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

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 Wikipedia? 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: 90 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Middle East B‑class 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Unfortunately, I can't edit the article myself. But the section "Iran's nuclear program" abruptly stops in 2012. MEK has made more false allegations of the same nature, including for example the "Lavizan-3" claims that have been debunked publicly. Here are several sources for this.

[9] "That Secret Iranian Nuclear Facility You Just Found? Not so Much" (Foreign Policy, 2015) [10] [11] – Riven turnbull (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2017

There is a duplicate version of this article at Mojahedin-e Khalgh that should probably be merged soon. It is somewhat biased and heavily relies on one book by Ervand Abrahamian, but there is a lot of text and maybe something useful can be found in there.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it doesn't seem like there's that much that can necessarily be salvaged from that article, and I don't really see why it should be kept up any longer. Its probably best that any info be added by someone who's directly read the Abrahamian book rather than taking that article with its talk of "attractive and voluptuous women" at face value. I'm going to blank and redirect the duplicate article, and if anyone thinks there's anything useful to add to this article from it they can feel free to do so. --Brustopher (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: You think you can add anything with a reliable source to the lead? Well, then read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for once because you are mistaken. You think that you are the only one who rules that something important and the other thing is not? You have mentioned 'Khomeini' three times in the lead. Maybe you should consider mentioning Saddam Hussein? Pahlevun (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything with realiable sources in the lead; what I've included there is important and gives the reader a concice overview on how/why/when. I didn't "rule" it to be important, Abrahamian (1989) did. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamian wrote 307 of pages 29 years ago and you ruled that this sentence is important to be in the lead. The book was written. Why don't you use the sentence The organization, being a political one, naturally tends to mystify and romanticize its past, as well as to gloss over such embarrassments as shifts in day-to-day policy that is in the introduction? Because you pick cherries out of the sources. You see, Khomeini turned against the People's Mujahedin of Iran, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government is a made-up sentence by you. MEK members ran in two elections (Iranian Constitutional Convention election, 1979 and Iranian legislative election, 1980) to no avail. Let the lead be written with a consensus-building procedure. Pahlevun (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit summary, it resumes the organization's why/when/how. We currently have a quote from a think tank in the lead claiming the organization is undemocratic and lacks popularity, despite many reliable sources from scholars arguing that the organization constitutes Iran's most active opposition group (Katzman 2001, etc.) You are deliverately removing factual and important information quoted direcdtly from reliable sources. This constitutes disruptive editing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are omitting to answer my question and my call for a consensus-building procedure. The lead is no place to quote sources, it is a place for summary of its most important contents. Brookings report was moved to the proper section in the body. So should Katzman's quote, and any other. Pahlevun (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been consensus at WP:RSN concerning the types of sources that would be adequate for use in this article. As already pointed out, this source being used in the lead more than qualifies. The statement resumes how/why/when the organization came to prominence, and why the conflict began with the Iranian government (unlike the text you've suggested). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria and Pahlevun: Someone please tell me why we need to have an almost 3 line long POV of Abrahamian in the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. It is already in the body and we don't use phrases such as "according to" in the lead. If it is the mainstream view, we put it in the lead. If it is view of a scholar, it belongs to the body, not the lead. Same goes for Katzman's quote. Pahlevun (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for the lead is removing the sentences with a source, and working on drafting a neutral-worded summary for the article's most important contents. Let's just go for mentioning facts and avoid using quotes (like "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant"). Pahlevun (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion. However, I think the quoted material is not against fact and just needs to be reworded to show that, among other factors, Rajavi’s ideology made Khomeini turn against him. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out, the lead needs to introduce what/why/when/who. In other words, the MEK's ideals when the organization started, how it differed this from the Khomeini government, why it fell out with Khomeini, and the subsequent differences between these two political groups. Without this, this article is a strawman. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the article and what you say is not an important factor. Editors work based on the built consensus here, what you need to understand. Your version is really POVish. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, the edits I've included are direct quotes from reliable sources as confirmed at WP:RSN. I'm not interesting in bickering, just interested in cleaning up the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria:

1. You have mentioned the source pages 212 and 206 from Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?, while the book is only 137 pages. If you are not fixing it, I will remove the content.
2. You have selectively neglected the part of the source you didn't like to mention, here and here I have fixed that. Do not pick cherries out of the sources. And read WP:INTEGRITY.
3. Quote the passage including a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad, which I'm not finding on the source. That's sourced on page 4, which is in the chapter 'Iran: Relations With Key Central Asian States' (a version is here). If you are not fixing it, you may face being accused of using Wikipedia:Fictitious references.

–Pahlevun (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun:

1. Ok, will look into this first thing tomorrow. It'll be sorted out in the next 24hrs, thanks.
2. I am not cherry picking; on the contrary, reading the reliable sources it seems there are a lot of interesting and important facts that have been ommited from the article; I'm trying to fix that.
3. I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'll have more time. Thanks for pointing it out. Good night

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Let me get this straight: You picked The Pahlavi regime, in suppressing the PMOI, had claimed that it was a ‘Marxist conspiracy’ hiding behind the veil of Islam from page 2, and put it along with Historian Ervand Abrahamian observed that the Iranian regime was also “eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims. from page 101 to make an impression that the source considers it a baseless name-calling. On the contrary, what Abrahamian is implying on pages 100–101 is that the MEK is influenced by Marxism, but avoided to identify as such for some reason. If you are here to contribute, avoid such attitude or you may have the same fate that previous users who came here to "fix" this article had. Pahlevun (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are unnecessary. If you have an issue with an edit, let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. I'll now work on the issues raised accordingly. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: in the words of Abrahamian:

