Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 62

Summarizing the article
I am trying to summarize the article but need your help. I have started with the first sub-section, "Early years (1965–1971)", which I think could include some of the information of the next subsection "Schism (1971–1978)", except that we should change the titles to something like "Early years (1965–1975)" and "Schism (1975–1978". What do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the period of the Marxist schism is well differentiated. Keeping them separate probably makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agree. I did not merged the sections. Just summarized.Ghazaalch (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In what manner? Doesn't the Schism component start with By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle"? The internal ideological struggle is part of the Schism. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair. The title could be changed from 1971 to 1973. My point is that it's a series of events that mark an important period of the MEK history and there's enough content for a subsection. Do you think it should be merged? MarioGom (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why was "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killings of Americans, and later was executed" taken out of the article? Alex-h (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't do that change, so I don't know. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * a substantial amount of vital information was removed by you, for example "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killings of Americans, and later was executed. Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK. Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK. In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assassinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued in April 2006 stated: "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". " Please explain your changes. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tho whole purpose of Vahid Afrakhteh's confess is to say that not all the assassination is carried out by Islamist branch of MEK, which is diffyed by other sayings from other sources. That is why I summarized it to These assassinations were carried out either by the Marxist[116][117][118][119] or Islamist branch of the MEK.[106][107][112]. What is wrong with it? why you reverted it? Ghazaalch (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the main topic? Vahid Afarakhte, who is considered a member of Peykar rather than a member of MEK or assassination of U.S. military personnel and civilians working in Iran? It is important that, according to some sources, the assassination of Americans was carried out by MEK. Now, those who are accused other than MEK, have no place in this article.GharaDash (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * are you going to self revert, or I should do that? Ghazaalch (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your summar' fails to mention that there were people who confessed and were executed for the killings. ParadaJulio (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Note about coordinated editing and socking
Some watchers will have a pleasant, or unpleasant, time looking at Sockpuppet investigations/Stefka Bulgaria. I've laid out a detail of strategies used by Pro-MEK accounts across Wikipedia, also on this very discussion page. But just because that side has faced harsh sanctions, it does not give "the other sides" license to whitewash in the other direction and push their POV. Regardless of what side editors here fall on, there has been far too much coordinated editing, socking, disruptive editing, and nonsense in this area for far too long. If there is a whiff of further coordinated editing, socking, disruptive editing, and nonsense-- especially if it falls under what I outline at that SPI-- there will be harsher sanctions and topic bans. Regardless of what "side" you are on. Thanks! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Moneytrees: Well thanks for clearing house! This is hands down the single most frustrating/exhausting page to try to whip into reasonable, NPOV shape because of all the disruption - NPOV being the "side", rather than any other "sides", that I would hope that all editors involved in working on the page would aspire to be on. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Workshop for RFC on claim about MEK being largest/main opposition
''Note: This is NOT an RFC. It is a preparation workshop. No !voting needed here.''

RFC, 15 December 2022 was a RFC proposing some wording changes in the lede about how sources describe MEK size or support (largest/main opposition, largest armed group, fringe group, etc). I would like to create a new RFC on this topic that better captures the possible options. My current draft looks as follows


 * The lede currently states It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group., and it recently stated It is Iran's largest and most active armed dissident group.. What should be done with this statement?


 * Option A (current): Keep the current text: largest and most active political opposition group
 * Option B (previous): Keep the previous text: largest and most active armed dissident group
 * Option C (remove): Remove this claim from the lede.

Do you think these options are appropriate? Is there any other option you would like to see listed in the RFC?

As supporting material, I also prepared a list of independent, secondary sources that are related to the topic, sorted chronologically and including relevant quotes.


 * (TBD: quote not verified)
 * Cited by:
 * (TBD: quote not verified)
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:
 * Cited by:

Do you think these sources are comprehensive? Is there any other that should be included? Is there any that should be removed (e.g. clearly not reliable)? Are the quotes relevant enough?

I have also a draft for a summary table:

Is the summary fair?

Any feedback about the RFC question, the source list, or the summary table will be very appreciated. Since this might be a controversial RFC, and these tend to descend into chaos, I would like to start with a common ground where orderly discussion can happen. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * the experience from the previous RFCs tell us that when we have more than two options, the votes are divided between them and no consensus could be derived . In this RFC for example, pro-Mek votes would go to the option A. Anti-MEK votes would be divided between option B and C. So it is clear the again no consensus would aquire. But if we have a yes/no question (should the claim be removed? Yes or No?) It would be clear the current claim is contested by many sources and have no place in the lede. When it is removed, then we could start another RFC on adding a new text.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair. Reducing it to Yes/No might make sense, since they have been the fundamental positions defended before, and they might make parsing consensus easier. MarioGom (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've got a simpler solution since this discussion appears to be going around in circles due to the A) the group's altered existence over time, and B) the false sense of prominence recently given to the group by Trump et al. To have a balanced statement we need to simply include all of the relevant information past and present to provide an overall summary of the group's relative size, significance and popularity, and to this end, I have already balanced the old text on the page with some much needed past and present context:
 * The MEK was at one point Iran's "largest and most active armed dissident group", and some sources today still present it as a major political opposition group, though it is known to be unpopular within Iran.
 * This summarizes the group's past activity (a major militarized dissident group that aimed at the overthrow of the government through armed coup, later in league with Iraq), the claim presented in various media sources that it remains a significant opposition group + the subject-matter expert-backed statement that it is deeply unpopular in Iran. The behind-paywall Times and Telegraph sources for the middle statement are incidentally entirely needless for this and should be replaced with better options. There are plenty of open access sources for this sort of statement, including plenty of scholarly material options. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed text is a decent assessment. Most reliable sources that discuss MEK history in depth agree that, at its peak, the MEK was the largest guerrilla group and/or had significant support. Most of them also agree that their support rapidly declined with the main factor being their exile and alliance with Iraq. The phrase "the MEK, the main opposition of Iran" (when discussing the present) is mostly a MEK slogan, propagated primarily by the MEK itself, connected sources (e.g. paid lobbyists), and eventually caught up by some generalist press. Maybe your proposal could replace Option B. The reason I've been leaning towards deletion is that capturing the nuances about MEK's rise and fall is not trivial, and I would prefer the defer to the body of the article to discuss it in depth rather than having a bad summary. But if the text in the lede is something along the lines of your proposal, I think it would be a good outcome. MarioGom (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, I agree that your proposal is fair enough, but would they accept it? Could we reason with them and reach consensus? I believe No. If they revert you again, I think we should remove the claim via RFC and then add a fair replacement like yours, again via RFC. Our experience from previous RFCs shows that we cannot do it at once.Ghazaalch (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the main priority is that the options represent the choices that multiple editors will reasonably accept (not that everyone accepts the same). Also, RFCs are not strict !votes. So it is possible for someone to say something like "Prefer A, oppose C" or "Prefer C, oppose A". Hopefully the closer can parse the consensus appropriately after that. In my opinion, part of the chaos of the previous RFC can be prevented if we start with a shared list of sources, rather than bringing up new source lists in the middle of the discussion. It's ok that each of us post a different assessment of sources, but at least we should agree on which are the main we'll consider.
 * , : What are your thoughts on the RFC options and the sources? MarioGom (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll get to this as soon as I can, but thanks for the ping! ParadaJulio (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We all apparently agree that the MEK was the Islamic Republic's main rival during the 1980s. Even after the Iran-Iraq War Abrahamian was still referring to the MEK "as the main foe of the Islamic Republic". Posing a question to those who argue that this is no longer true: When did the MEK cease to be the main foe of the Islamic Republic, and according to which source? Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Very simple. When they got the beat down during the 2003 Iraq invasion and their main fighting force was disarmed and imprisoned for six years, at which point the organization as a whole went a bit loony. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A few of the listed sources describe a decline in support and size. Kazemzadeh (2002) mentions 1985 as a tipping point, Cohen (2009) mentions 1981 to "mid 1980s" as the decline, Cordesman (2003) is less specific, but mentions 2003 as another point of decline, Dehghan (2014), Torbati (2017) and quite a few others mention the alliance with Saddam Hussein as the primary factor of declining support which, while it's not an explicitly stated year, represents a well-known historical period, etc. Different sources might have different weight. But the point of this thread is preparing a common ground for discussion: 1) do you think the options discussed so far would be appropriate for an RFC? and 2) if there is an RFC, do you think the above list of sources includes every source that should be assessed during an RFC? Best, MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also sitting there on the page in sentences such as "In the operation, the U.S. reportedly captured 6,000 MEK soldiers and over 2,000 pieces of military equipment, including 19 British-made Chieftain tanks. By most accounts, that was essentially the MEK's entire fighting force. Everything after that was clandestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Kazemzadeh (2002) doesn't mention a "tipping point" in relation to the MEK being the the Islamic Republic's main foe/rival/opposition, he critiques Rajavi for (according to him) transforming/reducing the MEK into a cult. Torbati (2017) gives brief comment about supporters and analysts. Dehghan (The Guardian) mentions that the MEK lost popularity in Iran because of its support for Saddam Hussein, and Cordesman (2014) also mentions something similar, but the MEK's cult of personality or its alleged popularity as a banned organization in Iran does not determine whether or not the MEK ceased to be the Islamic Republic's main foe/rival/opposition after the Iran-Iraq war. For instance, you cite Cohen (2009) mentioning that the MEK had lost its social hold in Iran, but then you take out of the article "that this is hard to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran" (you only needed to Google the quote to see that it was written by Cohen). Or consider James Cimment (2011) full quote that "The strength of the movement inside Iran is uncertain: hundreds of MEK supporters have been executed and many more tortured and jailed." Or consider the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners when many were executed just for pledging support for the MEK, all things to consider when assessing MEK support inside Iran, but we're instead assessing if the MEK is still being considered the Islamic Republic's main foe after the Iran-Iraq war. I've prepared a list of sources including relevant quotes.




 * I think some of the options discussed so far would be appropriate for an RFC, although "Option B" has little weight with relation to the US disarmament. Alex-h (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll consolidate these in the sources list. I see some of the ones you listed were already included, others were not, and others could use a longer quote. Best, MarioGom (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I listed sources and commentary here that challenge your changes and constitute significant explanation. Please attend to them before blindly restoring your edits. Also your other recent modifications -- "Iraqi officials", "have touted it as fighting for", "militant". The previous version had more weight. Alex-h (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the previous version was a flimsy and transparent piece of POV that provided zero context; this discussion is about correcting that, and providing some actual context and clarity. What about the combined version that I have presented is problematic, and what sources actually contradict it? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources from Alex indicating that the MEK is still being recognized as the main opposition contradict it. But the key concern with your proposal is that it addresses a different issue than the one being debated here and you're not acknowledging that distinction. If you want to explore the MEK's popularity only within Iran (and the full scope of that implication), that merits its own dedicated discussion. The focal point of this discussion revolves around whether the MEK remains recognized as the largest/main opposition (beyond just Iran), and there exists a multitude of sources that still maintain that perspective. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC is mostly prepared, but I will not open it at the moment. There is a chance that the wording proposed by sticks. MarioGom (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @MarioGom: It's been removed as of now, by way of sock, so it's not sticking anywhere for now, but obviously it could quite readily be restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would opt for restoring it. It is well sourced and balanced. I think it does not fully capture the nuances of sources that consider the group a pariah nowadays, or the sources that state that MEK was NOT the largest guerrilla group in the 1970s, but it is a good compromise for the lede. If it gets contested again, my eventual proposal will be to completely remove this aspect from the lede. MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

MEK ideology in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)
Is "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." something for the lede? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As discussed above by Iskandar323, it is a cherry-picked material with no context. It should go to the body of the article to be discussed thoroughly.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's far from being a fair summary of . MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is gone now, so case closed? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Continue "More additions to the lead"
The previous discussion has become too long and I opened a new one. First of all, I need to mention the consensus built by users after proposal by admin on the definition of what is longstanding material. "longstanding text would be about a month". So Alex_h has literally removed a longstanding without building consensus. He applied just his own opinion on the article then explained it on TP. He didn't wait for positive or negative comments from other users when removing a longstanding text. This is not "bulding the consensus". Please review "WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS" on top of TP. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the link you shared Defining longstanding text for this article, that was from 2019 and the editors who participated don't seem active here anymore. I have also noticed that User:Kazemita1 and User:Saff V. were blocked for sockpuppetry. The admin who made that proposal was, tagging him here to see if he has any thoughts on that. If a controversial edit is being called into question in a talk page discussion, you need to respond appropriately. Many of the edits that are being objected to were made within a month or much less, so if you have any thoughts about any particular edit, share your thoughts in the appropriate thread. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All reverts by Alex-h and ParadaJulio were done in bad faith and evading previous sanctions. WP:REVERTBAN applies, so feel free to restore content reverted by them if you think that improves the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks MrioGom. Depending on the recent changes, I have to review the content again and discuss it on this page if needed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Article in reasonable shape now
The page has a fairly reasonable and sensical structure now, and the readable prose count is down to nearing 80kB, making it a much more digestible affair. There's more work to be done on sourcing, and probably on trimming and summarizing the history section, but I would say, overall, that the article is in reasonable shape now. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iskandar323, I try to summarize the history section. Feel free to modify my changes.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023
stength = strength 2603:8000:D300:3650:D06B:E3DD:D32F:7B4 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)