made to the lead was putting "affiliated with MEK" in the first paragraph, a fact that is abundantly clear from sources including the NCRI itself.

As for my reverts of your additions to the History section, your claims that the Khomeini regime "surpassed" the Shah's are clear POV-pushing. Same with your omission of the Minority Fedaian as a supporter, and of the fact that Rajavi divorced Banisadr's daughter. Additionally the date of 24 March 1983 is not substantiated by Abrahamian or Singleton---both sources say he left in 84.

Additionally, you have flagrantly misrepresented the RAND report several times now. I have no clue why, but I have continuously changed it back to describe the report's actual contents. Theodore Christopher (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Theodore Christopher: I'm open to talking about them, though you need to stop the edit war. Oskarimi (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking with you right now. I'm not the one edit-warring, either. You have introduced clearly biased statements, which I've sought to temper. Theodore Christopher (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Theodore Christopher: Do you only want to address the material you cited above, or also puzzling edits like this one? Oskarimi (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not that puzzling to try to condense a very large see also template into a single one. MEK's History section links to all of the other see alsos you added. But, yes, let's talk about the factual errors and misrepresentation first, since they undermine the neutrality of NCRI's page. Theodore Christopher (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It's puzzling because all those events are linked to the formation of the organization. Oskarimi (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What made you delete this description despite reputable sources backing it up: "The NCRI is a coalition of Iranian dissident groups led by the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), which advocates for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran."^[1][2][3] Oskarimi (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the sources here. says nothing of an actually existing coalition, but that "The Paris-based NCRI, which is banned in Iran, is also known by its Persian name Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK)." France 24 and Japan Times interview representatives of the NCRI and, basically, repeat their claims that the NCRI is an umbrella organization. This characterizations are firmly in the minority of academic and news sources, including the groupcite I added, which provides ample evidence of the "political wing" stance being more common and accurate among sources like AP, Reuters, Brookings, Rand, and the State Department. The NCRI certainly characterizes itself as a coalition, but this claim is not substantiated. Theodore Christopher (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The first thing that France24 explains is that "The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled coalition of Iranian opposition groups". Japan Times also describes it as an "umbrella group". These claims are not derived from the interviews but rather from France24 and Japan Times. Then the phrase "led by the MEK" is much more accurate than "affiliated with the MEK." Oskarimi (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, this characterization doesn't agree with the academic literature, which I've already mentioned. France 24 and Japan Times don't trump the Congressional Research Service, the Brookings Institution, or authors like Abrahamian and Singleton. While we're at it, would you care to discuss your omission of the Minority Fedaian, Rajavi's divorce, the incorrect date, or the misrepresentation of the RAND report? Theodore Christopher (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have concerns that the claims by these sources are inconsistent with the broader literature, this can be examined in detail. However, you cannot say these characterizations derive from interviews; they clearly don't. I will make a thorough review of the broader literature to assess how other authors address this, which may require some hours. Once this review is complete, we can proceed to examine the rest of it. Oskarimi (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

While you search, I will rectify the factual errors I mentioned previously. Theodore Christopher (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The MEK is the main body in the political coalition of Iranian opposition groups known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)."^[4]
• "…the NCRI (a coalition that included a number of the Islamic Republic oppositional organizations).^[5]
• "…the National Council of Resistance (NCR) and its broad coalition of progressive and minority opposition groups".^[6]
• "…the people's Mujaheddin of Iran, an active member of the Iranian opposition Nationl Council of Resistance coalition".^[7]
• "The very flourishing and continuing viability of the NCRI, the longest-lasting political coalition in Iran's history".^[8]

This depiction appears far more valid than "Affiliated with the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)", and also contradicts RAND's interpretation. Also what I can see, Rajavi divorcing Banisadr's daughter is not related to the NCRI as an organisation. And why delete "The NCRI styles itself as a parliament-in-exile representing the Iranian opposition, with Maryam Rajavi serving as its president-elect and advocating for the creation of a democratic Islamic republic in Iran. According to a RAND report, the organization launched campaigns to highlight human rights abuses in the Islamic Republic and provided intelligence on state activities to Western governments. It communicated its positions through dedicated media outlets, including newspapers and a radio station"? Oskarimi (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The Justice Department report you cited makes its own claim of NCRI-MEK affiliation: "[...] Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) opposition militia group and its allied political group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)." In any event, this assessment contradicts other US governmental documents I could cite myself, namely the State Department^[9] and (extremely recent) Congressional Research Service^[10] reports.

Here's a quote from the Cohen you cite "Outside the United States and Canada, the Mojahedin introduced themselves only as the NCRI (the National Council of Resistance was introduced as an oppositional umbrella organization, but in reality its members were mainly Mojahedin members.)"^[11]

Here's a more extended bit from the Piazza piece you yourself cited: "[...] the divorce of the Kurds and Bani-Star from the National Council of Resistance effectively spelled the demise of the NCR as a broad-based coalitional opposition and plunged it into obscurity. In communiqués and interviews, granted after the two main non-Mojahedin tutored elements, Bani-Sadr and the KDPI, split from the opposition, the Mojahedin increasingly referred to programs and activities as sponsored by themselves rather than from the NCR. Historian Ervand Abrahamian discussed this matter stating, 'By mid-1985, the National Council contained only the Mojahedin, its front organizations, the National Democratic Front, the Hoviyat Group, the Workers' Party, and a few gadfly intellectuals such as Hezarkhani. The National Council, which had started with such high hopes, had become a mere shell.'"^[12] (This also cites Abrahamian, heavily cited in the current page and the writer of the most comprehensive treatment of the MeK).

Raymond Tanter was an outspoken, partisan supporter of the NCRI.^[13] His book is not an academic study of the NCRI, but an explanation of Tanter's own views.

Mohammad Mohaddessin is the Chair of the NCRI's Foreign Affairs Committee.^[14] His opinion on the independence of the NCRI is questionable at best.

The Justice Department report makes an off-hand reference to a coalitional structure, which is contradicted by more thorough fed. governmental and academic sources. The two academic sources you introduced explicitly disagree with your framing of them. The other two are written by partisan allies (in one case a member) of the NCRI.

As for RAND, the report makes explicit, critical claims (by your own admission!), and you've sought to reduce your summary of it to a series of truisms. I think some sort of conflict resolution is in order here. Theodore Christopher (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC) Theodore Christopher (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you're being inconsistent, and your tone is becoming more heated than needed. Nevertheless I do agree that this should be taken to the page's talk page. Oskarimi (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. U-Mos (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)