"Although the Mojahedin were consciously influenced by Marxism both modern and classical, they vehemently denied being Marxists; indeed, they denied even being socialists. Three consideration prompted this denial: first, the Mojahedin sincerely believed that human beings had a spiritual dimension – a soul, and afterlife, and an inherent drive to seek God – a notion which could not be reconciled with Marxist philosophy. As the organization argued the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy." (Abrahamian, 1989:100)

"The Mojahedin felt that the average man in the street associated Marxism, as well as liberalism and socialism, with other ‘isms’ imported from the West. As Rajavi admitted years later, the organization avoided the socialist label because such a term conjured up the public mind images of atheism, materialism, and Westernism. For exactly the same reasons, the regime was eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims. One Mojahedin leader declared at his trial: “This regime claims that we are confused and misguided ignoramuses who mix Marxism with Islam. In fact, this regime that claims to be concerned about the purity of Islam is solely concerned in smearing us and sowing dissension among the opposition." (Abrahamian, 1989:101)

I don't know why this info is not in the article, but it needs to be included. I'll start working on this as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I simply asked for the quotes of the sources that failed verification, and the burden of proof lies with you, because you added the content to the article. It is crystal clear that I have checked Abrahamian's book, so what's the point of quoting it? My objection was to your improper synthesis of pages 2 and 101 that differed from the context that was discussed in pages 100–101. Pahlevun (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamian's quote speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: Did you find "a major target of Iran’s international security apparatus and its campaign in assassinating opponents abroad" in the cited source? What do you think regarding the so-called Abrahamian's POV in the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:. No, I didn't. And if the user who added this content to the article is not fixing it I would think this is forging sources. Pahlevun (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I and we don't to wait for the fix. Why should we keep such a forgery? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should not. The forgery is going to the next level. Look at this edit, that says In 2017, Roghayeh Azizi Mirmahaleh was granted asylum in Canada for fears she would be executed if returned to Iran on account of her connections to the MEK. When you look at the source cited, you would see that she was given a "temporary residency permit" for two years, not asylum. And that "She had been detained at the immigration detention centre" and "Last month, a Canadian immigration officer decided it would be safe to send her back to Iran." Pahlevun (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I've included are direct quotes from reliable sources as confirmed at WP:RSN. I'm not interesting in bickering, just interested in cleaning up the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about the sources you forged is no "bickering", and you should be responsible for what you add to the article. Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The figure 16,000 is mentioned in "Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East" which seems to be reliable enough. However, I checked other sources; this one says: "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict," and the other one says: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians”" --Mhhossein ^talk 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, it does not come across as a figure that can be verified:

• Qasemi source is referencing directly from infoplease.com, which is not a reliable source.
• Ploughshares source should not be used in this article as it has been linked to the current government in Iran, who seem out to suppress this group

As per the Piazza source, an interesting article, though not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. If we do include Piazza's figure, we should provide the context of the quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. You need to review many of the guidelines, WP:BIASED among others. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book published by Springer is alone reliable enough to cite it as a fact. @Stefka Bulgaria: The book is a Secondary source subject to scholarly peer review (and thus, reliable for Wikipedia), if you think that the phrase is not supported by a reliable source, why don't you contact the publisher, instead of questioning the merits of the publisher in Wikipedia, which has an established policy towards such sources? Pahlevun (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the Springer publication that's the issue, but the infoplease.com site it used to draw this figure from (as outlined by others at WP:RSN). Regardless, some interesting info there that I'll include in this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the particular reason for banishment of MEK from Iranian politics has been their decision to boycott the constitutional referendum which instituted the Islamic Republic. This is mentioned in opening paragraph of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran but not in the lead. It should! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it should, as it begins to describe why/what/when of the conflicts between the Iranian clerics and the MEK. This was one of the first documented events (from a series of events) that marked the fallout between the MEK and Khomeini:

• "The Mojahedin also refused to participate in the referendum held in December to ratify the constitution drafted by the Assembly of Experts, even when Khomeini had called upon all good Muslims to vote ‘yes’. This was the first crucial issue on which the Mojahedin openly defied Khomeini." (Abrahamian, 1989:197)

Khomeini and the MEK subesequently became rivals. Concerning the "hypocrites" designation:

• "The Islamic Republic, for its part, executes Mojahedin members on the grounds that they are ‘monafeqin’ (hypocrites) waging an unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers." (Abrahamian, 1989:2)

• "The Khomeini regime did everything it could to put the former quite popular opposition out in the cold through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxists hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘eclectics’, and as ‘counter-revolutionary terrorists’ collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists" (Abrahamian, 1989:256)

• "Khomeini tries to discredit the Mojahedin as "American hypocrites" for seeking aid from the West"^[1]

The "hypocrite" designation is deliberate name-calling by the clerics (not the Iranian people), nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamian mentions many facts but his tone is sympathetic with MKE because of his own leftist tendencies. His narrative also lacks nuance. For example the idea that MEK collaborated with Saddam's war of aggression against Iran is a fact not an allegation by Iran. MEK also took part in the dark chapter of brutal repression of millions of civilians in 1991 uprisings in Iraq by Saddam. These are important facts that have to mentioned in a neutral tone. As for "hypocrite" regardless of which sectors of society use it, it is the official position of IRI. And given MEK's treacheries against Iran, it is not far-fetched at all. Btw, there are scholarly works in Persian published by IRI about MEK that must be used for balance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read different books by Abrahamian, you'll see that he's not particularly sympathetic of the MEK. His report of the events here is important, not only because of his academic background and expertise in the subject, but also because of the time when his book was written. I'm with you on the neutrality point, which this article lacks, but using media ran by the current Iranian government would create issues as it's in direct COI with the subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: As I told you some days ago, you need to review some of the Wikipedia guidelines. The COI issue you threw, has absolutely nothing to do with the sources. In fact, Conflict of interest is a user behavioral guideline which discourages editing "about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: If you want to be reported in ANI, continue your disruptive behavior in this page. The work I have used is the most authoritative work ever authored on MEK. It comes in three volumes relying on SAVAK intelligence documents, IRI intelligence documents, Pahlavi-era press, hundreds of interviews, published biographies etc. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as for IRI's characterization of MEK as "munafiqin", whether the term is derogatory or not, doesn't validate its removal. As per WP:NPOV we have to add all major viewpoints to the article regardless of whether some sources consider it untrue or derogatory. You have to improve your understanding of Wiki policies before making radical changes to the article. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: As mentioned on previous conversations, I'm not interested in bickering or making consesanding remarks (FYI, I'm familiar with regulations here), I'm just interested in cleaning up the article. As for the IRI's characterization of the MEK as 'munafiqin', you have said it, it is the IRI's chareterization of the MEK, not "Iran's" (as you've described it in the lead). This type of careless name-calling is one of the main issues in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are against bickering but for some reason you don't respect consensus and discussion. And IRI position often reflects the view of a great number of Iranian people because even today the establishment is still fairly popular despite complaints about economic problems, and given the massive funeral for Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, we can deduce his position was shared by millions of Iranians back then who had seen horrors and treacheries of MEK first hand. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Properly cited reliable sources is all that's imporant here. Inclusions based on "often reflects the view of a great number of Iranian people..." do not have any merit in an encyclopedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria: Why do you persistently censor "Iranian authorities [or Iranian people] commonly refer to the MEK as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" from the lead? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: It's the Iranian authorities who refer to the MEK as 'hypocrites'. I've categorized this accordingly, as a statement by Iranian authorities, together with other statements concerning the MEK by Iranaian authorities (which are in direct conflict with the MEK, and therefore need to be categorized accordingly). You have removed this, along with the "Suppression by the IRI" section, with no valid justification. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that "Properly cited reliable sources is all that's imporant here". This source clearly says: "the group is commonly know in Iran as Munafiqin." Anyway, let's take your word, i.e. "It's the Iranian authorities who refer to the MEK as 'hypocrites'", for a moment. Why do you remove it from the lead which should be a summary of the whole? Is there anything wrong we're not aware of?--Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my word, it's in the references supporting the statement:^[2][3] As documented in the "Suppression by the IRI" section, the IRI appear to be trying to extinguish the organization, so if we include their perspective it needs to be ackowledged as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting more interesting. You forgot to comment on This source. So, why did you removed the whole instead of modifying the wording? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fringe source, and the others are not. If in doubt, check the publishers. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained, this is the view of the IRI, and needs to be presented as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, In your haste, you may have missed that the sentence was not removed, but placed under it's appropriate section, so including here for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_views_on_the_MEK Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my haste. You had to put it in the body, too. It's highly dubious that you remove that term from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this so many times already I don't know how else to say it. As per reliable sources, it's a statement by the IRI, and needs to be described as such (it has no contribution to the who/when/why info from neutral sources included in the lead, so it was included in a section with other statements by the IRI). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are still persisting on disruptive editing. Discuss your changes before pushing them so aggressively like this. Obviously you don't have consensus for your edits. So don't remove well-sourced, well-organized material before reaching consensus. The idea that simply because a source is published in IRI it has to take a backseat is laughable whereas I have already explained, this source in particular is the most authoritative work ever published about the topic and should be in fact the primary source used across this article about the topic, whereas I have only used a summary of it in the lead. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: Are you still following this talk? I likewise think Stefka Bulgaria is being disruptive in this page and strongly POVish. He appears intent on organizing the page and its content in a way that renders this notorious terrorist cult that has somehow bribed its way into Europe in a finer light. Creating an entire section for "suppression" prior to any background and any history seems very odd to me. I mean do readers who come to this page want to drop in to only read about how they are "suppressed," or first of all who and what they are and what they have done through their colorful multi-phased history and their several metamorphoses to this date? --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Drop the stick. Every body knows what a lead is, so don't repeat the "who/when/why" anymore. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have been explained quite clearly; but just in case, here it is again: sources/statements from the Islamic Republic of Iran are far from being a neutral source in this matter as the IRI have been at war with the MEK since the revolution. Despite your canvassing, this needs to be identified in the article. This doesn't mean the source/statement needs to take a "backseat", it just needs to be identified as what it is: a source by the IRI. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your edits are explained but doesn't respond to counter arguments. So please specifically respond to these arguments since you've been bordering in WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and I'm considering taking you to ANI unless you engage in productive discussion. So please respond to each argument without ignoring:

1. First of all why do you keep reverting before reaching consensus for your contested changes? Why do you proceed making even more changes when your past changes are not even resolved? What kind of behavior is this?

There is an obvious POV pushing in the article as well as its Talk page. My priority, as should be yours, is to include neutral content from reliable sources into the article. I'm including direct quotes from reliable sources here, and you are removing them, while keeping the same sources in other parts of the article. What kind of behavior is that? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Abrahamian on the ground that it lacks context. And removed Piazaa on the same ground as well as it being a fringe POV. I explained since MKO after its transformation to an atheist organization has been involved in repression of minorities in Iraq and has been described as a terrorist cult of personality with claims of abuse of its members and so forth, we should be careful when quoting their original goals when they were a Muslim leftist group. But I don't see you addressing any of these arguments but rather you repeat the same "neutral sources" mantra whereas my concern is context and weight which is much more important in lead than in body since the lead should be summary and proportional representation of the body. And since I started this last conversation I only waited for your response but you once again reverted your contested changes. This is not how consensus building proceeds but rather disruptive behavior.

