Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 09:52, 17 January 2025

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime / Terrorism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Iran Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Organizations Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Socialism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This 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)

• Ronen Cohen's The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq has 24 citations according to Google scholar (also missing in that section). Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cohen is indeed a good source! From what I see, Cohen says 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).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• This removal is inappropriate. Seymour Hersh is an award winning investigative journalist.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:42, 26 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.

• Third, by your own admission, Abrahamian's dedicated book is a better author for this content (most cited author on the MEK with 259 citations on Google scholar, while Katzman has only 1 citation).

• 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. -

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".

• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• B-Class Organized crime articles
• Low-importance Organized crime articles
• Organized crime task force articles
• B-Class Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Iran articles
• Low-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• B-Class political party articles
• Low-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Low-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions