Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 55

Atrocious lead
Was this lead written by John Bolton? Literally nothing about it being wildly unpopular in Iran, about it being undemocratic, about it carrying out terrorist attacks, about it being supported by several of Iran's enemies etc. What gives? I don't know why Wikipedia's quality goes down so much when it comes to these articles closely tied to US foreign policy. This doesn't reflect RS at all. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with this page. Consensus required rule entails that they can revert your good changes in this article but you cannot restore the changes without consensus. And no admin is watching this page to decide on what content should be added and what content should be deleted from the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed.


 * I have placed tags on one sentence in the lead. None of the sources say that the MEK "is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group". Notice given the sentence says "is", the source must be able to reasonably make this status about MEK's as of 2022. This means the source would ideally be from the past 5 years or so; a source from 1989 can't possibly be used to say MEK is popular in 2022. If reliable sources for this statement aren't provided, I will go ahead and remove that sentence because this is a violation of our WP:CORE policies.VR talk 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lack of any mention of its bombing or other terror campaigns is a fairly serious omission - very wide of the mark in terms of due weight and badly wide of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources in the lead support "Iran's most active opposition group" (Katzman 2001, p. 97), "And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations. As the main foe of the Islamic Republic..." (Abrahamian 1989, p. 1.), "The MEK, which has been in exile for years, is Iran's most organized and only opposition group." (Financial Times, 2018). These sources span from 1989 to 2018. I don't see a problem with these sources, but I have seen other sources for this content.


 * the main democratic Iranian opposition movement, the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK)


 * Iran's main opposition group, the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran


 * Iran’s main opposition group Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Financial Times spin is quite different: it says "the only" opposition group, which would make it the largest, most active, most organized, etc. group by default - all of these statements follow on from it being the only one. However, if that is the case, the pertinent fact to mention would not be comparisons to nothing (in a vacuum), but that it is the "only one". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Financial Times article also says "Analysts say it [MEK] has little support inside Iran today...Often described by Iranian and western political observers as a cult, the MEK has an ideology that is a mix of revolutionary Shia Islam, Marxism and nationalism...But even Iran hawks in Washington who favour regime change tend to dismiss the MEK’s influence in Iran. “The Iranian people hate the MEK so the notion that they are somehow going to be part of the future of Iran is laughable, completely,”..." So I would say to use FT source would be an example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. The "CNN source" is actually an editorial and it actually says at the very top that the author received money from the groups that wanted the MEK delisted (see WP:EDITORIAL and WP:INDEPENDENT). So we are left with just the Telegraph source that calls mentions MEK as main opposition group in passing, gives no explanation for this and was published in 2008 prior to both the Iranian Green Movement and the Mahasa Amini protests which may very well have a more legitimate claim to being Iran's largest opposition movement.VR talk 12:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the whole, none of these sources are particularly detailed on the subject or adequately qualify what it considered an "opposition group" in an Iranian context (indeed, are we counting the Green Movement and the like?), making the claims about relative size unqualified at best. This 2018 Guardian article makes no such claims, instead referring to it as "a tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania", "not democratic", and backed by UK and US politicians only as "the easiest way to irritate Tehran" - all of which seems much closer to the mark. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There are also recent sources (as well as older sources) supporting this statement

I will add these sources to the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group."
 * "Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Iran's major armed opposition group"
 * "the main opposition organization in Iran, the PMOI (known also as Mujahideen Khalq)"


 * Again, how many of these statements relate to the present? These snippets do not include the time periods that they pertain to. The second sentence "major armed opposition group...", for instance, continues with "...based in Iraq" and pertains to the pre-2003 situation. Yes, the MEK was a major armed opposition group in the 80s and to a lesser extent in the 90s (in exile in Iraq), but these time periods and phases need clarifying, not glossing over with cherrypicked quotations to imply that the MEK is the same force today that it was pre-revolution and in the 1980s. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On National Council of Resistance of Iran, we also have rival claims that the NCRI is the "largest political opposition group", sourced to the Guardian in 2018. There are also various major Kurdish opposition groups (outside of the NCRI) that are actually in Iran and which have come to the fore in the recent unrest, including Komala, and others . Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 7 sources in the lead relating to the present and to the past. I don't think that is the problem in the lead, but I do think should be shorter. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second. If we have conflicting sources, then per WP:CONFLICTING, we should prefer the most up-to-date reliable sources and, if a conflict still exists, provide all viewpoints. I think this is one of the lesser problems of the article but the fact that there are sources expressly saying that its size is exaggerated makes calling it the biggest opposition group in the lead (with the other view not expressed) undue. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that the MEK was the Iranian regime's main opposition group until around the 2003 period, but there are different views about if they still are? The sources added to the lead are recent and reliable but perhaps we should be looking at all academic sources from around 2003 onwards and determine what is the most prominent account since then. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there are plenty of sources, including Abrahamian, that state that MEK is being quite unpopular in Iran since its alliance with Saddam, and that happened in the 1980s. Before that, I'd agree that MEK was a fairly popular group.VR talk 21:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * VR, you asked for recent sources, and that’s what you got, yet you’re still adding that the information is "verification failed". If you prefer that we revert the article to its original form I won’t object but there are enough sources saying the MEK is the regime’s "main", "most active", and "largest" opposition, both recent and less recent (including Katzman and Abrahamian, so stop adding "verification failed" to those sources). Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I replaced the old sentence with It was described by some sources as Iran's largest and most active political opposition group,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] while others say that this "once-prominent dissident group" nowadays is only "highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded".[41] Ghazaalch (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources show that what we first had in the article was more WP:DUE. For this reason, I’m restoring the article’s original version with some of the new sources. I would also support "main opposition" per the sources. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, here are some quotations from the sources that you say support the claim "It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group."[10][33][34][35][36][37][38]:


 * "And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations."
 * "The MEK, which has been in exile for years, is Iran’s most organised and only armed opposition group."
 * "Casaca was the chairman of the European Parliament delegation to NATO and a leading activist on behalf of democracy in Iraq and the region. According to his findings, the main opposition organization in Iran, the PMOI (known also as Mujahideen Khalq)…"
 * Could you provide the related quotations for the rest of the sources too, namely [10][35][37][38]? Please quote the whole paragraph around the words that you say support the claim. In the source [37] for example you quoted only the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group. I want you to quote the sentences around the words too.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any designation of the group from the 1980s/90s is obviously heavily dated at this point. The qualifier of "most/highly organised" seems like the phrase with the most continuity from past through present in reliable sources, and seems to be the least objectionable. However, I would note that the FT, which uses this terminology contains at least one major error - that is it is definitively NOT the "only" armed opposition groups, as evidenced by the presence of Kurdish armed groups . Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are enough sources, past and present, that support "main Iranian opposition", isn’t it? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are also enough sources that say it is an armed opposition group or unpopular opposition group, or a terrorist group, why did you decide to put your favorite version in the lede?Ghazaalch (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, please provide the "enough sources", so far I'm seeing that the version with most sources is what was originally in the lead. Iskandar323, I don't agree with your change because not only "experts and Western diplomats" make this reference. The content "repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group" is just unscholarly, most of all for the lead. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As Ghazaalch notes, there are plenty of sources that say other things about the group or dispute its influence or relevance. The lead currently includes one POV and no other, which is not just a violation of NPOV but borderline propagandistic. If no solution is forthcoming on how to fairly reflect not just the one POV, but all of the valid perspectives on the PMOI's significance, the entirety of the disputed statement will simply need to be removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * VR, Iskandar323 and I provided enough sources that challenges the claim and it should be removed from the lede. If the claim that it was the main opposition group once could be stated in a present tense in the lead, then we should be able to say that it is a terrorist group too, because there are plenty of sources that said so in a present tense.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the sentence that Iskandar added last time the final version of what you want to add to the lead? This may be better solved by a RfC. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda and social media
Ghazaalch why did you revert "Propaganda and social media"to an older version? Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Iraniangal777; why did you changed "Propaganda and social media" to a newer version?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch please provide the diff that shows that I changed "Propaganda and social media" to a newer version. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch you're making a real mess out of the article. Alex-h had updated that section, and you reverted it without even explaining why, and now you're moving a lot of the content from that deleted article although the AfD consensus specifically closed as "Further, there is not a clear clear consensus that should be covered in the main article due to the latter's size, rendering that not a viable ATD". So please start by answering why you first reverted "Propaganda and social media" to an older version. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Previously we had an article on troll farm and we could add the information to that article, but now that it was deleted we could have a summarized version of the deleted article here. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alex-h had already summarized it, and you reverted it without explaining (like many of your other reverts). Instead of article shopping for dumping this somewhere, explain why did you reverted Alex-h's summary of this content in this article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Verification failed tag
this source attributes the kidnappint to "identified gunmen" (not the MEK), so why did you add a  to it? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merging hostage crisis content
I plan on moving the material mentioning the MEK's involvement in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis from the section "Schism (1971–1978)", where it does not belong, to "1979 post-revolution", where it does belong. There I will be merging it with existing material on the subject that largely fails verification. 'Merging' is a generous term, since the existing material in that section largely needs to be simply replaced. The statement beginning: "It has also been suggested..." incorrectly paraphrases a source that far from 'suggesting' anything, states the information in no uncertain terms. The following quote is meanwhile missing its all important first four words: The PMOI claims it... - which lends an entirely different meaning to that statement too. I hope that is clear for all. Let me know of any potential issues with this. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and merge them.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated the correctly located material about the hostage crisis with the fresh sourcing, which I've also moved down to the more relevant location. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The American embassy takeover (or hostage crisis) material is under RFC discussion, so I do not agree with this change per WP:RFC: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes
and

