Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Kurds and the MEK in the lead

FYI: this old RFC was closed with no consensus. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks @MA Javadi: for the link. Some interesting sources there. Would you be interested in revisiting that debate as P.I. Ellsworth says? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you P.I. Ellsworth for your reply. Fad Ariff I am very busy at the moment, sorry. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Pleasure! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC, 15 December 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we replace the sentence (It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.) with the following?

Some sources has described it as Iran's main, most active, or biggest opposition group, Other sources described it as a "tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania" that has "little support inside Iran today" and "can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded"

Yes or No? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• Some sources has described it as Iran's main, most active, or biggest opposition group, More recent sources say this once-prominent group is now a fringe revolutionary group with little support inside Iran.

Ghazaalch (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey, 15 December 2022

• Yes. Per talk above, I am Quoting Prinsgezinde who said If we have conflicting sources, then per WP:CONFLICTING, we should prefer the most up-to-date reliable sources and, if a conflict still exists, provide all viewpoints... the fact that there are sources expressly saying that its size is exaggerated makes calling it the biggest opposition group in the lead (with the other view not expressed) undue.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: This line needs to change. It is a violation on NPOV with respect to what reliable sources, and an extreme example of cherrypicking in favour of aggrandizing statements. I would perhaps ditch the overly specific quote about it being "stranded in Albania" in the visible text and maybe make that a note after the quote about it having little support inside Iran (since these lines are two sides of the same coin). The key point here, however, is that the PMOI is objectively tiny (~3,000 members) - that's only twice as many members as the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which is basically a joke party in the UK. Iran's Kurdish armed opposition, while fragmented, is demonstrably larger, but split across a myriad of small groups. Many of the statements about the PMOI are dated and hark back to when it had tens of thousands of members. Today, it is possible that the PMOI may still be the largest opposition group by numbers, but only because the Iranian opposition in general is so fragmented, not because it is actually large - and that is why it is so important to have the other statements noting that is actually rather small. Perhaps a present-day membership estimate would also be warranted in this statement? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Happier still with the abridged version suggested by Ghazaalch in the discussion, which ditches some of the quotes/detail in favour of paraphrasing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the way this proposal has been formulated is essentially flawed, but length is only a part of the reason. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, provided the sources are reliable and accurately represented. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Obvious No. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, False dilemma.

"tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania" is WP:UNDUE or/and WP:FALSEBALANCE of what is in most of the academic literature (I added some sources just below).

"has "little support inside Iran today" is a loaded statement. See RFC, 10 December 2022 about the executions of some Iranians that cooperated with the MEK in Iran, or even the Iranian diplomat terror plot trial which happened in mainland Europe. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg of what supporting the MEK involves in Iran (we're currently seeing something similar with Iranians supporting the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran).

"(albeit illegally) funded" is a False dilemma because it has nothing to do with the MEK being the regime's opposition.

In this talk page we already verified that most sources describe the MEK as the regime's main or major or most active opposing group (since the 1979 revolution).

• "Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Iran's major armed opposition group"
• "the main opposition organization in Iran, the PMOI (known also as Mujahideen Khalq)"
• "Iran's most active opposition group"
• "And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations. As the main foe of the Islamic Republic"
• "Iran’s main opposition group"
• "the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group."

Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff's quotes speak of the past and have nothing to do with the current situation of the Mojahedin Khalq. The fourth quote (Abrahamian) for instance, begins with: "By June 1981, it could muster over half a million into the streets of Tehran... And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest..."Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Prinsgezinde moved this discussion to the "discussion" section where it belongs, and it is here again. However, I put my response there.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: "No one but admins should be clerking the MEK talk page, pretty much ever." [7] Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Partial yes, I agree that the other side should be mentioned but I think that's too much detail. Can we paraphrase it and indicate that some current RS describe it as overstating its size and having relatively little support? Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• No. There are several problems with Ghazaalch's proposal here. The biggest one is that it has some clearly UNDUE issues, particularly for the lead of the article. The following are more (recent) sources all still describing the MEK as the main opposition to the Iranian regime: "members of the MEK, the main opposition organization to the regime", "the presence in Albania of over 3,000 mujahideen (MEK), also known as the opposition of the Iranian regime", "focusing on the main opposition movement MEK", "Supporters of the Iranian resistance and the main opposition MEK rally in Lafayette Park, near the White House.",

Having "support" inside Iran (there isn't any credible data about what people openly think in Iran, especially about political opposition groups) or how a Think Tank describes its "funding" is a non sequitur to most (current and older) sources which describe the MEK as the main opposition group to the regime. Retain the lead's longstanding (WP:DUE) version. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Iraniangal777: I would implore you to assess the quality of the sources you reference a little more seriously. Of the above, only Politico is clearly reliable. The European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre is clearly not. Both clearly not very professionally produced pdfs listed above were composed by Claude Moniquet, who is simply the owner of the aforementioned ESISC, which is his own lobby group, making this nothing more than self-published opinion (and from a lobby group at that, and therefore possibly as part of paid promotional work). This is the antithesis of a reliable source, and I would hope that you only even put this source forward because you hadn't looked at the details too closely. The Security Science Journal looks a little more like a valid source, but on closer inspection it also raises some questions (and eyebrows). It claims to be peer-reviewed and clearly masquerades as a journal, but it is not published by a serious academic or non-academic publisher, but instead the Institute for National and International Security, which would appear to be some sort of Serbia-based thinktank of unclear providence whose main claim to fame is publishing said journal. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure how you can in good faith lambast the extremely well-grounded research of the RAND Corporation, which is an incredibly prominent and widely referenced US research institute and think tank, while in the same breath citing a quite clearly dubious Serbian imitation of the same (I'm assuming that self-contradiction is not your intent). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Security Science Journal is not reliable? What about "Kurdish Politics in Iran" published by Cambridge University Press (2021)? or "The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East" published by Threshold Editions? or "Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?" published by Nova Science Publishers or "Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin"? Also not reliable? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Umm yes, not everything with 'journal' in it is reliable. If I self-publish "The Iskandar Journal of Awesomeness" tomorrow, it would not automatically be trustworthy for having the word 'journal' in it. Also, when it comes to history, source quality is not just about publishing. Cambridge University Press is obviously a trustworthy publisher, but that doesn't mean everything from CUP is stellar material. For subjects such as this, we still want to see works authored by specialist historians, political science professionals and other experts. Simon & Schuster, which is the parent of Threshold Editions, is also an established publisher. That doesn't necessarily make any work by any author it publishes awesome. Basic stuff really. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

