Misplaced Pages

Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:24, 8 October 2019 editStefka Bulgaria (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,025 edits →Ideological revolution and women's rights← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:52, 17 January 2025 edit undoHogo-2020 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,589 edits →Elimination of content backed by reliable sources from the article 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{controversial}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{IRANPOL GS talk}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low|importance=Low|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Low}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
{{WikiProject Terrorism |class=B |attention=yes |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Iran|importance=Low}}
{{WPMILHIST |class=B |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes {{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes
<!-- B-Class checklist --> <!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes
Line 10: Line 10:
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes |importance=Low}} <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Iran |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low|political-parties=yes|political-parties-importance=low}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|political-parties=yes|political-parties-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism |class=B |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Fiona Hamilton
| title = How Misplaced Pages is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities
| org = ]
| url = https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-wikipedia-is-being-changed-to-downgrade-iranian-human-rights-atrocities-0j6gqqtkt
| date = 7 January 2023
| accessdate = 8 January 2023
| quote = On the MEK’s English Misplaced Pages page over the summer a string of information describing human rights abuses by Iranian officials was deleted. The anonymous users who changed the content cited the need for “trimming” or claimed that the material was trivial.
| subject2 = article
| author2 = Farid Mahoutchi
| title2 = In the War for Narratives Iran’s Regime Takes to Misplaced Pages
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-resistance/demonizing-mek/in-the-war-for-narratives-irans-regime-takes-to-wikipedia/
| date2 = 18 January 2024
| accessdate2 = 18 January 2024
| quote2 = For instance, on the English language Misplaced Pages page for “People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran”, the writing suggests that “At one point the MEK was Iran’s ‘largest and most active armed dissident group,’ and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group, but it is also deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in Iran–Iraq War.” The sources of this statement, which carries a significant amount of misinformation, are articles from reputable outlets. However, it’s noteworthy that the authors, who have historically expressed hostile views toward the organization, contribute to the narrative.
}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|irp|style=long|consensus-required=yes}}
{{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}}

{{Section sizes}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{old move|date=21 February 2022|from=People's Mujahedin of Iran|destination=People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1074525869#Requested move 21 February 2022}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 15 |counter = 62
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 }}


== RAND weight in section "Cult of Personality" ==
== RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede ==
{{archive top|1=There is no clear consensus.


Currently the section "Cult of Personality" has 323 words, of which 102 words (about one-third) are attributed to just one source, RAND. There are available in this topic so the weight given to RAND is undue. ] (]) 09:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
While discussion below seems to argue via sources as to what conclusion to arrive at, it should be noted that analyzing sources and arriving at conclusions is usually not the job of the lead&mdash;particularly if those conclusions are disputed. Concluding whether someone or something was targeted can also be problematic to begin with, as at its core it's concluding intent, and then generalizing it across several decades involves even more of a conclusion. Reporting the various conclusions, themselves, are more what we're interested in&mdash;not ].


:The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian. So it is due.I think Abrahamian is way underrepresented in the section, and even RAND is underrepresented. Major aspects discussed by both sources are not covered. I don't think any of them should be covered ''less'' in absolute terms. ] (]) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
If I were to suggest, consider keeping elements of the lead constrained to the rough numbers and unequivocal facts found later in the article and/or ]-ize and generalize the dispute; e.g., "There is dispute over whether the MEK explicitly targeted civilians."
:::Hello MarioGom, where can I verify that RAND is "probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia"? ] (]) 09:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Also note that I didn't say RAND was not due, I said that it's over-represented because its content makes up about one-third of the entire section. If ] requires that editors paraphrase from ''various'' reliable sources, then why not do this here? ] (]) 09:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::You can verify this by actually reading the most cited academic sources within the article, as well as the most relevant tertiary sources such as Oxford Reference entries. I'll post a bibliographic review here. This will take some time. ] (]) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll be waiting for your bibliographic review, but kindly prioritize the central issue. If ] requires that we paraphrase from ''various'' reliable sources, what is your justification for attributing one-third of the entire section to only RAND when there are dozens of sources available? ] (]) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::As I said, RAND is one of the most cited, not in this article, but in academic publications. I get that you will not check this, but please, understand that preparing a bibliography review for you will require quite some effort and time. About the extension, I did not advocate for RAND to take one-third. What I said is that is should be well represented, and that other sources, especially Abrahamian (which I hope you will not dispute as being the most important author in this area), need to be represented ''more''. So my guess is that a well written section will have less than one third specifically attributed to RAND, not because reduced representation, but because the most reliable sources (currently underrepresented) will increase in weight. ] (]) 17:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hello MarioGom, note that I did not say RAND was an unreliable source, I said RAND is being over-represented (and it is). A workshop should be set in place now so that portion of the section complies with ] through additional sources. ] (]) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Would you endorse such a workshop? ] (]) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure. I've been reviewing bibliography and drafting some material and I'll be happy to post it here for further discussion. ] (]) 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
*I have not been involved in this topic recently. But there was a time when I would read about MEK day and night. Based on my research, MarioGom is correct in saying "{{tq|The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian.}}"''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
===Workshop:RAND and ] through additional sources ===
A bibliography review focused on paraphrasing from various reliable sources. I'll share my review soon. ] (]) 10:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
*I'd be curious to see how frequently each source was cited. For comparison, the RAND article has according to google scholar. And the source is both ''entirely'' dedicated to MEK, and covers the MEK ''comprehensively''. The first is important, because it assures us all the citations are indeed MEK related. The second is important for establishing relative WEIGHT.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:Hello VR. Wildfried Butcha's (which ellaborates on the MEK thoroughly) is not cited in that section ("Cult of personality") at all and has according to Google scholar, while almost of a third of the entire section remains attributed to only RAND. That's obviously against ]. ] (]) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::That source fails the first criteria that the "entirely dedicated to MEK". How many of Butcha's 390 citations are about the MEK? Likely a small minority. However, we can be confident most, if not all, of citations to Abrahamian are regarding the MEK.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The "first criteria" that a source is required to be "entirely dedicated to the MEK" is being imposed by you? I tend to follow ], and Wildfried Butcha's book (published by a reputable publisher and provides extensive coverage of the MEK) appears to comply with policy. But since we're in this topic, I have found two other papers entirely dedicated to the MEK: Raymond Tanter's , and James A. Piazza's . ] (]) 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::::No, its not imposed by me, its imposed by ]. Given, Butcha's book is not dedicated to the MEK, can you indicate how many of its 390 citations are about the MEK? I went through the few citations in google scholar and didn't find a single citation to the MEK. It seems Butcha's work is well received for its scholarship o Iran in general, but not necessarily the MEK.
::::Raymond Tanter's book looks to be ] (its published by IPC, of which Tanter himself is president). Piazza is better, as its published in ], a peer-reviewed journal. But it has on google scholar, so its not as widely regarded as RAND.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't know how many of Butcha's 390 google scholar citations are about the MEK, but his book does provide extensive coverage of the MEK. Are you suggesting that book can't be used because it isn't ''entirely'' dedicated to the MEK? ] (]) 08:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, I'm not suggesting that at all, and I'm not sure where you got that from. We can definitely use Butcha's book, giving it ] weight. All I'm saying is that google scholar number of citations for Butch's can't be compared in ] way to the google citations to RAND or Abrahamian. Thus, RAND and Abrahamian remain the most scholarly publications on the topic, but again Butcha can be cited with ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::In any case, what material from Butcha did you want to cite? I notice he accuses Rajavi of a "dictatorial leadership" (p 113-114) and goes into details about MEK's "propaganda machine" (p 114-116) and then also calls it a "political religious sect" and says it is run like a "totalitarian, single-party dictatorship" (p 116).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] Refer to the initial discussions in this thread. I pointed out that a considerable amount of the section is sourced from only RAND. I proposed combining this information with other sources because it heavily relies on just one reference. Do you concur with this suggestion? ] (]) 09:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::] Follow-up ping. ] (]) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Can you propose something specifically? In principle, bringing in more sources is a great idea.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::::::::] here is a specific proposal bringing in more sources:
--]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 09:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::'''A RAND Corporation report states that during Masoud Rajavi's "ideological revolution," MEK members were expected to show loyalty to their leaders, resembling cult behavior with authoritarianism, though these claims are disputed by MEK supporters.<ref>{{cite report |last1=Goulka |first1=Jeremiah |last2=Hansell |first2=Lydia |last3=Wilke |first3=Elizabeth |last4=Larson |first4=Judith |year=2009 |title=The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum |publisher=] |url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG871.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160222043501/http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG871.pdf |archive-date=22 February 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> During the ideological revolution, the organization's slogan "Iran is Rajavi, Rajavi is Iran" emphasized membership unity.<ref>{{cite book |first=Ervand |last=Abrahamian |author-link=Ervand Abrahamian |title=Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin |year=1989 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-85043-077-3}}</ref> In a statement regarding the MEK, Rudy Giuliani said, "But we’re not a cult. We’re a people who are joined by something timeless: the love of freedom, the love of democracy, the love of human life."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://observer.com/2018/09/rudy-giuliani-supports-death-to-khamenei-iran-mek/|title=Rudy Giuliani Tells Observer Why He Supports ‘Death to Khamenei’ Iran Faction|work=]}}</ref> The group reflects aspects of the original Iranian revolutionary movement before it was overtaken by Khomeini's faction.<ref>{{cite book |first=Ronen |last=Cohen |author-link=Ronen A. Cohen |title=The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran |publisher=Sussex Academic Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-84519-270-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=juEUAQAAIAAJ}}</ref>
}}
Should the claim that the MEK targeted ordinary citizens and civilians be removed from the lede? ] (]) 10:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::: This offers a variety of perspectives and sources ] (]) 08:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not sure why Giuliani is a reliable source, or even relevant, but mostly important what does that have to do with being a cult? For Cohen, you'll have to give page number so I can read the context.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The source about Giuliani is from the Observer, and the claim by this U.S. politician is relevant since he is addressing the cult accusations. For Cohen, the page number is xi. ] (]) 06:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm not seeing any content relating to MEK being a cult on that page. The only instance of the letters "cult" there are in the word "difficult". Bringing in Guiliani's views to balance out those by RAND, Abrahamian, Cohen etc is pretty ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@], last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in ] were acceptable in Misplaced Pages. Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian ] ] (]) 08:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::@], I'm answering all your questions, could you please respond? ] (]) 08:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Again sorry for the delay. "{{tq|last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Misplaced Pages.}}" That really depends on what they're talking about. Current US politics? Sure. History? Not at all (per ]).
::::::::::::::::] calls the MEK "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists".''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@]. "{{tq|Not at all (per ]).}}" Which section of that ''essay'' suggests that it's against the policy to use a statement from a U.S. politician regarding the characteristics of a foreign political group?
:::::::::::::::::"{{tq|Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian ] as a source? }}" Could you answer with yes or no? ] (]) 07:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Check ]. Guiliani's opinion doesn't fall under any of the historical scholarship.
::::::::::::::::::If Milani has published in a a peer-reviewed publication or any of the forms recommended by ] then yes that particular source would be good.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Regarding Giuliani, we're addressing <u>current</u> allegations (not "historical scholarship") that the MEK is a cult and Giuliani offering his perspective, which seems completely unrelated to the ] policy you're citing.
:::::::::::::::::::On Milani, there are several citations referencing him that don't align with the standards you're describing, so I'll go ahead and take them out. ] (]) 10:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Before you go and do that, we need to have consensus on talk page to only use scholarly sources. Once we have such a consensus, we need to apply it to content regardless of whether it frames MEK positively or negatively.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::@] This is beginning to look like ]. Please address my point about the Giuliani statement. ] (]) 08:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::{{od}} I've already repeated: Guiliani is not a RS and what you're doing here is ]. You're trying to counter the arguments made by scholars using the opinion of a random American politician.
::::::::::::::::::::::I advise you to review ] which all describe the MEK as a cult.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::@] sorry but it's unclear how, according to you, a quote from a U.S. politician in ] isn't a reliable source, while the commentary pieces you recently in the article are? ] (]) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::We don't have to cite this , as we can cite by ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


:::::::::::::::::::::::::@] It wasn't just the Middle East Eye commentary that you put back into the article; you also put back other opinion pieces. Why are those acceptable according to you, but an article from The Observer isn't? ] (]) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. Per ]. It's well documented that there was a two-way conflict between the MEK and Iranian officials, but the claim that the MEK targeted ordinary citizens contradicts numerous sources:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Are you talking about Rajavi's letter to Gorbachev requesting a loan? a photo of that letter. is a translation of it from the ]. Other source: ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 10:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:]<ref>{{cite book|title=Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History|author= Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. |year=2013|publisher=University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs|isbn=978-0615783840|pages=23-30}}</ref> :
:* {{talkquote|"These activities reflect two characteristics that do not fit the mold of counterterrorism analysis: first, the violence was '''targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc'''; and second, all these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between the MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs. A terrorist group is by nature prone to gratuitous, indiscriminate violence, and is content – even eager – to harm innocents. The MEK’s record, however, suggests a different ethical calculus."}}
:]<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stevenson |first1=Struan |title=Self-Sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin |publisher=Birlinn|page=122|isbn=178027288X |url=}}</ref>:
:* {{talkquote|What the PMOI has never been in its history (past or present) is a terrorist organisation. The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. '''It has never targeted civilians''', nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the PMOI campaigns agaisnt the Iranian regime. "|}}
:]<ref>{{cite book |first=Ervand |last=Abrahamian |title=Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin |publisher=I.B. Tauris|year=1989|isbn=978-1-85043-077-3|pages=140}}</ref>:
:* {{talkquote|The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings '''in order to limit civilian casualties'''|}}
:Ronen Cohen<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stevenson |first1=Struan |title=Self-Sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin |publisher=Birlinn|page=122|isbn=178027288X |url=}}</ref>:
:* {{talkquote|"'''The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions only.'''"}}
:MEK leader ]<ref>https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010327/text/10327-16.htm</ref>:
:* {{talkquote|"I pledge on behalf of the Iranian resistance that if anyone from our side oversteps the red line concerning '''absolute prohibition of attacks on civilians and innocent individuals''', either deliberately or unintentionally, he or she would be ready to stand trial in any international court and accept any ruling by the court, including the payment of compensation.”}}
:]<ref>{{cite book |first=Dilip |last=Hiro |title=Iran Under the Ayatollahs |publisher=Rooutledge|year=2013|isbn=978-0415669696|pages=266}}</ref> :
:* {{talkquote|"Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised '''not to attack Iran’s civilian areas'''. All the same the Mujahedin-e Khalq concentrated … '''calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the bombing of civilian areas by both sides.'''”}}
:] (]) 10:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
{{collapse top|References}}
{{ref talk}}
{{collapse bottom}}


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Thanks, but that still begs the question: why did you cite the commentary sources instead?
*'''Yes''' - There is plenty of evidence to show that the MEK's targets have always been part of the Iranian state and that they went out of their way to avoid any civilian casualties. Of course, that is not the position of the Islamic Republic, which considers MEK to be a terrorist group, but that is hardly a surprise. All other sources, as the above poster made very clear, deny such claims. ] (]) 22:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::The citation from The you're suggesting now quotes from Egyptian politician Mohamed ElBaradei. Why is it acceptable to quote him, but not Rudy Giuliani? ] (]) 09:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::@]? ] (]) 09:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Can you take these sources to WP:RSN? I'll abide by whatever consensus is achieved there. I'm getting tired of this back and forth. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::@] When you revert changes, it's important to provide a rational explanation. Why do you find it acceptable to quote ElBaradei but not Rudy Giuliani? ] (]) 09:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* Ronen Cohen's has according to Google scholar (also missing in that section). ] (]) 07:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Cohen is indeed a good source! From what I see, Cohen says {{purple|But Rajavi went beyond that: he raised himself to the rank of an Imam-Zaman, thus effectively founding a new religion: Mojahedinism/Rajavism. The new religion required blind obedience and total submission to the ideological leader (i.e. Rajavi alone)}} (page 46).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*This is inappropriate. ] is an award winning investigative journalist.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:@]: that's a biased double-standard. How is it appropriate to use Seymour Hersh , but not The Observer ? ] (]) 08:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::ElbBaradei was the director of ] and he can be considered a strong source on Iran's nuclear program. Why is Guiliani's opinion relevant here? Not all opinions that appear in the press are equally DUE for inclusion.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: Giuliani is an well known American politician who is closely in surrounding the MEK and Iran. In , he tackles the accusations that the MEK is a cult. How does this not make him relevant to ? ] (]) 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Why don't you take this to ]? I will abide by whatever consensus is reached there. But just to clarify, Guiliani's opinions appear to contradict the vast majority of scholarship on the issue of MEK being a cult, thus making them (in this particular case) ]. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 01:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@]: Have you gone through the section of the article? It contains several sources that back up Giuliani's position (this is far from ], as you've stated.). I'm not going to waste the community's time at ] until you provide some kind of ] regarding this. Speaking of which, are there any other sources, apart from Mohamed ElBaradei, claiming that Israel gave the MEK information about Iran's nuclear program? If not, that would make ElBaradei's claim ]. ] (]) 10:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The Mossad giving MEK info doesn't just come from ElBaradei, but also ]. And its not just ] that quote ElBaradei, but also ]: "{{tq|Several experts on Israeli intelligence have reported that Mossad passed these documents to the MEK}}". And ]: "{{tq|In 2002 M.E.K. publicly revealed that Iran had begun enriching uranium at a secret underground location and the information was provided by Mossad, according to then-head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei}}". And WashDiplomat and JerusalemPost.
::::::The problem with Guiliani is that he contradicts several scholarly sources. Which scholarly sources (or non-scholarly sources for that matter) have said that MEK didn't receive nuclear intel from Mossad? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You're using as sources, but rejecting a credible quote from a US politician published in , which relates to content already in the "Cult of Personality" section of the article. This is a classic case of filibustering. ] (]) 12:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Marxism removed from the lead ==
'''Comment''': Key here, I think, is basing a decision upon sources that are neither MEK nor Islamic regime sympathetic. ] 18:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
: I agree. I also think we should try to avoid absolute stmts. This is an organization with 40+ years of history. A single example, or even a certain period, is not indicative of the whole. A "he said, she said" (MEK / IRI) might also be a good solution (MEK claims to be anti-IRI, while IRI blames MEK for a long list of thing (summarized into something shorter).] (]) 19:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''': There's actually no neutral source objecting the the fact that MEK used to target ordinary people, too (I'll support this claim by reliable sources). Why the sources provided by Stefka Bulgaria are not reliable here:
::* Abrahamian's source does not say MEK did not target civilians.
::* I was not astonished by the phrase in Stevenson's book, i.e. "...nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of the MOI campaigns", when I realized he's the "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup."
::* As for the ], it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements." So, the sources are not academic and neutral.
::Here are some sources showing MEK used to attack ordinary citizens:
::* {{talkquote|MEK has used this interpretation of Jihad in dealing with any opposition, murdering ordinary people, including Muslims who don't agree with its violation of all the rules of Jihad explained above. This has included '''killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people'''.}}
::* {{talkquote|When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. '''Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot'''.}}
::* {{talkquote|They brutally helped Saddam to murder Iranian children in their schools and they celebrated their '''attacks against Iranian civilians''' as if were their enemy.}}
::So, No, there's no reason to remove such a well-sourced content. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
:::You seem to have complained about source neutrality, and then added biased sources yourself? The only neutral source of the three you provided is Terrornomics (which does not assert that the MEK targeted civilians). ] (]) 20:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
::::Almost non of your sources are not neutral, if that's a concern for you. As for the Terrornomics may be I need to quote it in another color:
:::{{tq|"When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards.}} {{red|'''Countless ordinary citizens'''}} {{tq|who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot'''.}} --] <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::::: Looking at the three sources above - is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - - it also isn't on geopolitics, but rather on the ideology/religious doctrine of MEK. is the autobiography of ] and not a work of scholarship. Which leaves use with Terrornomics - which indicates that MEK will kill civilians it sees as government supporters - which is not so strong here. ] (]) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::The very fact that you're using everything to discredit my sources and have no comment on those MEK SYMPATHETIC sources by stefk bulgaria shows your not neutral here. Do you have anything to say regarding "President of the Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Advisor? --] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span
style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: I was more interested in sources stating the affirmative - as only if they are of a good quality would one have to look at refuting sources or balance sources claiming the opposite. The sources presented above are so unconvincing that I do not have to evaluate Stefka's spurces.] (]) 18:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. The lede should be greatly shortened and consign to the history section the complexities of MEK's history. Those wanting to know what MEK is should find as concise an answer as possible in the lede, including a statement about the complexity of any answer to the question of "terrorist organization". There may need to be a brief statement on the confusion among modern approaches to Islam. ] (]) 06:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' In agreement with Jzsj and Icewhiz. The lead needs to be shorter and avoid absolute statements (since different things happened at different times). I would support Icewhiz's "MEK claims to be anti-IRI, while IRI blames MEK for a long list of thing - summarized into something shorter" and Jzsj's "including a statement about the complexity of any answer to the question of terrorist organization" and "brief statement on the confusion among modern approaches to Islam". ] (]) 23:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


{{u|Hogo-2020}} I disagree with you made in the lead. You removed:
*'''No''' per Mhhossein , Also to shorten the lead, presenting summarized statement is better than removing it, attack to iranian civilian which is supported by RS is brilliant point to introduce the nature of MEK in the lead.] (]) 12:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"{{tq|The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism"}}"</br>
and replaced it with: "{{tq|The group's early ideology asserted that science, reason, and modernity are compatible with Islam.}}"


The MEK is widely known for its early Marxist ideology. It is certainly not primarily known for its positions on ], as admirable as they might be. Abrahamian says on page 100 that both "classical Marxist theories" and "neo-Marxist concepts" informed MEK's ideology.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''': per Mhhossein's analysis of the sources. The books are clearly asserting they targeted civilians. The Article lead should include a glimpse of main subject that give a neutral view point to readers.] (]) 12:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Forest90}} why did you edit my ?] (]) 13:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Saff V.}}, I'm really sorry. I made a mistake when was trying to write my comment. Please, forgive me.] (]) 13:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::::I reverted your comment {{ping|Saff V.}}, and I'm sorry for the mistake. I edited your comment. I taught that editing my comment, but I wasn't and changed your comment mistakenly.] (]) 13:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. But also avoid stating it "'''only''' targeted government targets" (without only - OK). MEK has clearly ''also'' killed innocent civilians (OTOH - so has every armed force on the planet that has been involved in conflict (so ] have perhaps avoided this in past century+)). It ''may'' have even done so purposefully at some point or other. Sources do not however support that MEK's continuing goal was to target ordinary civilians (contrast this, with, say ISIL or Al-Qaeda where we have no trouble saying that they purposefully attacked civilians). We can say that the IRI has accused it of such (perhaps next to the terrorist designation). ] (]) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::Your comment is misleading. We're not discussing whether or not MEK has been '''continually''' targeting civilians. You're discussing over a non-existent challenge. The question is if MEK targeted civilians and the answer, as you said, is YES. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::: Lets say MEK attacked innocent civilians on purpose once, is it lede worthy? Twice? Thrice? 10? (I will note we have not quite established one yet) The question is whether this DUE for the lede, not only V, and to show this is due - you need to show this is a significant charachteristic of MEK.] (]) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:::: Yes, this is of course a significant characteristic of MEK. They're known for targeting &nbsp;religious people and plenty of plenty examples are found in Farsi sources (let alone the En books I provided). They targeted ordinary people even in Iraq and helped Saddam to crackdown the ]. There's an infamous quotation from Maryam Rajavi:
:::{{talkquote|"'''Take the Kurds under your tanks''', and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."}}
:::: --] <sup>]</sup> 12:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
* '''No''': There are multiple independent sources mentioned above backing the content and thus the content should not be removed. @]: we do not perform original research in Misplaced Pages; we only find reliable secondary sources. --] (]) 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::But Mhhossein's only reliable source does not say that the MEK targeted civilians, it just says civilians were shot during attacks (which is very different), and that's without mentioning the other numerous sources that say the MEK did not target civilians. ] (]) 20:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Here, I post it again for your to note MEK did target civilians:
::* {{talkquote|MEK has used this interpretation of Jihad in dealing with any opposition, murdering ordinary people, including Muslims who don't agree with its violation of all the rules of Jihad explained above. This has included '''killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people'''.}}
::* {{talkquote|When security measures around the remaining key officials were strengthened, the MEK struck at lower-level members of the civil service and the Revolutionary Guards. '''Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot'''.}}
::* {{talkquote|They brutally helped Saddam to murder Iranian children in their schools and they celebrated their '''attacks against Iranian civilians''' as if were their enemy.}}
--] (]) 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
:: You have not, in fact, established ] (an autobio, a former MEK member, and a source that does not quite support this.... Are not convincing) - and V is not sufficient, in particular for the lede, please see ]. If this were easy to source - we would have mainstream sources simply shouting this all over - it is clear it is not easy, and therefore DUE is an issue here too.] (]) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:::What you are you searching for?
:::{{tq|'''Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot'''.}}
:::What kind of verification or verifaibility do you mean? @]: At first they demanded reliable sources showing MEK used to target ordinary people, now that sources are provided, they say it's not DUE. OMG! --] <sup>]</sup> 12:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. per the sources in this RfC. As a side note, Mhhossein's and Kazemita1's increasingly hysterical bludgeoning of this talk page is getting beyond the pale. ] (]) 14:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
::The closing user/admin will consider your drive-by comment and your personal attack. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' I second what Barca just said, adding that Dilip Hiro, Ronen Cohen, Ervan Abrahamian, Lincoln P. Bloomfield are also all ok sources and expert authors. ] (]) 19:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''No''', Bloomfield and Stevenson were shown to be sympathetic to MEK. Also is saying MEK targeted civilians. --<samp>](]-])</samp> 01:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
::That source (or the source the book is quoting) does not say that the MEK targeted civilians; but rather, it says that government supporters were shot by the MEK. ] (]) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Strong No''' per Mhhossein. Many of ] sources are pro-MEK. For example, Stevenson is the president of "Friends of Free Iran Intergroup" and "Coordinator of the Campaign for Iran Change". The former has been references heavily by MEK. His book's title is a clear indicator of his political bias: '''''Self-Sacrifice ''''': Life with the Iranian Mojahedin. ] (]) 03:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' The evidence shows that the MEK targeted the State, not civilians. If the MEK had targeted civilians, this would be well documented, but it's not. ] (]) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
*No: The sources provided to show MEK did not attack ordinary people are at best not neutral. Also, I did not know Bloomfield is a senior advisor for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. ] (]) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' I came from the page with a list of RfCs. Looking at the sourcing and the discussion, it appears to me that Cohen and Abrahamian are the best we have. That said, I have to say that ] actually made it harder to come to this conclusions by including biased sources among what appear to be unbiased ones, and also that evidence of bias in the sources I mentioned might change my mind. ] (]) 15:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': Adding to my previous comment; Mujahedin-e Khalq are accused of being behind the bombing of Imam Reza shrine leading to death of at least 26 people (see , P. 90), which means they had targeted ordinary people. I also found saying "MEK was fairly indiscriminate about its targets of violence." --] <sup>]</sup> 13:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
::Speculations of different accused groups (including the MEK, among others) is not evidence (WP:UNDUE speculation). ] (]) 00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Also basing on Cohen and Abrahamian, which appears to be the best we have to determine that the MEK targeted Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions (and not civilians per se). ] (]) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
* '''No''' The sources provided show they used to attack civilian. For instance "Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" is mentioned by . Also, Abrahamian is not supporting the claim that MEK did not target the civilians since it's only talking about MEK's alleged attempts aimed at minimizing the civilian causalities. Other sources provided by Stefka Bulgaria are shown to be pro-MEK so we'd better not to rely on them. ] (]) 14:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
::To include in the lede section of the article that "the MEK targeted civilians", then we need RSs saying just that. Instead, we have "countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot", which can equate to collateral damage and a number of other things. If we are to include that the MEK targeted civilians, then we should have enough RSs saying that was the case, but we don't have a single one confirming this. On the other hand, we have RSs saying that the MEK targeted the Iranian regime and avoided civilian casualties:
::Ronen Cohen<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stevenson |first1=Struan |title=Self-Sacrifice: Life with the Iranian Mojahedin |publisher=Birlinn|page=122|isbn=178027288X |url=}}</ref>:
::* {{talkquote|"'''The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental security institutions only.'''"}}
::]<ref>{{cite book |first=Dilip |last=Hiro |title=Iran Under the Ayatollahs |publisher=Rooutledge|year=2013|isbn=978-0415669696|pages=266}}</ref> :
::* {{talkquote|"Following his Paris meeting with Tariq Aziz in January 1983, Rajavi signed an agreement with Iraq whereby Baghdad promised '''not to attack Iran’s civilian areas'''. All the same the Mujahedin-e Khalq concentrated … '''calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the bombing of civilian areas by both sides.'''”}}
::]<ref>{{cite book |first=Ervand |last=Abrahamian |title=Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin |publisher=I.B. Tauris|year=1989|isbn=978-1-85043-077-3|pages=140}}</ref>:
::* {{talkquote|The Mojahedin tended to set off their bombs late at night and after telephone warnings '''in order to limit civilian casualties'''|}}
::] (]) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Rajavi agreement should immediately be ignored here, it's not supporting anything here. Also, "To limit civilian causalities" does not mean they did not attack civilians. "countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where sot" clearly means MEK used to attack "ordinary citizens". ] (]) 15:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
::::If you notice the RSs I provided above (which do not include Rajavi's statement), they clearly say that the MEK did not target civilians. There may have been casualties of "ordinary citizens" as a result of MEK attacks on the state, but that does not equate to the MEK targeting civilians; rather, that there were civilian casualties on some MEK attacks on the IRI. ] (]) 10:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


:] These kinds of faulty generalizations cause confusion and misinformation. Firstly, you're omitting important points from Katzman’s single-paragraph summary. Katzman explains that '''early''' MEK ideology (from around 1965 to 1971) is "{{tq|a matter of dispute}}", with scholars generally describing it as "{{tq|an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism}}", while "{{tq|PMOI representatives claim that this misrepresents the groups ideology in that Marxism and Islam are incompatible, and that the PMOI has always emphasized Islam}}". Your ignores the latter part entirely. And even though you removed him from the lead, Abrahamian explains this point with much more detail, here are a couple of excerpts:
:::::The sources you provided are not baking your position. See "the assassination of ordinary citizens" in . I know it's opinion but this opinion is not alone and is backed by other reliable sources. is another source showing PMOI used to target civilians by making "practices of indiscriminate bombings". So I still think the statement should not be removed from the lead. ] (]) 07:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::In order to include in the lede of an article that a political group targeted civilians, we need RS clearly stating that the group targeted civilians. From all the discussion in this RfC, there aren't any sources that clearly verify that the MEK targeted civilians, so adding this in the lede of the article is WP:OR. ] (]) 21:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


:"{{tq|As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy. It accepted historical determinism but not economic determinism; the class struggle but not the denial of God; dialectics but not atheistic metaphysics. There are no grounds whatsoever for doubting, as some critics do, the sincerity of these religious declarations. '''It seems highly disingenuous of observers - not to mention hangmen - to raise such doubts when the victims invariably went to their executions espousing their faith in Islam.'''}}" (I emphasized the last portion)<ref>The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 100-101.</ref>
:::::::I'm not sure if you have not really seen my original comment. Otherwise I am putting the quote here: {{talkquote|"Countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot"}} The conversation has become already too lengthy. ] (]) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Terrornomics is quoting Sandra Mackey here, who says {{tq|"When security around the remaining key officials tightened, the Mujahedin struck the minor players of the Islamic government, civil servants and revolutionary Guards. Often they took ordinary citizens with them"}}. (Mackey, 1996:306) This is a very long stretch from having in the lede of the article that the MEK targeted civilians; it's simply WP:UNDUE based on the vast amount of sources that outline the conflict was between the MEK and the IRI. ] (]) 16:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: I think you were told . --] <sup>]</sup> 12:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I think ]'s is another evidence supporting MEK used to target the civilians. The sources features the quote "the assassination of ordinary citizens".--] <sup>]</sup> 12:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::An opinion piece and a paraphrase from a book that doesn't confirm the MEK targeted civilians is not enough to support such a big claim, specially when we have actual RSs saying the contrary, making the claim that the MEK targeted civilians ]. ] (]) 18:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Your own original research regarding the reliable sources is not going to affect anything here. Btw, it was shown that the opinion is hold by multiple sources, so it's not a simple OPINION. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
::::"...and they celebrated their '''attacks against Iranian civilians''' as if were their enemy."
::::"This has included '''killing unarmed old men during prayer time, putting bombs in public places killing innocent people'''."
::::"...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot".
::::So, there are sources having same idea! --] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::Your first link is not working, your second link is by an author who's sole published work is to demonize the MEK (not a NPOV source), and the third link has been thoroughly discussed here as a paraphrase of Sandra Mackey who does not say that the MEK targeted civilians. All in all, there isn't a concrete RS that confirms the MEK targeted civilians = UNDUE claim, specially for the lede. ] (]) 06:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|"The Mojahedin first acted against the Revolutionary Guards and only later against the military units. The Mojahedin perceived Iran's different security agencies as a factor that depressed the people and as servants of a religious government.}} {{red|'''The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's governmental and security institutions only."'''}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cohen |first1= Ronen|date= August 2018 |title= The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy|url= |journal= Middle Eastern Studies |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages= |doi= |access-date= }}</ref>
:::::::As I already said, "Your own original research regarding the reliable sources is not going to affect anything here". Also see {{tq|"...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot"}}.
* '''My analysis of OP's sources''': The works by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr and Struan Stevenson () are shown () to be MEK sympathetic and thus for reaching a conclusion in this RFC. The sources of Rajavi and Hiro are not applicable here; they say Rajavi promised or agreed not to attack civilians, which is not equivalent to saying MEK did not atack civilian. Abarahamian's book says MEK tried to minimize the casualities of civilians, which again does not mean they did not target civilian people. As for Ronen Cohen's source, it's used out of context. Cohen "The Mojahedin’s targets were the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions only" within the context of MEK's military attack against Iran when the group was essentially in exile, out of Iran soil. So, it can't be used for saying MEK did not generally attacked the civilian people, too. ] (]) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
:I think you may be confusing "attacked" with "targeted" (this RfC is about whether the MEK "targeted" civilians, not weather civilians died as a result of the MEK attacks on the IRI). ] (]) 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
::I am aware that we are not talking about civilians being killed accidentally as a result of the MEK attacks. Here I am exactly commenting about the sources targeting civilians. ] (]) 05:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
:::One source saying "...countless ordinary citizens who the MEK declared to be government supporters where shot" is not enough to support that the MEK ''targeted'' civilians in the lead of the article. ] (]) 09:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
::::There are other sources for this. I already ] there are numerous sources saying as such. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::And I already that those are IRI-sympathetic sources, therefore not RS for this. ] (]) 12:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::And what YOU think is totally different from the reality of those sources. You need to prove your position using reliable sources, in contrast to basing your arguments on your original researches. Probably I need to make a list of the occasions users told you not to rely on what YOU think. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::That tone is uncalled for, we're discussing sources here. Here's also Icewhiz's comment on your sources:


:"{{tq|the regime labeled the Mujahedin "Islamic Marxists" and claimed that Islam was merely the cover to hide their Marxism. The Mujahedin retorted that although they "respected Marxism as a progressive method of social analysis" they rejected materialism and viewed Islam as their inspiration, culture, and ideology.}}"<ref>Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton Studies on the Near East). Author: Ervand Abrhamian. Publisher: Princeton University Press, 1982. Page 492</ref>
:::::::{{talk quote|"Looking at the three sources above - Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements by Routledge is actually a book chapter by Masoud Banisadr - an ex-MEK member who has done fairly little academic work (he had 3 hits in scholar), he has written a memoir on his MEK days - it also isn't on geopolitics, but rather on the ideology/religious doctrine of MEK. Living in Hell is the autobiography of Ghazal Omid and not a work of scholarship. Which leaves use with Terrornomics - which indicates that MEK will kill civilians it sees as government supporters - which is not so strong here."}}


:* Second issue is that the group's ideological identity after the Iranian Revolution (to the present) remained Islamic, but your suggests that it "{{tq|became about overthrowing the Government}}", which describes a goal and not their ideology.
:::::::] (]) 06:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Where's the "IRI-sympathetic sources" allegation? I can't see how it's addressing my ]. Please note that copy pasting large amount of others comment is just a way of ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: I stand behind my comment. I'll also note that referring to what less talkative participants in a discussion say - is the opposite from bludgeoning. ] uses the same weak sources. I commented on back in May.... ] (]) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::The idea behind ] was that "there are sources having same idea!"--] <sup>]</sup> 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not strong sources, which is what we need for the lede, strong sources. ] (]) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Then there would be no issue, some of my sources being reliable books! --] <sup>]</sup> 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Read Icewhiz's comment again. I'm done here. ] (]) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::] is a known publisher and two of the books are by this publisher.--] <sup>]</sup> 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': It should be noted that used by OP as a supporting source ] and ] to removed the materials citing to this source. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
{{collapse top|References}}
{{ref talk}}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{archive bottom}}


:* Third, by your own admission, Abrahamian's dedicated book is a better author for this content (most cited author on the MEK with , while Katzman has only ).
== Cherry picking ==
There is no doubt that Human rights reports or Amnesty are tertiary sources at best, but they are usually the collective work of several volunteers writing these reports based on "he said, she said" of various political activists. So the attributed statements for these sources are needed. In the other hands, the largely talks about "Huge Spike in Executions in Iran", while it was used to cite a minor passage just about MEK Or two specific persons, That is called cherry picking and is a kind of misrepresentation of the source.


:* Fourth, in his book, the first thing Abrahamian writes about the MEK is:
Also,I have to note that Stefka wrote a statement with significant POV issue into the article "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process". Please pay attention that material about Kazemi or Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh includes cherry picking problem and undue weight.] (]) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


:"{{tq|The Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran), generally known as the Mojahedin, is worth studying for a number of reasons. It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam - an interpretation that differed 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 disciples.}}"
:{{Ping|El_C}} I find by Saff V. to be tendentious as there was no "Cherrypicking" or "misrepresentation of the source" as the user claims; the text simply repeats what the RSs say. This is what was removed:


:In that same introduction, Abrahamian writes:
:*This statement is backed up by numerous sources: {{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.}}<ref name="Congressional Record">{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KQS8cOvsSm4C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&source=bl&ots=Wq12nQKsp6&sig=ACfU3U2f2BqJyBzOCDI94_EATRzi6ZQbnw&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEsbO2w97hAhVBEawKHWBZAyU4HhDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&f=false|title=Congressional Record|date=June 29, 2005|publisher=Government Printing Office|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref name="amnesty.org">{{Cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/iran-committing-crimes-against-humanity-by-concealing-fate-of-thousands-of-slaughtered-political-dissidents/|title=Ongoing crimes against humanity in Iran|website=www.amnesty.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin|last=Abrahamian|first=Ervand|publisher=I.B. Tauris|year=1989|isbn=978-1-85043-077-3|pages=208}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran|last=Abrahamian|first=Ervand|publisher=University of California Press|year=1999|isbn=978-0520218666|pages=131}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The End of Terrorism? (Extremism and Democracy) |last=Winberg|first=Leonard|publisher=Routledge|year=2011|isbn=978-0415781176|pages=60}}</ref>


:"{{tq|The Mojahedin has in fact never once used terms socialist, communist, Marxist or esteraki to describe itself.}}"<ref>The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 1-2.</ref> ] (]) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:*This statement is attributed and backed by a reliable source: {{tq|"According to European intelligence and security services (as well as MEK members), Iran's ]'s networks "shadow, harass, threaten and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families to Iran for prosecution."}}<ref name="Yonah Alexander, Milton Hoenig 2007 22"/>
::I completely agree that Abrahamian is hands down the best source on early MEK ideology. He talks about it in Chapter 3 "The Beginnings" under "Ideology". He introduces it as:
::{{talkquote|This ideology can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism.}}
::He then goes onto describe that MEK themselves said "no to Marxist philosophy" but "yes to Marxist social thought". MEK believed "scientific Marxism" was compatible with Islam. Regarding MEK denials, Abrahamian says:
::{{talkquote|Although the Mojahedin were consciously influenced by Marxism both modern and classical, they vehemently denied being Marxists; indeed they even denied being socialists.}}
::He concludes,
::{{talkquote|The ideology of the Mojahedin was thus a combination of Muslim themes; Shia notions of martyrdom; classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism; and Neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and revolutionary heroism.}}
::I'm open to different wordings for both their pre- and post-exile ideology.
::''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


:::Once again, you're misinterpreting Abrahamian. He does not ''conclude'' with your last quote; he concludes with "{{tq|As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy.}}" and then ends with "{{tq|These early writings of the Mojahedin represent the first attempt in Iran to develop sytematically a radical interpretation of Shii Islam.}}" and "{{tq|The prominence given to Shariati is partly due to the fact taht the Mojahedin leaders made a deliberate decision in the early 1970s to propagate radical Islam less through their own hand books, which were banned, amore through Shariati's works}}". Aside from the disputes about the MEK's ideology from 1965 to 1972, there are no disputes about its Shia Islamic identity (certainly since 1975 to the present), and that needs to be clear in the lead. If you disagree with Abrahamian's claim about the MEK's position concerning "Islam and modernity", then anything else that explains their Shia Islamic identity would be enough. "{{tq|The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati}}" seems fitting to me. ] (]) 09:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:*This is a well-documented incident that has its own Wiki page: ].{{tq|"In the ], several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>
::::I'm ok with adding "{{tq|The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati}}" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 09:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] I noticed you once again removed Marxism, despite no consensus for that. Please don't edit war to remove longstanding content. Either engage with the sources, or seek other dispute resolution methods.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::@]: It looks like you're ] with Abrahamian's conclusions, so I’ve begun a as you asked. ] (]) 09:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}


=== Third opinion ===
:*{{tq|In 2011, ] authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so."}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/26/iran-deepening-crisis-rights|title=Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights |website=Human Rights Watch}}</ref>


{{user|voorts}} wants to offer a ]. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
:*This statement is attributed: {{tq|"In 2017, ] reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>
:Thanks for checking.] (]) 00:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


; Viewpoint by {{user|Hogo-2020}}:
::I wouldn't go so far as saying it's tendentious, but it could be better substantiated. If one argues that something falls outside of ], they are then obligated to show ''what'' those limits of due weight actually are, a matter which is not made entirely clear by the objection. Likewise, if someone is arguing that the facts are being ], they are then likewise obligated to show ''where'' those pertinent facts actually lie. ] 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|El_C}} so they've reverted even though they haven't outlined where the WP:DUE and WP:CHERRY issues are. Wouldn't that qualify as an unsubstantiated revert? ] (]) 03:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
::::No, but it should be ''better'' substantiated now. ] 03:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::I know that we should be better at expressing ourselves now that the article is under this new restriction. First of all note that the article already includes "there has also been an ongoing campaign by the Islamic Republic to demonize victims, distort facts, and repress family survivors and human rights defenders}}. This is sentence is so close to one of the given suggestions. Also, there's already a sentence saying "The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families" and there's another one narrating Farzad and Sabham Madadzadeh's claims. Should we copy here every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports? Also the article already includes "shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution". Stefka was told about this (see Mhhossein's comment on 07:21, 8 June 2019). You have also suggested to add the repetitious "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process" without making proper attributions, which adds to the severity of the problem. Just, look at the ! This is while we have 'Human rights record' for the MEK itself. Should we change it into "MEK's human rights abuses"?For cherry picking, HRW reported that not only the crime of Kazemi is being in relation with MEK, but also the two of sending images of the protests to foreign is mentioned as his another crime, while it was not brought in that paragraph.] (]) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


We came to the conclusion that author Abrahamian is the best source here, and Abrahamian ''concludes'' that the group's ideology is based on Shii Islam. If VR wishes to further explore the group's other influences that took place in its early formation (roughly 1965 to 1971), which include some areas of Marxism (something the group itself rejects for a number of reasons, see quotes above), I recommend unpacking that in the body of the article. Placing a selectively chosen statement in the lead that pertains to a short time period, with zero context or opposing perspectives, is grossly misleading.
::::::If you don’t think we should include “every single torture claims found in HRW and Amnesty reports” (which, by the way, we are not), then the same applies for other aspects in the article such as the “sex allegations” against the group, correct?


; Viewpoint by {{user|Vice_regent}}:
::::::Also, you could have just removed text that was repeated; everything else is properly backed and attributed and refers to this section which specifically addresses “IRI human right abuses against the MEK”. Can you specify, one by one, what is UNDUE or CHERRY about each point I raised above? ] (]) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The three most important book-length treatments on the MEK all agree that Marxism was an important part of its early ideology (along with Shiism): Abrahamian<ref>Abrahamian pg 92, 100</ref>, RAND report<ref>pg 2, 55, 58</ref> and Cohen<ref>Cohen, pg 18, 29-30</ref>. Abrahamian says MEK was Marxist ''in his own voice'', while attributing any denials to the MEK itself.<ref>Abrahamian pg 100</ref> Conen also notes their denials but find they had Marxist elements nonetheless.<ref>Cohen, pg 30</ref> RAND notes some of these denials are politically motivated.<ref>RAND pg 58</ref> Hogo keeps saying MEK's ideology was based on Shia Islam, that's correct, but how is it relevant to the question whether or not the lead should mention Marxism as an early ideology? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
::::::: It would vary from case to case as well as I don't know which sex allegations exactly you mean. Anyway, please let us review disputes one by one and don't say anything about sex allegations in this discussion, they are different from each other. I addressed POV and cherry picking issues in my previous comment.] (]) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::As far as I see, NyTimes and the Guardian are used for the cases mentioned in sexual abuse allegations. Needless, to say that the section is titled as allegation! Not a double standard? As for the repeated text, what would remain if we remove them? --] <sup>]</sup> 12:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|El_C}} From Saff V.'s response, I can't see what's WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE about the points raised above; can you? ] (]) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I can. The argument has now been substantiated. I think it's best that every case should be evaluated according to its own merits and particularities. We should not doing a pro- vs. anti-MEK counter weighting here. ] 14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::: {{ping|El_C}} Sorry, I'm having difficulties seeing it. What's WP:CHERRY / WP:UNDUE about this first point for instance?
:::::::::::*{{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.}}<ref name="Congressional Record">{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KQS8cOvsSm4C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&source=bl&ots=Wq12nQKsp6&sig=ACfU3U2f2BqJyBzOCDI94_EATRzi6ZQbnw&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEsbO2w97hAhVBEawKHWBZAyU4HhDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&f=false|title=Congressional Record|date=June 29, 2005|publisher=Government Printing Office|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref name="amnesty.org">{{Cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/iran-committing-crimes-against-humanity-by-concealing-fate-of-thousands-of-slaughtered-political-dissidents/|title=Ongoing crimes against humanity in Iran|website=www.amnesty.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin|last=Abrahamian|first=Ervand|publisher=I.B. Tauris|year=1989|isbn=978-1-85043-077-3|pages=208}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran|last=Abrahamian|first=Ervand|publisher=University of California Press|year=1999|isbn=978-0520218666|pages=131}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The End of Terrorism? (Extremism and Democracy) |last=Winberg|first=Leonard|publisher=Routledge|year=2011|isbn=978-0415781176|pages=60}}</ref>
:::::::::::Thanks. ] (]) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::The argument is that it essentially duplicates existing material. ] 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::: You're right; I had also noticed it before but missed here for whatever reason. But I can't see the WP:CHERRY/WP:UNDUE for the other text that's not repeated; this for instance:
::::::::::::: {{tq|"In the ], several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.""}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>
:::::::::::::] (]) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Well, it's essentially a duplicate of the existing materials. See 'Operation Eternal Light and 1988 executions' where 3 paragraphs are dedicated to this. So, I don't think it would be suitable to include given those materials. Moreover, for your next edits, calling sth "cruel, inhuman" without making proper attributions is not a good idea, is it? Specially when the source, i.e. Amnesty, is itself criticized for " whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein". --] <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)  
:::::::::::::::Amnesty International and HRW are neither MEK or IRI sympathetic. Instead of creating a new section about the IRI's human right abuses against the MEK, would everyone be ok to just include (whatever is backed by RSs and isn't repeated) chronologically in the article? ] (]) 01:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Some of the materials are not fitting well into a time line basis. That's why I don't think it can be true for all the parts. The main sections are already showing a chrono order. Right? --] <sup>]</sup> 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


; Third opinion by voorts: ....
I think that I explained my mean clearly before but because of Stefka's ask, I make it clear by reviewing one by one.
*{{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.}}, it repeated nearly 3 times in the article (Plz do ctrl F "kidnap") so giving undue weight is obvious.
*{{tq|"In the ], several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."}} it repeated nearly 2 times in the article (Plz do ctrl F "executions") so giving undue weight is obvious, words such as cruel, inhuman needs to be attributed.
**{{tq|In 2011, ] authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK. Kazemi's wife claimed that interrogators had tortured her husband prior to execution in order to confess to the charges, but "that he had refused to do so."}} there is a cherry-picking issue. Stefka wrote that ] authorities executed Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for their alleged ties to the MEK, while as the source says, Jafar Kazemi was executed because of sending photos of the protest for foreign people. Also this statement about Kazemi and his wife need to be attributed.
{{tq|"In 2017, ] reported that there's an "ongoing official campaign to repress the commemorative efforts of survivors, families and human rights defenders, demonize the victims and distort the facts about extrajudicial execution of political dissidents." It called on UN political bodies and the international community to document and investigate crimes such as the "ongoing enforced disappearance of the victims and the torture and other illtreatment of victims' families."}} it is duplicated and make undue weight issue.] (]) 10:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
We have '''several RSs''' that say the IRI tortures MEK members, so this is not ] information, and whatever is not repeated elsewhere in the article can be included (either chronologically or in its section), correct? Please note this is about "torture" against the MEK, not executions or anything else. This is what RSs say:


<small>Pinging @] & @]. You can each use a paragraph rather than a sentence. ] (]/]) 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
*{{tq|"A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI , both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to '''torture''' and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>
:Thank you, @], for your efforts here. ] (]) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:Can you try to shorten your comment? ] (]/]) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] please let me know how many words I should take to summarize my position.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@] and @]: Could you please do 100 words max each without quotes from the source itself (refs to page numbers okay), and describe what you think the source says. ] (]/]) 23:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::@]: Revised, thanks. ] (]) 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Much better. Thanks. ] (]/]) 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pinging @] Nearly a week has passed since voorts offered his assistance. Since you asked for this dispute resolution, please provide your response. ] (]) 06:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry for the delay, I've been busy IRL.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:@] and @]. Could you each please provide what you would like the disputed lead text to say (share the whole paragraph and underline the sentence so that I can see the context). Also explain what portion of the article this is summarizing per ] and ]. ] (]/]) 02:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::@]. The group's ideology should be addressed in the lead simply as "{{tq|The group's ideology offers a <u>revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati.</u>}}" This is both an of the group's , and also .


::VR has repeatedly that Abrahamian is undoubtedly the best source for this content, yet the author doesn't say that "Marxism was an important part of its early ideology" (see quotes above). Adding "Marxism" in the lead (what VR wants to do), especially devoid of context or counterarguments, would contradict the cited policies as this relates to a brief timeframe and requires careful clarification. ] (]) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
*{{tq|"The killing was ordered by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who became Supreme Leader of Iran after the revolution. It was relentless and efficient. Prisoners, including women and teenagers, were loaded onto forklift trucks and hanged from cranes and beams in groups of five or six at half-hourly intervals all day long. Others were killed by firing squad. Those not executed were subjected to '''torture'''. The victims were intellectuals, students, left-wingers, members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK), other opposition parties and ethnic and religious minorities. Many had originally been sentenced for non-violent offences such as distributing newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations or collecting funds for prisoners' families, according to a report published by Amnesty International, an NGO, in 1990."|}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.economist.com/newsbook/2012/06/21/what-happened|title=What happened?|website=The Economist}}</ref> (])
::I think the best form would be: "{{tq|<u>The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism</u>.}}" But I'm also ok with:
::*"{{tq|<u>The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism", and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati.</u>}}"
::*{{tq|T<u>he group's ideology is rooted in Islam and Marxism, and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati.</u>}}
::This would be summarizing ], ] and ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you both. It will take me some time to review all of the materials and come to a conclusion. I also anticipate being busy this weekend and next week, so there might be a delay. Please ping me if you don't get a response by the 8th. Best, ] (]/]) 17:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:@] and @]: thank you both for your patience. I think that Marxism should be in the lead, but I think that the group's denial should as well. Abrahamian (1989, p. 92) states that the group's early ideology as expressed in its writing "can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism", and that their ideological position combined Shia Islam with Marxism (p. 100). Cohen (2009, p. 18) likewise reads Abrahamian the same way, stating: "In his book ''Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin'', Abrahmian describes the organization's ideology as a combination of Islam and Marxism, i.e., a blend of pure Islamic ideas with ideas about social development and Marxist historical determinism." Cohen later writes about the group's denial of Marxist influence, although he finds it unconvincing (p. 30). Here's a very rough draft of what I'm proposing: {{green|The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati, combined with Marxist and neo-Marxist thought and practice. Scholars have stated that the group's ideology continues to have Marxist elements, which the group has denied.}} I think this would adequately summarize the weight that the body of the article affords to scholarly labels and the group's denial. ] (]/]) 23:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::@]. I appreciate your input. I'm not sure if you’ve read in the article, but the MEK already has a that is rival to this, the Muslim faction. Their rivalry stems from one being Marxist and the other Muslim. Don't you think that labeling the Muslim faction as "Marxist-Muslim" in the lead is bound to make it very confusing for readers? ] (]) 07:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The Misplaced Pages lead on that article on ''that'' Marxist faction does make it clear "{{tq|Members associated with it declared that they no longer self-identify as Muslims but rather only believe in Marxism–Leninism}}". And the lead of ''this'' article makes it clear that this MEK believe in both Islam and Marxism.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think they should be describe as "Marxist-Muslin" in the lead. I think that it should be explained in the way I noted since there's some nuance here. ] (]/]) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Thanks, I agree. Since it's the lead, I'm aiming to make it as concise as possible. How does this version sound to you? {{green|The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati. Some scholars suggest that it was also influenced by certain Marxist elements, which the group itself has denied.}} ] (]) 10:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That would be okay with me. @]? ] (]/]) 18:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think that's both not concise and ]. I would suggest "{{tq|"The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences.}}" Shariati is just one of the author's mentioned in the body that influenced the MEK and the article doesn't focus on him a lot. Finally, MEK's Marxist influences should be stated in wikipedia's voice, not as something that is a view of a minority of scholars (because this is absolutely the view of every major work on the MEK).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::@VR You keep changing your stance whenever the outcome doesn't align with your desired version of the article. You had that {{green|"I'm ok with adding "{{tq|The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati}}" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.'"}}, but now you're not ok with this? Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited as this would be the ] approach. Also @Voorts points about nuance are overlooked in your new proposal. ] (]) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited}} Please review ]. I'm also going to dip out at this point. If y'all still can't agree, maybe try ]. ] (]/]) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] Thanks again. Since you've already reviewed the sources and spent time on this, could you please let me know if "Marxist-Muslim" should be removed from the lead until VR and I can agree on a more nuanced and accurate way to phrase this, or should the lead be left as is? ] (]) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You're right, I did. So we can go with this: {{tq|"The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam, including the writings of Ali Shariati, as well as Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences."}} Hope this is an acceptable compromise.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Pinging @], that would overlook the nuance given in the third opinion. Abrahamian says that it provided a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam. Since the ideology does not align with either conventional Shia Islam or traditional Marxism, we can go with this?: {{tq|"The group's ideology was influenced by Islam with revolutionary Marxism, offering a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati."}} ] (]) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Wait, so you want to drop MEK's denial of Marxist influences? I thought you wanted that? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Pinging @], Can we go with this?: {{tq|"The group's ideology was influenced Islam with revolutionary Marxism, and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was largely shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati."}} ] (]) 09:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Worth noting that the "influenced by X with Y" part here isn't grammatically sound. It's also lengthy compared to some of the alternatives. If this is for the lead, it needs to act like it. ] (]) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::*{{tq|"The group's ideology was influenced by Islam and revolutionary Marxism; and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati."}}
::::::::::::*{{tq|"Their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati."}} ] (]) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


==Elimination of content backed by reliable sources from the article==
*{{tq|"Thousands of people suspected of belonging to the Mujahedin, and also to leftist opposition groups, were arrested and sent before the Revolutionary Courts... In order to obtain the desired confession, '''torture''' was routine."|}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34550377|title=Inside Iran’s Revolutionary Courts|website=BBC}}</ref>


@] Can you clarify why you removed this , given that it's backed by several reputable sources? ] (]) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{tq|"During the early morning hours of January 24, 2011, Evin prison authorities hanged Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj-Aghai for the crime of moharebeh because of their alleged ties to the banned Mojahedin-e Khalq organization (MEK)... During several interviews with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Kazemi's wife informed the group that interrogators had '''tortured''' her husband and kept him in solitary confinement for more than two months after his September 2009 arrest in order to force him to confess to the charges, but that he had refused to do so. Authorities failed to notify the prisoners' family members or lawyers prior to executing them.|}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/26/iran-deepening-crisis-rights|title=Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights |website=Human Rights Watch}}</ref>


:Can we put this elsewhere in the article or lead? Its not really about whether MEK is relevant in Iran or not. Its about a historical decision they made, so it should be in paragraph about MEK's participation in the Iran-Iraq war.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*]'s ''Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran'' shows a chart of MEK and Marxist death tolls in Iranian prisons during the 1980s that says {{tq|"Includes those executed by firing squad and hanging, but excludes those killed in armed confrontations and under '''torture'''.|}}<ref>{{cite book|title=Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran|last=Abrahamian|first=Ervand|publisher=University of California Press|year=1999|isbn=978-0520218666|pages=131}}</ref> (] Press)
::@] The sources directly clarify the claim in the lead about why the MEK sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, so your reasoning for removing this remain unclear. If you now want to move this content to another section of the article (which you could have done instead of deleting it), the proper course of action under ] would be to move both the claim and the explanation together, not just the explanation. ] (]) 11:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The claim in the lead is not ''why'' the MEK sided with Iraq, rather it is about the undisputed fact that the MEK sided with Iraq, and the very widely held view among scholars that this siding caused its popularity to drop in Iran.
*{{tq|If they were lucky, Mojahedin were arrested and put in prison. '''Torture''' and firing squad came later|}}<ref>{{cite book|title=The End of Terrorism? (Extremism and Democracy) |last=Winberg|first=Leonard|publisher=Routledge|year=2011|isbn=978-0415781176|pages=60}}</ref> (])
:::Should we move the explanation to the paragraph in the lead (and the body) that covers MEK's pro-Iraq battles? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It is also an undisputed fact (and a widely held view among scholars) that the MEK moved to Iraq to overthrow the Iranian clerical regime, which explains why the MEK moved to Iraq (they didn't relocate there just to back Iraq, as your version wrongly implies). I also see that the content about the MEK siding with Iraq is repeated in the lead. If you prefer to keep it in the paragraph about the battles, I'm ok with consolidating this information there. ] (]) 07:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::So your proposal is to have the first paragraph explain that MEK is deeply unpopular in Iran, without stating why that is? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::My proposal is to keep together the information about why the MEK had to move to Iraq, the battles that ensued, and the resulting consequences (including their eventual unpopularity in Iran). ] (]) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Again, given that we mention MEK's status as a major opposition group in the lead, we should also mention their deep unpopularity.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It is already mentioned in the lead where it explains the MEK's move to Iraq (the reason sources suggest it lost popularity in Iran.) ] (]) 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::But it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph and adjacent to claims of MEK being a major opposition group. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Why would you include a sentence with no context in the first paragraph? Context plays a vital role in this case. The relevant paragraph in the lead (where this sentence currently is) explains why the MEK was expelled from France, their involvement in Operation Forty Stars and Operation Mersad, and their claim that moving to Iraq was meant to overthrow the Iranian government. All of this explains what led to the MEK losing popularity in Iran. Putting this information in a paragraph that doesn't cover these points would violate ]. ] (]) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The lead and the opening paragraph is not there for the entire context, but to give readers the significance (or lack thereof) of the topic (]).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The lead already mentions the MEK's involvement in the battles that contributed to its unpopularity in Iran, yet you're trying to present that information outside that context. If WP:DR is the only solution, then let's begin the process. ] (]) 12:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@], you many sources from the lead of the article that determine ] in showing that the MEK's loss of popularity came after "{{tq|France expelled the MEK at the request of Iran, forcing it to relocate to Camp Ashraf in Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK then sided with Iraq, taking part in Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Mersad}}". You also took down the MEK's response to these events. This seems a grave violation of ] and ]. Under which scenario does your edit not violate these policies? ] (]) 06:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I took down the sources after the sentence I removed about popularity, not the sentence above. It is fact that the MEK's popularity largely dropped after it sided with Iraq (the enemy) in the war. That ''is'' the context, and it's pretty straightforward. What you are calling context was an undue statement from the MEK about why they had "few choices" but to be in Iraq, and, for one, the lead is a summary, so primary opinions from the MEK have no real place there. Secondly, this would only be providing context or balancing some existing content if there was some statement in the lead saying that the MEK had "lots of choices" about being in Iraq, but there is no such statement. On the contrary, the lead already states how they were forced to relocate to Iraq. ] (]) 08:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


If there are problems with any of these, please be specific. They are not WP:UNDUE, meet WP:RS, and as far as I can see are not repeated outlining '''torture against the MEK by the IRI''' in the article. They can also be attributed, so that's also not the issue here. ] (]) 01:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


{{ping|Iskandar323}} this was the content in the lead before you took down the sources (along with the information they clearly back). -
::It is nothing to do with how many RSes support the material, I am sure there are undue issues, It is better to remind your : "{{tq|There is no need to have 5 different subsections here. This refers to my previous comment about trying too hard to magnify trivial information into significant events.... The section does not need further repeated statements by the same authors.There seems to be a lot of hostility between the MEK and the IRI, and Misplaced Pages should not be used as a tabloid platform for amplifying this. The article needs to focus primarily on major historical / political events, as any Misplaced Pages article about a political party.}} Following your given reasons, duplicate material that some of them were repeated more than 2 times should be removed from the article.] (]) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
:::I propose that we only include text that isn't already in the article. From what I can see, the text above is not repeated text already in the article. I'm also fine with not creating further subsections. Are we all ok with this? ] (]) 22:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


{{tq|"During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK then sided with Iraq, taking part in Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Mersad. This became largely the reason why the MEK is known to be deeply unpopular in Iran today, while the group's representatives contend that their organization had few choices but to stay in Iraq if it wished to have any possibility of overthrowing the Iranian clerical regime.}}
::::@Stefka how do you think about the following sentences? Aren't they repeated or same? Still, do you think these sentences {{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.}}...{{tq|"In the ], several thousand members and supporters of the MEK (including men, women, and teenagers) were subject to "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."}} have to be kept into the article?
::::in the following, I collect duplicated material for the above sentences from the article:
#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'''".
#According to Ervand Abrahamian, '''the MEK attacked the regime''' for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; '''kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists'''; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih".
#The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families.
#In August 1992, a MEK member was kidnapped and brought to Iran.
::::and as to executions, we have:
#In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members.
#In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners".
#The executions ordered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government. ] (]) 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
::: Let's do one at a time:


These are the sources supporting the last part of the second sentence, the portion you're complaining about. -
:::*{{tq|"A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI , both men and women...Amnesty International’s research leaves the organization in no doubt that, during the course of several weeks between late July and early September 1988, thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to '''torture''' and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>


{|class="wikitable sortable"
:::Where is this repeated? ] (]) 13:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
|-
::::Don't you think that sentences like... {{tq|In a 2010 report, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom stated: In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners"}} ...or... {{tq|In 1988, a fatwa by Khomeini led to the executions of political prisoners, including many MEK members}} ...as well as... {{tq|A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa}} are enough to devoted space to 1988 executions and there is no need to detailed description?] (]) 10:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
! Citation
:::::Yes, it does provide a more detailed description, which can be merged with {{tq|"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa"}}. Should I come up with a proposed merge of sources/statements? ] (]) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
! Quote
:::::: Can I see the merged material here?] (]) 08:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
|-
|Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.
|"PMOI representatives contend that their organization has little alternative to its presence in Iraq if it is to have any chance of toppling the clerical regime."
|-
|Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
|"The deportation from Paris and move to Baghdad remains an intriguing and crucial episode in the history of the Mojahedin’s exile. In examining both the accounts provided by the Islamic Republic’s media sources and the press organs of the Mojahedin, it seems clear that the Khomeyni regime intended the Mojahedin to be exiled to an obscure and distant country which would weak their contacts with allied oppositions and keep them out of the European limelight. Instead, Iraq hastened to court the Mojahedin prior to its ousting, and the Islamic Republic found the opposition moved to a location which allowed the Mojahedin to resume its border raids"
|-
|Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-270-9.
|"Rajavi and a number of other Mojahedin members left their headquarters in Auvers-sur-Oise, a small town near Paris, on June 7, 1986 and boarded a plane to Baghdad. In the interim other European countries had refused to grant political asylum to the organization. Left with no other choice, and because they wanted to keep the organization intact, they therefore left for Iraq. The Mojahedin's official argument for relocating to Baghdad was that there they would be much closer geographically to their enemy, the Iranian Islamic Republic."
|-
|Keddie, Nikki R. (2006). Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12105-6.
|"In 1986 the French government forced them to leave Paris, and their center henceforth became Baghdad, Iraq, with which they were, until the U.S. 2003 victory in Iraq, allied."
|-
|Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
|“Finally, the Islamic Republic in June 1986 won another major victory in its campaign to isolate the Mojahedin. It persuaded the French government to close down the Mojahedin headquarters in Paris as a preliminary step towards improving Franco-Iranian relations... Unable to find refuge elsewhere in Europe, Rajavi put the best face possible on this defeat: he said that he was moving the Mojahedin headquarters to Iraq because they needed to be nearer to the armed struggle in Iran”
|}