Both of you made recent changes to the article. I have been talking about these in my talk page with Iskandar323, but better to do it here.


 * "It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group." is under RFC discussion (WP:RFC: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring.")


 * The same about your modification of the American embassy takeover material, which concerns a RFC discussion (despite you trying to disassociate it from the discussion). It will be updated according to the resulting consensus.


 * Finally, adding tags to the top of the article, as well as "is an Iranian political-militant organization.", and "Its revolutionary interpretation of Islam contrasts with the conservative Islam of the traditional clergy as well as the populist version developed by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970s." is disruptive because the reliable sources in the article and talk page for this material haven't been surpassed.

Responding to Iskandar323’s message on my talk page, the American embassy takeover material is under RFC discussion.

These are my challenges to those edits. If you think that I have not discussed something let me know, otherwise I will just restore the article's original stable version. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fad Ariff: The American embassy material in the post-1979 section is explicitly not connected to the RFC, which merely asks whether a certain statement on the event in the 'Schism' section should or should not be included - what about this is unclear? An RFC about a single statement in a certain section of the page has no implications for material in other sections, regardless of how related the subject of that material is. You need to provide an actual proper explanation for reverting other editor's edits, not just claim that an edit summary based on an incorrect premise someone counts as a reason to revert. In addition, you seem to be intent on reverting material to versions that have failed verification - without proper explanation, this can only be construed as disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323: it is obvious that the RFC is about the American embassy material which is repeated in the article (despite you trying to disassociate it from the discussion). Since changing "content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring." (WP:RFC), I will revert these edits (on those grounds as well as what I wrote above). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Early years (1965–1971)
Why did you delete "In 1970 and 1971, MeK "assassinated five U.S. military technicians seconded to the Iranian military." from the section Early years (1965–1971)?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because repeating details without context is similar to the issues in your article MEK troll farm, which has been just deleted. NMasiha (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * where is the right context for such information?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The information about Americans killed in Iran in the 1970s is already in Schism (1971–1978). NMasiha (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the information is about 1970 and 1971 so it belongs to early years (1965-1971) not the schism section which is ranged from 1971-1978.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am restoring the information. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * NMasiha is right that this information is mentioned in "Schism (1971–1978)" already. Ghazaalch, if you think we should move all that information to a different section (and not just some cherrypicked lines), then that's a different conversation. I'm reverting your edits to the original stable version of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Need update tages
Fad Ariff why did you delete the tags from the article?Ghazaalch (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I already pinged you with a reply some days ago. If you think something in the article needs to be "updated", then make a proposal for it and if there is consensus to change content then it will be changed.
 * You added tags to:
 * is an Iranian political-militant organization.
 * Its revolutionary interpretation of Islam contrasts with the conservative Islam of the traditional clergy as well as the populist version developed by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970s.
 * The group has been described as Iran's main political opposition group.
 * It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.
 * What do you think this should be updated to? About the last one for example, there is an open RFC (that you initiated!), so the consensus will decide if that needs to be updated and if so, to what. I think it's disruptive to just add tags when the reliable sources in the article and talk page for this material haven't been surpassed. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Fatwa banning the MEK from government elections
The information "After the 1979 Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, Khomeini published a fatwa banning the MEK from government elections." was reverted from the article without a clear explanation.

What is in the article at this time is "and its candidate for the head of the newly founded council of experts was Massoud Rajavi in the election of August 1979. However, he lost the election." which is a misrepresentation since there was a fatwa banning the MEK from elections. Let me know of any potential issues with merging this with the information about the fatwa.Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * ,, , , I'm going to change "However, he lost the election." to Ayatollah Khomeini published a fatwa banning MEK representatives from elections in the new government. since being banned is different from "losing". Do any of you see a potential issue with this change? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the the sources that state exactly when certain MEK members were banned from running for this particular office and attribute this particular electoral loss to an earlier ban? It seems odd that it would have been originally phrased as 'losing the election' if they were never able to run in the first place, which is quite a different concept. This source states that the Khomeini fatwa only banned Rajavi and other individuals from running for the presidency, which is quite a different thing altogether and one that would not effect 'council of experts' elections. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, then let's add the source you found, namely that Khomeini’s fatwa banned Rajavi and other individuals from running for the presidency. Do any of you see any other potential issue with this? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to add the source. The material is already in the article.
 * As a result of the boycott, Khomeini subsequently refused to allow Massoud Rajavi and MEK members to run in the 1980 Iranian presidential election,[132][133]

Ghazaalch (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and it still doesn't mention the fatwa.  Do any of you see any other potential issue with mentioning the fatwa? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but you need to get the details correct. Your original proposal here involved incorrectly blaming an electoral loss on an unrelated directive. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the article was incorrectly saying "election of August 1979", which I fixed, but no need to acknowledge that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .  I'm just glad you and Ghazaalch are starting to assimilate things so that we don't need to open a RFC for every obvious thing. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Atrocious lead2
Was this lead written by John Bolton? Literally nothing about it being wildly unpopular in Iran, about it being undemocratic, about it carrying out terrorist attacks, about it being supported by several of Iran's enemies etc. What gives? I don't know why Wikipedia's quality goes down so much when it comes to these articles closely tied to US foreign policy. This doesn't reflect RS at all. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am reviving above section started by Prinsgezinde's comment in order to discuss issues other than the one discussed above.

First sentence in the lede
The first sentence in lede currently reads: I am going to change it to the following sentence which is up-to-date: Ghazaalch (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * …is an Iranian political-militant organization.

Sources confirming MeK's unpopularity

 * The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.
 * The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.
 * MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.

The sources that challenge the political nature of the MEK

 * "...to explain how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party."
 * "MEK’s metamorphosis from an opposition group to designated terrorist organization..."
 * "... is now little more than a Rajavi cult with little influence in Iran"
 * "From 1985, Rajavi transformed the PMOI from a mass movement into a cult with himself as its guru. Among the weird decrees, Rajavi has ordered many married members to stop conjugal relations, and others to get divorce."

Discussion

 * Ghazaalch, are you familiar with WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:POVPUSH, or WP:NPOV? Your proposal seems a violation of all of these policies. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cherrypiking means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source. Can you present the "contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source" that challenge MEK being unpopular?
 * WP:POVPUSH is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Can you present the information that show this is a " minor or fringe ideas"?
 * WP:NPOV (policy): Neutral point of view, by selectively presenting one point of view from available reliable sources that actually support two or more points of view that may conflict with each other. Can you present the other "two or more points of views that may conflict" with what I presented? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See the List of sources supporting MEK as main or major (etc.) opposition group. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What it has to do with our discussion here? I would restore the reverted material if you don't give a reasonable reason for the deletion. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That trying to only render it as "little more than a Rajavi cult with little influence in Iran", when there are so many sources that render it in other ways, is a violation of WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:NPOV. Have you read the sections Cult of personality or Perception inside Iran? What are you trying to add that isn’t already there? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That trying to only render that MEK is the main political group when there are many sources that challenge it is a violation of WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:NPOV, and thus has no place in the lede. Concerning the Mek being unpopular, present the sources that challenge it, otherwise I would restore the materials.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already responded with sources. The lead already says that "Its critics have described the group as "resembling a cult"", and there is a section in the article about Cult of personality. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again your response has nothing to do with my proposal above which is …is an unpopular Iranian militant organization that lives in exile in Albania.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, are you going to give me a reasonable answer or I should restore the content?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, I already gave you a reasonable answer. Your proposal seems a violation of WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:NPOV that ignores many other sources in the academic literature. If you have a proposal for adding something new to Cult of personality or Perception inside Iran, then I'm all ears. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

MEK ideology in the lede
We currently have the following cherrypicked sentence for MEK ideology, from a book written in 1989: I am going to change it to the following which is more up-to-date and more comprehensive: Ghazaalch (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Its revolutionary interpretation of Islam contrasts with the conservative Islam of the traditional clergy as well as the populist version developed by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970s.
 * The regime's interpretation of Islam is very different from the MEK's interpretation of Islam. This sums up the arising conflict between them (explained in several sections of the article). The MEK is also not "secular", is Islamic. It was also not "anti-Iranian-revolution", but against the regime that took over after the revolution. Its ties with countries like Iraq and the US have also been in relation to bringing down the regime in Iran. This is all in the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion: instead of removing the upper sentence and also the last two sentences of the lead (Its critics have described___), the following text that provides a better description of the Mojahedin ideology, can be put in the lead. I mean:

Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objection to the proposal given by Ali Ahwazi? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with the proposal given by Ali Ahwazi is the same problem with the other proposals given by Ghazaalch. That is to say, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:NPOV that does not consider many other sources (in this talk page or in the article). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not enough to name some wiki policy. You should present the sources that challenge the given proposal. If not I would put it in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources that challenge what you and Ali Ahwazi are trying to add to the lead about ideology? Like what's already in the lead sourced to Ervand Abrahamian or the sources in sections such as "Ideology"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

1992 embassy attacks (WP:RFCBEFORE)
The material in the article about this says "In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10 Iranian embassies including the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York using different weapons, taking hostages, and injuring Iranian ambassadors and embassy employees. There were dozens of arrests."

There was talk discussion to change that to "In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10 Iranian embassies using different weapons, taking hostages, and injuring Iranian ambassadors and embassy employees. According to MEK representatives, the attacks were a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base where several people had been killed and wounded."

This change was rejected because "This article is already too long." Rejecting NPOV because of an 8 word increase can easily be fixed with a RFC. I'm opening a WP:RFCBEFORE discussion hoping the editors rejecting this will assimilate what's going on so that we don't have to waste the community's time with another obvious RFC.

,, , , Fad Ariff (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am fine with including a note on the MEK's motives, but I don't see why all of it can't be included in a single, even shorter sentence. I propose: "In April 1992, the MEK coordinated attacks on 10 Iranian embassies in which armed demonstrators looted the properties and took hostages in retaliation for Iran's bombing of an MEK military base in Iraq." - in accordance with the New York Times coverage. I think the reports of injuries on both sides are undue. There were no serious injuries from the embassy attacks, and that a bombing of a military base resulted in injuries (and one death) hardly bears mentioning - that is usually the point of bombing a military base. "Retaliation" is the phrasing of the Times in the context, and that seems like the NPOV language to use; I would avoid the MEK's spin of the attacks as mere "protest". Attacks on embassies are extremely serious incidents and should not be belittled. (Side note: The page number for the Encyclopedia source is wrong.) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of Isakandar's proposal except that we should add what Iran said concerning the bombing too. "Teheran, which says the rebels are backed by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, acknowledged the raid and said it was carried out in retaliation for an attack Saturday by Mujahedeen guerrillas on two villages in western Iran."
 * So this is my proposal:
 * "In April 1992, the MEK coordinated attacks on 10 Iranian embassies in which armed demonstrators looted the properties and took hostages in retaliation for Iran's bombing of an MEK military base in Iraq. Iran acknowledging the bombing, said it was carried out in retaliation for the attack of MEK guerrillas under Saddam's support on two villages in the west of Iran." Ghazaalch (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Considering what has been proposed already, this would be my proposal


 * In April 1992, the MEK demonstrators invaded 10 Iranian embassies with demonstrators looting property and taking hostages. The attacks were in protest of the bombing of a MEK military base where several people had been killed and wounded. The Iranian regime acknowledged the bombing while saying it had been carried out in retaliation for a MEK attack on two villages in western Iran.