If you don't think Abrahamian is a reliable source, you can take it to RSN, as it's been done in previous discussions. Until then, as per previous discussions at RSN, it needs to stay in the article as it's perhaps the best source for this information. It was me who originally raised the issues of "context" within the article, and I'll continue to develop the context of its various sections. If you have an issue with the sources being used, you can take this to WP:RSN, which is what it's there for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep parroting your baseless accusation? For the third time in this page, I didn't say Abrahamian is not neutral. I'm objecting to mentioning a description of original goals when those don't represent most of MKO history! I'm objecting to putting a statement without proper context and qualification in the lead. So it has nothing to do with WP:SRN! Is that so difficult for you to understand or you are so obsessed with WP:DONTHEARTHAT? --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is context. No need to be rude. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I removed Abrahamian's narrative from the lead explaining that "Abrahamina's is an outdated study. Plus, I don't see why of all the vile things that the MKO have done in the greater period of their history a description of their original goals must be cited without qualification considering their later transformations." However you restored Abrahamian saying "Restoring well-sourced material from neutral sources" not addressing my arguments since I had not said that Abrahamian's piece is not well-sourced and as for neutrality I'm more concerned about accuracy of Abrahmanian's description since MKO embraced atheism in 1976 until 1979 revolution when they suddenly reverted back to Islam under Rajavi which is actually one of the reasons they been accused of "hypocrisy" in Iran (or by the Iranian government). So Abrahamian's claim that they are an Islamist group is inaccurate since it doesn't take into account their 1976 atheist coup as well as their later history post 1989 since it is largely and outdated study especially compared to PSRI's study (which I will address in the next para). That's why I think his view needs proper context and therefore have to be to moved to the body where it is possible to put it in the proper context.

When describing the origins of the MEK, Abrahamian cannot be outdated as he's a scholar and expert on this topic deriving from when the Iran Revolution was taking place. There isn't a better source to describe the MEK during the pre-revolution times. And again, he's book is being used throughout the article to describe other (contemporary) aspects of the MEK (which neither you, Pahlevun, or Mhhossein seem to mind). It is important to outline, clearly and neutrality (via reliable sources), the historic and ideological transitions. This is part of the MEKs history, for better or worst, and censoring it just because it portrays some kind of positive light on them is POV pushing. (BTW, you're wrong about why Ruhollah Khomeini began to describe them as 'hypocrites'. The explanation was included in the article, but now has been removed, but needs to be included again) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSRI study is far more authoritative than Abrahamian because like I said it draws upon documents that has been inaccessible to any other study whether published in Iran or outside Iran and it is a very voluminous source (3 volumes each about 700 pages long) with appendixes containing copy of cited SAVAK's documents, biographies of key members as published by MKO publication Mujahid, copies of Pahlavi-era press news on MKO, and so forth. The fact that it's been commissioned by IRI doesn't influence its objectivity when it is done in an academic spirit. Like I also said, the Abrahamian's description lacks context and nuance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I told you two times in this page that the PSRI study is the most authoritative study ever published in that it draws upon documents some of them that have not been accessible to any researcher outside Iran, documents like SAVAK's documents, Pahlavi-era press, MKO's own publications, interviews with former members and associates etc and it covers MKO until 2005 unlike that of Abrahamian that only covers until 1989. And since it is an academic and heavily documented study of very high quality, it no longer matters whether it is published in Iran just as an academic study published in US about Al-Qaeda is not discredited for being published in a country that has been at war with Al-Qaeda. Moreover, considering the terrorist nature of MKO for most of its recent history, and its history of terrorist operations inside and against Iran, it makes academic studies by Iranian researchers much more relevant and even credible due to their unique access and exposition to the topic. That's why I think this work must be extensively used throughout the article.

I'm glad you think that the PSRI study is "authoritative", but the bottom line is that it is commissioned by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, as you may have noticed, is in direct conflict with the MEK. As such, this needs to be explained and highlighted clearly as it is far from being a neutral source (for obvious reasons). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a link between being commissioned by IRI and not being neutral in the sense of not being objective. It is definitely far richer, more resourceful than Abrahamian's. For example, Abrahamian doesn't concentrate on the members who were purged during the 1976 transformation but PSRI does doing this by citing sources. -Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As above, take it to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I already said, having a separate lead section only for suppression before any segment covering their rich and long history of this organization is problematic first because according to manual of style, segments on background and history come first in any article. Second because this article is rightfully arranged chronologically so suppression must appear in its proper place in their chronology of MKO for each phase of suppression throughout their nuanced history. In defiance of all of the above valid points you restored the suppression segment calling my edit description "without valid reasoning" without explaining why any of what I say is invalid.

The supression section was not in the lead, it was just a section under "Other names". We can place the suppression section somewhere else. I think it's a good idea to organize the article chronologically, but instead this section has been getting deleted without explanation, which should not be. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was in the lead but in a lead section. And since suppression expands over different periods it would be still at odds with the chronological order of the page. It has to be broken down and integrated into relevant segments of the chronology. I see no reason to lump together different cases of suppression and put them out of context. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to outline this, as it is important to outline the persecussion of any group. If you want to develop the context of each case within this section you're welcome to. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such a thing as persecution but repression. You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction! And again I repeat: the suppression has to be distributed across the segments. Giving context in a separate section will involve replicating a lot of content which is impractical and awkward, whereas they go smoothly in each chapter in the chronology. Other than this clear argument, there are at least two of us who disagree with you. So you don't have consensus for keeping it a separate section. So I'm going to revert you. Should you revert back, you will face a complaint in ANI for disruptive editing. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction!" explains your POV pushing. Since you are incapable of working on this from a neutral stance, you shouldn't be editing this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. For the same reason, throwing statements from sources published by IRI or Iranians to a separate section at the the bottom of the article is invalid not just because many articles by IRI/Iranian sources are actually substantiated facts not views, but also because 1) it introduces a bias against the IRI narrative which has been the most relevant party to this topic, 2) because it is not conventional for viewers to have to navigate up and down to view IRI's narrative for each chapter of MKO history. So facts and views by IRI must be integrated across different segments of the article just as we treat those of other sources, parties.

The IRI narrative is biased, how can it not be? As the supression section confirms, the IRI currently executes anyone in Iran that's associated to the MEK. How is that for a bias? This differs greatly from diassociated press and academics, and the distinction needs to be made just as it's made across all articles on Wikipedia dealing with similar issues. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not biased, when it is citing facts about an organization that is also accused by non-Iranian sources and several dozen defectors of the same wrongdoings. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use the "non-Iranian" sources then, or Take it to WP:RSN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no non-Iranian source as comprehensive, rich and detailed as PRSI. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I said Jame Piazza's description that "MEK worked towards the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated" at least as written borders on fringe considering that it doesn't take into account different phases of MKO which involves among other things, bloody suppression of their Muslim members and brutal suppression of Kurds by the support of Saddam Hussein which starkly belies the above unqualified rosy description. That's why I think this statement must also not feature in the lead but moved to the body in a proper context which explains these have been the original goals of the organization before their 1976 transformation. You don't want to sell a despotic terrorist cult with a history of terrorism, cooperation with former dictator of Iraq, and political bribery as champions of freedom and equality! --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like Piazza's article, I just used it when Mhhossein used it to outline how many people had been killed by the MEK. Again, you didn't seem to mind the source there... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The death toll appears cited by other sources. Three citations provided. That's why I didn't object to that. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, you didnt' remove this source there, but you want to remove it here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remove it there because that one piece of info is verified by other sources whereas the POV in question is not, making it fringe. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To resume, we need to use reliable sources to clean up this article; there's no other way. When using IRI sources, as when using MEK sources, it needs to be described clearly in the article as these are sources pushing a POV. If we use certain sources to describe certain aspects of the organization, such as Abrahamian, then we also need to be able to use them for other aspects (which you, Pahlevun, and Mhhosein don't seem willing to do - and that needs to change). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet concentrated on other segments of the article. And like I said my concern with Abrahaminan was context not whether Abrahamian must be used in the body with proper context. I think ever since 1975 the organization has been clearly embracing questionable conduct including purge of its Muslim members, and post-1979 siding with Saddam, murder of ordinary citizens, suppression of minorities in Iraq and transformation to a one-man cult. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from neutral and reliable sources, that's all that's important here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So does context as well as PSRI study which is a far richer source than your favorite. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: Yes, I am. I think creating sections named "Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran" and "Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK" is an attempt to make sections that reflect a single POV and that will lead to an unencyclopedic forking and Wikipedia is not intended for this. So I moved the content to the relevant sections, the way it was before. Pahlevun (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I also saw no reason for singling them out into separate sections when all other POVs are integrated across the article. But I don't know what to do with Stekfa's reverts. I'm going to report him in ANI if he repeats this behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria, Pahlevun, and Mhhossein: What is established by now is that Stefka doesn't have a consensus for creating a separate section for government suppression. This is my last comment on why this section is undue. Therefore I removed this section. He had already reverted this section several times. Repeating this disruptive trend will land him on ANI. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: I see that I Pahlevun was also objecting some of those materials. Hence I urge him to review WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Also, I see that Bulgaria was asking you on several occasions to take the disputed sources to RSN, whilst it is him who should carry the BURDEN of demonstrating the verifiability by introducing a reliable source. Further restoring of the disputed content is edit warring against 3 editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: Please refrain from adding the work published by PSRI. It is not scholarly and subject to WP:RS. Pahlevun (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: It is scholarly as I have said earlier. It is in fact one of the most authoritative works on the group drawing upon unique sources of information such as SAVAK documents. The PSRI has been founded by Abdollah Shahbazi a well-known historian. Two reviews have also been written in Iran about the book as far as I know. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expectant of Light: How do you know it's founded by Shahbazi? I could not find such a thing on the website. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: These are some of the sources that mention this. [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was positive I posted this message here. So sorry that I missed this: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson: That discussion is in vain. There are just some users whom you pinged. There are not broad views as we have in RSN. Every source need to be addressed case by case. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is posted here as well. There is still time for others to vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No' (posting here since it seems some are questioning the other discussion). The writers behind the site are not entirely clear- it is described as an enthusiast site. Furthermore, it is based inside of Iran where freely writing about the opposition is not possible due to lack of freedom of speech. Abdollah Shahbazi, who seems to be loosely associated with this site, actually illustrates the point as he was - arrested for publishing a book about land issues (a subject not nearly as dangerous as MEK, to say the least).Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already and would like to vote on the use of Iranian sources and PSRI, please vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources. It is perfectly acceptable to open the vote at a Wikiproject page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: Could you elaborate on this? Is it not a widely used term in Iran? Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I think the word is expressing a contentious opinion subject to words to watch (with respect to its derogatory meaning). Such words are better to be avoided unless they are used by reliable sources, in which case in-text attribution is proper. Pahlevun (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And which sources were not reliable do you think? Moreover, "commonly called by Iranian officials" was added as "in-text attribution". --Mhhossein ^talk 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: for attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging the sources as unreliable, I believe the first sentence of the lead is not a place to reflect that POV (which is covered already in the 'names' section), per WP:LABEL. That's it. Pahlevun (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun: Thanks for your opinion in the earlier section. Do you think "hypocrites" is really contentious given that MKO worked with the enemies of Iran and that they claimed to be Islamic only after the 1979 revolution whereas they had denounced Islam in 1976? --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my personal opinion doesn't count here. The question is not that the MEK deserves to be called as such or not, the question is whether a Wikipedia article about them should mention such a label in the lead or not. Pahlevun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is this label has become official and normal in Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun and Expectant of Light: Firstly, Wikipedia articles should include all major POVs in accordance to their weight. According to WP:LEAD, "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic," and it should be in a "style with a neutral point of view." Moreover, MOS:ALTNAME says that "alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." That said, a major POV and a common title widely used in Iran is removed from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This POV must be added to the lead. However it seems difficult to verify that this title is used by both government and people. But attributing it to the government is beyond dispute. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ALTNAME refers to using alternative names, such as alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Note that munafeqin is a name calling, rather than an alternative "name" (they never use it, and it has been solely used by the government literature in Iran) and for example, you don't mention the word 'Cuckservative' in the lead of the article Conservative. I think MOS:WTW is straight enough to state Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint., so I'm still in favor of removing it from the lead. Maybe we can ask for other opinions to resolve the issue? Pahlevun (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pahlevun, welcome back. Thanks for the comment, however I think your argument is not guideline-wise. First of all the quote from MOS:ALTNAME just says "these may include..." meaning it may include other things, too. Secondly, munafeqin is a Nickname dubbed by Iranian government (you can see it in independent reliable sources such as McGill, washingtonpost, dtic, saisjournal, Memri and you can certainly find more sources for it). Moreover, "common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead" per MOS:NICKCRUFT. Many reliable sources refer to the fact that the group is referred to as munafeqin by Iranian officials and you're favoring removal of this well established fact from the lead. When it's done by proper attribution, there will be no concern over what you said. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is resembling wikilawyering and I really hate to quote again, but if you leave the letter and stick to the spirit, MOS:NICKCRUFT that you mentioned, states:

Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical. Example: "Tricky Dick" does not appear in the lead of Richard Nixon, despite being a redirect to that article; this label by his political opponents is covered, with context, in the article body

.

Pahlevun (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true only when the appellation is "uncommon or disputed" and Munafiqin is certainly common and nearly undisputed in Iran (at least in governmental literature). You can't compare a label used by political opponents with the one used by a country. Thanks you anyway. Inserting "they are commonly called Munafiqin by Iranian officials has no undue weight or neutrality since it's attributed properly and there are many reliable sources supporting it. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lead section of this article resume how the organization started, its ideology, how it got into conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and what resulted from this conflict? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC) The text in question is:[reply]

1. paragraph on MEK's Ideology:

   The MEK was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that deferred sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government. The organization has been described as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

2. paragraph on MEK's fall out with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

   Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.^[9][10] After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,^[11] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.^[12] Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.^[13][14][15]

Note I copied the proposed text from the threaded discussion below, so that the two paragraphs considered will be clearly presented in the survey question.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support paragraph 1 as the opening paragraph. It is essential to introduce the concept before getting into the ideology.

Paragraph 2 could then say: This Iranian political–militant organization[6] in exile advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.[31][32] It is classified as a violent non-state actor,[33] and it has had headquarters located in France (1981–1986; since 2003), Iraq (1986–2016) and Albania (since 2016). (Citation numbers would change, of course)

Your paragraph 2 could then be paragraph 3: Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[9][10] After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,[11] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.[12] Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.[13][14][15] (Citation numbers would change, of course)

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both paragraphs - certainly the common underpinnings between MEK and the Islamic republic, as well as early cooperation between the two, is highly uncomfortable and suppressed by the Iranian regime which has turned MEK into one of perennial bogeyman upon which various calamities in the republic are pinned. However, this content is well sourced and highly relevant for any understanding on MEK's origin and continuing operations - this is certainly lede worthy, and should of course be expanded on in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained there have been no willing cooperation between the Islamic Republic and MKO since the 1979 revolution. They have been always looked with suspicion by the clerical leadership ever since their 1976 bloody atheist coup, but still given their powerful past experience with propaganda and campaigning they could blame the atheist coup on "rogue elements" and build a following among young people by citing contributions of their past Muslim martyrs before the group was hijacked in 1976 by atheists. The new government from the beginning was trying to prevent their ambitions for power but they could got themselves through. As you see it's a very detailed and complex history and organization. PSRI study that I desire to use in this page has documented these in great detail. So does Ervand Abrahamian but partly and in smaller details whose account is also more sympathetic with MKO than PSRI, despite him saying he was neutral. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you want real consensus you have to wait until @CaroleHenson:'s initiative for dispute resolution over the sources and other disputes reach a conclusion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I will write with more details later. Pahlevun (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with a summary of the page content in the lead but the problem is the organization has a very long and colorful history and on top of that we have different POVs. So if we want to add them the lead would become very long. Among the sources, the PSRI scholarly study must be definitely used across the article for balance if not for its genuine information. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stefka Bulgaria: - the obvious answer would be yes, However, the question is exactly which formulation. I suggest you propose the specific text you are proposing for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's an obvious question, though it's currently being rejected by certain users in any form of proposed formulation. This is the specifics I would propose for now:

• MEK's Ideology:

The MEK was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam – an interpretation that deferred sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his government. The organization has been described as one of Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.^{[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]}

• MEK's fall out with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.^[24][10] After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the MEK's refused to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,^[11] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.^[12] Subsequently, the MEK organized a protest against Khomeini’s new government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.^[25][26][27] : Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problem with that either provided that you also allow major facts about their criminal activities, their 1976 bloody ideological coup, their ambitious quest for power post-revolution despite their little role in the revolution to be also added to the lead. But that would also make the lead very long. So that could be a reason to keep their long, multi-phased history out of the lead entirely. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a problem with this, then why do you keep removing it? About your suggestions, I think we should add anything that describes the organization's major characteristics and that is backed up by reliable sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About what? I didn't remove Abrahamian from the lead since you insisted on it. It was Pahlevun who did. But I was still concerned about its lacking context. At any rate you didn't have consensus and still don't on what to include and not to include in the lead. You kept removing PSRI narrative about their 1976 ideological coup. And you keep reverting the IRI views section and government suppression section against consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just today, you've reverted the MEK protests and executions twice. About your other comments, IRI views/sources need to be identified, as well as the suppression of the MEK. What you call "consensus" is really 3 editors ganging up against reliable sources backing up NPOV. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my revert. Your version includes two sections "Suppression by IRI" and "IRI views" for which you had lost consensus in this past talk. I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! As long as you behave like that and as long as you think when you lose consensus it is because others ganged up on you, you will fail to attract good faith of others and you will end up in ANI until you're blocked or learn to behave! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My version included more than just that; it also included the information described above, which you've apparently removed without even reading the edits properly. Also, calling me "pretending deaf and blind!" is uncalled for. Weren't you blocked on the Persian Wiki for calling other editors names? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior for which you have faced two ANI complaint but continue despite an advise by an uninvolved editor to move by consensus. It doesn't matter what good edits your version might have included. I remember Pahlevun disagreed with some of your other changes. On a disputed page like this, you have to move step by step, not lumping together all your edits and then expecting others to dissect your good edits from bad ones. That's not how it works. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think it's about time someone reports Expectant for his ad hominem and aggressive behaviour on the English Wikipedia as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead! By also heed WP:BOOMERANG --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HistoryofIran. Passive-agressive behavour / POV pushing by Expectant of Light is a problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead @Stefka Bulgaria and HistoryofIran: Open up an ANI and complain about my "aggressive behavior" using diffs to support your case! It is indeed mind-blowing that a disruptive editor along with someone who has contributed nothing to this page but accusing my of bias are projecting their own faults on me! Do go ahead all and open up an ANI if you think you have a good case! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This Rfc seems to me to be a waste of time. Don't we have to first resolve the "Article issues" (section below), and then decide what to leave in the lede? Correct me if I'm wrong. Jzsj (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start a list here of brief summaries of the issues as a starting point and would appreciate any brief descriptions of the issues to square away:

1. Characterization of MEK, such as use of the words militant, terrorist and historical events this edit
2. Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper [19]
3. Integrated sections in keeping with chronological order of the page vs. separate sections this edit
   1. Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
   2. Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK
4. Regrouping of films/series with this edit
5. Wording of the lede, per RfC on this page.
6. Use of the Munafiqin label, per RfC on this page.
7. Use of PSRI as a source - or is that resolved?
8. Any of the other/older issues on this talk page? Other?
9. Article tags: neutrality, undue weight, weasel words.

Is this an accurate summary of the issues? –CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit based upon Expectant of Light's comment below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Add.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been heavily involved in this talk recently so I prefer sitting back and waiting for Mhhossein and Pahlevun (who is not frequently online though) to have their say since they were involved in our past consensus which clearly established one thing: the two sections you named were to remain integrated in other sections in keeping with chronological order of the page, not to stick out as two separate sections which was insisted by Stefka. You can see the relevant discussion here even though it got too long and a little convoluted since my bullet list got broken down by inserted comments. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response:

1 - Characterization of MEK, such as use of the words militant, terrorist and historical events this edit

• The group was disarmed by the US in 2003, so it's not a "violent militant group" as it's currently being portrayed in the article: "In May 2003, the Washington agencies agreed to direct coalition forces to secure the MeK’s surrender and to disarm the group."^[1]

• That seems to be a leap, or perhaps faulty logic. See State Department release dated 2012, including the sections after explaining the delisting. There's no need to respond, I will work on this. My goal right now is just to identify the issues. I will start with this one.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• About the historical events, please refer to the the "Threaded discussion" above.

• Does this encompass your entire issue with historical events? Any way to summarize?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Involvement in Syrian War - addition of info from an Iranian newspaper [20]

• Considering the Iranian Government controls the media in Iran, and they're out to destroy the MEK, if used in the article these sources should be identified as deriving from IRI media as they are not neutral.

3 - Removal of entire sections of content this edit

• As described in first point, the MEK was disarmed in 2003, so it's not a violent militant group.

4 - Suppression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

• There are events there that range from early massacre of the MEK prisoners in Iran to a bombing attempt last month in Paris at a MEK gathering. These have all been in the media, but keep getting removed.

5 - Islamic Republic of Iran views on the MEK

• As noted in the second point, because the Iranian Government controls the media in Iran, and they're out to destroy the MEK, if used in the article these sources should be identified as deriving from IRI media as they are not neutral.

6 - Regrouping of films/series with this edit

• As above.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these comments don't make sense to me based upon the nature of the desired edits. So, I just plugged along based upon review of the diffs. Please see User:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran‎. Where there are gray boxes, I have comments. And, there are other places where I still have work to do... or questions to get started. Feel free to comment there. Please sign your comments, questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than having two sets of conversations going, collapsing this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also starting this list:

1. There are attempts to make many sweeping changes in one edit that are known contentious edits by Stefka. This is a problem.
2. There is no explanation by Stefka on the talk page when making those edits. See WP:BRD. Starting the RfC's, though, is a very good step.
3. There are differences of opinion about historical events. Perhaps there is a way to explain the differing viewpoints and what are the prevailing opinions from the international community?
4. There is too much conversation that has become personal and veers off-point. It's better to be very specific about the requested edits and reasons for the edits.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Add to #2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Response:

• 1 - I try to include the reasons of my edits on the summaries.

My point here is, please break down your edits so that you're not making a lot of sweeping changes at once, particularly if they are not agreed-upon edits. If you break things down to tackle things one-at-a-time, and are open to suggestions, you might have better luck. Doing it the way you're doing it right now is surely a recipe for having your edits reverted. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sweeping changes that include so much POV pushing by Pahlevun, Expectant of Light, and Mhhossein here that I've responded the same way (including Expectant of Light admitting above that he reverted me without actually reading what I included). Anyhow, I'll follow your advice. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 - I tend not to bring things to the Talk page because nobody else except the same 3 reverting editors tend to take part in the debate. Now that there are others involved, hopefully we can have a more productive conversation here.

That seems to be taking things on bad faith. I am not seeing a complete inability to hear what you are saying, but I am seeing some points about how to best approach things. You seem to have a tendency for force major edit changes and then get mad that people aren't agreeing with these edits. That is directly against the BRD/Consensus-building approaches to editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get mad. What I have tried to do is engage in a civilized debate about why certain information is being excluded from the article. This can be verified above on this Talk page. What I have gotten instead (before today) is stone-walling by the same 3 editors who keep pushing an IRI-POV.Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 - I think we should follow reliable sources for figuring out historical events. IRI-run media is biased in this topic, so cannot be considered reliable here (so if used, we should identify them as such).
• 4 - Agreed, I try to keep off bickering and name calling, but this is not coming from me.

You can only control yourself. The more you adopt a professional tone, perhaps the more that you will receive a professional tone. If not, with a bit of time, please ask others to not make issues personal, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked others, and have not made this personal. In fact, it has been the opposite, where Expectant of Light has resorted to name calling. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, these comments are disheartening, Stefka... based on other things I've said in the past and here and other people have said to you. I underlined one part above. I am not sure how much you are listening or wanting to listen about how to be more effective editing. But, let's take things one at a time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to People's Mujahedin of Iran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The fourth paragraph needs some copy editing for grammar, capitalization, and removing WP:DUPLINKs.

From:

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[3] But After the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to MEK's refusal to take part in constitution referendum of the new government,[4] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running office in the new government.[1] MEK declared armed revolt against the Islamic Republic targeting key Iranian official figures, as in bombing of Islamic Republic Party and Prime Minister's office bombing, attacking low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards and ordinary citizens who supported the new government.[5][6] As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979.[7][8][9]

to

Despite ideological differences, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi aligned itself with Ruhollah Khomeini's forces in overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[10] But after the fall of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, due to MEK's refusal to take part in a constitutional referendum for the new government,[4] Khomeini turned against them, preventing Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office in the new government.[1] MEK declared armed revolt against the Islamic Republic and targeted key Iranian official figures, with the bombing of the Islamic Republic Party and bombing the Prime Minister's office, attacking low ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government.[5][6] As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979.[7][8][9] 

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - looks good to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Fish+Karate 12:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion and voting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran‎#Sources about use of Iranian sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to People's Mujahedin of Iran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change this sentence in 2003 French arrests:

Police found plenty of cash in their offices, $1.38 million in $100 notes and 150,000 euros.^[1]

to this sentence, which has a better source and is reworded based upon the content of the source:

Police found $1.3 million in $100 bills in cash in their offices.^[2]

Thanks! –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is based upon a discussion here to see if a better source could be found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Luk ^talk 23:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to People's Mujahedin of Iran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you please add this Category to this Article [[Category:National Council of Resistance of Iran]] Déjà vu • ✉ 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @DejaVu: this page is no longer protected, you may edit it directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article include the following proposed timeline of historical events (which I was originally working with CaroleHenson on her work page, but she has not returned to WP in over a month)? Also feel free to add anything I may have missed: --Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like there's a lot of tense inconsistencies, sometimes even within the same entry, such as the 1979 bullet Despite ideological differences with Ayatollah Khomeini, the MEK cooperated with the pro-Khomeini forces to topple the Shah during the Islamic Revolution. The MEK hopes that cooperation with Khomeini might bring the MEK a significant share of power after the revolution. Presumably we should consistently use past tense? Rosguill^talk 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for the sake of clarity, we should consistently use past tense. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it? Most articles dont contain timelines. What about this one would necessitate one. I'm somewhat confused. Brustopher (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of active users like Pahlevun, Stefka Bulgaria has engaged in highly questionable mass changes. I've addressed some of them and found some contradictions. I've fixed the issues and will report the user at the ANI.

• Encyclopedia of Terrorism was removed here in this edit alleging it's a self-published source and hence not reliable. This is while Dr. Martin Slann is an expert author in the terrorism subject and per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
• Contents cited to Jamestown Foundation was removed on a bizarre allegation. JF is a reputable reliable source. Also, see this RSN discussion in this regard. Another general discussion regarding Think Tanks supports its usage. I've reinserted the materials supported by the Jamestown Foundation.
• It was tried to remove a section dealing with MEK's armed act against U.S. and I restored the section with a descriptive title for the sake of neutrality. Certainly, those well recorded bombings and assassinations can't be in a section titled "Relations with U.S.".
• RAND source, page 80, does not say the attack on Gen. Price is attributed to MEK, rather it says the attack is done by MEK.
• In this edit, Abrahamian's book is misinterpreted. The book says MEK "fought two street battles" against Tehran Police AND bombed 10 major american buildings. So, bombings was not part of fighting against police.
• In this edit a well sourced sentence is removed, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable."

Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should wait for his response instead of reverting and taking this to ANI, it's really not necessary. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I reported at ANI, was his behavioral issues, not a content dispute. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was reported to ANI was content. I will repeat my comment from there - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language - is a blatant misrepresentation and NPOV problem.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would not comment on things and make accusations before carefully addressing them. this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties of their own.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's super interesting Icewhiz is doing his best to make us think he has not seen this scholarly source which had been in the article prior to the disputes and I've just provided in two boards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]