What could possibly be undue about any of this? ] (]) 09:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: How's this?: {{tq|"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa" A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI , both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."}} ] (]) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Saff V.}} in case you missed it. ] (]) 12:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::It is duplicated material. The exact number of executed people is on the article right now...{{tq|In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners}}.] (]) 12:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Ok, I suggest we replace the excerpt you provided with this:
::::::::::{{tq|"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI , both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."}}
:::::::::: In this instance, nothing is repeated and the info is better presented/more accurate. Can we please agree? ] (]) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::}} what are the differences? Are you going to stress at the time of the event, late July and mid-August? The important key points of your suggested text now can be seen in the article. ] (]) 07:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:My two cents; These executions were carried out when MEK had launched armed attacks against Iran and some of the members of MEK in prison were supporting this armed development by making riots. So anything you are going to add, should include such a context, without which the text would be imbalanced. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
::1) What is the problem with adding the dates of the events? 2) This is presented within the 1988 conflict with Iran, so that's not an issue. Any clear objection why this shouldn't be on the mainspace? ] (]) 05:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
::: I have no objection to adding just the time (late July and mid-August), it makes the article more accurate. I extremely believe that we have to avoid adding duplicated material.] (]) 08:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
:::: I also don't think we should add repeated material. Please tell me what's repeated here:


:] apples to content in the body. No one is contesting this content in the body. What is pertinent here is ], which is about summarizing the content in the body. You seem to think lengthy, verbose and overly detailed sentences constitute summaries, when they do not. I'm not contesting ]. You are talking at cross purposes on a point irrelevant to the lead. ] (]) 09:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|"In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered the torture and execution of thousands of these political prisoners through a secret fatwa. A first wave of executions, between late July and mid-August, targeted several thousand members and supporters of the PMOI , both men and women that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities and extrajudicially executed."}}
::The portrayal that's ] in the body is also ] in the lead. ] (]) 10:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's unclear which exact statement or phrase you think we desperately need here. The entire statement above is incredibly dull and uninformative. What do you think is important? ] (]) 12:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Dull and uninformative" is not a rational explanation for taking down all those sources, particularly since I've already detailed how your edit violates ]. The sources indicate that the Iranian government first requested the French government to expel the MEK from France, which prompted the MEK to establish a base in Iraq where it participated in several operations against the Iranian government, which resulted in the group losing popularity in Iran, while the MEK maintains that they had little choice in their efforts to overthrow the regime. This is the ] portrayal (both in the body and, by extension, in the lead), so, why are you refuting it? ] (]) 10:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::None of that justifies it being part of the first paragraph though. That is not why MEK is significant, and your sources don't indicate that either. MEK's status as being the largest opposition group in the 1980s and being deeply unpopular today, are far more important to grasping the significance of this topic.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::When I say it is uninformative, I mean that it tells the reader nothing. It basically says: "They were where they were, because they didn't have a choice." Two of the sources meanwhile say they didn't have a choice (in some form or another), one says they had nowhere to go in Europe, and three say they went to Iraq to be close and/or so that they could conduct cross-border raids. So it's a mishmash of different points, and almost all of it is too detailed for the lead, which already says they were forced to go to Iraq, which is plenty. It's the lead summary, not the MEK's life story. ] (]) 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::My rationale for including this in the lead is based on policy - ] and ]. Can either of you present any policy-based arguments? ] (]) 07:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You've already shown you can quote policy. What you haven't explained is why there should be the exact same amount of material on this in both the lead and the body. The lead is supposed to be an abridged summary, but all the body currently has on this is one line: {{tq|"MEK representatives contend that their organization had little alternative to moving to Iraq considering its aim of toppling the Iranian clerical government."}} linked to one source. If you care about the due weight of this then you should begin there. ] (]) 17:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Sources have been further in the body. Can we now add this ] portrayal in the lead please? ] (]) 09:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What tight summary paraphrasing of the material you have added would you suggest? ] (]) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This is a summary of pivotal developments. -
::::::::::{{tq|"In 1986, France expelled the MEK from its base in Paris at Iran's request. It then relocated to Iraq, where it conducted several operations against the Iranian government. This led to it losing popularity in Iran, while the group argues this was their best option to overthrow the clerical regime."}}
::::::::::If you disagree with this summary, please feel free to provide your own version that explains the MEK's expulsion from France and why it opted to relocate to Iraq, including the effect this had in terms of their popularity in Iran. ] (]) 09:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Is it communist? ==
::::Please be specific. ] (]) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::::: You made a loop and make me repeat my response again and again. Please change your manner!for the last time I repeat, , you just by using ctrl F can find duplicated material, for example, these sentences are seen in the article now: {{tq|In the 1980s and 1990s an estimated 120,000 of MEK members and supporters were executed, with 30,000 prisoners killed in the 1998 executions of Iranian political prisoners"}} or {{tq| A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa}} or{{tq|ordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition}} or{{tq|Those executed also included women and children}}. Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"? Does it mean torture of MEK member in prison?] (]) 07:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


I wanted to add a thing about communism but is it communist? ] (]) 17:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Here's the full quote and the source:


==Corroboration==
::::::*{{tq|"Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>
@]: how do the citations back up , and how is it related to the terrorist designation? Please give specific citation excerpts, thanks. ] (]) 08:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


:"Other former officials who have accepted fees for speaking in support of the M.E.K. said on Monday that they and their agents had not received subpoenas. Some did not respond to inquiries. The fees have ranged from $15,000 to $30,000 for a brief speech, though some invitees have spoken free. Among former officials who have spoken for the M.E.K. at conferences are two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; President George W. Bush’s first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge; President Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; as well as prominent Republicans, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, and Democrats like Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont. The conferences, as well as newspaper and television advertisements, have been organized by advocacy groups in the United States, including the Iranian-American Community of Northern California. That group did not immediately return a request for comment, but Mr. Rendell said he had met numerous well-to-do Iranian Americans at the group’s events and believed that their donations covered the costs."
::::::Any objection to include this? ] (]) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:But I think this is being reported by Scott Shane, not Hersh.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You were already ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


::@]: Incorrectly citing Hersh is not the only issue with your edit. In your above-cited excerpt, you merged two paragraphs that appear separately in the source.
:::::::: {{ping|Mhhossein}} Please add ] that ] your objection, or self-revert. ] (]) 08:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
::The paragraph that addresses the officials says the following: "'''Among former officials who have spoken for the M.E.K. at conferences are two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; President George W. Bush’s first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge; President Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; as well as prominent Republicans, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, and Democrats like Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont.'''"
:::::::::Sure:
::It says they have spoken for the MEK, but it doesn't mention they were specifically paid to do so. The previous paragraph even says, "some invitees have spoken for free."
:::::::::{{talkquote|"The 1988 mass execution is believed to have started after the MEK forces, which had defected to Iraq and were fighting alongside Saddam Hussein against their countrymen, launched an unsuccessful military incursion against Iranian forces. "}}
::You also haven't clarified how this ties into the terrorist designation section where you added it. ] (]) 13:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{talkquote|"The reason for this new round of widespread executions was Operation Mersad, a military attack on Iranian forces by the Mojahedin-e Khalq."}}
:::@]: I see you're around, so can you please answer this? ] (]) 10:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{talkquote|"Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}}
:::It ties into the terrorist designation as evidence that the MEK used money to lobby away the terrorist desgination. This is the view of Richard Silverstein writing in ]. He points out the following who took money to speak for the MEK: Ed Rendell, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Dershowitz, and former FBI director Louis Freeh. A later Guardian investigation further uncovered money that had been paid to US officials who lobbied against MEK's terrorist desgination. NBC News discusses "{{tq|network of American politicians who have been paid by MEK, including Giuliani and Mukasey... includes former FBI Director Louis Freeh; former Democratic governors and presidential candidates Howard Dean and Bill Richardson; Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton; and former Obama national security adviser James L. Jones.}}" Likewise, ] has an entire article on this and says "{{tq|Many of these former high-ranking US officials – who represent the full political spectrum – have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK...Knowledgeable officials say the millions of dollars spent on the campaign have raised political pressure to remove the MEK from the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list to the highest levels since the group.}}"
:::::::::I will also see if I can find sources on the riots in the prison by the MEK members. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:::If anything, we should be expanding this content given the coverage given in ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::At the first political dissidents is not referred to MEK. Secoundly the text is duplicated, we have in the article that "Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views" or"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families". ] (]) 13:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::@]: Now you're inaccurately presenting the NBC News source, which doesn't say that Louis Freeh, Howard Dean, and Bill Richardson were paid to speak on behalf of the MEK; it just mentions that they are part of "the MEK's roster of supporters." Furthermore, the you included in the article that James Woolsey and Porter Goss were paid to speak for the MEK is not supported by the source. This information is false, yet you're not recognizing that. ] (]) 12:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
:::::You're right, we need to be more careful with those who gave speeches for MEK, but its not known if they were paid, and those were known to be paid (or received some other form of compensation) for their speeches.
Per Mhhossein's suggestions, I propose including the following:
:::::Paid officials: Governor ],<ref name=guardian/> ],<ref name=csm>{{Cite news|title=Iranian group's big-money push to get off US terrorist list|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list}}</ref> ],<ref name=csm/> ]<ref name=guardian>{{cite news|title=MEK decision: multimillion-dollar campaign led to removal from terror list|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list}}</ref>, ],<ref name=guardian/> ],<ref name=guardian/> ],<ref name=guardian/> ]<ref name=guardian/>, ]<ref name=guardian/> ],<ref name=guardian/> Judge ]<ref name=guardian/>, General ]<ref name=guardian/> General ],<ref name=csm/> ],<ref name=csm/>.
:::::''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Why do you keep gaslighting the issue? ''You'' added false information to the article, and when I called it out, you doubled down with another source that also doesn't support the false information you added. ] (]) 06:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::How about we try to work collaboratively and find solutions, not problems. ] (]) 07:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Lets add to that list: ],<ref name=wapo>{{cite news|title=Giuliani was paid advocate for shady Iranian dissident group|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/11/15/giuliani-was-paid-advocate-for-shady-iranian-dissident-group/|publisher=]}}</ref> ],<ref name=wapo/> ],<ref name=wapo/> ],<ref name=wapo/> ],<ref name=wapo/> Gen. ], Gen. ].<ref name=wapo/> ],<ref name=wapo/> ],<ref>{{cite news|title=Dean calls on U.S. to protect Iranian group|url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/dean-calls-on-us-to-protect-iranian-group-034861}}</ref>
:::::::In my original I added that 6 individuals were paid by MEK to speak. As the above sources show, all 6 of them were indeed paid (and many more were also paid), however, the citation I had in my edit was wrong.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub>
::::::::What's your reasoning behind using and , while at the same time the addition of multiple reliable books and newspapers to the page? ] (]) 09:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Its not only a politico that regards Howard Dean as paid lobbyist of MEK: also Guardian and Salon.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The Guardian article you are now citing is also an opinion piece (and salon.com is described as a "" by its own founder and has as a reliable source here). Could you please respond to the question? ] (]) 10:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I have started a discussion . Going forward, I encourage you to start such discussions too and ping me in them.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 13:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It looks like you're avoiding my question. ] (]) 07:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Consensus required ==
*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}} {{tq|Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>


Hello {{u|Hogo-2020}}, this article is under ], so kindly revert . Seek consensus first.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|El_C}} This TP discussion has been ongoing since June, could you please approve or decline if the above inclusion is a fair compromise? Thank you. ] (]) 15:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:Apologies, but I'm not following. Consensus ], and my edit summary explains this content is repeated in the lead. ] (]) 12:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::]'s ] is fair enough. The material is almost duplicated elsewhere in the article; why did not you respond to his objection? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::You have not yet ]. Please self-revert until you do. You may self-revert and start an RfC, or request other ] methods.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mhhossein}}, where is this almost duplicated elsewhere in the article? ] (]) 10:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Hello VR, and happy 2025. Sorry but I'm still not following. What specifically gives ''you'' achieved consensus to repeat content in the lead that could qualify as a ] violation? ] (]) 10:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hmmm...see ]; one of the examples. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
*{{u|Hogo-2020}}, I realized you were never formally alerted to IRP, so I've done that (although you've been makings edits in this contentious area for a while). I'll give you a reasonable time to familiarize yourself with policy. After that, if you don't self-revert, here's what I'll be posting at ]:
:::::{{Ping|Mhhossein}} The link you sent was not helpful Where exactly in the current live article is this duplicated? (please provide the exact text). ] (]) 06:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Here you are:
::::::"Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"
::::::"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa."
::::::"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."
::::::--] <sup>]</sup> 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, here it is revised, and find the following to be information that expands on the existing one:

:::::::*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

:::::::If there are any specific objections, please present them; alternatively, I'll include this in the article. ] (]) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Same objections are applied. Please review my previous comment. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|El_C}} Mhhossein is objecting the inclusion of the following text:

:::::::::*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

:::::::::Arguing that it's repeated here:

::::::::::{{tq|"Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"}}
::::::::::{{tq|"A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa."}}
::::::::::{{tq|"The Islamic Republic of Iran has also been known to kidnap and torture captured MEK members and their families."}}

:::::::::I find the text is different and serves to expand on current information, and therefore merits inclusion. What do you think? ] (]) 18:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::I think a merger ("torture," "other leftists") might be a good compromise. ] 20:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::Ok, great. Will merge everything into something along these lines:

:::::::::::*{{tq|Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails."}} {{tq|A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa.}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}} {{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

:::::::::::The text describes the processes of the 1988 executions in more detail, and concludes with the IRI continuing to target members of the MEK. ] (]) 09:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::There's an improvement here, but I'm afraid since some of the materials are still repetitious. In ] the sentence "The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK" was concluded to be the abstract of the sources none of which explicitly supported that. So, you should go by either of them. Also, "other torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is just a POVish. I don't think a neutral source would say such a thing. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Please provide a proposed paragraph that you believe doesn't include repeated text. ] (]) 12:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Please note that no response implies consent. ] (]) 07:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}}Can you report the exact quote from source belongs to this sentence:"a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed"?] (]) 10:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::@Stefka Bulgaria: What's missing in the current state of the article? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@Saff V.: Here's a source {{tq|"The majority of those killed were supporters of the People's Mujahedin of Iran although supporters of other factions were executed as well."|}} @Mhhossein: as I've stated above, I find my proposed text provides clearer insights into these events. In any case, if either of you have any further objections, please provide a proposed text that you think would constitute a fair compromise. ] (]) 10:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Most of your proposed text now is seen into the article, the difference is just this sentence:"Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails." Am I right? Thanks for providing a quote, "other factions" does not mean other leftist opposition groups.] (]) 11:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::{{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}} your proposed text now is included into the article. What are you going to do exactly?] (]) 10:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::On August 28th, I wrote :Will merge everything into something along these lines:

::::::::::::::::::::*{{tq|Following the operation, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. Khomeini used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK in Iranian jails."}} {{tq|A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini had ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa.}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}} {{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

::::::::::::::::::::The text describes the processes of the 1988 executions in more detail, and concludes with the IRI continuing to target members of the MEK. If you have a different proposed text, then by all means provide it, if not, I'll update this proposed text. ] (]) 09:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::I find your suggestion adding unnecessary POVs to the article. The current wording of the article is already describing the event. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::: Now we have in the article that {{tq|Following operation Eternal Light, a large number of prisoners from the MEK, and a lesser number from other leftist opposition groups were executed. A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered execution of thousands of political prisoners "who remained steadfast in their support for the MEK," through a fatwa...Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants.}} Do you want to replace your suggested text with this? I believe the current material in the article about 1988 executions is more detailed. If you don't agree, we can discuss sentence by sentence.] (]) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
The following is not included in the article:

*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

* {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}} {{tq|The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK."}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

Can you please give me a simple and precise reason why it shouldn't be?
] (]) 07:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
:"The Islamic Republic of Iran has since been known to kidnap and torture members of the MEK." is seen in the "Disinformation through recruited MEK members" section. Is this sentence referred to the 1988 execution? What do you mean by "failed invasion"? Is it referred to a specific event?] (]) 09:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
Here's the revised text:

*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

* {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>

Any objections? ] (]) 10:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Why do you repeat "The thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to..." 2times?! This sentence "Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails" doesn't support by source, it is mentioned in the source that {{tq|on 28 July, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Rouhollah Khomeini, used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa (religious order) ordering the execution of all prisoners who remained “steadfast” in their support for the PMOI.}}] (]) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
"" '''is''' supported by the source. This is my revised proposed text. Please specify if there are any specific objections for this to be included:

*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}} {{tq| The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.|}}<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref>] (]) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
:: These two mentioned sentences are saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15, as well as actually is POV of the source, we cannot devote this amount of weight to this source or saying of volunteered.] (]) 05:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
:::What? are you saying we cannot include this because the source is ]? ] (]) 08:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Actually not, It should be used with the appropriate weight, your sentences is undue weight,saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15.] (]) 07:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|El_C}} I've asked Saff V. to provide a clear objection as to why my proposed text (just above) is not suitable for the article. He has complained that it's "undue weight". I find this to be an unsubstantiated answer since clearly the ] is a well-established event. Would you agree? ] (]) 10:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:If understand correctly, he is saying, in part, that the agency of a 15-year-old to volunteer is limited. Personally, I don't agree, but it isn't an objection that is without substance. ] 16:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|El_C}} The first part of the text, ("{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."}}) is not attributed to a 15-year old volunteer; this is what TheGuardian says: "."

::The second part of the text has nothing to do with a 15-year-old volunteer, but it's attributed to Amnesty International. Do you still think Saff V.'s objection substantiated? ] (]) 16:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

:::Who is able to follow this thread any longer? — I am genuinely asking, because we need your help! Anyway, why not ask Saff V. what they object about that passage. Maybe you two can reach a compromise. ] 16:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|El_C}} This is my proposed text:

*{{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails."(} The thousands of political dissidents that were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed. Many of those killed during this time were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process.()}}

This is what the Guardian article says:

*."

An this is what the Amnesty International source says:

*

I did ask Saff V. about his objection, and his response was that my proposed text is "undue weight,saying of Mehrad, who JUST volunteered in 1987 at the age of 15.", but this is inacurate (per the Guardian and Amnesty sources above). Can you please weight in on wether his objection is substantiated? Thank you. ] (]) 16:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

:On the face of it, it does not appear to be substantive. ] 16:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::@Stefka Bulgaria: Are you sure the only objection in this thread is that of Saff V.? Why are pretending as if only Saff V. had made objections?--] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::See ]; for instance. Also, you had not elaborated why you tend to insert the POV of Amnesty (which is somewhat disputed) as a fact? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:::@Mhhossein: You need to be clear in your objections. What exactly are you objecting here with the proposed text? (please outline your points here clearly and in some detail). ] (]) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::::The previous paragraphs relate to Mehrdad's narration, and the paragraph belongs to this sentence - {{tq|Khomeini then used the failed invasion as a pretext for the mass execution of thousands of MEK and other leftists in Iranian jails}} begins with Mehrdad's narration. It is hard for me to believe that this sentence should not be attributed to Mehrdad.] (]) 07:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::My previous comment is detailed enough. One of the objections clearly outlined, is that {{tq|"you had not elaborated why you tend to insert the POV of Amnesty (which is somewhat disputed) as a fact?"}} --] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Mhhossein}} Ok, I'll attribute Amnesty's statement to Amnesty. Would that be ok then? ] (]) 10:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Can you please see ]? Another point is that if the quotation to be used, is on MEK. As far as I see, it's commenting on dissidents in general. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
{{u|Mhhossein}}: We cannot go digging through diffs to find out what you actually mean. Please present any objections in a clearly and concise manner. ] (]) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:No digging is needed, my ] still stands being clear enough and don't think it needs to be repeated. Please open the link and you'll see it. I'm ready to respond further. Also probably your forgot my latest point (the text being on MEK or dissidents in general). --] <sup>]</sup> 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
::1) Dissidents also include the MEK, so we can say just that, MEK and dissidents. 2) saying that something is just "POV-ish" is not a substantive objection, specially when it involves actual research by Amnesty International. ] (]) 19:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top|References}}
{{ref talk}}
{{collapse bottom}}

== File:Letter from the People's Mujahedin of Iran to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.jpg ==

Mhhossein, about this image of a letter (which you've included back into the article), if you , the source says it's from: http://www.hamneshinbahar.net/article.php?text_id=312.html

This does not qualify as WP:RS. Why did you include this back into the article? ] (]) 13:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:The file is found elsewher and I don't think hamneshinbar is the ultimate source. According to the letters are kept in the archive of Standford University. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:: According to radiokoocheh.info? That is also not a reliable source, and the Commons file links to hamneshinbahar.net, which is not a reliable source. ] (]) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:::]? Can you please reply to my comments? ] (]) 11:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Since I was the one who originally put it in the article, I take the liberty to answer on his behalf. You may read about the letter in the California Archives. Just search for the figure instruction using CTRL+F and you shall find them.--] (]) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::What is being discussed here in the source of the image. This image, which is currently in the MEK article, links to , which is not a reliable source. ] (]) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Can someone respond here please? The source for this image does not seem to be a reliable source. ] (]) 13:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|El_C}} I asked other editors involved here about the reliability of a source being used for an image, but editors have stopped responding me. According to restrictions, can I go ahead and remove the image based on it failing ]? ] (]) 14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, no response implies consent. ] 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::] seems to be inactive for a while. He might provide a source after he's back again. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|El_C}}. Hello. I just came back from a long journey. My silence does not imply consent in this case :) .--] (]) 14:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::Hi. Welcome back. But just so you know, ] always implies consent, unless it is broken. ] 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ping|El_C}}.Thanks. There are a few things about the letter image that should be clarified here. First of all, the existence of such a letter is not under dispute. It is mentioned with due detail in the :
<blockquote> <blockquote>
The longstanding version of the article appears to have in the first paragraph the fact that the MEK is deeply unpopular in Iran. This was added to ] out discussion of MEK being the largest opposition group. This text appears to have been introduced into the first paragraph by {{u|Iskandar323}} on July 27, 2023, and has remained in the article since then until it was removed by Hogo-2020 on November 19, 2024. I opposed this on the talk page and reverted them on December 26, 2024. But they reverted their change back in on December 27, 2024.
Resolution of the TsK KPSS Secretariat approving a response to a letter from M. Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin Organization of the Iranian People, to M. Gorbachev, and to a request submitted by the organization; two copies of instructions to the Soviet Embassy in Bulgaria to be delivered in ciphered form by the Committee for State Security (KGB); extract from the minutes of the TsK KPSS Secretariat; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from R. Ulianovskii, Deputy Chief of the International Department; letter to Gorbachev from Rajavi (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian; statement with information about the collection of documents attached to the letter from Rajavi; memorandum (translated into Russian) to the TsK KPSS from F. Olfat, member of the Politburo of the Mujahedin Organization, and the original '''letter in Persian requesting that the TsK KPSS lend any amount of money (up to US$300,000,000) to the Mujahedin Organization; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from Olfat, (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian requesting that the supporters of the Mujahedin Organization be allowed to cross the Soviet-Iranian border and be granted a temporary asylum in the Soviet Union''', 1985 December - 1986 February
</blockquote>

For those who are familiar with Farsi - and I am assuming that includes pretty much all editors involved in this discussion - the content of the letter shown in the image exactly matches with what is noted in the California archives website. It thus boils down to whether we can rely on sources such as or who posted the image of the letter online. To begin with both the above mentioned sources are not accessible inside Iran. The existing Iranian government censors these websites (along with many others) because of these websites' criticisms toward itself. So there is no way one can claim the two mentioned sources have a dog in this fight. Secondly, Radiokoocheh is a US based Radio/News website founded by a journalist, named Ardavan Rouzbeh, whose work is cited by BBC . No need to mention that Rouzbeh, himself was banned by the Iranian government from journalism activities and had to leave the country. Therefore, given that ''the content'' of the letter is a verified fact, I find it safe to rely on Radio Koochech for ''the image'' of the letter.--] (]) 00:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
:The source of the image is not a reliable source, despite anything else. ] (]) 05:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::@Stefka Bulgaria: When ] makes his points clear by discussing various aspects of the issue, you can't just dismiss his thorough explanations by saying " is not a reliable source, despite anything else." Please let us know why you think the source is not reliable. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
:::The source of the image does not meet ]. That is policy. See ]. ] (]) 18:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Why? In what way? --] <sup>]</sup> 11:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::In that http://www.hamneshinbahar.net doesn't meet ]. You can take this to ], as , where you may get further feedback. ] (]) 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::There is a reason why Stefka does not mention Radio Koochech as the source :), implying deep in his heart he has no problem with that. Anyways, according to the RS inquiry, they asked that either a user takes a trip to the Hoover institute or send an email asking about the authenticity of the microfilm. If Mhhossein could send that email to Hoover institute it would be great.--] (]) 05:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|El_C}} I contacted the Hoover institution as advised by the WP:RSN . To my surprise, they sent me the whole scanned microfilms including the Persian letter and the Russian response (a total of 55 pages). Should I upload the email thread? Is uploading that single page (the same as the one in the letter under dispute) enough to wrap up this discussion? Please advise. Also feel free to send me an email so that I can send you the whole document.--] (]) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::I, myself, am not disputing the reliability of the source — but if anyone is, then, sure, send it to them. What I think you should focus on now, though, is reaching consensus about the due weight and neutrality as well as possible synthesis concerns that pertain to usage of that primary source in the article, as that seems to have arisen as a point of contention among several editors. ] 21:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::Oh no worries at all. I am not planning to do an original research based on one photo. I am only going to post the image in the article. or I should say I am going to have ] do it for me given the "sanctions" :) . --] (]) 04:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
::] & ], send me an email if you want the full microfilm provided to me by Hoover Institution. Due to copyright concerns, I am not allowed to upload the whole thing here.--] (]) 04:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
:::I am not interested in providing my email here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Misplaced Pages rules say that what we include needs to be '''published in a reliable source'''. Provide the image published in a reliable source and then it will be ok to be included in the article. ] (]) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Please, refer to the WP:RS discussion mentioned . As a side point, many Wiki users make a Wiki-specific email.--] (]) 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::I second what Barca says, as well as what Icewhiz says in that WP:RSN discussion: {{tq|"The issue here is more WP:UNDUE use of a WP:PRIMARY source from several decades ago - not discussed by secondary sources."|}} ] (]) 09:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
]'s asked to have the photo authenticated by either driving by or emailing to the Hoover Institution of which I chose the second option. Moreover, Icewhiz is wrong saying this letter has not been discussed in secondary sources. See this 2018 piece by Abbas Milani:
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Anyways, Hoover institution got back to me saying they have no objection to me releasing the document. Thus, is the full document. {{ping|El_C}}: Is there anything else left now that the full document is uploaded?--] (]) 15:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|El_C}} Can I go ahead and add the photo back to the article?] (]) 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::When you address the objections by Icewhiz and Barca, then we can look at putting the photo in the article. ] (]) 13:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::I believe those concerns have been replied to above (Abbas Milani) — but at the event, Kazemita1 still has a few days left on their sanction, so they may not add anything until these lapse. ] 14:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Kazemita1 - I see you added the letter and the description from this source - , but I don't see the letter in that source. How did you connect the image you included to that description? ] (]) 17:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::As instructed by WP:RSN, I gave Hoover institution the file number mentioned on the California archive , i.e. "Opis 15, Reel 1.993, File 24". In response they sent me document which includes the very same Persian letter (plus some material in Russian). Of course, one could also link the two if he/she knew some Persian. is their reply to my email.--] (]) 13:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

== Ideological revolution and women's rights ==

Hey Saff V., I removed this from the "Ideological revolution and women's rights" section:

{{tq|"At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of ]. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled ]. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to ]'s younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends was considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist."}}

The reason I removed it was because it looked to me as this had nothing to do with anything here. You reverted it back in saying "it is not only taking another person's last name, but also divorcing because of MEK's organization goals". Can you please explain how "divorcing because of MEK's goals" is related to women's rights? Thank you. ] (]) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

::It was brought that According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. My mean divorcing because of MEK's goals" is exactly "in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'". Also, the material that you were going to delete, ] and divorcing in order to facilitate this 'great revolution', completely suit with the title Ideological revolution and women's rights, which is obviously clear.] (]) 06:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
:::It just comes across about a lot of text about little. Would you be fine with reducing it? ] (]) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
::::Your previous reason has nothing to do with the length of text. In addition, there is no detailed info or duplicated material so reducing is not needed.] (]) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::My point is that if we decide to include that a divorce was made to help facilitate Women's rights, then that's all we need to say about that, there's absolutely no reason to expand on this this much. ] (]) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::No where in the source says the divorce was made for the sake of Women's rights (though this is not even disputed here). Also, changing the family name is also signaling the adherence of Maryam to the goal's of their organization, i.e. MEK. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Using your own terminology, what is the "fair objection" for keeping this text to the point (only mentioning things related to the MEK and Women's rights)? ] (]) 13:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::IYO, which part of text is not connected to MEK?] (]) 07:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Saff V., I think you've misunderstood Barca's question, which is how is this text above relevant to the "MEK and Women's rights"? (the section where this text is included). ] (]) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: O.K. how is this text above NOT relevant to the "MEK and Women's rights"?] (]) 06:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: Because nowhere in it does it talk about Women's rights; it just talks about divorces and marriages. ] (]) 16:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::No where? Please read the text more carefully. This part of text "This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping. (especially when Abrishamchi declared his own marriage to Musa Khiabani's younger sister). The fact that it involved women with young children and the wives of close friends were considered a taboo in traditional Iranian culture." is obviously connected to woman right.] (]) 06:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::How is that quote connected to Women's rights? ] (]) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::: wife-swapping has close connection with Women's rights. Then why do you try to find a relation between text and woman's right? this divorce and marriage of Maryam Rajavi is connected to Ideological revolution and because Maryam got a divorce Abrishamchi and married Rajavi within a short period of time when they were the leaders of MEK and such marriage and divorce is taboo in Iranian culture. In addition according to this sentence,Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution', Is n't it against the women's right, divorcing for facilitating this 'great revolution'?It is the connection that you try to deny!] (]) 08:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{ping|El_C}} I asked Saff V. to explain how the highlighted text here, which deals mainly with marriages and divorces, is connected to Women's rights (the section where this text is currently included in the article). Saff V. replied that these divorces/marriages have "a close connection with Women's rights", arguing that MEK leaders married within a short time span (even though such things happen in many cultures and do not necessarily pertain to Women's rights, or lack thereof). Could you please advice? ] (]) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::At the very least, the assertion should be made more concise. The relevance to the <u>MEK</u> (questionable marriages/divorces, their connection to women's rights) also ought to be made more clear. Not to sound like a broken record, but again, I'm a big proponent of using explanatory notes as a means to reach compromise. ] 14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{Ping|El_C}} Saff V. still hasn't provided a logical argument on how this relates to women's rights. Can I go ahead an edit this in the article? ] (]) 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Affirmative. ] 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@Stefka Bulgaria Are you going to restore this sourced long standing text into a suitable subsection or it should be done by others? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::For this to be restored, it needs a logical argument as to why this pertains to Women's rights, or lack thereof. ] (]) 10:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Read my comment once again. I was talking about restoring this ''longstanding'' text into a suitable section. Totally removing the material only because it did not fit into Women's rights sections, was not a good move. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:As this sentence confirmed ," Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'", the text is connected to "Ideological revolution".] (]) 11:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::{{Ping|El_C}} It seems to me that Stefka Bulgaria misled you by repeated stressing on "women's right" while this is on "ideological revolution" and the section title is "Ideological revolution and women's rights". Am I allowed to restore it on this ground?] (]) 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I wasn't misled. You took too long to respond and as a result ended up forfeiting your position. ] 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Sorry for the delay. But I showed the portion was relevant...] (]) 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{Ping|El_C}}: The portion in question, which is ''longstanding'', is directly related to the MEK's "Ideological revolution" and need to be restored. since it does not have to be related to "women's right". Stefka Bulgaria needs to respond why he had been over stressing on the "women's right"? See comments , , , and where he's mentioning "women's rights"!!! The argument used for removal of the text is totally irrelevant, as you see. Can it be restored? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, but you took too long to respond. Are you sure you want it back in the article in the, first place? It seems longwinded and convoluted. ] 20:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I think that the first place is suitable, As the text says, this divorce was done for "great revolution".So the text is related to "Ideology" section.It could be restored in Ideology/after revolution.] (]) 05:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}} and {{ping|Mhhossein}} I suppose it is missing! ] (]) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Before anything else, I would like to seek help from ] to elaborate on his "longwinded and convoluted" point. How can it be resolved? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not sure exactly on the ''how''. But I get the sense that it just seems to go on for a while (with multiple parentheses), describing something that could be condensed with a much more concise summary. ] 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::: I summarized it to following text
:::::::::::{{tq|At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of ]. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled ]. The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia was equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena.}}
:::::::::::Is there any objection?] (]) 08:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Saff V., could you please explain how this pertains to "Women's rights" (or lack thereof)? Aren't marriages and divorces fairly common across different cultures/regions? I understand that you're trying to associate "divorcing/marrying" as a lack of "women's rights"? If that's the case, can you explain how that's the case? ] (]) 10:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@Stefka Bulgaria, you were told multiple times in this thread that the text does not have to be related to the Women's right, with the section title also including "ideological revolution" (see ]). ]: Stefka Bulgari needs to respond why, despite being explained, he is over stressing on "women's rights", while this ''long standing'' text is essentially on the ideological revolution. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::If you're asking for my opinion, then, well, at least it's shorter (so there's that), but it is still pretty obtuse. In what way does a divorce facilitates ''anything''? What was the MEK decisionmakers' line of thinking there? Do we know? Or does it stand as some sort of a big mystery in the historiography? Anyway, it's just stated for the reader to make sense of — personally, I don't think that's good enough. ] 13:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
:I have tried to find more detail as you asked. The following material is found but if you ask me except last one (attributing to Mojahed Magazine) rest of them does not provide much detail. They just confirm that "Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to pave the way for this "great revolution" Or as Abrishamchi said this marriage and that divorce help them to find ideological brightness.If you want I can summarize the following material and add to the above-shortened text.
:{{talk quote|Following the grand traditions of authoritarian parties, this divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants ...Toward the end of the long tape, Abrishamchi stands up to endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization. This ideology of the dissolution of the individual into the collective was similar to that practiced by the Islamic Republic, particularly during the war years. Abrishamchi continued: ”we must all pass through this furnace and melt away our filthy parts then we can find ideological brightness then all will become true members of the Mojahedin.}}
:{{talk quote|The proclamation also mentioned almost in passing that Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to pave the way for this "great revolution". The proclamation added that divorce rarely took place among the Mojahedin. The proclamation was signed by thirty-four members of the central committee and its politburo this was the very first time the organization had revealed the names of the top leadership...Whatever the true reasons behind the marriage the results were crystal clear. The marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.}}
:{{talk quote|When a MEK member desire to marry he or she asked permission and the MEK chose an appropriate spouse. On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution. Almost as a footnote, the MEK announcement mentioned that Azodanlu AND HER HUSBAND Mehdi Abrishamchi had divorced in order to make way for the marriage to Rajavi.}}
:{{talk quote|To understand this great revolution…is to understand and gain a deep insight into the greatness of our new leadership, meaning the leadership of Masoud and Maryam. It is to believe in them as well as to show ideological and revolutionary obedience of them…By correcting your old work habits and by criticizing your individual as well as collective shortcomings, we shall gain much awareness in confronting our enemies…Report to your commanders and superiors in a comprehensive manner your progress, its results and outcomes that you gain from promoting and strengthening this ideological revolution.}}
:Thanks. ] (]) 08:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

::Wow, okay. Thanks for that. That clears up a lot of questions. Now the task before us is how to present all that in a manner that is cogent and concise. ] 19:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
::: Don't mention it. ASAP I will try to provide a brief and comprehensive text.] (]) 13:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
::::I worked on the matted and the following text was made:
::::At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping.{{Sfn|Abrahamian|1982|p=251–253}}The effect of this incident on secularists and modern intelligentsia were equally outrageous as it dragged a private matter into the public arena. This divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants. As Abrishamchi said on endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.. On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution..
::::] and ] any opposition?] (]) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::Can you please add the sources so I can go through them along with the text? ] (]) 07:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::Sources were provided.] (]) 09:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::@Saff V., so the whole paragraph is based on the Abrahamian book? This is what Abrahamian's book says:

:::::::{{talk quote|"In the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping... It involved women with young children and, even more unforgivable, the wives of close friends, a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. To top it all, the reference to the Prophet was not only irrelevant but also outrageously irreverent."|}}

:::::::What does this text tell us about the MEK's "Ideological revolution and women's rights"? ] (]) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Only this paragraph belongs to Abrahamian's book:"At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. As a result, the marriage further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. This was mainly because, the middle class would look at this marriage as an indecent act which to them resembled wife-swapping." As ] demanded ( and ) I try to make clear the aim of that divorce and marriage. I don't know why my proposed text was not posted completely, yesterday I found it incomplete so I reposted again.] (]) 08:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::The idea here was to make this more concise, and you've actually expanded it. Aside from {{tq|"On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK"|}}, can you please explain how the rest of this text pertains to "Ideological revolution and women's rights"? In what way does a divorce help explain either the MEK's ideological revolution or Women's rights? ] (]) 09:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: As it was said before there is no need be related to woman's right, It is enough to be related to Ideological revolution. I made some changes in the suggested text to be more obvious:
::::::::::At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'.{{Sfn|Abrahamian|1982|p=251–253}}As Abrishamchi said on endorse the marriage of his purpose and to sanction the new ideological shift of the organization, which this divorce represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could devote themselves more fully to the organization.. On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later the MEK announced that its politburo and central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azodanlu, who was already married to marry one another to deepen the ideological revolution.. This divorce cum marriage was presented with pomp and circumstance as having been necessitated by POMI’s organizational and ideological exigencies the collective good, not by personal desires or a mutual love of the two participants..According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.. ] (]) 11:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ok, let's not relate it to "women's rights", let's relate this to "Ideological revolution". What is the MEK's "Ideological revolution"? and how does a divorce help the reader understand it better? ] (]) 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::@Stefka Bulgaria I don't know how many time are you going to point (, , , and )that there is no relation between material and women's rights and how many times we have to respond (, and ) that also the title including "ideological revolution" and it is enough!
::::::::::::{{ping|El_C}} As you to make material more clear. I gave it try and provided a text. ? Thanks! ] (]) 08:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you read my last message, you should see that I suggested that we '''don't''' relate this to "Women's rights". Moving forward, my question was quite simple: How does a divorce help the reader better understand the MEK's ideological revolution? ] (]) 09:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I brought your answer in suggested text: this divorce (of Abrishamchi) represented enforcing divorce among PMOI members. It was based on the idea that by divorcing each other members could '''devote themselves more fully to the organization'''.] (]) 11:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So there was a divorce so that some members could "devote themselves more fully to the organization"; so what? What does that tell us about the MEK's "ideological revolution" (beyond that there was a divorce in the process)? ] (]) 10:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: The great revolution tied with new leadership (of Rajavi and Azodanlu) whereby it was mentioned that the . In another hand, Maryam Azodanlu was known as the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. So she needed to divorce Abrishamchi for marrying Rajavi. It was mentioned {{Sfn|Abrahamian|1982|p=251–253}} that "Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution". As the sources say, these marriage and divorce illustrate to members that they have to devote themselves more fully to the organization as their leaders don't divorce or marry just because of their own desire.] (]) 11:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}} The way you write it lacks context and gives unnecessary emphasis to a divorce/marriage, which is really secondary here. I propose that if we include this, that it'd be more like the author has written it, which is more NPOV: {{talk quote| "On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution.""|}} ] (]) 13:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::I suggested the to explain relations between marriage and divorce of MEK and grat revolution, as well as Stefka Bulgaria wrote his opinion above, I thought other involved users is needed.] (]) 06:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|El_C}},{{ping|Mhhossein}} and {{ping|kazemita1}} Please leave comment. As I explained in my pervious comment and the objection of ], your opinion is needed. I am going to add this to article!] (]) 07:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

::::Here is my two cents. This piece is written by Ervand Abrahamian. You cannot possibly find anyone more neutral than him when it comes to contemporary Iranian history. I therefore suggest we keep it the way he wrote it. Let's face it as once mentioned by Vandermonde, nobody's hand is clean. So I suggest Stefka does not change the wording of Abrahamian for obvious reasons.--] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

::::Saff V., you forgot to include me, as I am also involved in this discussion. I stand by my point that if we decide to include that a divorce was made to help facilitate Women's rights, then that's all we need to say about that, there's absolutely no reason to expand on this this much. ] (]) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::The Admin to make it clear!] (]) 06:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::What Stefka wrote is clear. ] (]) 14:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Stefka wrote his/her version of history. Instead, I propose we stick to the version written by a world-class historian, i.e. ].--] (]) 13:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Kazemita1, please be careful when you make remarks like that. I did not write my "own version of history", I quoted directly from the source. Please cross out what you wrote. ] (]) 11:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{PING|Stefka Bulgaria}}Ok I have no problem with your suggested text which is more summarized I just added the saying of Ervand Abrahamian to end of it. {{ping|Kazemita1}} I think I don't get your mean or objection. Anyway is anyone against the following text?

:::::::::On January 27, 1985, Rajavi announced he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his "co-equal leader" with the intent that this action would give women an equal voice within the MEK. Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen the "ideological revolution."According to Ervand Abrahamian, the marriage worked both to isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself.] (]) 13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: I don't see what you've added about Abrahamian at the end gives any insight into the MEK's ideological revolution or Women's rights. ] (]) 15:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::It does not have to give insights into ideological revolution. MEK tried to facilitate its ideological revolution by divorce/marriage, but the action had some more outcomes including what Abrahamian said (it "isolated further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself"). Also, I suggest to use the description by Abrahamian, saying the divorce/marriage "paved" the revolution. Moreover, the portion used from is a verbatim copy and paste which needs to be reworded before getting into the article's body. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::The section's title is "Ideological revolution and Women's rights", so it needs to contribute to that particular discourse. Pushing a divorce/marriage narrative is not important as it's something that happens every day, multiple times, across many cultures around the world. ] (]) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

== The assistance of MEK in Iran-Iraq war ==

{{Ping|Stefka Bulgaria}} As you picked up material as to , Can you explain based on which ''sides'' you do that?] (]) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

:There is a lot of the same repeated Saddam Hussein text throughout the article:

*{{talk quote|According to the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia, MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.}}

*{{talk quote|Al-Maliki and the Iraqi Ministry of Justice maintained that the MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.|}}

*{{talk quote|A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.|}}

*{{talk quote|Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time . |}}

*{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."|}}

*{{talk quote|"so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army, and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam."|}}

*{{talk quote|In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.|}}

*{{talk quote|Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action.|}}

*{{talk quote| "Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors" for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War. |}}

*{{talk quote|Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem said that the MeK’s "collaboration with Saddam against Iranian people will never be wiped out from the memory of Iranian people".|}}

*{{talk quote|MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.|}}

:Lots of repetitive text here. Will clean up accordingly. ] (]) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
:: The time is vital key so they are not duplicated. None of the above sentences include assistance in 1986.] (]) 11:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
:::They can hardly be considered as duplicates. Some are talking about MEK's helping Saddam in suppressing the uprisings in Iraq, some others about MEK's assisting Saddam to fight against Iran, some speak about creation of NLA while some others include opinions of some figures on the MEK's siding with Iraq. Though, all others which say nothing than MEK's siding with Saddam can be considered as duplicate. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
::::These all repeat Saddam Hussain's alliance with the MEK. We certainly don't need to mention '''11 times''' that Saddam Hussain allied with the MEK. ] (]) 10:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I already explained why one could not say they're all duplicates. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I chek 11 items provided by Stefka. Except for the first and last item, rest of them are not duplicated, some of them is the reaction of people or organization. In my edit, I stress on the equipping of MEK BY Saddam (with protection, funding, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, military training, and the use (but not ownership) of land) '''on 1986'''.But about 11 provided items:
#it is true that the first and last options are the same.
#MEK assisted the Republican Guard in brutally suppressing the '''1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime'''.
#MEK had committed '''human rights abuses in the early 1990s''' when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.
#A wide range of sources states that the '''MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people''' because of supporting Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War.
#The '''reaction of Pahlavi''' about Mek for supporting Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War
#'''In 1983''', the MEK's support of Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, described '''as treason by the vast majority of Iranians'''.
#Near the '''end of the 1980–88 war''' between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and went into action.
#In number nine the '''alliance between MEK and Saddam is confirmed by Iran'''.
#Number 10 pointed to '''the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem''' for the alliance between MEK and Saddam.
] (]) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}

These are all repeated statements:

*{{talk quote|A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.|}}

*{{talk quote|Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time . |}}

*{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."|}}

*{{talk quote|"so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army, and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam."|}}

*{{talk quote|In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.|}}

*{{talk quote|Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action.|}}

*{{talk quote| "Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors" for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War. |}}

*{{talk quote|Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem said that the MeK’s "collaboration with Saddam against Iranian people will never be wiped out from the memory of Iranian people".|}}

They can be combined into this:

"In 1983, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War. A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War."

Or is there anything that's been left out? ] (]) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:: Fisrt of all, "A wide range of sources state" is an example of ]. Then the quote of Pahlavi and Djavad Khadem or equipping of 7,000 members of the MEK are left. Also in your text, it is Pretended that the collaboration between MEK and Sadam just refer to 1983, but in fact, it is not true.] (]) 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
:::How would you rephrase it then? ] (]) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: Why should I do this? there is no need to rephrase!] (]) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|El_C}} I've objected that these statements come across as repeated information:

*{{talk quote|A wide range of sources states that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.|}}

*{{talk quote|Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time . |}}

*{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."|}}

*{{talk quote|"so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the Saddam Hussein's army, and assisted Saddam's Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Saddam."|}}

*{{talk quote|In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and which destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.|}}

*{{talk quote|Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA), went into action.|}}

*{{talk quote| "Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors" for its alliance with Saddam during the Iran–Iraq War. |}}

*{{talk quote|Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem said that the MeK’s "collaboration with Saddam against Iranian people will never be wiped out from the memory of Iranian people".|}}

That can be combined into this:

"In 1983, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War. A wide range of sources state that the MEK has little or no popular support among Iranian people. The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War."

Saff V. doesn't agree that these are repeated statements, and that they should be combined into something less repetitive. What do you think? ] (]) 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

:Stefka Bulgaria's version looks like it can become a decent compromise. Saff V and Mhhossein, what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it? Not to sound like a broken record, but maybe consider explanatory notes to, at least partially, serve this purpose...? ] 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:: As the first point, In the provided text by Stefka, it is pretended the collaboration between MEK and Saddam was beginning from 1983. Is it true? Is not any collaboration BEFORE that? Secondly, the reaction of Pahlavi or Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem needs to keep. It is important people with different views how describe this collaboration. As well as equipping 7,000 members of the MEK by shows the level of this support and citing the exact number makes clear how the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein. It is not detailed INFO! Please pay attention to this sentence "MEK had committed human rights abuses in the early 1990s when it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising". Is it really duplicated?] (]) 08:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::: Saff V., as El_C suggests (and ), what vital material do you maintain needs to be expanded into it?? There is certainly no need to have this repeated '''8 times''' in the article when it can be phrased in one paragraph that includes all necessary information. ] (]) 10:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Why do you make me repeat my opinion again and again. I read the opinion of you and El_C then I presented my idea. Your paraphrasing doesn't contain some vital point. WHICH POINT, please read my previous comment.] (]) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{Ping|Saff V.}} Please provide a paragraph (as I did above) that doesn't include repeated text. ] (]) 18:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::I am sorry but my time is limited. I mentioned vital points you can use it in paraphrasing.] (]) 10:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::: Sorry, you need to make the time (a week more than suffices), or you risk forfeiting your position. ] 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{PING|El_C}}I really apologize, but as ] demands, it is the responsibility of Stefka to provide the text. As I have done already and presented my notes, I will help to get conclusion ASAP. Finally, I will do what you know is right. ] (]) 07:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::I already provided a proposed text, which you objected. Then I asked you to provide a proposed text, and you said that you have not time. ] (]) 17:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: I have no problem with current material about MEK collaboration with Sadam and If you ask me I don't agree they are duplicated, but you agree and tried to as a . So why I must to provide a text while I don't see duplicated material.] (]) 06:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::I have presented an objection, which you are failing to address. In the lede section alone, the word "Saddam" is mentioned 4 times in a single paragraph:

:::::::::::{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with '''Saddam''' Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the '''Saddam''' Hussein's army, and assisted '''Saddam''''s Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against '''Saddam'''.|}}

:::::::::::That seems unnecessary. I propose that we resume that into the following:

:::::::::::{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with '''Saddam''' Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside '''Saddam''' Hussain in ] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.|}}

:::::::::::] (]) 09:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::It is good but there is a problem needs to other user's opinion. You removed that MEK fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the '''Saddam''' Hussein's army (after expelling from Paris) and replaced it with Operation Mersad. In another hand, we have in the first sentence that Saddam and MEK collaboration belongs to 1983. So isn't it pretend that Saddam sided MEK only in 1983? My suggestion is that:
::::::::::::{{talk quote|"they sided with '''Saddam''' Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces during the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside '''Saddam''' Hussain in ] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.|}} ] (]) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, the wording on the MEK's suppressing the ] should not have been touched. I'm against changing it; it must be clear that the uprising was against Saddam, showing what dog did MEK have in the fight. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I proposed a text, then Saff V. proposed corrections, and just like that we reached a majority consensus over this. You don't have to agree with the majority consensus, but it's a consensus nonetheless. ] (]) 13:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::]: I was busy with some off wiki issues and am partially against which removes some ''longstanding'' texts. I already . --] <sup>]</sup> 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Please don't start edit warring now, everyone! But Mhhossein, I'm not seeing much basis to your objection, which you ought to write out, anyway, not link to. ] 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{ping|El_C}} Definetly there were not any consensus with me and Stefka. Yes! he proposed a text, then I proposed corrections and I that there is a problem needs to '''other user's opinion'''.Without waiting for others, he edit the article! Until the consensus will be achived, I revert it to longstanding version. In addition why was the NYT source ?!] (]) 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::But Stefka Bulgaria was pretending as if the every thing was settled down! Anyway, I explained why the proposed text needs more edits. Actually:
:::::::::::::::::* that MEK "fought against Iran" should not be removed, since the wording is supported by the reliable sources. Also, we have previously discussed this matter (it should be somewhere in the archive).
:::::::::::::::::* ] should stay with the wikilink (why was the wikilink removed?)
:::::::::::::::::--] <sup>]</sup> 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}Have you checked how many times it's already wikilinked in the article? Anyway, it seems to me that Saff V. (who was ''so'' very close to being blocked for edit warring — brazenly ignoring my warning here from a day before!) agreed to a compromise, now they go back on it? Then Mhhossein arrives with objections that involve some minor adjustments, but rather than try to integrate these, reverts the entire thing? No, this is not reflected well on either of you, Saff V. and Mhhossein. Rather than collaborate, you are effectively obstructing. I expect more constructive efforts at reaching a compromise. One which tones down all the repetition and which condenses the major points under contention in a concise and cogent manner. Please do better. ] 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
:]: I just reverted since there were no consensus and note that I did not make further edits. I did not know it would be counted as edit war or things like this! As for Saff V., he had asked for opinion by other users, which means things were not settled down. ] is linked once in the lead, one in the infobox, twice in the body. I think we may reduce the mentions in the body, since lead would probably the first place the readers will encounter the title. I have more objections; MEK launched three major military operations against, not one, with the most known one being ]. Why should not not they be mentioned in the lead. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
::@Mhhossein, as I have already said, I have presented an objection (which you are repeatedly failing to address). In the lede section alone, the word "Saddam" is mentioned 4 times in a single paragraph:

::{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with '''Saddam''' Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it fought against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War alongside the '''Saddam''' Hussein's army, and assisted '''Saddam''''s Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against '''Saddam'''.|}}

::That seems unnecessary. I propose that we resume that into the following:

::{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with '''Saddam''' Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside '''Saddam''' Hussain in ] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.|}}

::If you don't think that is a fair compromise, then propose your own text addressing these concerns. ] (]) 06:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
:::I know I'm delayed. I'll come with my proposal.
{{ping|El_C}} It's been over week since there was a response about this. Can I go ahead an insert Saff V.'s last proposed text?:
{{talk quote|"they sided with '''Saddam''' Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces during the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside '''Saddam''' Hussain in ] and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.|}}

] (]) 06:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

:I don't see why not. A week is more than enough time to wait for talk page editorial input. ] 06:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
::]: I was on a trip and I could not comment here. '1991 nationwide uprisings' needs to get linked to its article. ] is linked once in the infobox and twice in the body. I think we may reduce the mentions in the body and instead have a link in the lead, since lead would probably the first place the readers will encounter the term. Also, can anyone tell me why just one of the MEK's operations against Iran is mentioned here (MEK launched three major offensives against Iran, e.g see ]? -] <sup>]</sup> 02:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Just linked it. Will look into this about the operations and get back to you. ] (]) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::::@Mhhossein: I've just added Operation Forty stars in the lede as requested. ] (]) 08:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::operations Aftab (Sunshine) is missing. ] (]) 07:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Having another look at this, I'm starting to see that the MEK's involvement in the ] seems to derive from unconfirmed allegations, which the MEK denies. Can someone provide a RS that confirms the MEK took part in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq? Also, the MEK's collaboration with Saddam is still repeated in the article more than required:

*{{tq|"the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."|}}
*{{tq|"MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."|}}
*{{tq|"it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.|}}
*{{tq|"siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"|}}
*{{tq|"so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"|}}
*{{tq|"they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"|}}
*{{tq|"...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"}}
*{{tq|"assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"}}
*{{tq|"...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"}}

Can someone justify why each of these needs inclusion? (alternatively, we should remove some). ] (]) 09:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
:We need a couple of RSs that confirm the MEK was involved in the 1991 uprisings in Iraq. Without this, this allegation should be removed from the lede and corrected in the body. Someone also needs to justify why the collaboration with Saddam Hussain needs to be repeated so many times in the article as shown above. Lack of reply implies consent for me to go ahead and fix this in the article. ] (]) 13:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
:: Can you provide RS(es) for your claim, "which the MEK denies" to collaborate in the 1991 uprisings?] (]) 05:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:::In addition to the sources mentioned in the lead (, and Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin), the following sources confirm the cooperation of the Mojahedin with Saddam in the ]:
::*{{tq|he organosation had committed itself to armed struggle against the Iranian regime and had allowed itself to be used by Saddam in repressing the 1991 uprising and as a tool to pressurize Iran. In exchange, Saddam allowed the MEK the use of a military base in Diyala …}}
::*{{tq|The Iraq government accuses the MEK of supporting Saddam’s regime against the people of Iraq during the March 1991 uprising}}
::*{{tq|Iraqis for example have little interest for good or ill in the fate of the MEK the aging Iranian militant group and quasicult that split from the Iranian regime shortly after the Islamic revolution and spent the 1980s and 90s inside Iraq as favored clients of Saddam , who used them as fighters in the Iran-Iraq war and in the crushing of the 1991 uprising.}} ] (]) 06:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::You had more completely listed all the duplicates in that did not result in any consequences. I have to say that not all of them is duplicated, some referring to the collaborate of Saddam and MEK at different times (1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime, human rights abuses in the early 1990s, In 1983, Near the end of the 1980–88 war) and some belongs to the reaction of the people for this cooperation (the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem or reaction of Pahlavi).] (]) 07:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Lets do one at a time. How are these different from each other? (please address one by one, explaining why each is different from the next):

*{{tq|"the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."|}}
*{{tq|"MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."|}}
*{{tq|"siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"|}}
*{{tq|"so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"|}}
*{{tq|"they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"|}}
*{{tq|"...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"}}
*{{tq|"assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"}}

] (]) 09:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:: It is better to provide a complete sentence instead of picking up a part of it as well as discuss one by one:
*{{talk quote|Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded.}}
*{{talk quote|According to the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia, MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.}}
*{{talk quote|Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time . If the choice is between this regime and the MEK, they will most likely say the mullahs".}}
*{{talk quote|In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.}}
*{{talk quote|In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.}}
*{{talk quote|The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland.}}
*<s>{{talk quote|According to the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia, MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime.}}</s>
] (]) 09:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:Hi all, I also think those portions should not be used out of context. For example, the fort sentence is on NLA's activities and the second one is on MEK's involvement in crushing the uprising in Iraq. It's not clear why, for instance, why "assisted the Republican Guard" should be removed. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


@Stefka: You asked for a reliable source that confirms MEK collaborated with Saddam against the 1991 uprisings. I think you already know, but to refresh your memory, here it goes:
<blockquote> </blockquote>
I find it hypocritical that you first to including the above quote in the article on the basis of having already existing similar statements. And later you say the quote is not supported by the very same sentences.] (]) 15:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
::Saff V. put the statement in context, but that still doesn't address the fact that the particular parts that I've outlined are unnecessarily repeated. Addressing each point raised, please explain how the parts specific to "Saddam Hussain" are not repeated in the text I've pointed out above. ] (]) 10:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Are you going to pick up some sentecse from article because they contain "Saddam Hussain" word?Really? I told you multitime ( and ) that not all of them is duplicated, some referring to the collaborate of Saddam and MEK at different times (1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime, human rights abuses in the early 1990s, In 1983, Near the end of the 1980–88 war) and some belongs to the reaction of the people for this support (the reaction of Co-founder of Unity for Democracy in Iran (UDI) Djavad Khadem or reaction of Pahlavi).] (]) 11:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Yes, I think you finally got it, the word "Saddam Hussain" is repeated unnecessarily throughout the article, and I'm not referring to the times where it's used to describe a specific event, but when it's used to describe the same event (ie. the Iran-Iraq war). This is why I provided a list above, and asked you to address why each individual line was different from the next. You still haven't addressed that though. ] (]) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::There is no same event,
::::*The first sentence belongs to the foundation of NLA (at the end of Iraq and Iran) with siding of Saddam.
::::*Second is the '''reaction of the United States Department of State and the Foreign Affairs group of the Parliament of Australia''' to support of Saddam in the 1991 nationwide uprisings
::::*The third is the '''reaction of Pahlavi''' to the collaboration of Saddam and MEK in Iraq and Iran war.
::::*At the Forth, participate of MEK in '''Operation Mersad''', '''Operation Forty Stars''', and '''the 1991 nationwide uprisings''' is mentioned as well as it belongs to lead (the section is the summary of whole article)
::::*The fifth and sixth sentences are a little similar but you have to pay attention that one of them belongs to the lead which is the summary of all material of the article, as a result, '''they are not repeated'''.] (]) 07:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I second that. Besides, here are a few more sources that confirm MEK's assistance to Saddam in supressing the 1991 uprisings:

* "", The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women, Volume 2: Extremist Groups, By Cengage Gale

* "", The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End By Peter W. Galbraith

* "", Terrorism Documents of International and Local Control: Volumes 90 and 91, Page 340, Howard S. Levie, Donald J. Musch, Douglas C. Lovelace, Yonah Alexander

* "", Historical Dictionary of the Kurds - Page 217, Michael M. Gunter

--] (]) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

:Let's do two at a time:

:*{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."|}}

:*{{talk quote|"The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland."|}}

:Please explain in some detail how these two statements are not repeated statements. Failure to address the specific concern will lead to the removal of one of these statements. ] (]) 07:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::You sound irrelevant. I am saying MEK helped Saddam suppress Kurds (as well as Shias and Turkmen). A fact that was not stated in the article so far.--] (]) 12:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::@Stefka Bulgaria why dont pay attention you to responses and then warn if there was any sufficient answer, you will remove! you have to wait for a consequence and paying attention to answers!, '''they are not repeated''', the first (In 1983, they sided with Saddam Hussein...) belongs to the lead which is the summary of all material of the article, and the secound belonges to rhe body. All of material included in the lead repeats in the body, Are you ging to remove all material from lead because they are mentioned in to body?!
:::{{ping|Kazemita1}}I wonder if you devote another disscusion to death of Kurdish or others in another secteion. It might help us to follow disscusions sufficiently.Thanks!] (]) 08:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Ok, so we've established the MEK's collaboration with Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war in the lede and in the body. Can you then justify why it's repeated here again:

* {{talk quote|"Near the end of the 1980–88 war between Iraq and Iran, a military force of 7,000 members of the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq and calling itself the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) was founded."}}

*{{talk quote|"Commenting on the MEK, Pahlavi said in an interview: "I cannot imagine Iranians ever forgiving their behavior at that time . If the choice is between this regime and the MEK, they will most likely say the mullahs"."|}}

*{{talk quote|"The most frequent reason cited for it, is that their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War, and attacking Iranian conscripted soldiers and civilians, is viewed as treason or betrayal within the homeland."|}}

Please don't say that this is to "illustrate the author's POV". We've established the MEK collaborated with Saddam already during the Iraq-Iran war, we don't need a statement from every author to confirm this over and over again. ] (]) 10:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
::I have explained you multi time, the foundation of NLA (at the end of Iraq and Iran) with siding of Saddam or '''reaction''' of Pahlavi for Saddam and MEK collaboration or attack of MEK to civilians during Iran Iraq war are not duplicated, each of them emphasises on the specific issue. {{ping|El_C}} It really bothers me to repat same answers for Stefka again and again because he repeats your question without paying attention to user's answer!(, , ).] (]) 08:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
Saff V., I understand your point that each mention of the MEK's collaboration with Saddam Hussain reflects a particular event. However, that doesn't resolve the issue that all these points can be resumed without repeating the same information so many times. Let's take the lede for example"

*{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with '''Saddam Hussein''' against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland. In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside '''Saddam Hussain''' in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.|}}

That can be resumed into the following:

*{{talk quote|" In 1986 the IRI requested France to expel the MEK from Paris, so it took base in Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK assisted '''Saddam Hussain''' in Operation Mersad, Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.|}}

If you have a particular objection with this, please present it in a clear and concise manner so we may discuss it properly. ] (]) 12:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

:You just removed the Saddam name, didn't it?all these points can be resumed without repeating the same information so many times, because there is no information. Do you want to summarize the single sentences which of them belongs to unique sections.] (]) 12:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
::I don't understand what you're saying. Please present a clear and concise objection (if you have one). ] (]) 15:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

== RfC about including the MEK's current principles ==
{{Archive top|result=Closing, per request at ]. A slight majority of the participants (ten) favour including the sentence proposed, but a significant number of other participants (seven) doubt whether the statement in question is a factual statement of the MEK's political principles or whether it is an opinion concerning those principles which is contradicted by other sources. Therefore, this seems to be an instance of ''']'''. <br> By way of a personal observation, though, I would have thought it would be a good idea to say something about their current professed political views in the lede. Perhaps a possible solution would be to include a sentence that says that the MEK has recently professed to espouse these views, but that other sources regard them in such-and-such a different light. <small>]</small> ] (]) 01:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)}}

Should the MEK's current principles be included in the lede?:

{{talk quote|The MEK currently espouses the principles of a "democratic, tolerant and anti-fundamentalist Islam" and non-nuclear Iran with gender equality and a ban on capital punishment.|}}<ref>{{Cite news|url= http://www.arabnews.com/node/1519631/middle-east |title= West can pressure Iranian regime by supporting the people |work= Arab News }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url= https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/12/12/iran-s-heightened-fears-of-mek-dissidents-are-a-sign-of-changing-times/ |title= Iran’s Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times|work= Int Polciy Digest}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14533756 |title= Iran exile group MEK seeks US terror de-listing|work= BBC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url= https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/rudy-giuliani-mek-iran-response-torricelli-214486 |title= Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Giuliani’s Ties to an Iranian Resistance Group|work= Politico}}</ref> ] (]) 17:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

*'''Yes''': As with most Wiki articles about political parties, this one is no exception and their current principles should be included in the lede. ] (]) 17:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes.''' I cannot think about a single reason to oppose this change. --] (]) 17:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
::]: A single reason? The suggested sentence says the MEK is advocating "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are numerous sources saying the opposite; for example says MEK is "a guerrilla group of '''radical Marxist-Islamist ideology'''" and calls it "'''Islamic extremist Mojahedin'''". --] <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Mhhossein}}: Maybe wording can be improved or better sources can be examined, but self-declared principles or goals are due. --] (]) 21:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|MarioGom}} It's not a matter of rewording and you already agreed to include a sentence which contradicts some reliable sources.--] <sup>]</sup> 12:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Mhhossein}} I voted yes because I expect self-declared principles to be covered in the article. If the proposed sentence {{tq|contradicts some reliable sources}}, maybe you can add an alternative proposal below? --] (]) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{re|MarioGom}} But I doubt if "self-declared principles" are good for the NPOV status of the lead. As you know, "self-declared principles" need to get balanced by counter viewpoints which makes the lead even larger. The lead is already featured with "It advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran leadership and installing its own government. It was the "first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that differed 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". That said, more details can be added to the body. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' This is a matter of opinion not fact. See for example Arron Merat, '']'', 9 Nov 2018. ] (]) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:* Well, Misplaced Pages's policies don't just allow for opinions to be included in our articles, they mandate it, provided said opinions have an appropriate degree of ] in reliable sources. If multiple partially or completely conflicting opinions exist, each of which has met the ] test, then we cover the controversy, discussing the span of perspectives on the topic, and carefully attributing to avoid putting undue weight on something that should not appear in Misplaced Pages's voice. I'll have to review what the current-day sourcing says on the MEK, as a broad matter, before I forward my own opinion, but having just read the source you provide above, I'd have to say that it doesn't really support the "no" !vote you have attached it to, but rather seems to support a finding that we ''should'' be discussing the MEK's face value assertions--but not without presenting other outside perspectives as well. The source clearly approaches the topic from multiple angles to present a holistic view without giving improper emphasis to one side or another. That, as it happens, is what our policies would have us do as well. And it doesn't matter whether those perspectives are "opinions" or "facts"; indeed, outside of a small percentage of our articles in the physical sciences, logic, and mathematics, almost all of our articles on this project are sourced much more by RS providing opinions rather than pure empirical fact--to whatever extent it even exists. ''] ]'' 06:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::*...and this opinion is against some reliable sources. See . --] <sup>]</sup> 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::*Misplaced Pages policy does not allow us to present opinions as facts, which is what the proposal above does. ] (]) 04:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - I agree with Snow, we should be discussing the MEK's face value assertion, but presenting criticism as well. , for example, presents supporters and detractors perspectives: {{tq|To its supporters, it is the most organized and disciplined alternative to the current clerical regime in Tehran, and the only one that is truly capable of establishing a democratic, secular Iran. To its detractors, it represents a fringe element that promotes an unpopular, unworkable vision of Iran’s future}}. ] (]) 11:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - As long as this quote is clearly presented as a self-representation of the group and not as Misplaced Pages's voice, of course it should be included. I'm sure there is plenty of space in the rest of the article to make clear that not everybody is on board with this. ] (]) 12:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' the lead should be but now the suggested text is not supported by so well-known sources. For example, "Arab news" or "Int Polciy Digest" is not enough to improve the verification of the text.] (]) 05:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' - per PraiseVivec, as long as it's attributed, of course it should be included. - ] (]) 18:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. The platform of thia political movement is clearly lead DUE. We should also include notable opposing views - e.g. IRI.] (]) 20:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' This is currently adding to the POV problem of the lead. The suggested sentence is against reliable sources. For example, the group is described by some reliable sources as following Islamic extremism, in contrast to what the suggested sentence say:
::{{tq|"..other dissident groups such as the {{red|'''Islamic extremist Mojahedin'''}} (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People's Struggle) and Fadayan (Cherikha-ye Fadayan-e Khalq, or People's Guerrillas) organizations'}}
:Also, Why not adding the following:
::{{tq|"The MEK now advocates '''a secular Iranian regime'''."}}
::{{tq|"Rajavi's Mujahedin Khalq had advocated the creation of a classless Iranian society built on the principles of Marxism and Islam"}}
::{{tq|"...(MEK) advocates the '''violent overthrow''' of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..."}} , 2009.
::{{tq|"the Mojahedin Khalq promoted an interpretation of Islam viewed by the Islamic orthodoxy as not too distant from Marxism"}}
::{{tq|"Undeniably the group has conducted terrorist attacks often excused by the MEK's advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government"}}
::--] <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:::This RfC is about the MEK's current principles. None of the sources you've provided address the MEK's current principles. ] (]) 16:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Your suggestion contradicts reliable sources. See ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::Here we are debating about including the MEK's current principles into the article, not previous ones (many of which are already in the article). ] (]) 09:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. Of course this should be included, this is clearly WP:DUE information. ] (]) 20:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' This appears to be inline with other 2019 sources about the MEK's platform, one of which I just added to the article. ] (]) 13:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' I'm seeing in the discussions that the suggested text contradicts reliable sources. Also I agree with TFD who says these are some POVs not facts. ] (]) 16:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per WP:DUE. The group's ideologies don't have to be facts, they just have to be covered in the press, and they are. We do include ideologies for other articles about political groups. As long as we make it clear that these are attributed to the MEK, and are not facts, I don't see why this can't be in the article ] (]) 04:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::We should not include it, since as ] earlier in this discussion, the proposal is against some other reliable sources. For instance, the proposal describes the MEK as being "anti-fundamentalist Islam" while there are sources calling it "Islamic extremist Mojahedin" . --] <sup>]</sup> 11:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Your source refers to the 1970s; this RfC is about the MEK's current principles. ] (]) 18:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''': I do not think it can be a good idea to have these opinions in the lede. Descriptions of the group by the independent sources are already included in the lede. Let us don't make the POV proble.] (]) 15:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' This is important information and belongs in the lede. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' weak sources like Arab news etc and the BBC source which doesn't say the following in its voice but in a member of the group called Ahmad Moein. Puting the terror group claim in the lede is giving them due weight especially that there are strong references (see Mhhossein comment) which says that the group is an extremist intolerant group.--] (]) 19:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::BBC is a strong source, and the statement would be attributed (not Wiki-voiced), so your concerns about sourcing are addressed. This is a political group, the biggest opposition to the current government in Iran, so their principle principles (attributed to their own voice) is WP:DUE per the vast examples of Misplaced Pages articles we have about political groups whose principles are in the lede (such as ], for example). ] (]) 07:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Agree with user "The Four Deuces" aka TFD:
<blockquote>This is a matter of opinion not fact. See for example Arron Merat, "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK</blockquote>
Essentially, these opinions stated by MEK are not established facts. There are tons of opposing sources saying otherwise.--] (]) 12:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Recent revert by Mhhossein ==

@Mhhossein:

1) In , you added the subheading "Before exile" using . Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"?

2) In you reverted edits that applied to the allegations made concerning nuclear scientists. Can yo please:

a) Explain exactly how these allegations are not repeated? (and then remove the material that is repeated)
b) On that same edit, you also removed "According to Shireen Hunter", why?
c) On that same edit, you also included "On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of ], asking for temporary asylum and a loan of ]300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani." How is this "State sponsorship"?

] (]) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
:1- I removed the subsection with my edit summary reading "the source makes no judgement". However, "based in Iraq" may be useful for reaching decision.
:2-a: Let's compare every thing with ]; , you removed the fact that MEK was, at the time of the assassinations, was designated as a terrorist organization. In , you removed some unique details such as MEK "being financed, trained, and armed" by Mossad. talks about Washington's comment on the incident, which is not repeated elsewhere. edit comments on the ability of the MEK to perform terrorist attacks, should it really get removed?
:2-b: That MEK was supported by Saudis is something needing attribution? I don't think so.
:2-c: I did not include anything, please avoid making misleading comments on my edits. I just restored a ''longstanding'' text into the article. Also, why do you think that does not constitute "State sponsorship"? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
::@Mhhossein:
::1) You have not answered the question. In , you added the subheading "Before exile" using . Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"?

::2a) Please leave in whatever you don't think is repeated, and removed the repeated text (which is what I tried to do).

::2b) Shireen Hunter is the only author I've found making this allegation, so why shouldn't this be attributed to the author?

::2c) You still haven't explained how this constitutes "State sponsorship":

::{{tq|"On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, asking for temporary asylum and a loan of $300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani.|}}

::] (]) 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::As for the removals regarding the N scientist, I juts mentioned the portions which were unique. So, you can have your draft based on that. Communist Party was the party running the state, so MEK's letter was infact a "State sponsorship" request. Also, Shireen Hunter is NOT the only author; see , and , all saying MEK is financially supported by Saudi Arabia. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
::::2c)It doesn't matter what was the response while Milani claimed that he found the letter in ] or he mentioned the MEK request of Soviet Union for temporary asylum based report of , So they are definitely connected to "Ties to foreign actors".] (]) 06:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: As I checked, the following sentences are not duplicated.
:*In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to ] on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by ] to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
:* A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.
:*According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out ], with alleged support from Israel".
:::: The first sentence pointed to '''how Israel support MEK for assassinations'''. The next one, the responsibility of MEK was '''denied''' by State Department spokesman. At Final sentence, it was pointed to the assassination just as an '''example''' to support that "MEK's capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years".] (]) 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
::::: This is getting clogged up without concerns really being addressed. So lets take one at a time:

::::*In , you added the subheading "Before exile" using . Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"? ] (]) 10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Lack of reply implies consent. ] (]) 20:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::: Isn't it better to pay attention to our answer rather than repeat your question again and again! Did you look at our answers?!] (]) 06:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: Anyway your answer is on , MEK was exiled in 1986, but this support had belonged to 1985:
::::::::{{talkquote|, For example, Iran was blamed for the 1985 assassination attempt on the life of the emir of Kuwait although there were reports that Syria or even Iraq might have been the culprit...Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf states supported a number of Iranian opposition groups, including the Mujahedin-e- Khalq based in Iraq and some royalist opposition figures.}}] (]) 07:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Saff V.}} Where did you get that the MEK was exiled in 1986? ] (]) 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: It had been mentioned at plenty of sources such as .] (]) 09:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{ping|Saff V.}} This one source you've provided doesn't say the MEK went into exile in 1986, it says that {{tq|"it moved to Diyala and established Camp Ashraf in 1986}}." The MEK went into exile in 1981 when it moved to France and founded the ], and from there it moved to Camp Ashraf in 1986 after the IRI requested France to expel the MEK (this is all in the current article). So the MEK was already in exile by 1985, so the subheading "Before exile" is inaccurate. ] (]) 10:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::What subheading are talking about? --] <sup>]</sup> 11:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::I repeat: In , you added the subheading "Before exile" using . Where in the source does it say that this occurred "Before exile"? ] (]) 12:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ok, no reply implies consensus. On to the next point. Mhhossein, in , you removed "According to Shireen Hunter" (Shireen Hunter is the only author I've found making this allegation). Why shouldn't this be attributed to the author? ] (]) 09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Consensus for what? I don't know why you're repeatedly asking about a section which is essentially absent form the page since many days ago. Also, how many times should it ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::As I found, MEK was in exile in 3 countries France , and . Any way the main title is "State-sponsorship", whithout paying attention to categorize it into befor exile or another, the text is related to the section.] (]) 08:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{ping|Mhhossein}} About your sources concerning Shireen Hunter: is not a RS, says "page not found", and is another allegation by a former MEK member (many of those in this article, but they are as reliable as allegations by current MEK members). Please provide a reliable source beyond Hunter; none of the sources you provided so far can be used to Wiki-voice this allegation. ] (]) 07:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::There's no reason to assume the first source is not reliable. Find the second . As for the third, yes, a former MEK member is saying this, but the point that there are various sources saying this. How about saying {{tq|"“The money definitely comes from Saudis,” says Ervand Abrahamian, a professor at the City University of New York and author of the definitive academic work on the group’s history, The Iranian Mojahedin. “There is no one else who could be subsidising them with this level of finance.”}} Do you want more sources? --] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
1) , an ", does not meet ]
<br>
2) , written by ], also does not meet ]
<br>
3) {{tq|“There is no one else who could be subsidising them with this level of finance.”}} sounds more of a guess based on eliminating possibilities than a grounded assertion. ] (]) 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
] (]) 08:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
: In any case, there are unnecessary headings in this section and some irrelevant and repeated text, and it's untidy to read. I propose we change to the following:

:{{tq|'''Ties to foreign and non-state actors'''|}}

:{{tq|On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of ], asking for temporary asylum and a loan of ]300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani.<ref name="auto14"/> Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as ].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hunter |first1=Shireen |title=Iran's Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Era: Resisting the New International Order, p. 193 |date=2010 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |isbn=9780313381942 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=wLtA_J3VUt4C&pg=PA193&dq=saudi+arabia+mujahedin+khalq+iran#v=onepage&q=state%20sponsored%20Soviet%20mujahedin%20khalq%20iran&f=false |accessdate=23 March 2019 }}</ref>|}}

:{{tq|According to Ronen Cohen, ]'s foreign intelligence agency maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Iran's Nuclear Program and the Israeli-Iranian Rivalry in the Post Revolutionary Era|first=Farhad|last=Rezaei|first2=Ronen|last2=Cohen|journal=British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies|volume=41|number=4|year=2014|doi=10.1080/13530194.2014.942081|pages=8–9}}</ref> Hyeran Jo, associate professor of ] wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Hyeran Jo|year=2015|title=Compliant Rebels: Rebel Groups and International Law in World Politics|isbn=978-1-107-11004-5|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=129}}</ref> According to ] security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.<ref name="sp-online">{{cite news |last1=Hommerich |first1=Luisa |title=Prisoners of Their Own Rebellion: The Cult-Like Group Fighting Iran |url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/people-s-mujahedin-and-its-quiet-war-against-iran-a-1253507.html |accessdate=22 April 2019 |work=Spiegel Online |date=18 February 2019}}</ref>|}}

:{{tq|According to Ervand Abrahamian, while dealing with anti-regime clergy in 1974, the MEK became close with secular Left groups in and outside Iran. These included the confederation of Iranian Students, The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, and the People's Front for the Liberation of Oman, among others.{{Sfn|Abrahamian|1992|p=152-154}} The MEK sent five trained members into South Yemen to fight in the ] against Omani and Iranian forces.<ref>{{cite book|author=Sepehr Zabir|title=The Left in Contemporary Iran (RLE Iran D)|date=2012|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1-136-81263-7|page=86}}</ref>|}}

:Any objections? (if so, please provide your proposed text) ] (]) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
::Hold on! You're ignoring all the sources; Why do you think Trita Parsi is not reliable? MEK's receiving support from Saudi Arabia is not restricted to these sources:
::{{talkquote|After Saddam's fall, many experts have speculated that Saudi Arabia, Iran's arch rival, took over funding for the group.}}
::{{talkquote|Though Saudi Arabia has supported some Shia groups in the Iraq, the evolving MEK-Saudi alliance prove again that realpolitik and geopolitical concerns trump sectarian differences across the Middle East.}}
::{{talkquote|Saudi backing for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) would help explain where the group gets its money to pay its credulous American fans}}
:: --] <sup>]</sup> 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

:::@Mhhossein: First, I am not "ignoring all the sources", so please don't make baseless accusations. Second, I proposed a text that helps clean up the section. Can you please do the same so we may try to reach a compromise? ] (]) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Not a baseless accusation, see the sources! As for your suggestion, I support the current status and subsections.--] <sup>]</sup> 13:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::The text I proposed includes numerous RSs, so I'm not "ignoring all the sources". Second, you haven't presented an argument against my changes. For instance, on what basis do you justify keeping the subheading "After exile"? and subheading "State-sponsorship", which only consists of one sentence? ] (]) 11:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::On what basis that justifies keeping the "State sponsorship" section? Also, you still haven't addressed the "After exile" subheading. ] (]) 11:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::It doesn't matter which the material belongs to After exile or before that, All of should be included in "State sponsorship" section.] (]) 12:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::On September 3rd I proposed a clean up of this section. Can either of you propose your clean up of this section please? ] (]) 08:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I noticed your suggestion and I explained it was not necessary to make such an edit. See my previous comment in this thread. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|El_C}} Over a week ago, I proposed a clean up of the "" section, mainly involving the removal of what seem unnecessary subheadings: "" (no need for this since we don' have a "Before exile" subheading anymore), "" (a subsection that only consists of one sentence, and be merged under section's current heading), and "" (which can be merged together with the section's current heading):

:{{tq|'''Ties to foreign and non-state actors'''|}}

:{{tq|On 7 January 1986, the MEK leaders sent a twelve-page letter to the "comrades" of ], asking for temporary asylum and a loan of ]300 million to continue their "revolutionary anti-imperialist" actions. It is not clear how the Soviets responded, according to Milani.<ref name="auto14"/> Also during the 1980s, the MEK was among the opposition groups receiving support from Gulf nations such as ].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hunter |first1=Shireen |title=Iran's Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Era: Resisting the New International Order, p. 193 |date=2010 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |isbn=9780313381942 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=wLtA_J3VUt4C&pg=PA193&dq=saudi+arabia+mujahedin+khalq+iran#v=onepage&q=state%20sponsored%20Soviet%20mujahedin%20khalq%20iran&f=false |accessdate=23 March 2019 }}</ref>|}}

:{{tq|According to Ronen Cohen, ]'s foreign intelligence agency maintains connections with the MEK, dating back to the 1990s.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Iran's Nuclear Program and the Israeli-Iranian Rivalry in the Post Revolutionary Era|first=Farhad|last=Rezaei|first2=Ronen|last2=Cohen|journal=British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies|volume=41|number=4|year=2014|doi=10.1080/13530194.2014.942081|pages=8–9}}</ref> Hyeran Jo, associate professor of ] wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Hyeran Jo|year=2015|title=Compliant Rebels: Rebel Groups and International Law in World Politics|isbn=978-1-107-11004-5|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=129}}</ref> According to ] security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.<ref name="sp-online">{{cite news |last1=Hommerich |first1=Luisa |title=Prisoners of Their Own Rebellion: The Cult-Like Group Fighting Iran |url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/people-s-mujahedin-and-its-quiet-war-against-iran-a-1253507.html |accessdate=22 April 2019 |work=Spiegel Online |date=18 February 2019}}</ref>|}}

I then asked Mhhossein and Saff V. to provide a proposed text if they objected, but they have not. It just feels like an unwillingness on their behalf to come to a compromise. I've waited for over a week but they're not providing any alternative solutions,. What can I do here? ] (]) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

:They are not required to provide a proposed text (if they prefer the existing one), nor are they required to compromise — though that is, of course, encouraged. What you do in the case of an impasse is pursue ]. ] 06:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::@Stefka Bulgaria Why do you want to change to ?] (]) 10:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
:::On my part, I have shown my willingness for reaching a compromise. I have already detailed my objections in my previous comments. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
::::I don't feel you have shown a willingness to address the specific concerns raised here; but rather, you simply seem to object them, so will take this to ] as El_C has suggested. ] (]) 06:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::@Stefka Bulgaria I repeat my question again, Why do you want to change to ?] (]) 07:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::@Saff V.: If you read my previous posts, you should find detailed responses to your question. ] (]) 09:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Can you provide link?] (]) 06:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|El_C}} I've proposed here that the section has unnecessary sub-sections that can be merged into a single section title: "Ties to foreign and non-state actors". To this, Mhhossein replied that {{tq|"IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section"|}}. I find this to be an unsubstantiated response because the material currently under "State-sponsorship" only consists of one sentence that can be merged with the rest of the section, and Mhhossein is also failing to address the other subsections "After exile" and "non-state actors" (which can also be merged without any issues).

Would you agree that Mhhossein's response is unsubstantiated? If so, may I go ahead with fixing this? ] (]) 10:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

:I agree that ] can be viewed as a non-response response. ] 14:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::I have another proposal. We keep the "state-sponsorship" subsection and remove the "after exile" one. This way Stfka's concern that some of the subsections have only one line is addressed. Furthermore, the following sentences in the current form of the article directly relate to "state-sponsorship" and is another reason to keep the title:
<blockquote>Hyeran Jo, associate professor of Texas A&M University wrote in 2015 that the MEK is supported by the United States. According to Spiegel Online security experts say that U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel provide the group with financial support, though there is no proof for this supposition and MEK denies this.</blockquote>

Moreover, one would expect "after exile" is preceded by "before exile" which currently does not exist. Therefore, to cause a minimum change in the article and cover Stefka's concerns, I say we simply remove the "after exile" subsection. I ask everyone to comment {{ping|El_C}}, {{ping|Saff V.}}, {{ping|Mhhossein}}, {{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}}] (]) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:@Kazemita, if you want to include further text, we can discuss the WP:DUE and WP:RS backing up the claims. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and make these changes based on WP:FALSEBALANCE. ] (]) 09:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}
::{{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}}You seem to willfully ignore people's comment that resonates ] in mind. First of all, I did not propose to include anything. I just suggested a different way to merge sub-sections as an alternative to your proposal. Second, El_C did not agree to removing a sourced content; he responded to your merging request.] (]) 11:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
:This TP discussion has been going on since august 16th; you only joined this discussion after El_C confirmed that "WP:FALSEBALANCE can be viewed as a non-response response". I also took this discussion to DRN to try and discuss this with Mhhossein there, but , and failed to address the concerns here too. My other edits (mostly concerning removing repeated material) were all explained in my edit summaries. If you have any specific concerns, you may start a new TP discussion. ] (]) 13:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Just look at to which El_C responded and you know what I mean.--] (]) 14:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
::::One edit concerns what has been discussed in this TP, and the others are not discussed in this TP but explained in the edit summaries. Doesn't all the text in the "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section conform to its current title without any issues? ] (]) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
* ]: Did you allow to make such an edit? In what terms are IR POV with regards to this Iran opposition group is considered ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
:*In a terms of when additions are rejected on the basis of a lack of a counter-view. Which does not preclude anyone from adding such a counter-view as sourced content. But as a basis for an objection, it's a non-starter. As for your question: it's always best to include a diff when employing terms such as "such an edit" — that way I know what you're actually talking about. Please be cognizant about making this easy for me to immediately parse. ] 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
===Possible violation of restrictions===
* ]: Is not a violation of the article's restrictions? Note that the mentioned portion ] which was then ]. We then engaged in discussing the issue (you can see ] and ]). Then, after ], where Stefka Bulgaria asked to consider one dispute at a time since he thought things was "getting clogged up without concerns really being addressed", we continued talking about merging the subsections and the group's exile dates, and there was no more talks on the sentences regarding the assassination of the nuclear scientists. But, in the violation of the article's restrictions, he again ] the disputed content, without trying to build consensus. In light of ] and cases such as ] which ] his change "should probably not have been made without further discussion", I ask you to address the issue. I avoided reverting and would like you to take care of his violation yourself. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
::@Mhhossein: I've per your concerns. Now, can you justify why this text, which is repeated in the article, should be kept? ] (]) 21:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
:::This is not how it works Stefka. "Per ], longstanding text is not viewed on par with new text being introduced.". You are the one who is supposed to justify newly introduced changes to the longstanding version. Which right from the start has issues. Alos, El_C stated
what I have been telling you from the beginning. {{ping|Mhhossein}} just revert the article to the longstanding version shown ] (]) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&oldid=917366538 here].] (]) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
* '''Admin comment please''' {{ping|El_C}} Can you please comment on this blatant violation? --] <sup>]</sup> 05:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:*Whatever violation has become moot due to it having been self-reverted. If you disagree with an addition, please provide a substantive objection to it so that the editor introducing the edit knows what they are responding to. ] 05:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:::As can be clearly seen the diffs show that Stefka '''removed''' sourced content from longstanding text. So it is Stefka who is supposed to justify it by providing substantive reasons. And no, he has not self-reverted ''all'' of his changes yet. So the violation still stands.] (]) 05:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ping|El_C}} Is it the way this agreement work? we can violate, if the violation is discovered, we can then revert? He needs to be warned for this violation. Also, the violation still stands! --] <sup>]</sup> 06:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::Yes, within reason, self-reverting is indeed allowed upon discovery. As for substantive reasons, I thought that's what the section above is about. ] 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Stefka removed the following sourced content from longstanding text:
<blockquote> American government sources told ''Newsweek'' in 2005 that ] is planning to utilize MEK members as ]s or give them training as ] for use against Tehran.</blockquote>

<blockquote>During the years MEK was based in Iraq, it was closely associated with the intelligence service '']'' (IIS)</blockquote>


The content was well sourced and not repeated. Moreover he merged subsections without proper justification. There were alternatives as I had mentioned earlier.--] (]) 07:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::::]:...and what would happen if I had not discovered his violation. I mean, be it discovered or not, he just made it knowingly and it is just reasonable to ask him not repeat this again. It is some sort of edit war amid an ongoing discussion. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::1) I didn't "made it knowingly" 2) I have addressed it below (while you still haven't, but seem mainly concerned with me receiving a warning instead) 3) In the future, you can let me know and I'll fix it (see ]). ] (]) 11:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:@Mhhossein: You've complained about an edit I made, but as usual, have not addressed the edit itself. I'll make it as easy as possible for you to address it. This is what I removed:

:*{{talk quote|NBC news reported that U.S. officials under the condition of anonymity confirmed "Israel teamed with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists"|}}
:*{{talk quote| it is "suspected of having carried out ], with alleged support from Israel"|}}

:Because it's repeated already here:

:*{{talk quote|In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents trained by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.|}}

:*{{talk quote|Haaretz published that Mohammad Java Larijani made the "unsubstantiated allegation" to NBC-TV News that "Mossad and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists. Though never back up with evidence".|}}

:*{{talk quote|A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran.|}}

:*{{talk quote|On February 9, 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence.|}}

:Can you give your reasoning as to how this text is not repeated (and as such, should not be removed)? ] (]) 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::This subsection is dedicated to your violation, so please don't bludgeon it with other stuff. Instead can you say why you ignored our discussion and reverted into your desired version? Btw, you can see my explanations in the section dedicated to these assassinations. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::: I cannot find your substantiated objection for this edit anywhere. Could you please provide it here? ] (]) 11:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::::@Stefka:You are appealing to Straw man fallacy in not justifying your edit. I told you that the following is not repeated anywhere in the article and yet you removed it:
::::<blockquote>American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran.</blockquote>--] (]) 11:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::The statement is not supported by the source (this was explained on my edit summary). Let's sort out one edit at a time, starting with the edit that Mhhossein complained about. ] (]) 12:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::Maybe have some of these items as explanatory notes, because there is indeed some repetition here. That would be a good compromise. {{re|Stefka Bulgaria}} please decide whether these bold edits really worth the trouble for you, or whether it would just be easier to make proposals on the talk page first and go from there. ] 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|El_C}} In this section, Mhhossein saying that was in violation of the article's restrictions. I then per Mhhossein's comments, and the edits themselves (which, to me, were perfectly valid edits). It's been over a week and Mhhossein hasn't addressed the edits, he's only reply was "". I have two questions:

1) Because Mhhossein hasn't addressed the edit, can I restore it back into the article?

2) Isn't this the same where instead of trying to better the article through suggestions or improvements, he reverts the whole thing and just complains/objects ?

] (]) 15:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

:{{re|Mhhossein}} indeed, this article is edited ''actively'', so if you issue objections, you need to be prepared to follow up within a reasonable time frame. Thanks. ] 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::Hello every body, yeah we need to be active...anyway, I agree the first portion, i.e. "NBC news reported that U.S. officials...", is truly repeated, so do it please. But I am against removing the other since that does not belong to the NBC news affair and is used in another context. Removal of the quotation leaves the Ariane M. Tabatabai's statement imbalanced and POVish. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

== RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland ==

Shall we replace this (currently in the article):

{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with ] against the ] in the ], a decision that was viewed as ] by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."}}

with this?:

{{talk quote|"In 1983, they sided with ] against the ] in the ], which some sources claim damaged its appeal in Iran, though this is difficult to ascertain "because of the nature of the government in Iran."|}}<ref>{{cite book |first=Ronen |last=Cohen |title=The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran |publisher= Sussex Academic Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-1845192709 |pages=23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KQS8cOvsSm4C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&source=bl&ots=Wq12nQKsp6&sig=ACfU3U2f2BqJyBzOCDI94_EATRzi6ZQbnw&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEsbO2w97hAhVBEawKHWBZAyU4HhDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&f=false|title=Congressional Record|date=June 29, 2005|publisher=United States Government Printintg Office, Washington|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/26/iran-deepening-crisis-rights|title=Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights |website=Human Rights Watch}}</ref>
] (]) 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

*'''Yes''' per ]. We need to explain both sides of the argument here. The MEK sided with Saddam Hussain in 1983, which sources say led to them losing support in Iran. Sources also say that showing any support for the MEK in Iran leads to imprisonment, torture, or execution, so it's easy to see why there is little evidence of MEK support in Iran.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1394212018ENGLISH.PDF |title=Blood-soaked secrets with Iran’s 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate=December 14, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.weeklystandard.com/kelly-jane-torrance/tortured-by-moderates|title=Tortured by 'Moderates'|date=August 11, 2017|website=The Weekly Standard}}</ref> Ronen Cohen NPOV's this well:

:{{tq|"It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran."}}<ref>{{cite book |first=Ronen |last=Cohen |title=The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran |publisher= Sussex Academic Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-1845192709 |pages=23}}</ref>

:I find Cohen's quote creates a balanced argument explaining both sides of the debate, and that would be a more NPOV explanation than the one currently in the article. ] (]) 13:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Question''': The RFC explanation is flawed; is the change going to be exerted in the lead or body? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
::In the lede, where this information is first summarised. ] (]) 17:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No to mentioning it in the lead, yes to adding to the body''': Per ]; this case is widely discussed in ] and there we discussed that Cohen's POV is not weighty enough to counterbalance plenty of objecting POVs in reliable sources which say MEK's siding with Iraq and its killing tens of thousands Iranian people led to diminishing their support in Iran. When we say "some sources" say MEK's siding with Saddam had some consequences, there should be "some other sources" saying other wise in order to balance the text. But in this case, there's only one POV saying this. So, this is not suitable for lead unless there are some other reliable sources sharing similar POV as Cohen. In other words, Cohen's source can't be simply used against "some sources". Another point, which was also discussed in ], is that Cohen says "it can be said..." in his book which signals a degree of uncertainty on the author's part. However, Cohen's POV can be added to body in an attributed manner. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' - in agreement that including only one side of the story in the lead of this article creates a neutrality problem. There are many sources that describe the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran, so there is not a WP:UNDUE problem for Cohen's analysis. We need to tell readers both sides of the story, and currently this is missing in the lead section. The MEK's support in Iran is difficult to determine because of the nature of the government in Iran, as Cohen says, and that needs to be included there where this is mentioned in the lead, or remove this about the MEK's popularity in Iran from the lead altogether. ] (]) 19:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
::You already said {{tq|"There are many sources that describe the consequences of being a MEK supporter in Iran"}}. Can you present ONE of those reliable sources making the relationship between Iranian government policy regarding the MEK supporters and the diminishing of the group's supporters inside the country? I mean can you present ANOTHER source saying "MEK's support in Iran is difficult to determine because of the nature of the government in Iran". Note that the latter is the critical point of this article. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
:::See ] - The Iranian government eradicates MEK support through prison/execution, so the availability of a neutral analysis of MEK support in Iran is difficult to ascertain, as Cohen stated. ] (]) 10:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::It was just a quite example of ]. No, there should be enough reliable sources making the connection! --] <sup>]</sup> 11:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. Per ] (which ] credited to the MEK.), resuming the MEK does have at least some support among Iranian people post the Iran-Iraq war. Cohen describes this neutrally, without favoring neither side, so it's adequate for the lead. ] (]) 13:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''No'''. I am surprised people are actually discussing this. How can a nation like it when you side with their enemy at war. Tinting the existing text with words such as "some sources" is obvious POV.--] (]) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' - per Stefka. --] (]) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Firm "no"''' - per ], ] and ]. This appears to be yet another attempt to present the MEK as a group of angels and saints, while carefully getting rid of anything that does not fit with the personal beliefs of the party's leaders and pro-MEK lobbyists. This all is the result of a recent lobbying campaign, as attested in many newspapers and other reliable sources. For instance, search for "MEK lobby", "MEK lobby John Bolton", "MEK Obama Iran", or "MEK Trump Iran" in Google. - ] (]) 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' because second statement contains the first while being more neutral.--] (]) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Abutalub}},It is not neutral, because the author is not sure about "it is difficult to ascertain". Please refer to the source!] (]) 08:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::Yes, nothing is certain when it comes to dictatorships.--] (]) 10:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::: Because of dictatorships, you said it is neutral.isn't it?] (]) 10:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''' "this is difficult to ascertain" belongs to this sentence of the source, {{tq|It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization. That claim is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran}}. The author uses "can" for presenting his claim so that it is just a guess by the author who '''not be sure about that'''. Why such disputed material has to be included in the lead of article.] (]) 13:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}
*'''Yes''' Indeed the second statement contains the first while being more neutral. The author using "can" in the first part does not affect the part that adds the NPOV about the "claim being difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran". ] (]) 23:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::So why did the author use "Can" in the first part?] (]) 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Why is {{tq|"because of the nature of the government in Iran."}} in double quotes and the quotes aren't paired? Ignoring the formatting problems, there are three sources listed. ] (]) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' First, out of the two options provided, the original content was a more accurate rephrasing of the source used (see Ostovar, p. 74). I am, however, uncertain about this point because the source used did not provide evidence to support the claim regarding the view of the Iranian majority. Second, this article has already stated that MEK was banned in Iran, driven underground, with the government hunting and executing symphatizers. So indicating that we cannot be certain whether this organization lost standing or appeal in the homeland may not be accurate since Iran aggressively repressed it. ] (]) 13:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''No''': Per ] weight problem. This will lend undue weight to an idea. Cohen is not enough for this claim. DIYeditor's comment on formatting is right.] (]) 15:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The first choice of wording (the one that's currently up) is evidently preferable since it offers statements of fact, trivially supported by ]. It is, as it happens, a statement of fact that Mojahedin-e Khalq's decision (and there was such a decision) to side with Iraq in the ] (and they did side with Iraq) was viewed as ] by the vast majority of Iranians (and it was viewed as such). It is also a fact, also supported by numerous sources, that this decision harmed significantly ("destroyed" is not an inaccurate term) their appeal in Iran. It is the second choice, the one being proposed in this RfC, which is actually the ] worded option. -] (]) 04:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - Can't help but disagree with The Gnome's vote. Unless there is an official survey in Iran about this (one that allows Iranian people to actually express themselves freely without fear of serious consequences implemented by the government), there aren't any "facts" about what Iranian people think or don't think about this. Cohen's words describe this neutrally because such survey is impossible in Iran, making his observation more accurate than what's currently on the article (what's currently in the article only portrays the IRI's POV, and not what can actually be measured as "fact"). - ] (]) 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' There does not appear to be a neutral, independent survey in Iran regarding this, and replacing it with the 2nd phrase would be more neutral (]). ] (]) 04:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' There is no credible survey in Iran about what Iranians think. So the second sentence is neutral. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
* '''No''': Lead is not the place for inserting the POV of an author as a fact. More high quality sources are needed, per ], for making such a big claim. Besides, DIYeditor correctly questioned the sourcing here. Three citations are provided, but just one of them support the disputed quotation (which is the POV of the author, not a fact). Some users questions the survey in Iran and try to support their position in this way, while these arguments are ]. In summary, we go by the reliable sources according to their weight.--<samp>](]-])</samp> 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:: It's is not the author's "POV", but a fact that the Iranian Government targets MEK supporters in Iran: <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KQS8cOvsSm4C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&source=bl&ots=Wq12nQKsp6&sig=ACfU3U2f2BqJyBzOCDI94_EATRzi6ZQbnw&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEsbO2w97hAhVBEawKHWBZAyU4HhDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=disinformation+campaign+against+the+mek&f=false|title=Congressional Record|date=June 29, 2005|publisher=United States Government Printintg Office, Washington|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/26/iran-deepening-crisis-rights|title=Iran: Deepening Crisis on Rights |website=Human Rights Watch}}</ref>. And it is also a fact that there is no official or accessible survey (or anything close to it) that can determine the MEK's popularity in Iran. ] (]) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::] does not let you just use those self recognized facts to reach your desired conclusion. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
::::1) They are not "self-recongnized" facts, there are plenty of RSs in the article that confirm the IRI targets MEK sympathizers 2) It not my "desired conclusion", it's Cohen's conclusion. ] (]) 10:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. MEK is unwanted in Iran. An evidence of this is when they attacked their own country after the Iran-Iraq cease-fire during ]. Long story short, they received no support from the residents and were crashed in early stages of their invasion. Iranian people don't like terrorists. If you don't believe me see photos .] (]) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::The MEK waged war on the IRI, not on Iran, so your vote is a red herring. ] (]) 07:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::You can call it whatever you want (IRI, Iran). So long as an Iranian citizen is killed during an MEK operation, MEK is considered a terrorist group. The most recent of which being targeting nuclear scientists. ] (]) 12:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

== POV of Kayhan ==

{{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}} Why did you the published news by ]of the article while I supported by RSes, Also I have the archive of Kayhan belongs to that date (October 1981) that the bus was burnt by member of MEK and could to email Anyone who wants.] (]) 08:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:This is an IRI sympathetic source. In the same way for being a MEK-sympathetic source, we should avoid IRI sympathetic sources per ]. ] (]) 08:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::{{Ping|El C}} Apologize to bother you, ," Not everything the Islamic regime publishes is in question", It is needed to be included the Keyhan newspaper POV as one of the most reliable paper in Iran into the article for reporting fired bus. that IRI sources are verifiable to illustrate Iran's positions. I can not understand why Stefka considers it as "IRI sympathetic source", while Admin that Bloomfield is a MEK-sympathetic source, he just stated that ''this is a vanity publication''.] (]) 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::See ], which this source pertains to, making it an IRI-sympathetic source. If we remove MEK-sympathetic sources, as has been suggested in this Talk page, we need to remove IRI-sympathetic sources as well per ]. ] (]) 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
::::As you know Misplaced Pages articles are not a good source for confirming your claim. Why do you consider Keyan as an IRI-sympathetic source without seeing that report about burning bus by MEK?] (]) 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::See ]: {{tq|"Hossein Shariatmadari is the editor-in-chief of Kayhan. His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader."}} Btw, Wiki articles tend to be backed by RSs, which is where you'll find the sources that back up ], as well as the source that backs up this statement about Kayhan's editor-in-chief: . ] (]) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Who wrote this? Please sign your username for all comments. Anyway, beware ]. X-sympathetic sources can be used sometimes, depending on the context, but should generally be avoided. If they do, they should probably be qualified as ''x-source, known to be affiliated with...'' In this instance, it's better to find something that is 3rd party, or make it especially clear of the source's own affiliation. ] 17:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::It is verified by another : "a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death in October 1981 when the Mujahidin set fire to a bus in Shiraz" but Stefka removed it.] (]) 06:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: And also there are other ones , .] (]) 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, these are all IRI-affiliated sources. Is there something published about this in a non-IRI affiliated, 3rd party source? ] (]) 09:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
* @Stefka Bulgaria: You're essentially wrong. Bloomfield was not removed solely because it was MEK-sympathetic. It was actually a bogus source! See ] once again. Besides that, I was against using that MEK-sympathetic source to reach a conclusion in the lead.--] <sup>]</sup> 12:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
::It is one of the ironies of modern history! when a firing occurred at Shiraz, It is absolutely obvious IR news agency reported it. Do you expect that I find it in news agencies not associated with Iran? Also, could you explain how this connected to IRI? It is to support the fire] (]) 08:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Can you include the exact quote from this book? I have not been able to verify this information there. Also, isn't the publisher connected to the IRI? Can you provide more details about the publisher? ] (]) 07:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
:::: Both sources belongs to Indiana University:
::::{{tq|MEK terrorists set fire to bus in Shiraz killing 2 persons injuring 48. One of the dead was 7-year-old Leila Nurbakhsh,}}
::::{{tq|On the other hand, he said, a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death in October 1981 when the Mujahidin set fire to a bus in Shiraz,}} .] (]) 07:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{Ping|El C}} while I provided 3rd party source above, I have a question, when an event or crime occurred in Iran, it is common Iranian news agency reported it and we used that report in Misplaced Pages.] or ] take accounts reliable.Why are they called "IRI-affiliated sources"? they just are news agency! aren't they?] (]) 07:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::If the IRI have a disinformation campaign against the MEK, and the sources presented here serve the IRI (as shown with the editor of ]: {{tq|"His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader."}}), then we would help their cause of spreading disinformation about the MEK (See ). That is not to say that IRI-affiliated sources aren't reliable for a wide range of other topics, but for this one in particular, they are problematic. I think that a fair compromise would be to identify these as IRI-sympathetic sources (but, per WP:NPOV, then we should also allow MEK-sympathetic sources into the article, labelling them accordingly). ] (]) 07:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Please don't mix issues with together while they are not be solved, our problem in the discussion is not to allow MEK-sympathetic sources into the article!Thanks for the response but I ask ], "His official position is representative of the Supreme Leader", it doesn't confirm Keyhan is IRI-affiliated source. You have to confirm that Keyhan is anti-MEK or the author of that report is anti-MEK. Isn't it?
:::::::I provided other sources belongs to Indian university but it seems to me you don't pay attention to it.] Can I revert , into the article?] (]) 08:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::I think Stefka Bulgaria has failed to present fair objections against using materials from your sources being and . --] <sup>]</sup> 12:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::The says {{tq|"MK terrorists set fire to a bus in Shiraz"}}. I haven't seen any other publication refer to the MEK as "MK", but what's more concerning is that I haven't been able to verify that this source pertains to "Indian University", but rather I found that it's published by , which, if I'm not mistaken, is not a peered-reviewed publication. The (which I saw Saff V. ) doesn't seem to allow for the text to be read. Also, the publisher seems to be , a publisher I haven't been able to find anything about online. ] (]) 10:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::None of the above prohibits us from using POV of Iranian papers. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::On 17 October 1981 in Shiraz, There was just a bur burning, so it belongs to MEK or MK. You can be sure by asking your question about the reliability of which it was written in Google book Publisher: Research and Publication., 1981 and Original from:Indiana University, in ]. For the second source it does n't matter the source is online or offline I provided the text to you.] (]) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Where did you get that publisher? Can you provide links (as I did)? ] (]) 11:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Please go to the end of the or do ctrl F of "Indian".] (]) 08:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It says the publisher is "Research and Publication., 1981 - Iran". It then says "original from Indiana University", but that's not confirming the publisher of this work is Indiana University; rather, seems to be the actual publisher. ] (]) 08:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::why is not confirming the publisher of is Indiana University while it had been written "original from Indiana University"?] (]) 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{Ping|El C}} Sorry to repeat, Can I ask you answer my question. while I provided 3rd party source above ( and , I have a question, when an event or crime occurred in Iran, it is common Iranian news agency reported it and we used that report in Misplaced Pages.] or ] take accounts reliable. Why are they called "IRI-affiliated sources" by Stefeka? They just are news agency! aren't they? Why I am not allowed to use ? As I said before I have the archived page of Keyan belongs to the report of firing bus in Shiraz. ] (]) 10:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}'']'', for example, is an IRI-affiliated newspaper and needs to be presented as such. I'm not sure there's anything else for me to say that I haven't already stated above. If in doubt or at an impasse, ] also exists as a resource. ] 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::* According to my question in , the sources do not support the reliability of the report. I don't think this debate needs to continue anymore. Thanks for participating in the discussion.] (]) 05:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

== Identifying allegations by former MEK members ==

The current article has many allegations by former MEK members, some of which are being presented in Wiki voice (despite the fact that they're as reliable as allegations by current MEK members). In the same way we have a section titled "", it would be clearer for readers to understand allegations by former MEK members under a proper heading (I propose something along the lines of "Allegations by MEK defectors"). Moreover, per ], if we have allegations by MEK defectors in the article, then we can also consider a section that includes allegations by non-defectors (as long as they're covered in ]). Any objections? ] (]) 07:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
:Not only do I think your suggestion is not backed by ], but also this policy prohibits gathering POVs of one party in under a same section. Instead I suggest merging 'Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK' into the article. This way, no counter section would be needed! --] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
::Precisely which policy says that attributing statements to a particular group doesn't conform to ]? ] (]) 10:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Attribution is required, but your suggestion is in fact calling undue attention to certain POVs. See ]: {{tq|"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure..."}} Also see ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 10:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
:::: How is this "undue attention" when there are so many quotes by former MEK members in the article? ] (]) 11:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Mhhossein's suggestion which gives balanced weight to the article. Most of the time member of MEK or IRI official presented quotes following the event(s), it is more balanced gathering opposite and positive opinions under the event rather than creating sections such as "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" OR "allegations by former MEK members".] (]) 11:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::We already have a section titled ""; we have this because allegations by the IRI about the MEK need to be identified on account of the nature of the press in Iran (as one would with the press in countries like North Korea, etc., where the press is pretty much controlled by the State). Per NPOV, if we are identifying allegations by the IRI, we need to identify allegations by MEK members, and as of yet, I'm not seeing a reasonable argument not to do this. Based on the high number of allegations by former MEK members in the article, this is WP:DUE. ] (]) 08:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::As I said, I think the section on IRI allegations against MEK calls for undue attention to certain POVs and hence should be merged into the article, if anything is to be done, unless those POVs are counter balanced under that section. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::What on earth does the nature of the press in Iran have to do with the material of "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section which referred to non-Iranian sources?] (]) 10:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
*I would caution strongly against sectioning the article by POV, rather than by subject. It's been tried elsewhere; it tends to turn into an NPOV disaster. However, contentious opinions, and/or opinions that are not from reliable sources but from involved parties, should always be used only with in-text attribution. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

::I understand that conflicts can arise from organizing certain sections through POV, but the problem I'm finding in this particular instance with the allegations of former MEK members in the article is that, without exception, they all consist of consistent defamatory allegations that aren't backed up by anything else except their own statements. Also taking into consideration that there is a , I feel that spreading these allegations throughout the article helps create an inaccurate narrative (one where we have arguments presented by expert scholars, and countered by defamatory allegations of former MEK members). I think this fails our encyclopedic endeavours, but if nobody else thinks this is problematic, we'll just let this be. ] (]) 08:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
::: What do you want to say with "I'm finding in this particular instance with the allegations of former MEK members in the article is that, without exception, they all consist of consistent defamatory allegations that aren't backed up by anything else except their own statements."?] (]) 07:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
::::@Saff V.: That quote is pretty self-explanatory. ] (]) 09:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Stefka Bulgaria}} Sectioning based on POV is often easier than any other method, but it is a really bad idea. In this case, if the allegations are made only by the Iranian government and its outlets, and not repeated/reported by independent RS, then they shouldn't be in the article; if they ''have'' been reported on by reliable sources, then surely those sources also comment on the allegations? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{re|Vanamonde93}} Thanks for your feedback. These are some of the statements by former MEK members currently in the article that I find to be problematic:

* {{tq|] has been reported by former MEK members as having said: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the ]."|}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2003-07-15.html|title=The Cult of Rajavi|website=|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5io7JmBgv|archivedate=August 5, 2009|deadurl=no|accessdate=August 3, 2009|df=mdy}}</ref>

* {{tq|According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."|}}<ref>{{citation|author=Elaine Sciolino|title=Iranian Opposition Movement's Many Faces|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/world/iranian-opposition-movement-s-many-faces.html|date=30 June 2003|access-date=25 June 2017|work=]|author-link=Elaine Sciolino}}</ref>

* {{tq|According to former MEK member Masoud Banisadr, "ooking at the original official ideology of the group, one notices some sort of ] within their 'mix and match' set of beliefs".|}}<ref name="Barker" >{{cite book|title=Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements|author=Eileen Barker|year=2016|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-06361-2|page=174}}</ref>

Except for the last statement (which derives from a chapter in a book written by former MEK member Masoud Banisadr), the sources don't comment on the allegations themselves. I think that if journalists here were commenting on these allegations, then that would be safe to include. Instead, what we are including are the allegations themselves, which are not backed by any source or evidence. These are paired up throughout the article with the research of respected scholars, so we seem to be treating them equally, but they are really not equal. ] (]) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
*:Hmm. Well that's not ideal (in that it would have been easier if the sources had analysed the quotes) but it is what it is. Given their independence I don't see anything policy-wise that's egregious enough for an uninvolved admin to take a stand on; you folks are going to have to sort that out through normal consensus building. But, I'd still recommend that you don't make an "allegations" section. I have ''never'' seen one of those work well. The quotes need to be worked into whatever subject they are related to; and if they are unrelated to everything else in the article, then you need to look at either adding context or removing the quotes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 23:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
::: Thanks Vanamonde. Based on this, can anyone else here argue why these quotes shouldn't be removed from the article? I find that these three quotes by former members are unrelated to anything else in the page, and that all they do is push a POV. ] (]) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
::::why unrelated? Each of them is affiliated to an important event and describe MEK's strategy toward them such as Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Sept. 11 by vital members of the group.] (]) 18:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::Let's discuss one at a time:

:::::*{{tq|According to Ardeshir Parkizkari (a former MEK member), the MEK "called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America."|}}<ref>{{citation|author=Elaine Sciolino|title=Iranian Opposition Movement's Many Faces|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/world/iranian-opposition-movement-s-many-faces.html|date=30 June 2003|access-date=25 June 2017|work=]|author-link=Elaine Sciolino}}</ref>

:::::What is the context of this (rather sweeping) allegation by a former MEK member? Why is this in the article when it isn't supported by any other qualified source? ] (]) 08:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::: This saying belongs to the former member of the MEK's central council (not only a simple member) as well as shows the strategy of MEK toward the united state. The thinking of a member of the MEK's central council impacts the strategy of the group. In other hands, NYT is enough, there is no need for other sources. I suggest that this sentence ''There were celebrations at all the Mujahedeen camps on Sept. 11,'' add to the article following mentioned sentence.] (]) 08:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::::Saff V., you're saying that this single (unverified) claim {{tq|"the MEK 'called the events of Sept. 11 God's revenge on America.'"}} by a former MEK member "shows the strategy of MEK toward the united state"? {{ping|Vanamonde93}} this is why it's difficult to fix WP:NPOV problems in this article. I think said it best, but there's little else I can do here beyond pointing out what looks to me like obvious ]. ] (]) 09:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
::::: Why is the saying of '''member of the MEK's central council''' (not only a simple member) supported by NYT unverified? I think that it suits for "View on the United States" section and related. Just the attribution is needed, according to NYT ... ] (]) 09:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Because the claim comes from a former MEK member, and not the NYT, and it isn't backed by any other reliable journalist/commentator/scholar beyond this single claim by a former MEK member; yet, you are trying to argue that this single sweeping allegation "shows the strategy of MEK toward the united state". That is the definition of ] . ] (]) 10:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I understand why you're displeased with this, but this specific incident is too close to a genuine content disagreement for me to intervene. I would recommend an RfC. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 15:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Vanamonde93}} To put it another way, if for example a former member of the Trump administration said that Donald Trump described "some atrocious event in Iran" as "God's revenge on Iran", would adding this text on Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page be justified by saying "shows the strategy of Donald Trump towards Iran" ? (which seems to be the equivalent of Saff V.'s argument here). ] (]) 15:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 
:::::::::The logical equivalent, perhaps; but the fact is that there isn't a hard-and-fast rule about "allegations from disgruntled former members of an organization". It becomes a question of ], and it needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis; who was the person? How widely were his allegations reported? Does anyone else back them up? Who thought they were significant? etc. As such they are a matter of editorial judgement, and not something I will take a stand on as an administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::In terms of ], this involves a single allegation by a single former member. Having said that, I understand your stance as an uninvolved admin here, and will pursue this at dispute resolutions or RfC. ] (]) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

== Recent edits by Kazemita1 ==

{{ping|El_C}} Kazemita1 has recently made a number of edits to this article that come across as controversial (and are also backed by controversial sources). I've taken them to ] ( and ), where I'm getting feedback that they are indeed controversial sources. Is it ok to restore the long-standing version of the article and discuss the sources / statements here futher before including them? ] (]) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:Without having looked into any of that: if you're confident your objection is substantive, then, yes. ] 00:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:: no definite opinion for being un-usable .] (]) 08:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:::This is why it requires further discussion. ] (]) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

===Further analysis of Kazemita1's edits===

The following is a list of text I will remove from Kazemita1's recent edits. I'm also including my reasons. Feel free to comment.

* {{tq|"According to Glenn Greenwald, the main reason behind America's delisting MEK from as a terrorist group is because MEK is "aligned against the prime enemy of the US and Israel - and working closely with those two nations."|}}<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa |title=Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group |agency=Associated Press |newspaper=] |date=September 23, 2012}}</ref> - This is an opinion piece.

* {{tq|Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule.|}}<ref></ref> - Most of this is repeated already in the article, and the source is being debated at ].
:The leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

* {{tq|"The MEK’s repertoire of operations includes suicide bombings, airline hijackings, ambushes, crossborder raids, RPG attacks, and artillery and tank barrages."|}}<ref></ref> - Most of this is repeated already in the article, and the source is being debated at ].

* {{tq|"However, their use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties"}}<ref></ref> - Source is being questioned at ].
:The leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

* {{tq|"According to ], "MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days."|}}<ref>Abbas Milani, The Myth of the Great Satan: A New Look at America's Relations with Iran (Hoover Institution Press Publication) 1st Edition, p. 94. Chapter available </ref> - Lacks context.
:: {{Ping|El_C}} The title of the subsection is "Violence and Terrorism". The book is published by Stanford's Hoover Institution. The author is a Stanford professor. I do not find Stefka's objection substantive.--] (]) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

* {{tq|"According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of ], MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties|}}<ref></ref>. - Source is being debated at ].
:The leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

* {{tq|According to ], "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran."|}}<ref>Abbas Milani, The Myth of the Great Satan: A New Look at America's Relations with Iran (Hoover Institution Press Publication) 1st Edition, p. 94. Chapter available </ref> - ] and no context.

* {{tq|"Rajavi and the MEK supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and opposed the Afghan mujahedin struggling against it."}}<ref></ref> - Source is being debated at ].

* {{tq|"Iran experts ] wrote: Since when did murdering unarmed civilians (and, in some instances, members of their families as well) on public streets in the middle of a heavily populated urban area (Tehran) not meet even the US government's own professed standard for terrorism"|}}<ref></ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa |title=Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group |agency=Associated Press |newspaper=] |date=September 23, 2012}}</ref>: - Source is being debated at ].
:The leans towards using the source. Of course I am excluding involved editors. Moreover, as you have mentioned in the beginning of your inquiry we are not judging Think Tanks or this Think Tank as whole; we are judging for use in this article. Two out of three voters have a definite yes on it. I therefore put it back in the article.--] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

] (]) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|El_C}} sorry for bothering you, Is Stefka Bulgaria allowed to remove material while not all of used sources by Kazemita 1 were failed in RSN ( and ). For instance, some users said that meforum would be used by care or there is no agreement to reject the reliability of . ] (]) 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
::Above I have presented the reasons why I objected each edit. I also wrote that you are welcome to address these issues so that we may build consensus over their inclusion. ] (]) 16:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

::Until consensus is reached, longstanding text ought to be the order of the day. Sorry, but I'm not able to evaluate how substantive objection/s (and arguments overall) are at a glance because this discussion thread is too disjointed, lacks concision, and is simply not cogent enough for me to make such a determination. Please feel free to summarize the highlights of each position below this space. ] 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|El_C}} Can I ask you to warn Stefka not to erase too much of this stuff in one edit?! Each sentence needs a section to discuss and it is really annoying to have all the discussions in one section?] (]) 06:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
::::You want an admin to warn me for removing contentious material from a controversial article? Right... Moving on, if you want a section to be created per each edit Kazemita made, all you have to do is create a section per each edit. Below I've started with the first controversial edit, and added my response. Feel free to do the same for any other edit you'd like to discuss. Bless. ] (]) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::Also, in case you hadn't noticed, admin Diannaa also removed all of Kazemita1's edits per copy-right vio. ] (]) 08:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|El_C}} I think a new restriction is needed to prevent adding or removing too much content for every user per day (for example!).It is just a suggestion which helps us to follow discussions more carefully.] (]) 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::By all means, feel free to propose additional restrictions. If there is consensus for these, they will be enforced. ] 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

===Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #1===

* {{tq|"According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of ], MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties|}}<ref></ref>.

::Beyond the reliability of the source (which was still under debate), :

::{{tq|The disputed edit is ""According to Chris Zambelis senior middle east analyst of Jamestown Foundation, MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." That's awkward phrasing since the claim is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. It happens to be true, so mentioning the source in text is wrong. The full sentence in the source says: "The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties." '''It seems therefore that the remarks are taken out of context.''' MEK has killed civilians as collateral damage. That's a fact. Different observers may find that to be acceptable or unacceptable. After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions. You need a source that explains the general opinion of their actions, which this source does not do.|}}

::'''Taking the source's remarks out of contexts seems like a .'''] (]) 08:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A solution to your concern would be to include the full quote(of course after paraphrasing):

<blockquote>The group has never been known to target civilians directly, though its use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties.</blockquote>

This is crucial to include in the article since we already have conflicting sources in the article debating whether MEK targets civilians or not.] (]) 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with "After all, civilians are killed in most wars and revolutions". Our serious issue as Kazemita1 mentioned is whether MEK targets civilians or not. It is allowed to include pov of Chris Zambelis from source (Jamestown Foundation) which the reliability of it was confirmed by most of users in .] (]) 08:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Nope. Counting the previous and this about Jamestown foundation, the majority consensus is that a better source than this is required for contentious claims. ] (]) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::You know very well that carte blanche verdicts do not count. The way it works is that you ask about ONE source for ONE edit. As a matter of fact, in the editors specifically asked you if you are referring to Jamestown Foundation "as a whole or just one article". To which you responded "Just that one article". So I guess you already know the rules. By the way, there is about Jamestown Foundation as a whole that also leans heavily towards accepting it as a reliable source.] (]) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{Ping|El C}} I wonder if you give your opinion about this discussion in? Is it useable in the article or as Stefka claimed the better source is needed? Thanks!] (]) 10:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::I dunno. As a ] ''per se.'', it's probably fine, but that said, it doesn't appear to be a particularly high-quality source. As for the specific usage contested here and elsewhere — well, that's what the content dispute is about. ] 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::The issue is already discussed and we know that there's no concern when attribution is done (see and this ). @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you say how ] the majority consensus in "that a better source than this is required for contentious claims", even when attribution is done? I think it's actually the reverse, and most of the comments agree that the sources can, at least, be used with proper attributions. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
{{Ping|El C}}. I understand you would rather see other sources that support Jamestown Foundation's argument on civilian casualties. I am wondering if the following ones do:

* "The group primarily resorted to assassination of key Iranian politicians and coordinated terrorist attacks that sometimes included civilian casualties", Compliant Rebels: Rebel Groups and International Law in World Politics By Hyeran Jo, '''Cambridge University Press'''

* "MEK carried out a number of attacks in Iran which resulted in civilian as well as military casualties", Global security: Iran, By Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee

Essentially, do you find the above in line with what Jamestown Foundation says
<blockquote>MEK's use of tactics such as mortar barrages and ambushes in busy areas have often resulted in civilian casualties</blockquote>
] (]) 21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

: The quotes in your last post refer to the 1991 uprisings, which is unrelated to this discussion. ] (]) 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

{{Ping|Kazemita1}} Did you one of my comments from this TP? You know you can't edit other users' comments, right? Please re-insert my comment to this TP. Also, if you want to have a discussion about ''the MEK's tactics'', then we could through a NPOV discussion (not only using your preferred choice of sourcing). ] (]) 22:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
:Mycomments are moved to the right section and your comments are put back to where it was. I understand it if you cannot top Cambridge University Press.] (]) 05:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

*Regardless of suggested sources, we can restore the edit with the attribution to Jamestown Foundation. Is there any objection?] (]) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:You still haven't addressed TFD's objections. ] (]) 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::As far as I see, his objections does not prohibit us from using the sentence in context while being attributed. By the way, can you just say why you ignored the comments by collect ] and Blueboar ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::, It is allowed to include pov of Chris Zambelis from source (Jamestown Foundation) which the reliability of it was confirmed by most of users in RSN, why do you just emphasis on TFD's objections which solve with attribiution!] (]) 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|El C}} I wonder if you leave comment for consensus assessment.Thanks! ] (]) 10:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::I don't know. Do I need to read all the other subsections, too? ''Absent these'', there seems to be consensus for including the source — objection against which is not substantive enough. Unless, again, it is addressed and made substantive below. Is it? ] 15:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks, There is no need to read all the other subsections.] (]) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

===Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #2===

*{{tq|"Saddam Hussein exploited the MEK’s fervor during the Iran-Iraq war. In addition to providing the group with a sanctuary on Iraqi soil, Saddam supplied the MEK with weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, logistical support, and training at the group’s Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province near the Iranian border and other camps across Iraqi territory. In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 . MEK members also served alongside Iraq’s internal security forces and assisted in rooting out domestic opponents of the regime and other threats to Baathist rule."|}}

:: Where this text is repeated in the article:

::*{{tq|"the MEK, armed and equipped by Saddam's Iraq..."|}}
::*{{tq|"MEK, sheltered in Iraq by Saddam Hussein..."|}}
::*{{tq|"it aided Saddam Hussain's campaign against the Shi'ite uprising.|}}
::*{{tq|"siding with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war"|}}
::*{{tq|"so it took base in Iraq where it was involved alongside Saddam Hussain"|}}
::*{{tq|"they sided with Saddam Hussein against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War"|}}
::*{{tq|"...their alliance with Saddam Hussein during Iran–Iraq War,"}}
::*{{tq|"assisted the Republican Guard in suppressing the 1991 nationwide uprisings against Baathist regime"}}
::*{{tq|"...collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists”"}}

::] (]) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This piece from the above mentioned text is missing in the article
<blockquote>In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991 </blockquote>
] (]) 20:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::I still haven't heard from anyone. My concern is clear. There is no mention of MEK helping the Iraqi regime repress Kurds and Turkmen in 1991. --] (]) 13:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::As it has been discussed in as well as ] are not going to accept that Collaboration between Saddam and MEK include a lot of aspects which listed above, I agree to summarize suggested text to "{{tq|In a sign of the group’s appreciation for Saddam’s generous hospitality and largesse, the MEK cooperated with Iraqi security forces in the brutal repression of uprisings led by Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens in 1991.}} and mention in the article.] (]) 09:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
::::As stated in the , take this to the about Saddam Hussain. ] (]) 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

===Analysing Kazemita1's edits individually #3===

*{{tq|According to Abbas Milani, "the fact that MEK had worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran and engaged in brutal acts of terrorism in its early days made America’s support for it a propaganda bonanza for the clerical regime in Tehran."|}}

I cannot see how "brutal acts of terrorism", is undue when it comes out of a Stanford scholar who actually hates the current Iranian regime.] (]) 20:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

:The MEK's terrorism and work with Saddam Hussein is already in the article. We don't need a POV statement to repeat this again. ] (]) 14:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
::It is not duplicated, which section of the article mentions to the pov of Milani about Saddam and MEK collaboration which pointe to the support of America for propaganda against the regime? {{ping|Stefka Bulgaria}}would you explain why it is undue?] (]) 11:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
:::The MEK's collaboration with Saddam is well-established in the article . ] (]) 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Is it related to MEK's collaboration with Saddam? Honestly, it refers to propaganda sided by America!] (]) 11:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::It does mention Saddam Hussain, and it does seem like a POV statement. ] (]) 14:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|BarcrMac}}You said: "The MEK's terrorism and work with Saddam Hussein is already in the article.". I might settle with Saddam's name being mentioned. But show me where MEK's terrorism is explicitly stated.--] (]) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::There's just one mention in the article which is on the IRIB's viewpoint. Milani's POV, being an independent source, should not simply be dismissed here. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::This is merely a POV statement about something that is covered in the article in much detail already. ] (]) 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::@BarcrMac @Stefka Bulgaria, There is no undue weight issue or duplicated material. Saddam backing of MEK included plenty of aspect.Has been it mentioned in the article that America supported the collobration of Saddam and MEK? Any way your objections is not fair and couldnot convince us!] (]) 11:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
We already have discussing the trimming down of repeated material concerning Saddam Hussain's collaboration with the MEK. As discussed in that TP discussion, we can resume this collaboration without having to overtly repeat it throughout the article. Let's sort out that TP discussion first before trying to add more about Saddam's collaboration with the MEK (or simply take this there). ] (]) 15:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

== Context in sources ==

When reading source material about contentious geopolitical issues, it is quite common to find isolated sentences, in sources not otherwise discussing said conflict, making sweeping statements about the issue. I would urge caution in the use of such sources. While there is an obvious need to use available material when it is scarce, there is a tendency for such sources to lack context, and indulge in oversimplification; and as such, a detailed source is most definitely preferably, and should be given more weight. Overuse of brief mentions can often lead to an article becoming a list of accusations and counter-accusations (note that this applies to throwaway statements about both the government and the MEK). <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Vanamonde93}} Can you please elaborate a little bit? I am not sure I understood what you said. I mean I have a feeling this is in regards to the recent edits, but I am not sure. So please kindly clarify.--] (]) 20:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::Elaborate on what, {{U|Kazemita1}}? I felt I was being pretty clear. I'm ''not'' going to take a position on specific sources used in this article, because I intend to remain uninvolved. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

== Allegation of Pentagon using MEK prisoners as spies ==

I recently this statement from the article:

*{{talk quote|"American government sources told ''Newsweek'' in 2005 that ] is planning to utilize MEK members as ]s or give them training as ] for use against Tehran.|}}<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.newsweek.com/looking-few-good-spies-122699?webSyncID=51731583-22e9-1495-4461-c36c6d9a1d5a&sessionGUID=b77de3db-02a4-24b0-0bd2-73e5a8e044a9|first=Mark|last=Hosenball|title=With Friends Like These|work=Newsweek|access-date=1 August 2018|date=13 February 2005}}</ref>

I removed it because the allegation is not only ], but it also not supported by the source, which says: {{tq|"Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners '''are hoping''' a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners".|}}

Hearsay of what pentagon civilians are ''allegedly'' "hoping" to do is not equivalent to "planning to utilize MEK members as informants". Saying the Pentagon is ''planing'' to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here. ] (]) 09:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:Dear {{ping|Sa.vakilian}}: If you could kindly replace "planning" with "hoping" in the above mentioned piece in the article you will be doing us all a favor.--] (]) 04:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::Can someone address these concerns before editing the article? ] (]) 10:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|El_C}} sorry for the constant pinging, but this is another case where editors have reverted without a substantive justification for their edits. Are these ok to revert back if nobody addresses them in over a week? ] (]) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::Yes, again, a week with no response can be interpreted as ]. ] 16:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|El_C}} I had asked the editor to make the necessary change to address both mine and Stefka's concern some time ago (). But apparently the user was too busy to make the change. So I did it for him just now. I understand Stefka's frustration though (which lead him to completely remove the piece instead of making that small fix).--] (]) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ping|El_C}} As shown here, if I could revert an edit that hadn't been addressed in this TP discussion, and that I could based on ]; but now Kazemita1 has reverted the edit .

::::You already warned Kazemita to not edit war in this article. In his last block you said: ""

::::Reverting an edit back that had been approved by an admin here seems like another violation. ] (]) 20:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

:::::Well, SILENCE is broken once there is an objection, which I presume is outlined in their comment above. ] 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{Ping|El_C}} As you can see in this TP discussion, I presented an objection and Kazemita didn't respond to it. He just without asking anyone. ] (]) 20:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::''They're'' saying that you failed to respond to ''their'' objections. I'm not really able to immediately tell what's what. What is the longstanding text with regards to that ''Newsweek'' passage. ] 20:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|El_C}} sorry, but can't see what ''their objection'' is here, can you? Kazemita only suggested that we change , which does not address the point I made here about "" ] (]) 22:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}
:::::::::::@Stefka. May I suggest that we avoid ] and stick to civil discussion? Here is the course of events:
::::::::::::1. On September 28th, you removed the content under discussion in a series of "bold" edits without proper discussion on the talk page. Your only explanation was the edit summary that read as follows:<blockquote></blockquote>
::::::::::::2. On September 30th, you finally decided to explain your edit. Your concluding remarks were as follows: <blockquote>"</blockquote>
::::::::::::3. On October 1st, a Good Samaritan rolled the article back to a previous long-standing version ().
::::::::::::4. On October 1st, I asked the "Good Samaritan", aka User:Sa.Vakilian, to address the concern mentioned by you . You did not express any objection to my proposal. But the user did not address my proposal either.
::::::::::::5. On October 7th, i.e. less than a week from my proposal you Sa.Vakilian's edit. Still, you did not express any objection to my proposal.
::::::::::::6. It was only then that . My proposal was addressing your concern that intelligence planners had ''hoped'' in using MEK members (and not yet "planned"). No one had shown any objection to my proposal prior to my edit and quite frankly there was nothing to object since it was literally based on the text of the source. ] (]) 06:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@Stefka Bulgaria, Why didn't you change "hope" to "plan" rather than ?!] (]) 09:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Changing "hope" to "plan" does not solve the issue. Nobody has yet addressed the point I have made, so I will repeat it:
Hearsay that Pentagon civilians are allegedly "hoping" to use Iranian spies is a very big claim that requires well-established verification, and that's just not the case here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification/sources, and this is unverified hearsay, which has no place in an encylopedia. ] (]) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

== Civilian death numbers in the lead ==

Based on what I see in the conclusions, . Why did you remove it {{ping| Stefka Bulgaria}}?--] (]) 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:What did I remove what from the lede? ] (]) 10:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


This has been discussed at the talk page previously, . In each of the discussions nearly everyone favoring Hogo-2020's version is blocked for sockpuppetry. Given this content has been in the opening paragraph for more than a year without being challenged, Hogo-2020 should seek consensus before removing it.</blockquote>
== Re-insertion of repeated text ==
''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I would add that this uncontroversial is information, and it should be at the top of the lead to balance the aggrandising pronouncements about the group's role as an opposition movement. The statement is well sourced and almost every scholarly RS on the MEK will note something to this effect about the group's reputation within Iran. It is therefore vital information (as has been discussed in numerous past discussions) and should be in the first paragraph of the lead, which is a microcosm of the subject and the rest of the lead, per ]. A small amount of duplication is not an inherent flaw. However, if one were to choose, the mention of unpopularity in Iran up top is more vital than an expansion of this below, so if avoiding duplication was the motive here, the solution was the wrong one, since it makes the intro more POV. ] (]) 04:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Sa.vakilian}} I removed the following text from the article (because it's already repeated in the article):
::Since the lead is overlength, and the mention of this is needed in the first paragraph to maintain NPOV, I've simply restored the short mention in the first paragraph and removed the lengthier (and probably unduly lengthy) exposition further down in the lead, which reading back over it was hogging considerable space in the lead. ] (]) 05:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello VR, that's a complete mischaraterization of what has occurred here. For one, I didn't ''remove'' the content, I actually added sources to what was already in the lead, and put everything in the same paragraph. Iskandar323 has now all of those sources. That just seems wrong. ] (]) 12:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The lead is not a repository for sources. The lead does not even need sources, except where the information is liable to be contested. The only issue raised was duplication, which I left resolved while also resolving the issues since raised with your solution. ] (]) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The sources are there to determine ]. One of the issues with your edit is that it violates this policy. Please respond in the . ] (]) 06:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Restoration of undue material in lead ==
*{{talk quote|"According to infoplease.com, more than 16,000 people have been killed in attacks by the MEK since 1979.|}}


@]: In reference to , you have restored two pieces of pretty clearly undue material. For starters, it would only be due to cite an individual scholar for a statement in the lead if there were multiple other secondary sources quoting that source for the same statement. The scholar's own work hardly establishes this in the context of this kind of brief lead summary. Secondly, the sentence itself is broken and/or nonsensical. {{tq|"While in Iraq, the MEK is accused of participating in the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq., while Ervand Abrahamian notes that one the reasons the MEK opposed the clerical regime was due to its violations of minority rights, particularly the Kurds."}} – the second part of this statement does not relate to the first. It's a complete ''non sequitur''. It's also an ironic pairing, since the MEK, in its suspected involvement in suppressing the uprisings, would have actively fought against the Kurds in Iraq. However, I am of two minds about even mentioning the uprisings in the lead, since the MEK participation is only weakly substantiated, so that statement could possibly be removed in any case. As for restoring "including two teenage girls", this is a highly over-detailed inclusion in a lead summary, and I don't know how you can think otherwise. Only one of the three sources cited for the overall statement even mention this at all, and frankly even the mention of the specific numbers of deaths and executions may be undue for this specific event. This is not a lead about the event, after all, but about the MEK. This is too granular, and if you think otherwise, maybe you can start by providing three reliable sources that specifically go into this level of detail. ] (]) 08:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
You then this back into the article. Why did you re-insert it if it's already repeated in the article? ] (]) 11:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


:The material is not undue, and it seems this was not limited to just "two" teenagers. -
==Defining longstanding text for this article==
:{|class="wikitable sortable"
Because this article is edited actively, I propose that longstanding text would be '''about a month'''. Either way, let's see if we can get consensus for whatever it is participants wish it to be. Opening the floor for comments... ] 19:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
|-
*'''Support''' 1 month. Your help here is greatly appreciated, El_C, thank you. ] (]) 21:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
! Citation
*'''Support'''. Hope that does not count as following Stefka around!--] (]) 06:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
! Quote
*'''Support''', It would certainly be useful to define "longstanding".] (]) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
|-
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 17:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
|{{cite book |last=O’hern|first=Steven|date=2012|title=Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps|url= |location= |publisher=Potomac Books|page=32}}
|"The warden of the infamous Evin Prison where the mullahs now held prisoners announced the firing squad executions of twenty-three demonstrators, including several teenage girls."
|-
|{{cite book |last=Abrahamian|first=Ervand|date=1989|title=Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin|url= |location= |publisher=‎ I.B. Tauris |page=67-68, 206-207,219}}
|"The regime acted swiftly to clear the streets and to show that it would not crumble like the Shah. The pasdars, helped by the chomaqdaran, fired intentionally into the crowds, killing fifty and injuring over 200. Rafsandjani, the speaker of the Majles, demanded that rioters should be treated as 'enemies of God'. Ayatollah Khalkhali, the roving executioner, announced that the courts had the sacred duty to shoot at least fifty troublemakers per day. The Chief Prosecutor declared that in such an extraordinary situation the pasdars could dispense with the niceties of trials and execute rioters on the spot. That evening, the warden of Evin Prison proclaimed the execution of twenty-three demonstrators - among them two teenage girls."
|-
|{{cite book |last=Mohaddessin|first=Mohammad|date=2004|title=Enemies of the Ayatollahs: The Iranian Opposition's War on Islamic Fundamentalism|url= |location= |publisher=Zed Books|page=59}}
|"Firing squads had executed twenty-three demonstrators, including a number of teenage girls. The reign of terror had begun."
|-
|{{cite journal |last1=Nasiri |first1=Shahin |last2=Faghfouri Azar |first2=Leila |date=28 July 2022 |title=Investigating the 1981 Massacre in Iran: On the Law-Constituting Force of Violence |journal=Journal of Genocide Research |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=164–187 |doi=10.1080/14623528.2022.2105027 |s2cid=251185903 |doi-access=free }}
|"It is worth considering that Islamic Revolutionary Courts made no distinction in terms of age, gender, or political affiliation. For a Sharia judge, it did not matter whether political suspects were men or women, socialists or liberals, active members of a political organization, or underage sympathizers. Based on official press releases and collected material, more than 370 of those killed were women. In Tehran, thirty-eight per cent of identified female dissidents were teenagers, most of whom were high school students. It has been reported that pregnant prisoners were subjected to physical torture and that some were executed while heavily pregnant."
|-
|{{cite journal |last1=Nasiri |first1=Shahin |last2=Faghfouri Azar |first2=Leila |date=28 July 2022 |title=Investigating the 1981 Massacre in Iran: On the Law-Constituting Force of Violence |journal=Journal of Genocide Research |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=164–187 |doi=10.1080/14623528.2022.2105027 |s2cid=251185903 |doi-access=free }}
|"However, Sharia judges offered, in retrospect, justificatory grounds for juvenile executions for both political and non-political charges. To this end, they invoked Khomeini’s orthodox doctrine that the age of maturity under Islamic Sharia is not in conformity with the internationally accepted norms concerning the definition of criminal liability. On Khomeini’s interpretation, Islamic sources prescribe girls and boys reach the stage of maturity at the age of nine and fifteen (lunar years) respectively. Although some Islamic scholars­­–most notably Montazeri (Khomeini’s deputy in 1981­)–disputed the adequacy of this interpretation, this doctrine served as a criterion for redefining the notion of criminal liability in the Islamic Penal Code that was ratified in the aftermath of the 1981 massacre. Accordingly, the 1981 massacre played a vital role in the legal normalization of juvenile executions. The execution of juveniles on charges of moharebeh and ifsad-fi-alarz showcases the Islamification of the criminal system concerning the minimum age of criminal liability."
|-
|{{cite book |last=Joseph|first=Suad|date=2004|title=Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law and Politics|url= |location= |publisher=‎ Brill Academic Pub |page=566}}
|"Between 1981 and 1985 the Islamic Revolutionary Committees caused the high-security prisons of Iwain, Quizil Hisar, and Guhar Dasht in Tehran and other prisons to be overcrowded with many thousands of female political prisoners, from 10 to over 70 years old, among them members and sympathizers of oppositional groups or mothers helping their children. Closely watched by repenters (tawabin) and female wardens, they were at the mercy of male guards who tortured, raped, martired, or executed them. Sixty died under torture and over 1,500 were executed: 47 were pregnant, 187 were under eighteen, 22 were thirteen to fifteen-years-old, 9 were under thirteen, 2 were over seventy, and the youngest was ten."
|-
|{{cite book |last=von Schewerin|first=Ulrich|date=2015|title=The Dissident Mullah: Ayatollah Montazeri and the Struggle for Reform in Revolutionary Iran (International Library of Iranian Studies)|url= |location= |publisher=‎ I.B. Tauris |page=77-78}}
|"In a letter to Khomeini of 27 September 1981, he addressed the situation in the courts and prisons which witnesses described as highly alarming: Irregular executions, sometimes without the prior order or knowledge of a shari’a judge and sometimes against his will, are frequent. The lack of cooperation between the courts and the executioners, the influence of emotions and anger on the executioners, and the execution of thirteen or fourteen-year-old girls, who have neither held any weapon or taken part in any protest but have just made some critical remark, are alarming and brutal"
|-
|{{cite book |last=Danesh|first=Armin|date=2022|title=Political Refugees: A New Perspective |url= |location= |publisher=‎ Rowman & Littlefield Publishers |page=28}}
|"Once the absolute repression and mass executions began, the armed movement was born, and a new chapter opened in the history of the women’s struggle in Iran. Following the 20 June 1981 massacre of demonstrators in Tehran, the state-run dailies published photographs of young girls who had been executed the previous evening, without their identities even having been established. The parents were asked to identify their children. This intolerable provocation forced women to choose between resistance and obedience."
|-
|{{cite book |last=Sepehr|first=Zabir|date=2011|title=The Left in Contemporary Iran (RLE Iran D): Ideology, Organisation and the Soviet Connection 1st Edition|url= |location= |publisher=‎ Routledge|page=99}}
|"It was in the course of this horror that about 20 young girls protecting their fellow Mojahedin marchers were arrested and promptly executed"
|-
|{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title=The Bloody Red Summer of 1988|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/the-bloody-red-summer-of-1988.html |work=PBS|location= |publisher= |access-date=}}
|"On June 21, 1981, the Majles (parliament) impeached Banisadr; he was fired. By that point, he had already fled and gone into hiding in western Iran. The IRGC executed several of his close aids, including Hossein Navab, Rashid Sadrolhefazi, and Manouchehr Massoudi, an attorney. Their mouthpiece, Enghelab-e Eslami was also shut down. Dozens of others were also executed on June 21 and 22, including at least 12 young girls whose identities were not even known to the judiciary. Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Gilani, the prosecutor of the revolutionary court, declared that he did not care about the identities of the young people whose execution he was ordering"
|-
|{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title=The Bloody Red Summer of 1988|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/the-bloody-red-summer-of-1988.html |work=PBS|location= |publisher= |access-date=}}
|"In retaliation, the government would arrest and kill MKO members and supporters, showing no mercy, not even on the very young, and in some instances children. The youngest victim that the author is aware of was a girl named Fatemeh Mesbah, who was said to be 12 when killed. Ayatollah Mohammadi Gilani even ordered the execution of two of his own children."
|}
:Regarding the statement that mentions {{tq|"While in Iraq, the MEK is accused of participating in the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq., while Ervand Abrahamian notes that one the reasons the MEK opposed the clerical regime was due to its violations of minority rights, particularly the Kurds."}} – The first part of the sentence describes the accusation that the MEK was involved in suppressing the Kurds in Iraq, while the second part presents a contrasting account, claiming that the MEK fought against the clerical regime in support of the Kurds. It's quite clear-cut. ] (]) 09:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::First, the 1991 uprisings did not only involve the Kurds, and you cannot expect a reader to know that without explanation in any case. Secondly, the notion that the MEK supported minority rights in Iran in no way counters, balances or even relates to what they may or may not have done to minorities in Iraq – at least not unless a source says it does. On the matter of the teenage girls, all you have proven here is that the sources come to no agreement on the numbers on this, so it's doubly inappropriate to present this assertion in Wikivoice. ] (]) 12:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Regarding the executions of teenage girls, it is evident that this is in line with ]. If your concern now is the exact number, that can be easily . Regarding the 1991 Uprisings, the following step would be to further review sources and evaluate what is due in this case. I will begin an analysis, as I have done concerning the executions of teenage girls. ] (]) 10:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Made a quick of the sources in the article, and removed {{tq|"while Ervand Abrahamian notes that one the reasons the MEK opposed the clerical regime was due to its violations of minority rights, particularly the Kurds."}}. ] (]) 12:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:52, 17 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime / Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconIran Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Political parties Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSocialism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
  • Fiona Hamilton (7 January 2023). "How Misplaced Pages is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities". The Times. Retrieved 8 January 2023. On the MEK's English Misplaced Pages page over the summer a string of information describing human rights abuses by Iranian officials was deleted. The anonymous users who changed the content cited the need for "trimming" or claimed that the material was trivial.
  • Farid Mahoutchi (18 January 2024). "In the War for Narratives Iran's Regime Takes to Misplaced Pages". National Council of Resistance of Iran. Retrieved 18 January 2024. For instance, on the English language Misplaced Pages page for "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", the writing suggests that "At one point the MEK was Iran's 'largest and most active armed dissident group,' and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group, but it is also deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in Iran–Iraq War." The sources of this statement, which carries a significant amount of misinformation, are articles from reputable outlets. However, it's noteworthy that the authors, who have historically expressed hostile views toward the organization, contribute to the narrative.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Section sizes
Section size for People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (48 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 30,646 30,646
History 15 107,343
Early years (1965–1970) 1,765 1,765
Schism (1970–1978) 13,123 13,123
1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent power struggles 4,891 4,891
Cultural revolution, Iranian protests, and subsequent oppression (1980–1981) 5,679 14,023
Hafte Tir bombing 4,783 4,783
Open conflict with the Islamic Republican Party 3,561 3,561
Exile and underground opposition activity (1982–1988) 8,064 19,105
Operations Shining sun, Forty Stars, and Mersad 5,256 5,256
1988 execution of MEK prisoners 5,785 5,785
Post-war Saddam era (1988–2003) 7,155 11,475
2003 French arrests 4,320 4,320
Post-U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003–2016) 11,056 25,162
Iraqi government's crackdown (2009–2012) 6,957 6,957
Iran's nuclear programme 7,149 7,149
Settlement in Albania (2016–present) 1,311 17,784
Relationship during Trump presidency 5,259 5,259
Islamic Republic of Iran operations against MEK inside Europe 11,214 11,214
Ideology 15 27,088
Before the revolution 6,162 6,162
After the revolution 3,615 3,615
Ideological revolution and women's rights 5,308 5,308
Cult of personality 11,988 11,988
Structure and organization 34 27,286
Organizations 3,564 3,564
Membership 3,258 3,258
Fundraising 8,104 8,104
Intelligence capabilities 5,545 5,545
Propaganda and social media 6,781 6,781
Terrorist designation 78 21,300
Assignment of designation 11,197 11,197
Removal of designation 10,025 10,025
Foreign relations 4,398 14,053
Position on the Israel–Palestinian conflict 1,807 1,807
Relations with the United States 7,848 7,848
Human rights record 5,871 5,871
Intelligence campaigns against the MEK 7,370 10,107
Targeting of MEK members outside Iran 2,737 2,737
Perception 15 8,868
Inside Iran 6,541 6,541
By other Iranian opposition parties 2,312 2,312
In the media 1,099 1,099
See also 354 354
Notes 39 39
References 5,376 5,376
Bibliography 4,761 4,761
External links 2,612 2,612
Total 266,803 266,803
On 21 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from People's Mujahedin of Iran to People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. The result of the discussion was moved.

RAND weight in section "Cult of Personality"

Currently the section "Cult of Personality" has 323 words, of which 102 words (about one-third) are attributed to just one source, RAND. There are dozens of sources available in this topic so the weight given to RAND is undue. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian. So it is due.I think Abrahamian is way underrepresented in the section, and even RAND is underrepresented. Major aspects discussed by both sources are not covered. I don't think any of them should be covered less in absolute terms. MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom, where can I verify that RAND is "probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Also note that I didn't say RAND was not due, I said that it's over-represented because its content makes up about one-third of the entire section. If WP:NPOV requires that editors paraphrase from various reliable sources, then why not do this here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You can verify this by actually reading the most cited academic sources within the article, as well as the most relevant tertiary sources such as Oxford Reference entries. I'll post a bibliographic review here. This will take some time. MarioGom (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll be waiting for your bibliographic review, but kindly prioritize the central issue. If WP:NPOV requires that we paraphrase from various reliable sources, what is your justification for attributing one-third of the entire section to only RAND when there are dozens of sources available? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
As I said, RAND is one of the most cited, not in this article, but in academic publications. I get that you will not check this, but please, understand that preparing a bibliography review for you will require quite some effort and time. About the extension, I did not advocate for RAND to take one-third. What I said is that is should be well represented, and that other sources, especially Abrahamian (which I hope you will not dispute as being the most important author in this area), need to be represented more. So my guess is that a well written section will have less than one third specifically attributed to RAND, not because reduced representation, but because the most reliable sources (currently underrepresented) will increase in weight. MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom, note that I did not say RAND was an unreliable source, I said RAND is being over-represented (and it is). A workshop should be set in place now so that portion of the section complies with WP:NPOV through additional sources. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Would you endorse such a workshop? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure. I've been reviewing bibliography and drafting some material and I'll be happy to post it here for further discussion. MarioGom (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I have not been involved in this topic recently. But there was a time when I would read about MEK day and night. Based on my research, MarioGom is correct in saying "The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian."VR (Please ping on reply) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Workshop:RAND and WP:NPOV through additional sources

A bibliography review focused on paraphrasing from various reliable sources. I'll share my review soon. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I'd be curious to see how frequently each source was cited. For comparison, the RAND article has 33 citations according to google scholar. And the source is both entirely dedicated to MEK, and covers the MEK comprehensively. The first is important, because it assures us all the citations are indeed MEK related. The second is important for establishing relative WEIGHT.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello VR. Wildfried Butcha's Who rules Iran? : the structure of power in the Islamic Republic (which ellaborates on the MEK thoroughly) is not cited in that section ("Cult of personality") at all and has 390 citations according to Google scholar, while almost of a third of the entire section remains attributed to only RAND. That's obviously against WP:NPOV. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That source fails the first criteria that the "entirely dedicated to MEK". How many of Butcha's 390 citations are about the MEK? Likely a small minority. However, we can be confident most, if not all, of citations to Abrahamian are regarding the MEK.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The "first criteria" that a source is required to be "entirely dedicated to the MEK" is being imposed by you? I tend to follow WP:POLICIES, and Wildfried Butcha's book (published by a reputable publisher and provides extensive coverage of the MEK) appears to comply with policy. But since we're in this topic, I have found two other papers entirely dedicated to the MEK: Raymond Tanter's Terror Tagging of an Iranian Dissident Organization: A White Paper, and James A. Piazza's The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile. The Mojahedin-e Khalq and its Struggle for Survival. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No, its not imposed by me, its imposed by WP:COMMONSENSE. Given, Butcha's book is not dedicated to the MEK, can you indicate how many of its 390 citations are about the MEK? I went through the few citations in google scholar and didn't find a single citation to the MEK. It seems Butcha's work is well received for its scholarship o Iran in general, but not necessarily the MEK.
Raymond Tanter's book looks to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED (its published by IPC, of which Tanter himself is president). Piazza is better, as its published in Digest of Middle East Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. But it has only 4 citations on google scholar, so its not as widely regarded as RAND.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how many of Butcha's 390 google scholar citations are about the MEK, but his book does provide extensive coverage of the MEK. Are you suggesting that book can't be used because it isn't entirely dedicated to the MEK? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that at all, and I'm not sure where you got that from. We can definitely use Butcha's book, giving it WP:DUE weight. All I'm saying is that google scholar number of citations for Butch's can't be compared in an apples to apples way to the google citations to RAND or Abrahamian. Thus, RAND and Abrahamian remain the most scholarly publications on the topic, but again Butcha can be cited with WP:DUE.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
In any case, what material from Butcha did you want to cite? I notice he accuses Rajavi of a "dictatorial leadership" (p 113-114) and goes into details about MEK's "propaganda machine" (p 114-116) and then also calls it a "political religious sect" and says it is run like a "totalitarian, single-party dictatorship" (p 116).VR (Please ping on reply) 15:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
VR Refer to the initial discussions in this thread. I pointed out that a considerable amount of the section is sourced from only RAND. I proposed combining this information with other sources because it heavily relies on just one reference. Do you concur with this suggestion? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
VR Follow-up ping. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you propose something specifically? In principle, bringing in more sources is a great idea.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
VR here is a specific proposal bringing in more sources:
A RAND Corporation report states that during Masoud Rajavi's "ideological revolution," MEK members were expected to show loyalty to their leaders, resembling cult behavior with authoritarianism, though these claims are disputed by MEK supporters. During the ideological revolution, the organization's slogan "Iran is Rajavi, Rajavi is Iran" emphasized membership unity. In a statement regarding the MEK, Rudy Giuliani said, "But we’re not a cult. We’re a people who are joined by something timeless: the love of freedom, the love of democracy, the love of human life." The group reflects aspects of the original Iranian revolutionary movement before it was overtaken by Khomeini's faction.
This offers a variety of perspectives and sources Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why Giuliani is a reliable source, or even relevant, but mostly important what does that have to do with being a cult? For Cohen, you'll have to give page number so I can read the context.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The source about Giuliani is from the Observer, and the claim by this U.S. politician is relevant since he is addressing the cult accusations. For Cohen, the page number is xi. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any content relating to MEK being a cult on that page. The only instance of the letters "cult" there are in the word "difficult". Bringing in Guiliani's views to balance out those by RAND, Abrahamian, Cohen etc is pretty WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@VR, last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Misplaced Pages. Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian Abbas Milani Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@VR, I'm answering all your questions, could you please respond? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Again sorry for the delay. "last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Misplaced Pages." That really depends on what they're talking about. Current US politics? Sure. History? Not at all (per WP:HISTRS).
Abbas Milani calls the MEK "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists".VR (Please ping on reply) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@VR. "Not at all (per WP:HISTRS)." Which section of that essay suggests that it's against the policy to use a statement from a U.S. politician regarding the characteristics of a foreign political group?
"Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian Abbas Milani as a source?" Could you answer with yes or no? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Check WP:HSC. Guiliani's opinion doesn't fall under any of the historical scholarship.
If Milani has published in a a peer-reviewed publication or any of the forms recommended by WP:HSC then yes that particular source would be good.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Giuliani, we're addressing current allegations (not "historical scholarship") that the MEK is a cult and Giuliani offering his perspective, which seems completely unrelated to the WP:HSC policy you're citing.
On Milani, there are several citations referencing him that don't align with the standards you're describing, so I'll go ahead and take them out. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Before you go and do that, we need to have consensus on talk page to only use scholarly sources. Once we have such a consensus, we need to apply it to content regardless of whether it frames MEK positively or negatively.VR (Please ping on reply) 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@VR This is beginning to look like WP:STONEWALLING. Please address my point about the Giuliani statement. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I've already repeated: Guiliani is not a RS and what you're doing here is WP:FALSEBALANCE. You're trying to counter the arguments made by scholars using the opinion of a random American politician.
I advise you to review this list of scholarly sources which all describe the MEK as a cult.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@VR sorry but it's unclear how, according to you, a quote from a U.S. politician in The Observer isn't a reliable source, while the commentary pieces you recently included in the article are? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
We don't have to cite this commentary piece, as we can cite this article by Seymour Hersh.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
@VR It wasn't just the Middle East Eye commentary that you put back into the article; you also put back other opinion pieces. Why are those acceptable according to you, but an article from The Observer isn't? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you talking about Rajavi's letter to Gorbachev requesting a loan? Here's a photo of that letter. Here is a translation of it from the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History. Other source: VR (Please ping on reply) 10:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but that still begs the question: why did you cite the commentary sources instead?
The citation from The New Yorker you're suggesting now quotes from Egyptian politician Mohamed ElBaradei. Why is it acceptable to quote him, but not Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@VR? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you take these sources to WP:RSN? I'll abide by whatever consensus is achieved there. I'm getting tired of this back and forth. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@VR When you revert changes, it's important to provide a rational explanation. Why do you find it acceptable to quote ElBaradei but not Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@VR: that's a biased double-standard. How is it appropriate to use Seymour Hersh citing Mohamed ElBaradei, but not The Observer citing Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
ElbBaradei was the director of International Atomic Energy Agency and he can be considered a strong source on Iran's nuclear program. Why is Guiliani's opinion relevant here? Not all opinions that appear in the press are equally DUE for inclusion.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@VR: Giuliani is an well known American politician who is closely implicated in diverse matters surrounding the MEK and Iran. In The Observer, he tackles the accusations that the MEK is a cult. How does this not make him relevant to Cult of personality? Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Why don't you take this to WP:RSN? I will abide by whatever consensus is reached there. But just to clarify, Guiliani's opinions appear to contradict the vast majority of scholarship on the issue of MEK being a cult, thus making them (in this particular case) WP:FRINGE. VR (Please ping on reply) 01:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@VR: Have you gone through the Cult of personality section of the article? It contains several sources that back up Giuliani's position (this is far from WP:FRINGE, as you've stated.). I'm not going to waste the community's time at WP:RSN until you provide some kind of rational explanation regarding this. Speaking of which, are there any other sources, apart from Mohamed ElBaradei, claiming that Israel gave the MEK information about Iran's nuclear program? If not, that would make ElBaradei's claim WP:FRINGE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The Mossad giving MEK info doesn't just come from ElBaradei, but also Michael Bar-Zohar. And its not just The New Yorker that quote ElBaradei, but also The Guardian: "Several experts on Israeli intelligence have reported that Mossad passed these documents to the MEK". And Business Insider: "In 2002 M.E.K. publicly revealed that Iran had begun enriching uranium at a secret underground location and the information was provided by Mossad, according to then-head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei". And WashDiplomat and JerusalemPost.
The problem with Guiliani is that he contradicts several scholarly sources. Which scholarly sources (or non-scholarly sources for that matter) have said that MEK didn't receive nuclear intel from Mossad? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
You're using opinion pieces as sources, but rejecting a credible quote from a US politician published in The Observer, which relates to content already in the "Cult of Personality" section of the article. This is a classic case of filibustering. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Marxism removed from the lead

Hogo-2020 I disagree with this change you made in the lead. You removed: "The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism""
and replaced it with: "The group's early ideology asserted that science, reason, and modernity are compatible with Islam."

The MEK is widely known for its early Marxist ideology. It is certainly not primarily known for its positions on Islam and science, as admirable as they might be. Abrahamian says on page 100 that both "classical Marxist theories" and "neo-Marxist concepts" informed MEK's ideology.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

VR These kinds of faulty generalizations cause confusion and misinformation. Firstly, you're omitting important points from Katzman’s single-paragraph summary. Katzman explains that early MEK ideology (from around 1965 to 1971) is "a matter of dispute", with scholars generally describing it as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism", while "PMOI representatives claim that this misrepresents the groups ideology in that Marxism and Islam are incompatible, and that the PMOI has always emphasized Islam". Your revision ignores the latter part entirely. And even though you removed him from the lead, Abrahamian explains this point with much more detail, here are a couple of excerpts:
"As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy. It accepted historical determinism but not economic determinism; the class struggle but not the denial of God; dialectics but not atheistic metaphysics. There are no grounds whatsoever for doubting, as some critics do, the sincerity of these religious declarations. It seems highly disingenuous of observers - not to mention hangmen - to raise such doubts when the victims invariably went to their executions espousing their faith in Islam." (I emphasized the last portion)
"the regime labeled the Mujahedin "Islamic Marxists" and claimed that Islam was merely the cover to hide their Marxism. The Mujahedin retorted that although they "respected Marxism as a progressive method of social analysis" they rejected materialism and viewed Islam as their inspiration, culture, and ideology."
  • Second issue is that the group's ideological identity after the Iranian Revolution (to the present) remained Islamic, but your revision suggests that it "became about overthrowing the Government", which describes a goal and not their ideology.
  • Fourth, in his book, the first thing Abrahamian writes about the MEK is:
"The Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran), generally known as the Mojahedin, is worth studying for a number of reasons. It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam - an interpretation that differed 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 disciples."
In that same introduction, Abrahamian writes:
"The Mojahedin has in fact never once used terms socialist, communist, Marxist or esteraki to describe itself." Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree that Abrahamian is hands down the best source on early MEK ideology. He talks about it in Chapter 3 "The Beginnings" under "Ideology". He introduces it as:

This ideology can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism.

He then goes onto describe that MEK themselves said "no to Marxist philosophy" but "yes to Marxist social thought". MEK believed "scientific Marxism" was compatible with Islam. Regarding MEK denials, Abrahamian says:

Although the Mojahedin were consciously influenced by Marxism both modern and classical, they vehemently denied being Marxists; indeed they even denied being socialists.

He concludes,

The ideology of the Mojahedin was thus a combination of Muslim themes; Shia notions of martyrdom; classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism; and Neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and revolutionary heroism.

I'm open to different wordings for both their pre- and post-exile ideology.
VR (Please ping on reply) 08:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Once again, you're misinterpreting Abrahamian. He does not conclude with your last quote; he concludes with "As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy." and then ends with "These early writings of the Mojahedin represent the first attempt in Iran to develop sytematically a radical interpretation of Shii Islam." and "The prominence given to Shariati is partly due to the fact taht the Mojahedin leaders made a deliberate decision in the early 1970s to propagate radical Islam less through their own hand books, which were banned, amore through Shariati's works". Aside from the disputes about the MEK's ideology from 1965 to 1972, there are no disputes about its Shia Islamic identity (certainly since 1975 to the present), and that needs to be clear in the lead. If you disagree with Abrahamian's claim about the MEK's position concerning "Islam and modernity", then anything else that explains their Shia Islamic identity would be enough. "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" seems fitting to me. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm ok with adding "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hogo-2020 I noticed you once again removed Marxism, despite no consensus for that. Please don't edit war to remove longstanding content. Either engage with the sources, or seek other dispute resolution methods.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@VR: It looks like you're WP:BFN with Abrahamian's conclusions, so I’ve begun a dispute resolution as you asked. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Goulka, Jeremiah; Hansell, Lydia; Wilke, Elizabeth; Larson, Judith (2009). The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum (PDF) (Report). RAND corporation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 February 2016.
  2. Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
  3. "Rudy Giuliani Tells Observer Why He Supports 'Death to Khamenei' Iran Faction". Observer.
  4. Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-270-9.
  5. The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 100-101.
  6. Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton Studies on the Near East). Author: Ervand Abrhamian. Publisher: Princeton University Press, 1982. Page 492
  7. The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 1-2.

Third opinion

voorts (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Hogo-2020 (talk · contribs)

We came to the conclusion that author Abrahamian is the best source here, and Abrahamian concludes that the group's ideology is based on Shii Islam. If VR wishes to further explore the group's other influences that took place in its early formation (roughly 1965 to 1971), which include some areas of Marxism (something the group itself rejects for a number of reasons, see quotes above), I recommend unpacking that in the body of the article. Placing a selectively chosen statement in the lead that pertains to a short time period, with zero context or opposing perspectives, is grossly misleading.

Viewpoint by Vice_regent (talk · contribs)

The three most important book-length treatments on the MEK all agree that Marxism was an important part of its early ideology (along with Shiism): Abrahamian, RAND report and Cohen. Abrahamian says MEK was Marxist in his own voice, while attributing any denials to the MEK itself. Conen also notes their denials but find they had Marxist elements nonetheless. RAND notes some of these denials are politically motivated. Hogo keeps saying MEK's ideology was based on Shia Islam, that's correct, but how is it relevant to the question whether or not the lead should mention Marxism as an early ideology? VR (Please ping on reply) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Abrahamian pg 92, 100
  2. pg 2, 55, 58
  3. Cohen, pg 18, 29-30
  4. Abrahamian pg 100
  5. Cohen, pg 30
  6. RAND pg 58
Third opinion by voorts
....

Pinging @Hogo-2020 & @VR. You can each use a paragraph rather than a sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @User:voorts, for your efforts here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you try to shorten your comment? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Voorts please let me know how many words I should take to summarize my position.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Hogo-2020 and @Vice regent: Could you please do 100 words max each without quotes from the source itself (refs to page numbers okay), and describe what you think the source says. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Voorts: Revised, thanks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @VR Nearly a week has passed since voorts offered his assistance. Since you asked for this dispute resolution, please provide your response. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy IRL.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Hogo-2020 and @Vice regent. Could you each please provide what you would like the disputed lead text to say (share the whole paragraph and underline the sentence so that I can see the context). Also explain what portion of the article this is summarizing per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@voorts. The group's ideology should be addressed in the lead simply as "The group's ideology offers a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati." This is both an accessible overview of the group's ideological perspectives before and after 1979, and also reflects what's important about the subject.
VR has repeatedly stated that Abrahamian is undoubtedly the best source for this content, yet the author doesn't say that "Marxism was an important part of its early ideology" (see quotes above). Adding "Marxism" in the lead (what VR wants to do), especially devoid of context or counterarguments, would contradict the cited policies as this relates to a brief timeframe and requires careful clarification. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the best form would be: "The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism." But I'm also ok with:
  • "The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism", and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati."
  • The group's ideology is rooted in Islam and Marxism, and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati.
This would be summarizing People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Before the revolution, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Early years (1965–1971) and People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Schism (1971–1978).VR (Please ping on reply) 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both. It will take me some time to review all of the materials and come to a conclusion. I also anticipate being busy this weekend and next week, so there might be a delay. Please ping me if you don't get a response by the 8th. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@VR and @Hogo-2020: thank you both for your patience. I think that Marxism should be in the lead, but I think that the group's denial should as well. Abrahamian (1989, p. 92) states that the group's early ideology as expressed in its writing "can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism", and that their ideological position combined Shia Islam with Marxism (p. 100). Cohen (2009, p. 18) likewise reads Abrahamian the same way, stating: "In his book Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, Abrahmian describes the organization's ideology as a combination of Islam and Marxism, i.e., a blend of pure Islamic ideas with ideas about social development and Marxist historical determinism." Cohen later writes about the group's denial of Marxist influence, although he finds it unconvincing (p. 30). Here's a very rough draft of what I'm proposing: The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati, combined with Marxist and neo-Marxist thought and practice. Scholars have stated that the group's ideology continues to have Marxist elements, which the group has denied. I think this would adequately summarize the weight that the body of the article affords to scholarly labels and the group's denial. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@voorts. I appreciate your input. I'm not sure if you’ve read Schism (1971–1978) in the article, but the MEK already has a Marxist faction that is rival to this, the Muslim faction. Their rivalry stems from one being Marxist and the other Muslim. Don't you think that labeling the Muslim faction as "Marxist-Muslim" in the lead is bound to make it very confusing for readers? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages lead on that article on that Marxist faction does make it clear "Members associated with it declared that they no longer self-identify as Muslims but rather only believe in Marxism–Leninism". And the lead of this article makes it clear that this MEK believe in both Islam and Marxism.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they should be describe as "Marxist-Muslin" in the lead. I think that it should be explained in the way I noted since there's some nuance here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@voorts Thanks, I agree. Since it's the lead, I'm aiming to make it as concise as possible. How does this version sound to you? The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati. Some scholars suggest that it was also influenced by certain Marxist elements, which the group itself has denied. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
That would be okay with me. @VR? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that's both not concise and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I would suggest ""The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences." Shariati is just one of the author's mentioned in the body that influenced the MEK and the article doesn't focus on him a lot. Finally, MEK's Marxist influences should be stated in wikipedia's voice, not as something that is a view of a minority of scholars (because this is absolutely the view of every major work on the MEK).VR (Please ping on reply) 07:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@VR You keep changing your stance whenever the outcome doesn't align with your desired version of the article. You had said before that "I'm ok with adding "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.'", but now you're not ok with this? Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited as this would be the WP:NPOV approach. Also @Voorts points about nuance are overlooked in your new proposal. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited Please review WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm also going to dip out at this point. If y'all still can't agree, maybe try WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@voorts Thanks again. Since you've already reviewed the sources and spent time on this, could you please let me know if "Marxist-Muslim" should be removed from the lead until VR and I can agree on a more nuanced and accurate way to phrase this, or should the lead be left as is? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
You're right, I did. So we can go with this: "The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam, including the writings of Ali Shariati, as well as Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences." Hope this is an acceptable compromise.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @VR, that would overlook the nuance given in the third opinion. Abrahamian says that it provided a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam. Since the ideology does not align with either conventional Shia Islam or traditional Marxism, we can go with this?: "The group's ideology was influenced by Islam with revolutionary Marxism, offering a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Wait, so you want to drop MEK's denial of Marxist influences? I thought you wanted that? VR (Please ping on reply) 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @VR, Can we go with this?: "The group's ideology was influenced Islam with revolutionary Marxism, and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was largely shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Worth noting that the "influenced by X with Y" part here isn't grammatically sound. It's also lengthy compared to some of the alternatives. If this is for the lead, it needs to act like it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • "The group's ideology was influenced by Islam and revolutionary Marxism; and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati."
  • "Their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Elimination of content backed by reliable sources from the article

@VR Can you clarify why you removed this content, given that it's backed by several reputable sources? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we put this elsewhere in the article or lead? Its not really about whether MEK is relevant in Iran or not. Its about a historical decision they made, so it should be in paragraph about MEK's participation in the Iran-Iraq war.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@VR The sources directly clarify the claim in the lead about why the MEK sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, so your reasoning for removing this remain unclear. If you now want to move this content to another section of the article (which you could have done instead of deleting it), the proper course of action under WP:NPOV would be to move both the claim and the explanation together, not just the explanation. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The claim in the lead is not why the MEK sided with Iraq, rather it is about the undisputed fact that the MEK sided with Iraq, and the very widely held view among scholars that this siding caused its popularity to drop in Iran.
Should we move the explanation to the paragraph in the lead (and the body) that covers MEK's pro-Iraq battles? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It is also an undisputed fact (and a widely held view among scholars) that the MEK moved to Iraq to overthrow the Iranian clerical regime, which explains why the MEK moved to Iraq (they didn't relocate there just to back Iraq, as your version wrongly implies). I also see that the content about the MEK siding with Iraq is repeated in the lead. If you prefer to keep it in the paragraph about the battles, I'm ok with consolidating this information there. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
So your proposal is to have the first paragraph explain that MEK is deeply unpopular in Iran, without stating why that is? VR (Please ping on reply) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
My proposal is to keep together the information about why the MEK had to move to Iraq, the battles that ensued, and the resulting consequences (including their eventual unpopularity in Iran). Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, given that we mention MEK's status as a major opposition group in the lead, we should also mention their deep unpopularity.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
It is already mentioned in the lead where it explains the MEK's move to Iraq (the reason sources suggest it lost popularity in Iran.) Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
But it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph and adjacent to claims of MEK being a major opposition group. VR (Please ping on reply) 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Why would you include a sentence with no context in the first paragraph? Context plays a vital role in this case. The relevant paragraph in the lead (where this sentence currently is) explains why the MEK was expelled from France, their involvement in Operation Forty Stars and Operation Mersad, and their claim that moving to Iraq was meant to overthrow the Iranian government. All of this explains what led to the MEK losing popularity in Iran. Putting this information in a paragraph that doesn't cover these points would violate WP:RSCONTEXT. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The lead and the opening paragraph is not there for the entire context, but to give readers the significance (or lack thereof) of the topic (MOS:OPEN).VR (Please ping on reply) 02:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The lead already mentions the MEK's involvement in the battles that contributed to its unpopularity in Iran, yet you're trying to present that information outside that context. If WP:DR is the only solution, then let's begin the process. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@User:Iskandar323, you took down many sources from the lead of the article that determine WP:DUEWEIGHT in showing that the MEK's loss of popularity came after "France expelled the MEK at the request of Iran, forcing it to relocate to Camp Ashraf in Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK then sided with Iraq, taking part in Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Mersad". You also took down the MEK's response to these events. This seems a grave violation of WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:RSCONTEXT. Under which scenario does your edit not violate these policies? Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I took down the sources after the sentence I removed about popularity, not the sentence above. It is fact that the MEK's popularity largely dropped after it sided with Iraq (the enemy) in the war. That is the context, and it's pretty straightforward. What you are calling context was an undue statement from the MEK about why they had "few choices" but to be in Iraq, and, for one, the lead is a summary, so primary opinions from the MEK have no real place there. Secondly, this would only be providing context or balancing some existing content if there was some statement in the lead saying that the MEK had "lots of choices" about being in Iraq, but there is no such statement. On the contrary, the lead already states how they were forced to relocate to Iraq. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


@Iskandar323: this was the content in the lead before you took down the sources (along with the information they clearly back). -

"During the Iran-Iraq War, the MEK then sided with Iraq, taking part in Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Mersad. This became largely the reason why the MEK is known to be deeply unpopular in Iran today, while the group's representatives contend that their organization had few choices but to stay in Iraq if it wished to have any possibility of overthrowing the Iranian clerical regime.

These are the sources supporting the last part of the second sentence, the portion you're complaining about. -

Citation Quote
Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9. "PMOI representatives contend that their organization has little alternative to its presence in Iraq if it is to have any chance of toppling the clerical regime."
Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x. "The deportation from Paris and move to Baghdad remains an intriguing and crucial episode in the history of the Mojahedin’s exile. In examining both the accounts provided by the Islamic Republic’s media sources and the press organs of the Mojahedin, it seems clear that the Khomeyni regime intended the Mojahedin to be exiled to an obscure and distant country which would weak their contacts with allied oppositions and keep them out of the European limelight. Instead, Iraq hastened to court the Mojahedin prior to its ousting, and the Islamic Republic found the opposition moved to a location which allowed the Mojahedin to resume its border raids"
Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-270-9. "Rajavi and a number of other Mojahedin members left their headquarters in Auvers-sur-Oise, a small town near Paris, on June 7, 1986 and boarded a plane to Baghdad. In the interim other European countries had refused to grant political asylum to the organization. Left with no other choice, and because they wanted to keep the organization intact, they therefore left for Iraq. The Mojahedin's official argument for relocating to Baghdad was that there they would be much closer geographically to their enemy, the Iranian Islamic Republic."
Keddie, Nikki R. (2006). Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12105-6. "In 1986 the French government forced them to leave Paris, and their center henceforth became Baghdad, Iraq, with which they were, until the U.S. 2003 victory in Iraq, allied."
Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. “Finally, the Islamic Republic in June 1986 won another major victory in its campaign to isolate the Mojahedin. It persuaded the French government to close down the Mojahedin headquarters in Paris as a preliminary step towards improving Franco-Iranian relations... Unable to find refuge elsewhere in Europe, Rajavi put the best face possible on this defeat: he said that he was moving the Mojahedin headquarters to Iraq because they needed to be nearer to the armed struggle in Iran”

What could possibly be undue about any of this? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUE apples to content in the body. No one is contesting this content in the body. What is pertinent here is MOS:LEAD, which is about summarizing the content in the body. You seem to think lengthy, verbose and overly detailed sentences constitute summaries, when they do not. I'm not contesting WP:DUE. You are talking at cross purposes on a point irrelevant to the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The portrayal that's WP:DUE in the body is also WP:DUE in the lead. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
It's unclear which exact statement or phrase you think we desperately need here. The entire statement above is incredibly dull and uninformative. What do you think is important? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
"Dull and uninformative" is not a rational explanation for taking down all those sources, particularly since I've already detailed how your edit violates WP:DUE. The sources indicate that the Iranian government first requested the French government to expel the MEK from France, which prompted the MEK to establish a base in Iraq where it participated in several operations against the Iranian government, which resulted in the group losing popularity in Iran, while the MEK maintains that they had little choice in their efforts to overthrow the regime. This is the WP:DUE portrayal (both in the body and, by extension, in the lead), so, why are you refuting it? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
None of that justifies it being part of the first paragraph though. That is not why MEK is significant, and your sources don't indicate that either. MEK's status as being the largest opposition group in the 1980s and being deeply unpopular today, are far more important to grasping the significance of this topic.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
When I say it is uninformative, I mean that it tells the reader nothing. It basically says: "They were where they were, because they didn't have a choice." Two of the sources meanwhile say they didn't have a choice (in some form or another), one says they had nowhere to go in Europe, and three say they went to Iraq to be close and/or so that they could conduct cross-border raids. So it's a mishmash of different points, and almost all of it is too detailed for the lead, which already says they were forced to go to Iraq, which is plenty. It's the lead summary, not the MEK's life story. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
My rationale for including this in the lead is based on policy - WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:RSCONTEXT. Can either of you present any policy-based arguments? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You've already shown you can quote policy. What you haven't explained is why there should be the exact same amount of material on this in both the lead and the body. The lead is supposed to be an abridged summary, but all the body currently has on this is one line: "MEK representatives contend that their organization had little alternative to moving to Iraq considering its aim of toppling the Iranian clerical government." linked to one source. If you care about the due weight of this then you should begin there. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Sources have been further unveiled in the body. Can we now add this WP:DUE portrayal in the lead please? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
What tight summary paraphrasing of the material you have added would you suggest? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a summary of pivotal developments. -
"In 1986, France expelled the MEK from its base in Paris at Iran's request. It then relocated to Iraq, where it conducted several operations against the Iranian government. This led to it losing popularity in Iran, while the group argues this was their best option to overthrow the clerical regime."
If you disagree with this summary, please feel free to provide your own version that explains the MEK's expulsion from France and why it opted to relocate to Iraq, including the effect this had in terms of their popularity in Iran. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it communist?

I wanted to add a thing about communism but is it communist? AlienBlox2.0 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Corroboration

@VR: how do the citations back up this content, and how is it related to the terrorist designation? Please give specific citation excerpts, thanks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Other former officials who have accepted fees for speaking in support of the M.E.K. said on Monday that they and their agents had not received subpoenas. Some did not respond to inquiries. The fees have ranged from $15,000 to $30,000 for a brief speech, though some invitees have spoken free. Among former officials who have spoken for the M.E.K. at conferences are two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; President George W. Bush’s first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge; President Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; as well as prominent Republicans, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, and Democrats like Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont. The conferences, as well as newspaper and television advertisements, have been organized by advocacy groups in the United States, including the Iranian-American Community of Northern California. That group did not immediately return a request for comment, but Mr. Rendell said he had met numerous well-to-do Iranian Americans at the group’s events and believed that their donations covered the costs."
But I think this is being reported by Scott Shane, not Hersh.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@VR: Incorrectly citing Hersh is not the only issue with your edit. In your above-cited excerpt, you merged two paragraphs that appear separately in the source.
The paragraph that addresses the officials says the following: "Among former officials who have spoken for the M.E.K. at conferences are two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; President George W. Bush’s first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge; President Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; as well as prominent Republicans, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, and Democrats like Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont."
It says they have spoken for the MEK, but it doesn't mention they were specifically paid to do so. The previous paragraph even says, "some invitees have spoken for free."
You also haven't clarified how this ties into the terrorist designation section where you added it. Hogo-2020 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@VR: I see you're around, so can you please answer this? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It ties into the terrorist designation as evidence that the MEK used money to lobby away the terrorist desgination. This is the view of Richard Silverstein writing in The Guardian. He points out the following who took money to speak for the MEK: Ed Rendell, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Dershowitz, and former FBI director Louis Freeh. A later Guardian investigation further uncovered money that had been paid to US officials who lobbied against MEK's terrorist desgination. NBC News discusses "network of American politicians who have been paid by MEK, including Giuliani and Mukasey... includes former FBI Director Louis Freeh; former Democratic governors and presidential candidates Howard Dean and Bill Richardson; Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton; and former Obama national security adviser James L. Jones." Likewise, CS Monitor has an entire article on this and says "Many of these former high-ranking US officials – who represent the full political spectrum – have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK...Knowledgeable officials say the millions of dollars spent on the campaign have raised political pressure to remove the MEK from the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list to the highest levels since the group."
If anything, we should be expanding this content given the coverage given in WP:RS.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@VR: Now you're inaccurately presenting the NBC News source, which doesn't say that Louis Freeh, Howard Dean, and Bill Richardson were paid to speak on behalf of the MEK; it just mentions that they are part of "the MEK's roster of supporters." Furthermore, the statement you included in the article that James Woolsey and Porter Goss were paid to speak for the MEK is not supported by the source. This information is false, yet you're not recognizing that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're right, we need to be more careful with those who gave speeches for MEK, but its not known if they were paid, and those were known to be paid (or received some other form of compensation) for their speeches.
Paid officials: Governor Ed Rendell, John Bolton, Louis Freeh, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Bob Filner, Ted Poe, Mike Rogers, Dana Rohrabacher, Newt Gingrich Louis Freeh, Judge Michael Mukasey, General Hugh Shelton General James Conway, P. J. Crowley,.
VR (Please ping on reply) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) VR (Please ping on reply) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Why do you keep gaslighting the issue? You added false information to the article, and when I called it out, you doubled down with another source that also doesn't support the false information you added. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
How about we try to work collaboratively and find solutions, not problems. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Lets add to that list: James Woolsey, Robert Torricelli, Patrick Kennedy, Porter Goss, Evan Bayh, Gen. James Jones, Gen. Richard Myers. Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean,
In my original revert I added that 6 individuals were paid by MEK to speak. As the above sources show, all 6 of them were indeed paid (and many more were also paid), however, the citation I had in my edit was wrong.VR (Please ping on reply)
What's your reasoning behind using blogs and opinion pieces, while at the same time blocking the addition of multiple reliable books and newspapers to the page? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Its not only a politico that regards Howard Dean as paid lobbyist of MEK: also Guardian and Salon.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The Guardian article you are now citing is also an opinion piece (and salon.com is described as a "tabloid-like" by its own founder and has no consensus as a reliable source here). Could you please respond to the question? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at RSN. Going forward, I encourage you to start such discussions too and ping me in them.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
It looks like you're avoiding my question. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus required

Hello Hogo-2020, this article is under WP:CRP, so kindly revert this revert. Seek consensus first.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not following. Consensus involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns, and my edit summary explains this content is repeated in the lead. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
You have not yet achieved consensus. Please self-revert until you do. You may self-revert and start an RfC, or request other WP:DR methods.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello VR, and happy 2025. Sorry but I'm still not following. What specifically gives you achieved consensus to repeat content in the lead that could qualify as a WP:RSCONTEXT violation? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Hogo-2020, I realized you were never formally alerted to IRP, so I've done that (although you've been makings edits in this contentious area for a while). I'll give you a reasonable time to familiarize yourself with policy. After that, if you don't self-revert, here's what I'll be posting at WP:AE:

The longstanding version of the article appears to have in the first paragraph the fact that the MEK is deeply unpopular in Iran. This was added to balance out discussion of MEK being the largest opposition group. This text appears to have been introduced into the first paragraph by Iskandar323 on July 27, 2023, and has remained in the article since then until it was removed by Hogo-2020 on November 19, 2024. I opposed this on the talk page and reverted them on December 26, 2024. But they reverted their change back in on December 27, 2024.

This has been discussed at the talk page previously, this RfC. In each of the discussions nearly everyone favoring Hogo-2020's version is blocked for sockpuppetry. Given this content has been in the opening paragraph for more than a year without being challenged, Hogo-2020 should seek consensus before removing it.

VR (Please ping on reply) 02:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would add that this uncontroversial is information, and it should be at the top of the lead to balance the aggrandising pronouncements about the group's role as an opposition movement. The statement is well sourced and almost every scholarly RS on the MEK will note something to this effect about the group's reputation within Iran. It is therefore vital information (as has been discussed in numerous past discussions) and should be in the first paragraph of the lead, which is a microcosm of the subject and the rest of the lead, per MOS:INTRO. A small amount of duplication is not an inherent flaw. However, if one were to choose, the mention of unpopularity in Iran up top is more vital than an expansion of this below, so if avoiding duplication was the motive here, the solution was the wrong one, since it makes the intro more POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the lead is overlength, and the mention of this is needed in the first paragraph to maintain NPOV, I've simply restored the short mention in the first paragraph and removed the lengthier (and probably unduly lengthy) exposition further down in the lead, which reading back over it was hogging considerable space in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello VR, that's a complete mischaraterization of what has occurred here. For one, I didn't remove the content, I actually added sources to what was already in the lead, and put everything in the same paragraph. Iskandar323 has now taken down all of those sources. That just seems wrong. Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The lead is not a repository for sources. The lead does not even need sources, except where the information is liable to be contested. The only issue raised was duplication, which I left resolved while also resolving the issues since raised with your solution. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The sources are there to determine WP:DUEWEIGHT. One of the issues with your edit is that it violates this policy. Please respond in the appropriate discussion. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Restoration of undue material in lead

@Hogo-2020: In reference to restoration, you have restored two pieces of pretty clearly undue material. For starters, it would only be due to cite an individual scholar for a statement in the lead if there were multiple other secondary sources quoting that source for the same statement. The scholar's own work hardly establishes this in the context of this kind of brief lead summary. Secondly, the sentence itself is broken and/or nonsensical. "While in Iraq, the MEK is accused of participating in the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq., while Ervand Abrahamian notes that one the reasons the MEK opposed the clerical regime was due to its violations of minority rights, particularly the Kurds." – the second part of this statement does not relate to the first. It's a complete non sequitur. It's also an ironic pairing, since the MEK, in its suspected involvement in suppressing the uprisings, would have actively fought against the Kurds in Iraq. However, I am of two minds about even mentioning the uprisings in the lead, since the MEK participation is only weakly substantiated, so that statement could possibly be removed in any case. As for restoring "including two teenage girls", this is a highly over-detailed inclusion in a lead summary, and I don't know how you can think otherwise. Only one of the three sources cited for the overall statement even mention this at all, and frankly even the mention of the specific numbers of deaths and executions may be undue for this specific event. This is not a lead about the event, after all, but about the MEK. This is too granular, and if you think otherwise, maybe you can start by providing three reliable sources that specifically go into this level of detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The material is not undue, and it seems this was not limited to just "two" teenagers. -
Citation Quote
O’hern, Steven (2012). Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps. Potomac Books. p. 32. "The warden of the infamous Evin Prison where the mullahs now held prisoners announced the firing squad executions of twenty-three demonstrators, including several teenage girls."
Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. ‎ I.B. Tauris. p. 67-68, 206-207,219. "The regime acted swiftly to clear the streets and to show that it would not crumble like the Shah. The pasdars, helped by the chomaqdaran, fired intentionally into the crowds, killing fifty and injuring over 200. Rafsandjani, the speaker of the Majles, demanded that rioters should be treated as 'enemies of God'. Ayatollah Khalkhali, the roving executioner, announced that the courts had the sacred duty to shoot at least fifty troublemakers per day. The Chief Prosecutor declared that in such an extraordinary situation the pasdars could dispense with the niceties of trials and execute rioters on the spot. That evening, the warden of Evin Prison proclaimed the execution of twenty-three demonstrators - among them two teenage girls."
Mohaddessin, Mohammad (2004). Enemies of the Ayatollahs: The Iranian Opposition's War on Islamic Fundamentalism. Zed Books. p. 59. "Firing squads had executed twenty-three demonstrators, including a number of teenage girls. The reign of terror had begun."
Nasiri, Shahin; Faghfouri Azar, Leila (28 July 2022). "Investigating the 1981 Massacre in Iran: On the Law-Constituting Force of Violence". Journal of Genocide Research. 26 (2): 164–187. doi:10.1080/14623528.2022.2105027. S2CID 251185903. "It is worth considering that Islamic Revolutionary Courts made no distinction in terms of age, gender, or political affiliation. For a Sharia judge, it did not matter whether political suspects were men or women, socialists or liberals, active members of a political organization, or underage sympathizers. Based on official press releases and collected material, more than 370 of those killed were women. In Tehran, thirty-eight per cent of identified female dissidents were teenagers, most of whom were high school students. It has been reported that pregnant prisoners were subjected to physical torture and that some were executed while heavily pregnant."
Nasiri, Shahin; Faghfouri Azar, Leila (28 July 2022). "Investigating the 1981 Massacre in Iran: On the Law-Constituting Force of Violence". Journal of Genocide Research. 26 (2): 164–187. doi:10.1080/14623528.2022.2105027. S2CID 251185903. "However, Sharia judges offered, in retrospect, justificatory grounds for juvenile executions for both political and non-political charges. To this end, they invoked Khomeini’s orthodox doctrine that the age of maturity under Islamic Sharia is not in conformity with the internationally accepted norms concerning the definition of criminal liability. On Khomeini’s interpretation, Islamic sources prescribe girls and boys reach the stage of maturity at the age of nine and fifteen (lunar years) respectively. Although some Islamic scholars­­–most notably Montazeri (Khomeini’s deputy in 1981­)–disputed the adequacy of this interpretation, this doctrine served as a criterion for redefining the notion of criminal liability in the Islamic Penal Code that was ratified in the aftermath of the 1981 massacre. Accordingly, the 1981 massacre played a vital role in the legal normalization of juvenile executions. The execution of juveniles on charges of moharebeh and ifsad-fi-alarz showcases the Islamification of the criminal system concerning the minimum age of criminal liability."
Joseph, Suad (2004). Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law and Politics. ‎ Brill Academic Pub. p. 566. "Between 1981 and 1985 the Islamic Revolutionary Committees caused the high-security prisons of Iwain, Quizil Hisar, and Guhar Dasht in Tehran and other prisons to be overcrowded with many thousands of female political prisoners, from 10 to over 70 years old, among them members and sympathizers of oppositional groups or mothers helping their children. Closely watched by repenters (tawabin) and female wardens, they were at the mercy of male guards who tortured, raped, martired, or executed them. Sixty died under torture and over 1,500 were executed: 47 were pregnant, 187 were under eighteen, 22 were thirteen to fifteen-years-old, 9 were under thirteen, 2 were over seventy, and the youngest was ten."
von Schewerin, Ulrich (2015). The Dissident Mullah: Ayatollah Montazeri and the Struggle for Reform in Revolutionary Iran (International Library of Iranian Studies). ‎ I.B. Tauris. p. 77-78. "In a letter to Khomeini of 27 September 1981, he addressed the situation in the courts and prisons which witnesses described as highly alarming: Irregular executions, sometimes without the prior order or knowledge of a shari’a judge and sometimes against his will, are frequent. The lack of cooperation between the courts and the executioners, the influence of emotions and anger on the executioners, and the execution of thirteen or fourteen-year-old girls, who have neither held any weapon or taken part in any protest but have just made some critical remark, are alarming and brutal"
Danesh, Armin (2022). Political Refugees: A New Perspective. ‎ Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 28. "Once the absolute repression and mass executions began, the armed movement was born, and a new chapter opened in the history of the women’s struggle in Iran. Following the 20 June 1981 massacre of demonstrators in Tehran, the state-run dailies published photographs of young girls who had been executed the previous evening, without their identities even having been established. The parents were asked to identify their children. This intolerable provocation forced women to choose between resistance and obedience."
Sepehr, Zabir (2011). The Left in Contemporary Iran (RLE Iran D): Ideology, Organisation and the Soviet Connection 1st Edition. ‎ Routledge. p. 99. "It was in the course of this horror that about 20 young girls protecting their fellow Mojahedin marchers were arrested and promptly executed"
"The Bloody Red Summer of 1988". PBS. "On June 21, 1981, the Majles (parliament) impeached Banisadr; he was fired. By that point, he had already fled and gone into hiding in western Iran. The IRGC executed several of his close aids, including Hossein Navab, Rashid Sadrolhefazi, and Manouchehr Massoudi, an attorney. Their mouthpiece, Enghelab-e Eslami was also shut down. Dozens of others were also executed on June 21 and 22, including at least 12 young girls whose identities were not even known to the judiciary. Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Gilani, the prosecutor of the revolutionary court, declared that he did not care about the identities of the young people whose execution he was ordering"
"The Bloody Red Summer of 1988". PBS. "In retaliation, the government would arrest and kill MKO members and supporters, showing no mercy, not even on the very young, and in some instances children. The youngest victim that the author is aware of was a girl named Fatemeh Mesbah, who was said to be 12 when killed. Ayatollah Mohammadi Gilani even ordered the execution of two of his own children."
Regarding the statement that mentions "While in Iraq, the MEK is accused of participating in the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq., while Ervand Abrahamian notes that one the reasons the MEK opposed the clerical regime was due to its violations of minority rights, particularly the Kurds." – The first part of the sentence describes the accusation that the MEK was involved in suppressing the Kurds in Iraq, while the second part presents a contrasting account, claiming that the MEK fought against the clerical regime in support of the Kurds. It's quite clear-cut. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
First, the 1991 uprisings did not only involve the Kurds, and you cannot expect a reader to know that without explanation in any case. Secondly, the notion that the MEK supported minority rights in Iran in no way counters, balances or even relates to what they may or may not have done to minorities in Iraq – at least not unless a source says it does. On the matter of the teenage girls, all you have proven here is that the sources come to no agreement on the numbers on this, so it's doubly inappropriate to present this assertion in Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the executions of teenage girls, it is evident that this is in line with WP:DUE. If your concern now is the exact number, that can be easily corrected. Regarding the 1991 Uprisings, the following step would be to further review sources and evaluate what is due in this case. I will begin an analysis, as I have done concerning the executions of teenage girls. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Made a quick review of the sources in the article, and removed "while Ervand Abrahamian notes that one the reasons the MEK opposed the clerical regime was due to its violations of minority rights, particularly the Kurds.". Hogo-2020 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. ^ "MEK decision: multimillion-dollar campaign led to removal from terror list".
  2. ^ "Iranian group's big-money push to get off US terrorist list".
  3. ^ "Giuliani was paid advocate for shady Iranian dissident group". Washington Post.
  4. "Dean calls on U.S. to protect Iranian group".
Categories:
Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran: Difference between revisions Add topic