 * Let me know of any potential issues, but omitting the MEK’s account is non-negotiable since that obviously has WP:WEIGHT and as such I'm certain that it would get consensus in a RFC. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * MeK's account in the given sources, is covered with only 57 words out of about 1000 words, but in the proposal of Fad Ariff, it covers one third of the text, which is undue. Fad Ariff's proposal also misrepresent the sources. This is my proposal which is more due:


 * In April 1992, MEK launched attacks against Iranian embassies in 10 or 13 countries using different weapons. MEK said the attacks was a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base in Iraq. Iran acknowledging the raid, said it was carried out in retaliation for an attack to two villages in the west of Iran by the Saddam backed MEK guerrillas. In February 2000, the MEK began its most serious operations with a series of terrorist attacks in Iran. Thess operations included mortar attacks and attacks against the Iranian army and police. Periodic attacks on Iranian targets continued till May 2003.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * where did my proposal "misrepresent the sources"? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you are answering to others, so if you have not answered here because my proposal did not actually "misrepresent the sources", then please strike that from your post. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You prefer the statement said by MEK to the facts given in the sources, and you present the statements as a fact in the article. Now do you have any objection to my proposal? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you added back in casualties/injuries on the MEK-side only - on top of that you phrase it as "several people had been killed and wounded", leaving it ambiguous as to the numbers killed vs injured. If deaths and injuries are to be included, it needs to be the same for all three statements: the hostage taking, the bombing and the assaults on the villages. In any case, I've already explained why this is unnecessary and undue information. That a military strike kills/injures enemy combatants is not especially noteworthy, or, here, due given that only a sentence is being devoted to it). This is dog bites man, not man bites dog stuff. It would be more remarkable if a bombing caused no casualties. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff's proposal aims to eliminate the MEK attack on the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. This attack is very meaningful and important and, it should remain in the text of the article -- as before. This proposal also gives undue weight to MEK's opinion, and violates WP:DUE. I agree with Iskandar323's opinion that mentions that the word "protest" should not be used for these violent and severe attacks. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering what has been commented already, this would be my new proposal:
 * In April 1992, MEK launched attacks against Iranian embassies in 10 or 13 countries including the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York, using different weapons, taking hostages, and injuring Iranian ambassadors and embassy employees. MEK said the attacks was a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base in Iraq. Iran acknowledging the raid, said it was carried out in retaliation for an attack to two villages in the west of Iran by the Saddam backed MEK guerrillas. In February 2000, the MEK began its most serious operations with a series of terrorist attacks in Iran. These operations included mortar attacks and attacks against the Iranian army and police. Periodic attacks on Iranian targets continued till May 2003.
 * , do you have any objection to this new proposal?Ghazaalch (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is the same problem that we always seem to get in this talk page, it fails WP:NPOV. I started this discussion because adding a MEK response was WP:DUE. Now you're finally assimilating that the MEK response is WP:DUE, but your compromise is to add it along with a bunch of WP:UNDUE material. Let's solve it by RFC. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC, 10 December 2022
Should the following sentences be added to the article?

In 2010, political prisoner Ali Saremi was executed by the Iranian regime for co-operating with the MEK. Saremi's torture and execution was covered in the press  and brought international attention to the Human rights situation in Iran. In 2011, Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaei and Jafar Kazemi were also executed by the Iranian government for co-operating with the MEK, despite Hillary Clinton urging Iranian authorities to release the two activists.

Yes or No? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey, 10 December 2022
Yes. This information was removed from the article as "UNDUE WEIGHT", but I can’t see how that makes any sense. These killings were covered by the international media and even have their own Wikipedia pages, which alone proves they are notable and WP:DUE. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, support. For the same reasons Fad Ariff is saying. There are many sources for this information, and it's also WP:DUE information. NMasiha (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC) This user has been globally banned from editing Wikimedia sites.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The information is important and undisputed. It gives basic details about something that has received international reporting and isn't mentioned in the article. The mindless stonewalling on this page has resulted in now needing RFCs for such simple edits. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. It seems due and well sourced. MarioGom (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No. WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing special about the three executed people. They were prisoners who, like others who were executed in 1988, had collaborated with the MEK. Occurring in a different year does not make the executions significant. There is already too much information of that kind in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No: But not for any reasons related to sourcing. The sourcing is fine. It is simply that this information is almost entirely insignificant to the principle subject here, which is the PMOI. The article is already overlength and this material is of only borderline relevance. This information would be more relevant in an article about Iranian political executions or some other article about bad shit done by the Iranian regime. Here the relevance is dubious. It is not established that any of these individuals were actually MEK members - just that they were related to MEK members and labelled guilty by association. Is this article to cover not just the MEK and not just prominent MEK members, and not even just any MEK members, but MEK family members and friends in its scope? Bear in mind that the MEK has been the Iranian regime's favourite boogeyman for many decades, and no doubt a great many executions have taken place over the years on similarly spurious grounds. If someone wants to document this, create a list. Here, where the subject is meant to be the PMOI itself, i.e.: the group, its history, structure, key members and activities, this is just veering wildly off-topic and introducing tangential information, i.e.: heading towards WP:COATRACK. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: If these executions were "insignificant" (like the editors supporting "No" are saying) then they wouldn't have their own articles or have all that coverage in sources. The whole reason why there are Wikipedia articles about them is because their co-operation with the PMOI (=MEK) is what led to their executions, so saying they are irrelevant to the PMOI is pretty senseless. Hogo-2020 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Proxy conflicts
why did you revert here if there aren't sources in the article saying there is a proxy conflict with Saudi Arabia or Israel? You're engaging in the same WP:OR behavior as a sock in the page Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. ParadaJulio (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * First off, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Secondly, read my edit summmary and check the page - there is ample information calling this group a proxy and highlighting instances of foreign support. Finally, you will need to obtain consensus both here and on the page of those portals before touching them, since the group is clearly included on both of the portals. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many countries or groups support other countries or groups, but that doesn't mean they are involved in a proxy conflict. Your claim that "there is ample information calling this group a proxy" is supported by zero sources. you have my consensus here and on the other page to remove that the MEK is a proxy for Israel and Saudi Arabia since the sources don't support that (thorny) assumption. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote, and that is also not a reason to remove relevant related portals. If you actually look at both those portals, which I suspect neither of you has actually done, you will see that this page is listed under "Related topics" - that is to say, the presence of a portal simply helps readers understand links and interrelationships with other articles; it is not a categorization. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Proxy war usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort.
 * Saudi Arabia's new policy is now based on engaging with Iran in a series of proxy wars to undermine and rollback Tehran’s regional power… Saudi Arabia’s aggressive new policy attempts to pose threats to Iran by activating several opposition groups, including the MEK as well as ethnic militant groups in Iran’s Kurdistan and…
 * Between 2007 and 2012, seven Iranian nuclear scientists were attacked with poison or magnetic bombs affixed to moving cars by passing motorcyclists; five were killed. In 2012, NBC news, citing two unnamed US officials, reported that the attacks were planned by Israel’s foreign intelligence agency and executed by MEK agents inside Iran.
 * According to a recent investigation by NBC News, the group's shadowy influence is buttressed by funding from Israeli and Arab intelligence agencies — funds that the MEK then spends to commission the support of Western officials and, as hinted by Giuliani, foment unrest in Iran. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source does not cite the MEK, the second source is a blog, the third source cites two unnamed officials saying Israel planned an attack that was supposedly carried by the MEK, and the fourth source is an opinion article. How are these sources any good for stating as fact that the MEK is a proxy of Saudi Arabia? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

United Nations Convention Against Torture verdict on MEK
As it stands, the policy of the United Nations Convention Against Torture towards MEK is the same. On Wikipedia, the position of UN, Amnesty or other relevant organization, is commonly included in the lead for contentious groups, or countries for that matter. It only makes sense to include their relevant stance on MEK in the lead. StarkReport (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That material is already included in the article - "The group is described as "involved in terrorist activities" by the United Nations Committee against Torture in 2008". Why do you want to repeat it in the lead? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should repeat information in the body of the article. It is a summary, after all. This kind of characterization by notable bodies is often included. So the proposal has some merit, and shouldn't be rejected just because "it is repeated". MarioGom (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1979 referendum in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)
The lede currently contains the following: I suggest removing Goulka's part and replacing it with Abrahamian's: Because Abrahamian is more consistent and specialized in this matter. In addition, Rajavi is not mentioned anywhere in the lead as the elected leader of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Is there anything wrong with this suggestion? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After the fall of Pahlavi, the MEK refused to take part in the March 1979 Iranian Islamic Republic referendum, which led to Khomeini preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office.
 * After the fall of Pahlavi, MEK boycotted the referendum that was held to approve the Constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts. After the approval of the constitution, MEK introduced Massoud Rajavi as their presidential candidate. Khomeini barred Rajavi from the elections, declaring that "those who had failed to endorse the Constitution could not be trusted to abide by that Constitution."


 * I agree. The word boycott is more common.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Abrahamian is a vastly superior source. However, I would not include that quote at the end in the running copy, where it would be a bit undue in the lead, but as a note. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In accordance to Iskandar's comment, I modified it:
 * After the fall of Pahlavi, MEK boycotted the referendum that was held to approve the Constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts. After the approval of the constitution, MEK introduced Massoud Rajavi as their presidential candidate. Khomeini barred Rajavi from the elections declaring that he cannot be trusted to abide by the Constitution.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Better, but it would still be good if it could be shortened to something closer to the original text, so as not to further expand the lead. I would suggest something like: "After the fall of Pahlavi, MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. Subsequently, when MEK introduced Massoud Rajavi as their candidate for the 1980 Iranian presidential election, Khomeini barred Rajavi from running, citing the earlier boycott as the reason." Note that "December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum" is a link that it would be better to keep intact - it is also important to note that it is the December referendum, since there was also the March 1979 Iranian Islamic Republic referendum. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To make it even shorter, I changed Iskandar's proposal a little:


 * "After the fall of Pahlavi, MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. Consequently, when MEK introduced Massoud Rajavi as their candidate for the 1980 Iranian presidential election, Khomeini barred Rajavi from running."Ghazaalch (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, that works too. Handy use of a 'consequently'. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The original text seems more clear. Why does it need to be changed? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well for a start, the original text says March, so clearly it has not been fact-checked very carefully. Second, Abrahamian is better than the RAND report for obvious reasons. Third, the context is better. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I put it in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, please wait until for pending questions before putting it in the article. Iskandar323, I understand that the source needed to be updated (and I left that in the article). I don't understand why "the MEK refused to take part in the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum, which led to Khomeini preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office." needs to be changed to "MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. Consequently, when MEK introduced Massoud Rajavi as their candidate for the 1980 Iranian presidential election, Khomeini barred Rajavi from running."? The original text seems better written. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three other people in this discussion, and we all prefer the more precise language of "boycott" used by Abrahamian. Sometimes you just have to accept consensus and agree to disagree, and move onto the next point. Restating you contrary preference over and over isn't discussion. Aside from the March part, the rest of the original text is actually WP:SYNTH, since no source says that 'other MEK members were prevented from running for office' as a result of the boycott. The RAND report mentions other individuals, but not in the context of the boycott. However, on page 82, it does corroborate Rajavi's block following the boycott. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, in this edit (not sure you combined this with adding content from a completely separate discussion), you restored the text from the RAND report, but without switching the sources back, rendering that particular statement unsourced in addition to the WP:SYNTH issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Head count is not a consensus. Try instead answering the concern. Abrahamian also says "Boycotting the referendum, the Mojahedin argued that the new Constitution had failed to set up proper councils, nationalize foreign holdings, guarantee equal treatment to all nationalities, give 'land to the tiller', place a ceiling on agricultural holdings and, most important of all, accept the concept of the classless tawhidi society." We can debate about adding some of that to the lead, but I'm also of the view that some of the word exchange is not an improvement to the lead. Didn’t Khomeini ban all MEK members from participating in any political position? The longstanding version describes that better. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iraniangal777: You've just restored material identified as WP:SYNTH, as clearly explained here, to the article. Restoring such errors is a policy violation. Please self-revert or, if you have sources that demonstrate that this is not WP:OR, present them. No source currently presented directly links the boycott to a ban of any MEK members other than Rajavi from politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323, this is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. We even already confirmed that there was a Fatwa banning the MEK from government elections. This can easily be fixed by restoring the source that Ghazaalch removed from the lead (which is reliable and doesn't contradict with Abrahamian). Easy fix ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We actually seem to have confirmed very little about that fatwa. Do you even have a source explaining what it ruled on or stating the date when it was issued? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * linking the first part (Abrahamian's) to the second part (Goulka's) with the words "which led..." is WP:SYNTH. Because Goulka does not talk about the referendum at all. I omitted Goulka from the lede. If you restore it again, I'll have to start a RFC.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All you had to do was remove "which led...". Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, if all you want to do is keep "and other MEK members" in the sentence, then yeah. But if you actually want to improve the lead and usefully tie in the very key 1980 Iranian presidential election, it needs more effort. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch. It seems that (as Ghazaalch noted) the contested text should be solved by RFC.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)