These sources are not self published, and that academic literature should also require some kind of awesomeness seal of approval does not form part of WP:RELIABILITY. The author Ervand Abrahamian who wrote "Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin" is an Iranian historian for example, but if you have doubts, please use the section "Discussion". Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center reports by Claude Moniquet (2/4 sources above) are indeed self-published. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, let's not use that journal. I just started a List of sources supporting MEK as main or major (etc.) opposition group below. So far there are 15 sources and if necessary I will add some more (but those look enough). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• No, because MOS:INTRO: "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead". The MEK isn't known for being a "tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania"; that contradicts everything that's in the article from the 1988 executions of political prisoners (see also the 2019 trial of Hamid Nouri) to the 2022 cyber attacks in Albania (or even the alleged spending to demonize it as a group without popular support). The MEK's trajectory as the Iranian regime's main opposition constitutes a big part of the article and is supported by a huge quantity of sources. From sections "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)" to "Islamic Republic of Iran operations against MEK inside Europe", that is how it's portrayed in the article, and that's how it should be read in the lead. MA Javadi (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@MA Javadi: MOS:INTRO is just a general guideline about the entire lead, which already contains all of the information about why the topic is noteworthy. This discussion is about neutrality in the opening paragraph, which is covered in MOS:OPEN. Neutrality in the opening section of the lead with respect to reliable sources is, as in all things on Wikipedia, core policy and of critical importance. The MEK's role as a major opposition group (and military outfit) is largely in the past, so aside from neutrality issues there is also the clear need to reflect the group's current status. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The same rules apply because no matter what guideline you throw at this, the MEK is not known for being a "tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania", which is why having that in the lead would be factually wrong. I also see many sources here that still support it being the prominent opposition to the regime, so I support to leave that as is and focus instead on making the lead shorter (it's way too long). - MA Javadi (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you note my response, I also voiced my concerns about including that specific quoted detail on Albania, but the proposal is still an overall improvement in terms of balance, and as I've noted below, there is not even any direct contradiction between the statements about it being a prominent opposition group and also being tiny. The excess history is the main problem in the lead (a common problem on many articles), though actually the overall lead is far from the worst example I've seen in terms of pure length. The 6 paragraphs is not great, however. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a direct contradiction when you see there is only one source supporting "tiny" and "stranded", and over a dozen sources supporting main or major (etc.) Describing a group with over 3000 members as "tiny" is subjective, but the solution to that would be to add the membership count rather than an opinion about whether 3000 people is a "tiny" group of people. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

By the same measure, "main" or "major" is highly subjective when a group has only 3000 members. All of these statements are similar. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Main" and "tiny" are too completely different signifiers. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

They are different, but not mutually exclusive descriptors based on different perspectives. I've explained all this in discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

They are mutually exclusive, and "tiny" is supported by just one source while "main" by many sources. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No, giant and tiny, or major and minor, are antonyms; "main" and "tiny" are not. Again, this is explained in the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The lead should provide an updated view of the group as the recent academic reliable sources say. As MOS:OPEN requires, the opening paragraph should be neutral. Ghazaalch's is neutral since it contains the major POVs in a summarized style. All that brilliant past from 1979 Iranian Revolution, to conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988), to siding with Saddam in Iran-Iraq war, to 1988 execution of MEK prisoners and finally escaping from Iran, belongs to the past. No one denies that. Even the sources given by Ghazaalch confirm it when they say for example "this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded." But we are talking about most up-to-date reliable sources.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• No. It's evident that Ghazaalch’s proposal is faulty (even by his own review). I see many reliable sources from the last 10 years still using terms like "main opposition" for the MEK, while only 1 source is describing it as a "tiny revolutionary group". Also as others have said the claim about support inside Iran is a small detail part of a much larger context (the Iranian regime has one of the worst track records for censorship regarding anything opposing the government, see its laws for "spreading corruption on Earth" or human rights for example). This is an bad RFC and should be a procedural close. NMasiha (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)This user has been globally banned from editing Wikimedia sites.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  As you have highlighted, Ghazaalch has offered an alternative wording below. That is how discussion works. That his first suggestion was not to everybody's tastes does not mean it is a bad RFC - which is a term reserved for discussions with non-neutral wording or confused or unclear questions. This one is perfectly straightforward. Detailed context is likewise something for the body of an article; the lead is just a summary. However, that the PMOI, which claims to by a major opposition group, has little to no support within its home country, is highly significant. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources talk for themselves; and some uninvolved users have already voted "Yes". NMasiha's logic here is the like of a banned user who was warned by the admin,Vanamonde who wrote:I am particularly tired of "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" being used to stonewall any and all criticism.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The MEK's support within Iran is a completely different RFC topic. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed text above includes the addition of text about the group's support within Iran, so quite clearly it is directly pertinent to the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is misleading to simply describe MEK as the largest opposition group in Iran. No objection to further iterations on the proposed text to refine or simplify it, or to add more sources, of course. MarioGom (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• No, there are too many outstanding issues with this RFC to recklessly change the lead as proposed. For starters, "tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania" doesn't even come close to accurately or duely describing what the MEK is. Just in these last few years alone the regime has plotted several terrorist attacks against the MEK in Europe. Why would the regime plot such attacks against a "tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania? There are just too many reliable sources and documented facts in the article to ignore the MEK as the major Iranian opposition. A better proposal than this one would be needed before considering changing the longstanding version in the lead. Alex-h (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

See the alternative proposal.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That (your fourth?) proposal doesn't duely represent at all what's in the page. This RFC is a train wreck. Start a new topic in this talk page and figure out a proposal there before opening an RFC. Alex-h (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently one alternative proposal.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• No. It seems that the first proposal has been rejected already for being incorrect, but the latest proposal (15 January 2023) is also incorrect for the reasons said by MA Javadi (MOS:LEAD, "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject"). Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a generous proposal to provide counter point information instead of proposing to delete the outdated information. I don't know why some of the community here are against it. I wonder if they haven't read the lists of sources provided below([8][9][10])?Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to alternative proposal. The current text absolutely has to go. It is HUGE WP:V and WP:NPOV violation in the very first paragraph of the article. While the MEK was indeed the largest opposition in the 1980s, I have provided dozens of more recent sources showing that is no longer the case. Such a clear WP:V violation can't be allowed to stand, and certainly not in wikipedia's voice.VR _talk 13:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion, 15 December 2022

Fad Ariff, it doesn't matter if you can rebuke these sources. It's vital that we all agree that Wikipedia is about summarizing and representing reliable sources, not about "getting it right". Not that getting it right isn't the goal, but it's an impossible task in and of itself. That's why we use sources. We have multiple reliable sources arguing that it is not the largest organization or even as large as it claims. The only sources that refer to it as the "biggest or "most active" group are the pay-walled Times article and two articles from 1989 and 2001. We need to use current sources if we want to put something in the lead that claims to describe its current status, so anything that's over 10 years old is definitely unusable and frankly 5 or so years old is already pushing it. Alternatively we leave it out altogether. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Prinsgezinde, and welcome to this talk page. You are right that we should want to summarize from reliable sources, I agree. Have you read the article? Similar content about what you’re referring to is already summarized there. What is questionable is Ghazaalch’s proposal in this RFC since there is a lot in the academic literature supporting the lead’s original version, while this isn't the case with Ghazaalch’s proposal. And this is a source from Cambridge University Press from 2021: "Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Iran's major armed opposition group" Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, most of the quotations you provided above were tagged and you had to remove them from the lede. You are presenting them again here. The first quotation, for example, "Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Iran's major armed opposition group"[26] continues with "...based in Iraq" in the source and pertains to the pre-2003 situation (as Iskandar said in the above talk). The second quotation ("the main opposition organization in Iran, the PMOI (known also as Mujahideen Khalq)") starts with According to his findings… that shows it is Casaca’s opinion not the author's. The same thing can be said about other tagged sources. Moreover the source you presented call MEK as main or most active opposition group in passing, thus they are less reliable than the sources that provide analysis. That is why they should be given less weight, and that is why they are more summarized. In fact they are not summarized. Main and most active or biggest opposition group are the whole thing that are said about MEK in that sources. But in the other side, there are analyses like the following:

• "Analysts say it [MEK] has little support inside Iran today...Often described by Iranian and western political observers as a cult…even Iran hawks in Washington who favour regime change tend to dismiss the MEK’s influence in Iran. “The Iranian people hate the MEK so the notion that they are somehow going to be part of the future of Iran is laughable, completely,”..."
• after siding with Saddam – who indiscriminately bombed Iranian cities and routinely used chemical weapons in a war that cost a million lives – the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors...It would be hard to find a serious observer who believes the MEK has the capacity or support within Iran … US and UK politicians loudly supporting a tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania are playing a simpler game: backing the MEK is the easiest way to irritate Tehran. And the MEK, in turn, is only one small part of a wider Trump administration strategy ... …this group is not democratic and anyway has no constituency inside Iran…
• MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded.

About the (albeit illegally) there is a long section in the article but you cannot stand a words of it in the lead.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: you’re a bit all over the place here, but I’ll try to respond as neatly as I can. The academic literature supports Main or most active or biggest opposition group (even if you added tags to them). The sources you list here are not as good or as many as the other sources, but I agree they should be represented in one of the article's sections. About the {{tq|(albeit illegally)}, it has really nothing to do with the rest of the material. We can have a new RFC about what sections should be represented in the lead if you want. And what do you mean by "you cannot stand a words of it in the lead"? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There are 500 words on fundraising in the article out of about 17,000 words total, which is roughly 3%. The lead is also 500 words, so if we were to fairly summarise information on the group's dubious fundraising activities, this information would be due about 15 words ... so just two words on the subject is actually a rather merciful amount. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, in an article that has length issues, there shouldn't be a section on fundraising with 500 words (when WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:PARAPHRASE are policy). While that section should be better paraphrased, comparing it to the MEK being the regime’s opposition is a false dilemma. But you are free to make a counter-proposal with logical and evidence-supported explanations as said by another editor below. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm stuck at: "there shouldn't be a section on fundraising..." umm why? Of course there should; this is highly relevant for organizations. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Those of you who prefer a different description are free to make their counter-proposals in the discussion section, complete with reliable sources, and logical and evidence-supported explanations of why they are better. If you invoke a policy or guideline you are advised to explain how and why it applies. so that it may be given the consideration it deserves.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A key point here is that all of the different statements here can potentially be simultaneously valid (most are highly relativistic) - it could potentially be the biggest opposition group while also being objectively tiny, since most Iranian opposition groups are tiny (depending on whether or not you count the likes of the Green Movement). Equally, it can be both the most active group and also have very little support inside Iran. While it has been suggested that some of these sources conflict with each other, this is not self-evidently the case. The only real conflict here is providing a balanced, well-rounded appreciation of what all reliable sources have to say on the matter, and the current version, which provides an unbalanced and demonstrably partial set of cherrypicked qualifiers. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch: I would consider withdrawing this RFC. Considering the discussion, and the sources added below, we could workshop a new RFC that considers all feedback given up to this point. MarioGom (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@MarioGom: OK. I know you as an uninvolved editor. Feel free to close or moderate any RFC you like. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

List of sources supporting MEK as main or major (etc.) opposition group

1) " The Mek is the most prominent and well-organized opposition group to the ruling Iranian government in existence today." (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014 )

2) "Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), Iran's major armed opposition group" (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

3) "the main opposition organization in Iran, the PMOI (known also as Mujahideen Khalq)" (Threshold Editions, 2010)

4) "the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group." (The Times, 2021)

5) "Iran's most active opposition group" (Nova Publishers, 2001)

6) "And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations. As the main foe of the Islamic Republic" (IB Tauris, 2021)

7)"The MEK has been the leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic for years." (Newsweek, 2019)

8) "The theocratic regime’s new onslaught against its opponents, most notably against the principal opposition, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran or Mujahedin-e-Khalq (PMOI/MEK), is a serious indicator of changing times in Iran." (International Policy Digest, 2018)

9) the main democratic Iranian opposition movement, the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK) (UPI, 2022)

10) "Iran’s main opposition group" (The Telegraph, 2008)

11) "is reputedly the largest militant Iranian opposition group committed to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2014)

12) "largest Iranian armed opposition group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization" (Human Rights Watch, 2022)

13) "The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, or the MEK, the country's leading pro-democracy opposition group" (IB Times, 2022)

14) "Government fights to keep ban on main Iranian opposition group (The Guardian, 2008)

15) "Supporters of the Iranian resistance and the main opposition MEK rally in Lafayette Park, near the White House." (Politico, 2020)

Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sources. Lovely. Is there a point to accompany this? No one is trying to remove statements to the effect of the above - just balance the lead intro. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that the IB Times piece is not an independent source: Hassan Nayeb Agha, a member of Iran's National Soccer Team at the 1978 World Cup, is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. [11] MarioGom (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources that show the MEK has been changed from a political group to a terrorist/cultish group

• "MEK’s metamorphosis from an opposition group to designated terrorist organization..."
• "Gradually the organization transformed into a cult around the personality of their leader, Masoud Rajavi. The following statements by two lower rank leaders of theorganization reveal the essence of this cult of personality."
• "As an objective historian, the author does not seek to judge, but only to explain how the Mojahedin have since evolved into what is clearly more of a Messianic cult than a political party. Rajavi's unlimited power over the dwindling membership, exercised by tight organization and control and by indoctrination, means that the Mojahedin sect now resembles a totalitarian dictatorship."
• "From 1985, Rajavi transformed the PMOI from a mass movement into a cult with himself as its guru. Among the weird decrees, Rajavi has ordered many married members to stop conjugal relations, and others to get divorce."
• "By 1985 - 86, Masoud Rajavi, the already absolute leader of the PMOI , turned the organization into a cult, where he was praised and regarded to be the equivalent of Prophets Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, Shia Imam Ali and Shia Imam Hussein."
• "It has since gradually evolved into a strange mix of a radical cult centered around its leaders,the Rajavis, and opposition to the Iranian regime from 1988 onwards."
• "MEK, a cult-like terrorist organization that espouses regime change has links to Saudi Arabia."
• "Rajavi's personality cult ... forced a number of Mojahedin activists to leave the organization."

More WP:COATRACK with no context, again. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• The M.E.K. advocacy campaign has included full-page newspaper advertisements identifying the group as “Iran’s Main Opposition” — an absurd distortion in the view of most Iran specialists; leaders of Iran’s broad opposition, known as the Green Movement, have denounced the group. The M.E.K. has hired high-priced lobbyists like the Washington firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Its lawyers in Europe won a long fight to persuade the European Union to drop its own listing of the M.E.K. as a terrorist group in 2009.
• "Although the group's leadership is being touted as a secular, democratic alternative to Iran's clerical establishment, exiled members describe the organization as an authoritarian personality cult that enforces "weekly ideological cleansings" and family separation among its ranks...Elizabeth Rubin, who has profiled the group extensively, wrote in 2011, the MEK "is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran's democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us."

Ghazaalch (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources that show MEK has a little or no support inside Iran

• Analysts say it has little support inside Iran today, where it is regarded as a terrorist organisation and has been accused of assassinating senior politicians and targeting civilians.
• MEK developed a significant base of support in Iran immediately after the revolution, but ...[its] alliance with the hated Saddam Hussein embitered most Iranians and largely eliminated whatever respect the MEK may have won from its earlier resistance. After the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States allowed the MEK to keep its small arms and control its own military base, originally established by Saddam’s officials.
• "When [MEK] lost, it became the tool of Saddam Hussein until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is now little more than a Rajavi cult with little influence in Iran and even less popularity."
• "While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran."
• the notorious Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK)
• Since that moment, the group has been widely seen as a pariah among the Iranian public.
• the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors.

More WP:COATRACK with no context, again. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• "described by State Department officials as a repressive cult despised by most Iranians and Iraqis ... the official said, the group is “hated almost universally by the Iranian population,” in part for siding with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war"
• Mujahideen-e Khalq, a cultlike terrorist organization that is despised by many Iranians...the MEK relinquished its legitimacy among many Iranians through a campaign of terror tactics and support for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s."

Ghazaalch (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources that shows MEK is a fringe/small organization

• "the US was able to convince Albania to accept the 2,700 remaining members – who were brought to Tirana on a series of charter flights between 2014 and 2016...the US and UK politicians loudly supporting a tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania ... a fringe Iranian revolutionary group that has been exiled to Albania, known as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran..."

@Ghazaalch: did you just repeat the same source from your proposal 3 more times here, and then described it as "The sources that shows MEK is a small organization"? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add more sources if you give me the time. As Vice regent once wrote, High quality journalistic sources published in recent years have called the MEK a "fringe" group: New York Times, CBC News, Washington Post and an expert quoted in NBC News:

• the organization as a fringe group... Their population in Iran hovers between negligible and nill
• "to protect and resettle about 3,400 members of the group, known as the M.E.K...a fringe Iranian opposition group, long an ally of Saddam Hussein, that is designated as a terrorist organization... "
• "Mark Wallace, who has drawn criticism for including a fringe Iranian diaspora group, Mujahideen-e Khalq, or MEK"
• "Harper was in Paris last weekend at a "Free Iran" rally hosted by a fringe group of militant Iranian exiles known as the Mujahedin-e Khalj (MEK)..."

Ghazaalch (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC, 14 January 2023

The first sentence in the lead reads:

• …is an Iranian political-militant organization.

This sentence has not been updated yet. Should it be replaced with:

... is an unpopular Iranian militant opposition group headquartered in Albania.

Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Survey, 14 January 2023

• Yes The current text is against WP:NPOV. It does not include major points of view that are noticed in reliable sources. The reliable sources offered in the lists [12][13] imply that the People's Mojahedin-e Khalq was once a prominent political group, but after siding with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War and killing many Iranians, it became an unpopular cult-like group of exiles that live in a camp in Albania today. Therefore the sentence needs to be updated. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• No The proposal fails WP:NPOV. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Use "is an Iranian militant opposition group living in exile in Albania." Whether they are "popular" or not is something to explore in the article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: the considered part was deleted. It looks better now. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes (original or modified option): I suppose the "politico-" part is rather outdated now. The sentence is about what the groups is, i.e.: today, when it is a group of zero political standing in Iran, headquartered in a foreign country. The current lead actually contains a major oversight in not mentioning Albania, since an organization's location is basic, first-sentence stuff.Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• No. Obvious fail of WP:NPOV and WP:RFCBEFORE . Also there is currently an open RFC in this talk page about the lead and the MEK being in Albania. The infobox also already says the MEK is headquartered in Albania. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  What is in or not in the infobox is irrelevant to the body of the article. The infobox, like the lead, is just a summary of the body. And if anything, that it is present in the infobox tells you that it is key information that requires summarization. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) unpopular should not be included in that sentence, although I'm not opposed to unpopularity being discussed in the article. "Living in exile" is somewhat weird, I would phrase it as headquartered in Albania. Since the group claims to have operatives within Iran, and is also known to have operatives outside Albania (UK, Germany, US, etc). MarioGom (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  True. "based in Albania" would also be fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. @Some1, SMcCandlish, and MarioGom: I have modified the initial proposal. I hope you agree with the modified text. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fine by me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. MarioGom (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion, 14 January 2023

As it currently stands, I would say there's no consensus, leaning towards accepting a modified version. During this RFC, it seems the main objection was the usage of unpopular, and the proposer was fine with removing it. Given that there seems to be no one uninvolved that is willing to close this RFC, I'm proposing a slightly modified version that will probably be more agreeable by everyone:

Replacing [...] is an Iranian political-militant organization.

with [...] is an Iranian political-militant organization headquartered in Albania.

So, just adding where they are headquartered, which is well supported by sources. I have left out of this proposal any other wording changes. What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@MarioGom: I Agree.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It is Okey MarioGom. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's okay, but not better than the proposed. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed it [14] as a compromise solution. Let's see if it sticks. MarioGom (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Fad Ariff: it seems you reverted this change as part of a larger rollback. Was that intended? MarioGom (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MarioGom: are you talking about my revert to the article's original state? I have some reservations regarding the specific edit mentioned because it raises concerns regarding the principle of due weight (WP:DUE). From my observations, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) is often described more prominently as a political group rather than a militant one. Additionally, while it is true that many of its members were relocated from Camp Ashraf in Iraq to Camp Ashraf-3 in Albania, it is important to note that the organization also holds rallies and has members in France and other parts of Europe. Therefore, the assignment of "headquarters" would need to be thoroughly verified. I have initiated a review of relevant sources to gather more information on this matter, and I will provide further updates accordingly. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Iraniangal777: My edit is unrelated to the "militant" word. That was already present for a long time. My proposal above to settle this RFC was to reduce it to the addition headquartered in Albania. MEK has members worldwide, but it is headquartered at Camp Ashraf 3. That does not mean all members are in Albania (in fact, it seems only about a third of members are there). That can be addressed elsewhere. As far as I can tell, the other headquarter in Paris is NCRI's, but I'm happy to see if RS say otherwise. MarioGom (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit doesn't propose to change the "militant" word, but it is related to the MEK sentence in the lead saying "political-militant organization headquartered in Albania" (so, related). If we include in the lead of the article that the MEK is described as a 'political-militant organization headquartered in Albania,' it is important to ensure we adhere to the principles of WP:DUEWEIGHT by relying on reliable sources that specifically describe the MEK as a militant (or partially) militant group headquartered in Albania. MarioGom, can you list such sources? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Fad Ariff: No. My proposal was to leave other considerations outside of the scope of this RFC and let them be discussed separately. So I limited my proposal exclusively to adding "headquartered in Albania". Do you have any concrete objection to adding "headquartered in Albania" to the lede? Because that was what you reverted. The characterization as "political-militant" was there before my edit. It makes no sense you revert my edit because you object something that is present in the article before and after my edit. MarioGom (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

MarioGom: yes, my concrete objection pertains tot he absence of sources that explicitly indicate that there is a political-militant group headquartered in Albania. I acknowledge and understand the point you're making about only wanting to add "headquartered in Albania", but you seem to be ignoring the point I'm making that this addition changes the meaning of the sentence. The MEK is a political dissident group, with many of its members currently based in Ashraf 3, Albania. That is what adheres to WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:RS. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Fad Ariff: Please, help me understand your point, because I still don't get it. Your point is that the MEK headquarters are not in Camp Ashraf 3? MarioGom (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

How about a proposal that just boils it down even further to "is an Iranian dissident group currently based in Albania" - dropping the militant, because it is at this point ex-militant, and "currently based" because that better alludes to it rather nomadic history. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that proposal. I somehow thought "headquartered" would be more precise and less contentious, but "based in" looks ok to me too. MarioGom (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC, 16 January 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following sentence about the 1992 embassy attacks be added to the article?

According to MEK representatives, the attacks were a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base where several people had been killed and wounded.

Yes or No? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposal by Ghazaalch

According to MEK representatives, the attacks were a way to protest the bombing of a MEK military base in Iraq, where a rebel fighter had been killed and others wounded. Iran, acknowledging the raid, said it was carried out in retaliation for attacks on two villages in the west of Iran by the Iraq-backed MEK guerrillas.

As discussed in the above discussion,

1. Including only MEK's response and discluding Tehran response is against WP:NPV.
2. The word several in Fad Ariff's proposal is implying many killing, while there is one killing in the source.
3. Writing "people had been killed" instead of "fighter had been killed" is misleading.
4. It is important that MEK launched the attack with the support of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, where MEK's base was located. Removing Saddam's role is misrepresenting the source.

The last three issues apply to Fad Ariff's alternative proposal too.

Sources

Survey, 16 January 2023

• Yes. A MEK response about this incident is WP:DUE. There have also been some discussions about the possibility of expanding the material about the 1992 embassy incident, but we don't seem to agree how exactly to do that. In case there is also a consensus for expanding this material, I added my proposal about that below. But there has been some consensus that a MEK response about the attacks is WP:DUE material for this article, so I support adding that at least. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it seems to be fairly straight forward. See the Guardian. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2023‎ (UTC)

  Though the Guardian wording is more neutral and factual: "The assault was in response to an Iranian air force bombing raid on an MEK base in Iraq." Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• No: For the same reasons raised against this exact, poorly written phrasing in Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#1992 embassy attacks (WP:RFCBEFORE) and then unhelpfully ignored in this proposal - namely that "protest" is an extremely POV and inappropriate way to describe violent attacks on 11 different embassies, and that "several people had been killed and wounded" is deeply counterfactual phrasing - you don't simply blend casualties and injuries together: there was exactly one death, and you either state that or you don't. All of the feedback has been ignored. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, something along the lines of the wording in the Guardian would be fine, but I oppose the proposal in its presented form. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to including that fact. Including self-declared motivations, as covered in reliable sources makes sense. Without prejudice to improving wording, or adding more sources such as The Guardian. MarioGom (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

MarioGom, does this vote mean you agree with Alternative proposal by Ghazaalch too? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree to any of the proposals. At some point we need to move on. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to Alternative proposal by Ghazaalch. Per what said above. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would say yes to this, as more NPOV, though I'm still not a fan of the "protest" (maybe just me). "Iraq-backed" would be better than "Saddam-backed". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but fix several errors in the second sentence by changing it to "Iran, acknowledging the raid, said it was carried out in retaliation for attacks on two villages in the west of Iran by the Iraq-backed MEK guerrillas."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 , 01:45, 18 January 2023‎ (UTC)

Thank you Iskandar323 and SMcCandlish for the feedback. I modified the alternative proposal. As for the word "protest", in the source we read A statement by the Bonn headquarters of People's Mujahedeen, ... said the attacks were meant to protest the bombing of a base of the National Liberation Army. That is why I used the word "protest".Ghazaalch (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Is this vote yours, and is it in support to Alternative proposal by Ghazaalch? (it isn't clear) Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes (I have fixed the sig now), and yes (the text I revised only appears in that version).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Self-declared motivations as covered in reliable sources is certainly fine. Alex-h (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to including this as covered in reliable sources, with no prejudice to improving wording or adding more sources'. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion, 16 January 2023

If the material about the 1992 embassy is to be expanded beyond a MEK response, this would be my proposal.

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

Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's problematic for multiple reasons, including redundancy and use of loaded wording like "regime".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Iranian Regime" is widely used. Just Google it. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not Google to see if a given material should be included in the article or not. We usually look into the given source.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I requested a formal closure of this RFC. It seems there is a partial consensus, and further proposals discussed here can just be attempted through WP:BRD or subsequent RFC... MarioGom (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC 31 January 2023

The lede currently contains the following:

• After the fall of Pahlavi, the MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum and Khomeini prevented Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office.

Should it be replaced with the following?

• After the fall of Pahlavi, the MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum, which led to Khomeini barring MEK leader Massoud Rajavi from the 1980 Iranian presidential election.

Yes or No? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Survey, 31 January 2023

Yes as discussed above by Iskandar and Ghazaalch, currently, Rajavi is not mentioned anywhere in the lead as the elected leader of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Moreover, linking the first part of the current sentence ("the MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum ") to the second part ("and Khomeini prevented Massoud Rajavi and other MEK members from running for office.[40][41][42]") is WP:SYNTH, since Goulka (the first source) doesn't talk about the referendum at all. Note that and other MEK members is only mentioned in Goulka.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, this one seems easy. MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion, 31 January 2023

There were no objections to this proposal, but I think the sources need some improvement in formatting. Would this look correct?

After the fall of Pahlavi, the MEK boycotted the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum, which led to Khomeini barring MEK leader Massoud Rajavi from the 1980 Iranian presidential election.

This would prevent removing the Goulka et al. citation, and arranging the others in a more standard way. Ali Ahwazi: How does this look like? --MarioGom (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@MarioGom: It looks good. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done [15]. MarioGom (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Notes

Material about marriage (WP:RFCBEFORE)

We had a discussion about adding in section "Ideological revolution and women's rights" that

For some Iranians, the marriage institution was being used as a means to challenge "unjust organization orders" at the time in Iran. For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages.

Even though the material is from a reliable source, Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch rejected this saying more sources are needed (which doesn't make sense because Abrahamian is used as the only source for most of that section). Whatever logic is used for one source needs to also apply to other sources, or we can solve this by RFC. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ali Ahwazi:, @Ghazaalch:, @Iskandar323:, @Iraniangal777:, do you have any objections with the implementation of material in the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I object to it as currently worded. The first sentence can just go - that's a general observation about the revolution and leftist principles in Iran, not specifically about the MEK. The second sentence should add the context and not flip the meaning around (the sources says divorce, not marriage (it also makes more sense that way around!)), so it's: "Following the 1985 ideological revolution, Maryam Rajavi's decision to divorce her (existing) husband (and marry Massoud Rajavi) became a platform for women involved with the MEK to challenge their own forced marriages." - the bits in brackets one could either take or leave, but the emphasis is on divorce in the text. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: your suggestions are not based on what is in the book, which reads "Following the revolution, leftists either did not get married out of fear of being identified, or they pursued marriage to remain anonymous before the state. For some women, however, the institution of marriage was used to challenge unjust organizational orders. For members of the Mojahedin, Rajavi's decision to divorce her husband for ideological reasons became a platform for women involved in the organization to challenge forced marriages following the 1985 ideological revolution. Many argued that if Rajavi had the choice to marry who she saw as her political equal, then they should be given the same opportunity." Do you have a suggestion based on what is in the book? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I'm not sure what you mean. My suggestion is based on that text. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: The source doesn't say Rajavi's decision to divorce her (existing) husband (and marry Massoud Rajavi) became...”, it says "Rajavi's decision to divorce her husband for ideological reasons became...". Maryam Rajavi's divorce and marriage to Massoud Rajavi is material already covered in the article, there is even a full paragraph about it and cited to Abrahamian. That is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and this would be my proposal for making this material more balanced -

"For some Iranians, the marriage institution was being used as a means to challenge "unjust organization orders" at the time in Iran. For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate the ideological revolution. This was signified as an "act of supreme sacrifice designed to promote collective leadership and appeal to the female half of the Iranian populace." This was both criticized and praised according to different reports."

If you have a different proposal, then please provide it, otherwise I'll implement this edit per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed edit is a frankly bizarre inversion of the material as it is presented in the actual source. The source is about the 'divorce being a platform', and so is my suggestion; yours makes it about marriage, which flips it entirely on its head. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Ok, let's have it your way and put 'divorce being a platform' instead of 'marriage'. I'll implement this edit if you have no further objections. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I don't like the way that your proposed addition is now three times as long as the original proposal that we have been discussing and now skews itself significantly towards whatever bizarre ideological take the MEK came up with for it all. That said, I don't mind the "appeal to the female half of the Iranian populace part", though I'd ditch the rest, so both the ideological facilitation sentence, which is meaningless, and the "supreme sacrifice" crap, because that's self-aggrandizing promotional bullshit. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: the addition is longer because it proposes to replace the full paragraph cited to Abrahamian with a more balanced paragraph (what we have been discussing). I'll implement this edit if you have no further objections. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you haven't even stated plainly which paragraph you are planning to replace, how could one have anything but objections? What is it that you plan on deleting? It would have been useful to mention that earlier. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It's the same Abrahamian paragraph we have been talking about that includes cherrypicked lines about the marriage. The point of this discussion is to sort out all of the information concerning Rajavi’s marriage. I have implemented the edit so you can make a more specific objection. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You have no consensus for changing that material, as is more than evident from no one agreeing to the addition, and changing the scope of this discussion midway through from discussing adding select information to adding some information and deleting other material has just turned this thread into a directionless mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1981 events in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)

By 1981, authorities had banned the MEK and begun a major crackdown on the group's members and supporters, driving the organization underground.

In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état. Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers. As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982.

The above sentences in the lead are related to the events of 1981. I think they should be written in a neutral point of view. Currently they are a combination of cherrypicked information from various sources. In order to reach a consensus, I think we should prioritize scholarly sources that are really expert on MEK, such as Abrahamian's Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, Katzman's Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and RAND's The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum. Here is my proposal:

On 20 June 1981, the MEK held an anti-Khomeini demonstration that turned into an armed confrontation which the MEK was badly defeated. President BaniSadr who was perceived as encouraging MEK, was removed as President the next day. On June 28, the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party was blown up and more than 70 members of the leadership, including Beheshti, were killed. MEK have stated that the bombing was a "natural and necessary reaction to the regime's atrocities". Having failed to bring down the regime, Bani-Sadr and Rajavi fled to Paris, where they formed the National Council of Resistance of Iran. During the exile, the underground network that remained in Iran continued to plan and carry out attacks. MEK is also accused of the August 1981 bombing that killed Iran's president and prime minister, Rajai and Bahonar.

Ghazaalch (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Agree that not mentioning the bombing(s), of which it was prominently accused, is strange. I am definitely in support of mentioning the first bombing and somewhat supportive of mentioning the second, and I think the first sentence (the one in the previous paragraph) should be outright removed because it makes little sense to mention the same thing twice. However, I think some of the wording in the proposal could be improved upon. For one, "that turned into an armed confrontation which the MEK was badly defeated" probably needs some more nuance. It is unlikely that, even if they had enough weapons (which I don't know about as most sources don't mention it), protesters could stand a chance against the army, so calling it an armed confrontation is at least unintuitive. It's also unlikely that all of the protesters were part of the MEK. Would need some direct quotes from multiple sources or a change of wording, and even then I think getting a consensus would be difficult. "badly defeated" is also not very encyclopedic. "Having failed to bring down the regime" should also probably be removed because the group remains active. That part may be about that bombing, but in that case it's too much for us to assume that they assumed the bombing would bring down the regime. I know the source uses those words, but I think WP:TONE applies here. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Prinsgezinde. This article needs help from uninvolved editors like you. I modified the paragraph as bellow. See if it is better now?Ghazaalch (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

On June 20, the MEK together with BaniSadr encouraged the masses to repeat the 1979 revolution. After Khomeini removed Banisadr from power, the MEK started attacks against IRP targets. On June 28, the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party was blown up and more than 70 members of the leadership were killed. MEK stated that the bombing was a "natural and necessary reaction to the regime’s atrocities". Facing the subsequent repression of the MEK by the IRP, BaniSadr and Rajavi fled to Paris, where they formed the NCRI. During the exile, the underground network that remained in Iran continued to plan and carry out attacks and it allegedly conducted the August 1981 bombing that killed Iran's president and prime minister, Rajai and Bahonar.

Hello @SMcCandlish, MarioGom, Iskandar323, Vice regent, and Fad Ariff: Any other comment to make the proposal better and shorter?Ghazaalch (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The revised version seems okay to me, but I am not a subject-matter expert.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems that there is no objection, so I put it in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple inaccuracies with Ghazaalch's proposal. Hafte Tir bombing article says The Iranian government first blamed SAVAK and the Iraqi regime. Two days later, on 30 June, the People's Mujahedin of Iran was accused by Khomeini of being behind the attack. Several non-Iranian sources also believe the bombing was conducted by the People's Mujahedin of Iran. Several years later, Iran executed four "Iraqi agents" for the bombing. In 1985, Iranian military intelligence stated that the bombing was not conducted by the MEK but by pro-monarchy officers in the Iranian army. According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular." According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP." There are many fingers pointing to many different possible groups to be putting this in this lead as fact. "MEK stated that the bombing was a "natural and necessary reaction to the regime's atrocities" What does this have to do with the bombings themselves? Nothing at all. "On June 20, the MEK together with BaniSadr encouraged the masses to repeat the 1979 revolution" is also inaccurate. Banisdar was impeached, and the Iranian people rose up against the Islamic republic in protest. "After Khomeini removed Banisadr from power, the MEK started attacks against IRP targets." is also inaccurate. The MEK attacked IRP officials after IRP officials started attacking political adversaries in Iran.

What is in the lead now does not seem cherrypicked or inaccurate. By 1981, authorities had banned the MEK and begun a major crackdown on the group's members and supporters, driving the organization underground. That is accurate according to academic literature and not cherrypicked. In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état. Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers. That is also accurate according to academic literature and not cherrypicked. As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982. That is also accurate according to academic literature and not cherrypicked. We even already had a conclusive RFC about part of this a few months ago. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The line "MEK stated that the bombing was a "natural and necessary reaction to the regime's atrocities" is obviously the MEK's POV on the bombing - something required for balance. The Hafte Tir bombing page, while a Wikipedia page and not a reliable source itself, does not cast significant doubt on the responsibility of the MEK for the bombing. There are several scholarly sources attesting that the bombing was the MEK. The main sources otherwise are a Tasnim News Agency report, an IRGC-linked outlit, from 2017 trying to partially blame the US and Israel as well, and a single statement in 1985, attributed by Abrahamian to Iranian military intelligence, blaming 'royalist' elements - a claim not supported anywhere else in the page, and also not supported by Abrahamian, only attributed, as mentioned. The text "On June 20, the MEK together with BaniSadr encouraged the masses to repeat the 1979 revolution" is meanwhile attributed directly to Abrahamian, so quite clearly it is the original text that is inaccurate. As the Guardian piece also makes plain, the order of events was clearly protests first, removal of Banisadr later. Your statement that people rose up after Banisadr was removed is not in the original text - that is just unsourced in your comment. The part about attacks on the IRP is also sourced, while your comments, again, are not. The line "By 1981, authorities had banned the MEK and begun a major crackdown on the group's members and supporters, driving the organization underground." is simply a bit vague, and I would be interested to know exactly what Abrahamian wrote. But from the details currently provided in the body, it references 'by early 1981', not just 'by 1981'; it is also unclear if there was a wholesale ban on the organization, or simply a clampdown on its activities and the issuance of arrest warrants for its leaders (who obviously did go underground). It later notes that middle-level organizers were only detained after the 20 June protests. It is likewise unclear what the "secret coup d'état" sentence is referring to, since, chronologically, Banisadr was only removed afterwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedbacks. Fad Ariff do you see any issue with this modified proposal:

On June 20, 1981, the MEk organized a demonstration against Khomeini with the aim of overthrowing the regime, in which 50 demonstrators were killed. President BaniSadr who was perceived as encouraging MEK, was removed as President the next day. On June 28, the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party was blown up and more than 70 members of the leadership were killed. Several sources accuse MEK for the bombing. Facing the subsequent repression of the MEK by the IRP, BaniSadr and Rajavi fled to Paris, where they formed the NCRI. During the exile, the underground network that remained in Iran continued to plan and carry out attacks and it allegedly conducted the August 1981 bombing that killed Iran's president and prime minister, Rajai and Bahonar.

Ghazaalch (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead's original version is a more accurate review of the academic literature and the article's sections. Also cherrypicked allegations is not something for the lead. Looking at those pages about the bombings for example the only things that seem beyond doubt is that "Khomeini blamed the MEK, which didn't take credit but also never denied responsibility", and that the bombings "were shocking displays of the regime's faulty security and infiltration by foes". The sources in those articles also attest that "It is possible, as Claude Van England notes, that those who planted the bombs were assisted by the Mujaahideen though they were not actually members of the organization. Much of the expertise involved was thus not necessarily that of the old Mujahideen, but may have been the product of collective efforts with other opponents of the regime." Also that "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombing may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, including current iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rasanjani, to rid themselves of rivals with the IRP" Abrahamian also says "Even now it is not clear who planted the bomb", and that "SAVAK", "the Iraqi regime", "the Mojahedin", "Iraqi agents", "Mehdi Tafari", "royalist army officers" were all either charged or accused. Another source also attests that "the bomb explosion in Tehran on 30 August 1981 - which killed Muhammad Ali Rajai, the newly elected president of the IRI, as well as prime minister Muhammad Javad Bahunar - was attributed to the United States and its local agents." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, you said that the bombings may not have been carried out by MEK and should not be stated as fact. If you take a look at both proposals, you will see that they not have been stated as fact. However, it is a fact that several sources hold MEK responsible for these bombings. You say that there are other sources that name other suspects other than the MEK, which is irrelevant. If you don't give me a reasonable reason for your objection, I'll put it on the lede.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that the bombings "may not have been carried out by the MEK", I said "cherrypicked allegations is not something for the lead", and then showed you why using the academic literature. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

All you did was provide your own selection of cherrypicked quotes. The MEK is widely implicated, and remains the prime suspect by some margin. There are other theories, but no properly coalesced counter-narrative. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources