Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Marxism as ideology

Islamic Marxism is repeatedly removed from the infobox alleging that "MEK never claiming to be Islamic Marxist". Of course we don't care what MEK thinks about itself and we adhere to the reliable sources for that:

• "The MEK is a Marxist/Islamist group that..." [9] by Brookings Institution Press.
• "...Self-styled "Islamic-Marxists," the MEK also targeted Americans in the '70s..." [10]
• " Following a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam, the MEK has developed into the largest and most active armed Iranian dissident group." [11] by CRC Press.
• "It was a group that propounded an ideology that mixed Islamism and Marxism." [12]
• "A militant Islamic Marxist or Islamic Socialist organization..." [13] by Financial Times Press.
• "Its ideology was developed from a combination of Marxist and militant Islamic theories." [14] by Routledge

There are certainly much more sources proving that Islamic Marxism as the group's ideology. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not so clear cut. While it is clear Marxism was a strong influence in the 70s and 80s, it is not clear they were Islamic-Marxist then (as not all sources use this) - and it is even less clear they espouse this view now.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:, Is there any sources be in contradictory with being Islamic-Marxist nature of MEK? Saff V. (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

e.g. this which states they are "an Islamist group with some shade of Marxist tendency" and describes how those who were Marxists (and were not imprisoned in 75) split off from the organization to form Peykar. My understanding is that Iranian regime portrays MEK as Marxist (which is implicitly atheist) due to the internal Iranian regime discourse where atheism (from Marxism in this case) is heretical - however MEK itself is very much an Islamist movement (and far from atheist). Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you dismissing the above reliable sources? They are clearly saying that the MEK is/was a "Marxist/Islamist group". Why should we act based on our original research? In addition: See this source. "The group's ideology is described as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism."[15]--Mhhossein ^talk 09:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The link seems to be broken! Saff V. (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: while the up to date sources that Mhhossein provided, are not connected to "the internal Iranian regime", it is better support your opinion by presenting the reliable source, when did follow MEK the Marxist theory or when did/does not?Saff V. (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

When sources disagree, as they do here, we do not present one set of sources in our voice by reflect the range of opinions in the sources. I provided a source - [16] (link works for me) - but the citation would be - Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and the United States, Halleh Ghorashi, Nova Science Publishers, page 57. So no - this is not OR. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree? You must be kidding. At least 6 reliable sources are labeling them as "Islamic-Marxists" and I'm sure there are more sources saying the same thing. Which disagree??? Even your SINGLE source is saying their ideology was some mixture of Islam and Marxism. Having multiple sources supporting something, that thing is no longer OPINION. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's very weird to see that the above Reliable Sources are not enough for some of the users whose behavior is highly questionable. However, I'm providing some more sources:

• "The People’s Mujahedin are Islamist-Marxists." [17]
• "The People's Mujahedin of Iran; an Islamic Marxist group." [18]
• "PMOI adopted an Islamic ideology mixed with certain arguments of Marxist..." By Greenwood Publishing Group
• "such as the People's Mujahedin (Abrahamian 1989), a Muslim-Marxist organization, and the ..." By Routledge
• "melded revolutionary Islam with Marxism" The Cult of Rajavi by NYTimes
• and etc...

Enough??? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

At the top of page 57 in Ways to Survive, Battles to Win: Iranian Women Exiles in the Netherlands and the United States is written that MEK is the Islamist group... All in all we make a decision baced of majority of sources.It is better to clear the period of time that the ideology of MEK change.Also I hope sources 1 and 2 be helpful. Saff V. (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I would safely ignore that "Ways to Survive" source, when there are multiple reliable sources saying otherwise. Moreover, the group being Islamist is not in contradiction with being Islamic Marxism. Thanks for the 2 sources, but I can see that 2 is heavily used in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We may also add "Islamist" the infobox as the group's ideology, no contradiction as I said. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, the MEK drew on Marxist ideology, but never proclaimed itself to be Marxist. The group that did proclaim to Marxist, Peykar, is a different group that split from the (Islamist) MEK. You're blurring two different groups into one:

• While the political writings by founding MEK members drew on Marx’s sociological critique of class inequality, they flatly rejected Marx’s political ideology. Members of the extremist element that broke away from the MEK in the early to mid 1970s were, by contrast, self-proclaimed Marxists. (Bloomfield 2013, pp. 20)
• The MEK has in fact never once used the terms socialist, communist, Marxist or eshteraki [communist] to describe itself”. Nor has the MEK ever had an office in a Communist country. (Abrahamian 1989, pp.2)
• PMOI representatives claim that this misrepresents the group's ideology in that Marxism an Islam are incompatible, and the PMOI has always empahsized Islam. In the mid 1970s, after the Shah's security forces had arrested many of the PMOI's leaders, the organization apparently fell under the control of militants who placed greater empahsis on Marxism rather than Islam. During that time, some PMOI member split with the organization and began to work more closely with the clerics close to Ayatolla Khomeini. (Katzman 2001, pp. 99)
• As [Massoud] Rajavi admitted years later, the organization avoided the socialist label because such a term conjured up in the public mind images of atheism, materialism, and Westernism. For exactly the same reasons, the Shah’s regime was eager to pin on the MEK the label of Islamic-Marxists and Marxists-Muslims. (Abrahamian 1989, pp. 101)

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, we really don't care how the group likes to be described. The multiple sources I provided talk for themselves and they certainly say MEK is an Islamic Marxist. You can add some sentences saying they did not claim to be as such. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do care what the group advocates, particularly when outlined in RS. You're also grossly overlooking a lot of other RS, which is un-academic. Here are some:

• It is not surprising that during the Shah’s reign, the PMOI was dubbed as a ‘Marxist Islamist organisation’ and after the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini labeled them as ‘monafeguin’ or ‘hypocrites’, due to their interpretation of Sharia Law. It is ironic that the name ‘Mojahedin’ is widely used by Islamist groups today, which have nothing to do with People’s Mojahedin of Iran, which is a Muslim secularist and nationalist organization.

• In 1976, the Mojahedin split into two opposing sections. A group of Moahedin denounced the path of armed struggle and the reference to Islam, and split to set up a secular guerilla organization by the name Peykar Khalgh. This split served to strengthen the Islamic identity of the original Mojahedin Khalgh Organisation, who made extensive reference to the teachings of Ali Shariati.

• Thus, for Rajavi, the mojahedin leader, “the struggle is over two kinds of Islam, one an Islam of class, which ultimately protects the exploiter; and a pure, authentic and popular Islam, which is against classes and exploitation.

• Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular; from socialist to capitalist; from pro-Iranian-revolution to anti-Iranian-revolution; from pro-Saddam to pro-American; from violent to peaceful.

• In the Aug. 19, 1981, edition of the Washington Post, former Undersecretary of State George W. Ball stated, “Masud Rajavi … is the leader of the [Mojahedin] movement. Its intention is to replace the current backward Islamic regime with a modernized Shiite Islam drawing its egalitarian principles from Koranic sources rather than Marx.” Rather than working with moderate Iranians in opposition to the Islamist regime, successive U.S. administrations treated the regime as if it could be moderated.

• One of the many allegations levied against the MEK has been that it is an “Islamic-Marxist” organization, purportedly combining Marxist philosophy with its proclaimed Islamic ideology. The MEK was founded in 1965 as a Muslim organization. Like most Iranians, its founders sought a secular republic and the establishment of a democracy in Iran. MEK has never endeavored towards an ideological government, be it Islamic or otherwise.

• The origins of the “Islamic-Marxist” label date back to the early 1970s, when the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, sought to erode the organization’s growing popularity among young Iranians. The Iranian scholar Afshin Matin-Asgari described it as “an ingenious polemical label” used by the Shah’s regime to discredit its enemies.

• A modern secular organization.

• By subjecting the materialistic doctrines of Oparin and a host of other orthodox Marxist thinkers to a philosophical critique, the MEK hoped to challenge the vigorous presence of Marxism within Iranian intellectual circles. The group remained skeptical of Marxism’s philosophical postulates and rejected the latter’s cardinal doctrine of historical materialism. It held firm to the beliefs in the existence of God, revelation, the afterlife, the spirit, salvation, destiny, and the people’s commitment to these intangible principles.

• After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Shah’s downfall, PMOI/MEK pursued its objective of establishing democracy in secular Iran, and became very popular among the young middle class intelligentsia under the leadership of Massoud Raavi. Shortly afterwards, they became the target of the establishment because of their opposition towards the new constitution of Islamic Republic, which was based on Khomeini’s doctrine of Velayat-e-faqih (jurisprudence).

These are just some; there are more. Since Katzman is a well-respected academic, I propose we use his description:

an Iranian political group based on Islamic and Socialist ideology and advocated "overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership."
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Since the ideology entry in the infobox has become an edit-warring target, and since it seems that this group has/had many conflicting ideologies according to different sources (e.g. being both "Islamic" and "secular Islam") - I've removed the ideology entry from the infobox all together - it is simply too complicated and contested to summarize in bullet form. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not much of an editor; I've only done a few edits over the course of years, but I do follow global politics quite closely, and this article garnered my attention. It seems Stefka has gotten the victory overall despite his weak arguments and sources, as what had originally been on the article that was against Stefka's position has been removed. From what I see, Stefka's sources are exclusively: 1) documenting what the MEK claims they represent (not what they actually do represent, so therefore irrelevant) 2) Stating what the Shah claimed, which is irrelevant 3) A claim taken from a Huffington Post article written by a pro-MEK fanatic 4) Claims that actually support the case that it is Marxist, like that it is secular, egalitarian, and pro-democracy. Marxism is all about the common people rising up against the authorities, and is a very demophilic ideology 5) The Katzman quote, which doesn't refute the fact that it is Marxist 6) British and American unacademic sources, from politicians and government funded BBC, which tend to be pro-MEK due to the fact that Britain and America oppose the current Iranian government.

Also VERY noteworthy is the fact that America's neoconservatives like John Bolton are rabidly pro-MEK, and neoconservatism has very Marxist origins. I find it very interesting that this user called Stefka Bulgaria is being so persistent at this time in trying to make changes, coinciding perfectly with a step up in anti-Iranian sentiment in America. Very suspicious. The whole internet is getting tighter and tighter as far as restricting viewpoints. Coincides also with a mass deletion of Facebook profiles due to the Atlantic Council partnership. Everything works in tandem nowadays, all news outlets, social media, Wikipedia moving toward parroting the exact same viewpoint across the board. Very scary and fascist. Cah5896 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Returning to Icewhiz's version per his conclusion that this is just too complicated to summarize with a bullet point. Additionally, a distinction needs to be made between the Muslim MEK (what this article is about), and the Marxist splinter group Peykar. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should the word 'violent' get removed from the lead?

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.

---

There are some sources saying MEK is advocating overthrow of Iranian government.On the other hand, there are some updated sources saying they're advocating "violent overthrow" of the current government in Iran. Should the word 'violent' get removed from the lead? Saff V. (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, When it has been considered by Reliable and updated sources (1 and 2) as Violent overthrow that illustrates the nature of MEK briefly, why we don't use it?Saff V. (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Your RfC is misleading. First, as was pointed out by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., "The Appeals Court brief on July 16, 2010 cited the MEK´s petition arguing that more than a decade earlier, in 2001, it had ceased military operations against the Iranian regime, disbanded military units and renounced violence, and had turned its weapons to US forces in Iraq in 2003." Sites like the BBC also confirms the group transitioned to become a peaceful organization. Trying to brand the group "Violent" on the article´s first paragraph based on the armed struggle it had with the IRI before 2001 is simply unacademic as it grossly overlooks many important facts. The article´s first paragraph currently uses a description by Dr. Kenneth Katzman (an expert in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Persian Gulf Affairs) that describes the MEK as "based on Islamic and Socialist ideology and advocates "overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership." This is a perfectly neutral assessment, and there is no need to scare-quote the statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

No Original Research...In fact, No Original Research! You're mixing various sources to reach a conclusion which is supported by no reliable sources and even there are sources against it. That simply shows you're engaging OR. Can you tell the author of those reliable sources that their works are "simply unacademic as [they] grossly overlook many important facts"? There's no quote or scare-quote.., we can safely use it as per the many sources supporting it. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are RS describing the MEK´s "peaceful pursuit". Just as we should not use "Peaceful" for the sake of neutrality, we should also not use "Violent":

• "But the group contended it swore off violence more than a decade ago and now only seeks a peaceful overthrow of Iran's theocratic government." SE Asia Regional Centre for Counter Terrorism

• "Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular; from socialist to capitalist; from pro-Iranian-revolution to anti-Iranian-revolution; from pro-Saddam to pro-American; from violent to peaceful." BBC

• "He said he believes "their pursuit now is peaceful."US News

• "It says it is now focused on solely peaceful means of opposition, and has an array of prominent political supporters, including former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.”Irish Examiner

• "The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government,” Washington Post

• "Mr. Rohrabacher said the group seeks “a secular, peaceful, and democratic government.”NY Times

• “The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government..” Reuters

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. While the Iranian regime stresses "violent" aspects of this organization, sources outsjde of regime control are quite mixed. Furthermore overthrow of a government usually implies violence in any event, making the violent qualifier superfluous. Overthrow is succinct and encyclopedic.Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Overthrow can be either soft or violent and there are enough reliable sources saying they're advocating the second one. Sources are not mixed, there is no single source in contradiction with the 'violent overthrow'. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Many sources do not use violent, and such usage would not preclude soft. In any event "soft" revolutions are few and far between and usually only occur when the regime sees defeat as inevitable and has the foresight not to shoot the protestors. This usually does not occur.Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Many sources don't say many other things neither. That does not mean we should omit the materials covered by some reliable sources which are not covered by others. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of the well sourced facts and materials. Exclusion of this well sourced word is some sort of ... --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. I object its removal, despite the efforts by some users to avoid this well sourced fact. There's a concrete consensus that MEK is following the overthrow of the current government in Iran. However, there are multiple independent, high quality and reliable sources saying it in a more accurate manner:

- "Maryam Rajavi has acted as the deputy commander of the National Liberation Army ... and even today she believes in changing the system in Iran by violence." Routledge, 2008.

- "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime and was responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians..." ABC-CLIO, 2009.

- "...(MEK) advocates the violent overthrow of the Iranian government." Scarecrow Press, 2010.

- "The group advocates the violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran." International Policy Digest, 2018.

- "It advocates resistance and the violent overthrow of the Ayatollah regime..."The Jerusalem Post, 2018.

- "...The MEK sided with the Iraqi government, hoping to achieve their goal of a violent overthrow of the post-Revolution Iranian government. Global Security

- "...an Iranian dissident group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government..." Rand, 2009.

- "...organized by an exiled opposition group that calls for the regime's violent overthrow'..." AbcNews, 2018.

- "...a militant group of Iranian exiles that agitates for the violent overthrow..." Opinion piece by The Week, 2018

- "...the MEK is advocating the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime." Opinion piece by JPOST, 2018.

As it's seen, some of the mentioned sources are updated and belong to 2018. That some sources don't use 'violent' does not mean we should exclude it, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Per Icewhiz. Adding "Violent" to "overthrow" pushes a POV. It has been pointed out in this TP that there are numerous RS that don´t use this denomination, and for the sake of fixing some of the article´s neutrality problems, neither should we. Kenneth Katzman´s description currently being used in the lede (" an Iranian political group based on Islamic and Socialist ideology and advocated overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership.") is perfectly neutral and nuanced. No need to scare quote. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no scare quote, but a unanimous agreement in various sources over the violence nature of the MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Per Icewhiz, who is pretty spot on with his comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – From reading the discussion and sources, the current lead paragraph quote is fine as is. --Alex-h (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As you know, an unexplained 'vote' is rarely valued in the final assessment.Saff V. (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an unexplained vote though. Even if he simply said 'per Icewhiz' then it would be enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:As far as I see, no reason based on wikipedia's policy or guidlines has been provided for removal of the term. Saff V. (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes as udue weight for the lead, which, after all, is intended to summarise the body of the article. The significant fact which this references is the group's desire to remove the government of the day: that is implicit in "overthrow", and needs no adjectivizing. If there is no doubt that they did indeed advocate a violent overthrow, that should be part of the expanded deatil contained witin the article body. Of course, if it wasn't mentioned in the article body, then it certainly shouldn't be in the lead... ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129: Your 'YES' is because "violent" was not in the body? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:02, 16 October 2018 (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 on article's timeline

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 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)

Historical events

• 1965: MEK is formed by a small group of intellectuals (including salaried middle class students, teachers, civil servants, and other professionals).
• 1965 – 1975: MEK develops systematically an interpretation of Islam 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 disciples.
• 1975: There is an ideological split within the MEK where some members with Marxist ideologies leave the organization and began to work with the clerics close to Ayatollah Khomeini (some of these former MEK members eventually play a key role in forming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard after the Islamic revolution).
• 1979: 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.
• 1980: The MEK pursues establishing democracy in Iran, and becomes popular among the young middle class intelligentsia. Ayatollah Khomeini refuses to allow Massoud Rajavi to run in the 1980 presidential elections because the MEK boycotted a referendum on the Islamic republic constitution.
• 1981: By early 1981, the authorities closes down Mojahedin offices, outlaws their news papers, bans their demonstrations, and issues arrest warrants for some of their leaders; in short, they had forced the organization underground.
• The MEK organizes a protest against the Khomeini’s government (who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d’etat). The protest led to arrests and executions of MEK members and sympathizers.
• The MEK retaliates by carrying attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran (both political groups have been in conflict since). Because the June 1981 uprising had failed, Massound Rajavi and Banisadr fled to France and founded the NCRI.
• 1986: France, then seeking to improve relations with Iran, expells the MEK, and the organization relocates to Iraq.
• 1987: The MEK is able to set up bases in Sar Dasht on the Iraqi border and coordinate raids on regime positions in Iranian Kuderstan.
• Masoud Rajavi proclaims the formation of a “National Liberation Army of Iran” (NLA) to serve as a diverse, regular infantry force inclusive of all militant organizations which were members of the NCRI. Over Baghdad radio, the MEK invite all progressive-nationalist Iranian peoples, to participate in the toppling of the Islamic Republic.
• 1988: After an attack by the MEK on IRI targets, the Iranian Islamic state executes political prisoners, the majority of whom belonged to the MEK. Human rights organizations estimate that between 4,500 and 5,000 men, women, and children were killed. The actual figure is unknown as executions were carried out in secret. The event became known as the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners.
• 1997: the MEK are placed on the US list of terrorist organizations by the Clinton-administration in an effort to improve relations between the US and Iran after the more moderate Mohammad Khatami was elected president of the Islamic Republic in 1997. On similarly basis, the UK and EU designates the MEK a terrorist group (In an interview with the BBC Radio in 2006, the then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that the UK designation of MEK was the result of demands made by the Iranian regime).
• 2002: MEK blows whistle on Iran’s clandestine nuclear program.
• 2003: Following the occupation of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces, the MEK signs a ceasefire agreement with U.S. and coalition forces and put their arms down in the Camp of Ashraf.
• 2004: US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld designates the members of the MEK as ‘protected persons’ under the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (‘Geneva Convention IV’). The MEK claims that over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• 2012: Washington Times reports (after federal court review), that U.S. officials found no evidence of the group’s involvement in terrorist activity. “The secretary of state has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the designation of the Muahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

References

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

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)

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

Comment 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)

Comment How would this be integrated in the article in relation to the current text which describes most of them (there might some omissions - that should be rectified) in the article in a more verbose fashion? I agree the events in the timeline above are important for the MEK article, however it is unclear to me who this is proposed to be integrated into the article (it seems to me that you are presenting an outline on how to write the history section - however it seems to be an outline of the final text).Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment The data can be tabulated in a briefer manner. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

commnet - To clarify, I don't propose we literally include this timeline; the above serves only as an innitial reference to start organizing events. The current article's subsections jump from recent events, to past events, back to later events, and so on. Part of the reson why the article is a mess is that there isn't a chronological order that outlines events as they unfolded, which leads to making sweeping statements wihtout proper context. My proposal here is to start organizing things chronologially, as we do in other articles (keeping the existing format). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree that Wiki policy/guidelines is to prefer text over timelines. If the article isn't clear and chronological, then adding a timeline is like writing an alternate article. Jzsj (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Next time, think carefully before making an RfC. You should be writing in prose. The "history" section of this article is already chronological. I can only suspect that you're pushing a POV. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2018 (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.

Assassinations

Is not it better to shorten the Assassinations part material and moved them to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran? Saff V. (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support shortening the Assassinations section based on that there already is a List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Saff V., are you taking care of this or should I? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What did you do with this section exactly? While in splitting, we have to cut a section from the original article and then move them to the new one, You only picked up a vast amount of material without moving them to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, Stefke, your doing is equal to removing material with RS, such as clear violation.@Mhhossein: and @Icewhiz:, your opinion is needed. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem exactly? In general I support shortening individual incidents in this article (assassinations, bombings, shootings, and also political events) - keeping only the really major ones here, and splitting the crud out to a timeline article. Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

and the problem is that Stefka Bulgaria did not shorten the material, rather he removed them completely. This is censoring MEK's history.--Mhhossein ^talk 16:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

How about we add the more significant incidents into the article as prose, if they are missing from the current prose ? Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The most significant incidents are described throughout the article, if any are missing feel free to add them as prose (described in some detail). As it has been pointed out, there's already a separate page for the list. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:, such as shameful bahavior, you missed the material, you nominated to another article in your edit summery without moving material, you removed well sourced material from article ecxactly then you say to me "feel free to add them as prose". I have to say that removing well sourced material is example of POV and Vandalism. REVERT all edits as to missed material!Saff V. (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: The "shameful behavior" statement is uncalled for, just tell me what the issue is and I'll try my best to help. I'll have a careful look at the MEK assassination list to see what has been missed. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert 3 edits (1, 2, 3) actually missed material into here. Until all of them be transferred to List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran by me, based on splitting, don't remove them. I do shorten the article, you gave a try and it is my turn!Saff V. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria's edit was not honest. He removed all the assassinations and said that it was based on the consensus, while there was no consensus at all. I'm against complete removal. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPA please. Stick to discussing content, not conduct, and in this case it seems everyone involved here agrees that significant incidents should be in the prose. If you think some of the removed list items should be in the prose - do so. Likewise for entries missing on the list article.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria:, I am tring to save missed material on List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran while you are removing them again!Plz respect to WP:RVREASONS.There is no unsorced material and any doubt to find another one, so insted of removing, attach .Saff V. (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Please read my edit summaries: "This was supported by Christian Science Monitor, which is not RS. If another source is found to support then include)". If there's another edit you'd like to discuss, please take it to the appropriate article's Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: There's no Personal attack. Btw, I think you've got a wrong definition of PA. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Casualty estimates

@Mhhossein: - you restored this text to the lede. While I agree that casualty estimates (on all relevant sides - MEK, Iranian regime, civilian bystanders killed in the conflict between the two) are important, it is also important we use sources with some gravitas. Our current estimate is attributed to infoplease.com (which does not look like a RS nor a source with any gravitas) and MEK itself. Are there any published 3rd party estimates we could use ? Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: I'm not a fan of using that, however see this interesting edit where Stefka Bulgaria admits to use a source he was objecting severely at the RSN, at the expense of citing the causalities of the MEK group. I don't know what to say. If, as he said, infoplease.com is not reliable, why was he using it? the answer is clear. Anyway, the source itself is a 3rd party Springer book. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

if the source itself (didn't look!) is attributing this to infoplease.com - then we need to do so too. However - constructively - can we find a better and more current (e.g. not from 1994 - I assume casualties have gone up over the last 28 years) source ? Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There's just a footnote and nothing in the text. We know that "a scholar may cite PRIMARY sources". --Mhhossein ^talk 08:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Abrahamian, this is specifically attributed to infoplease.com, so that's our source of information, and what we should be citing here. We do need stronger sources than this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non free content#Text

Wikipedia:Non free content#Text is a guideline prohibiting "extensive quotation of copyrighted text". Don't restore them unless they're reworded properly. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There isn't an "extensive quotation of copyrighted text" issue in the lede, but if this is an issue for you, then I'll restore the one that you've removed (which was admitted to be included based on RfC consensus) and reword the remaining two quotes. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to show it's my issue. It's an issue which Wikipedia takes seriously. I have to report your violation. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No violation, as what Diannaa said. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Protesting for Iran (6604931151).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mujahedin Khalq Gathering in Paris June 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd black people in PMOI rally.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Haft-e-Tir bombing

Regarding this revert; There are plenty of reliable sources saying MEK did the bombing and Stefka Bulgaria is removing it only because there's ONE source saying PROBABLY there were other parties accused. I was reviewing the source used for the material, Abrahamian (1989) p.220, and I think the content is not sourced to a reliable source. Abrahamian has used questionable sources 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London as the source for his content making it unreliable for being used here. Removing such a well sourced content (that MEK did the bombing) from the article just for the sake of one questionable source is exactly giving undue weight to the unreliable source. I think we'd better having the material sourced to Abrahamian off the page until reliable sources are found for it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the above issue about the source is very correct, why should be omitted the participating of MEK in Haft-e-Tir bombing from the lead because of a (questionable) source.In addition, I have to say that the added material is not with good faith. For example, Abrahamian wrote about Mahdi Tafari that “Another tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same deed but did not mention any internal or external link”! In other words, the Abrahamian said there is no source for accusing Mehdi Tafari in Haft-e-Tir bombing. I believe that the NPOV was violated in this edit.Saff V. (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN, Stefka Bulgaria should demonstrate the verifiability by seeking a reliable source or evaluating the reliability of this source in RSN and up to that time I'm against keeping the material.Saff V. (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the reliability issue is much annoying...--Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Saff V.: I've removed the material cited the disputed source, but Stefka Bulgaria edit warred and reverted. Are you OK with the source? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There are two yes vote as well as two no vote, so the source can be considered as disputed statement and actually Source.Saff V. (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Good luck at RSN. Abrahamian, an academic published by a university press, will pass there without a doubt. RSes may conflict - when they do - the solution is to present all (major) views in RSes - not to throw out what one doesn't like. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: Yes, RSN the board where the source should be addressed. But, this is the onus of the one who seeks to use the source to prove it's reliable and hence satisfies the WP:verifiablity. I don't know if it's really necessary to repeat that per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Mhhossein ^talk 10:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Khomeini blamed the MEK for this. Other outlets blamed other groups. As Abrahamian notes, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular," which is what I've inserted in the article. Sources:

• The Khomeini regime also charged the group with responsibility for bombing at the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party and the Prime Minister’s office in the summer of 1981. The bombings killed many IRP leaders and the latter bombing killed then President Ali Rajai and Prime Minister avad Bahonar. However, 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.

• On June 28, 1981 a bomb killed and wounded a number of senior regime clerics, among them Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Hossein Beheshti, gathered at their party conference in Tehran... According to the Reuters dispatch in the New York Times, on June 30, 1981, the authorities initially blamed the “Great Satan” (US); Abrahamian (p.220) noted that the regime also suspected “SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime.” The Nationalist Equality Party, an Iranian resistance group in Turkey, claimed credit for the attack, according to the Times story. The pro-Soviet Tudeh party was also suspected. Within days, the regime shifted its story and blamed the MEK. Throughout its 30 years of underground armed resistance the MEK habitually issued communiqués taking credit for its actions against the regime, yet it never claimed responsibility for the June 28, 1981 bombing. The Tudeh party, the Turkey-based Nationalist Equality Party, and Forghan were all opposition groups repressed by the clerical regime who were capable of such an action

• On 28 June the IRP headquarters was blown up, killing Beheshti and some seventy of his close supporters. Immediately after the event, the authorities blamed SAVAK survivors and the Iraqi regime. Two days later, Khomeini pointed his finger at the Mojahedin... Some years later, a tribunal in Kermanshah quietly executed four ‘Iraqi agents’ for the deed. Another tribunal in Tehran also quietly executed a certain Mehdi Tafari for the same deed but did not mention any internal or external links. Shaykh Tehrani, revealed after fleeing to Baghdad that the regime knew that a Mr Kolahi had planted the bomb but had been unable to uncover his organizational affiliations. Finally, the head of military intelligence informed the press in April 1985 that the bombing had been the work not of the Mojahedin but of royalist army officers.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

References

It's very interesting that you can ignore the many reliable scholarly sources saying MEK did the bombing and that instead you tend to adhere to SPECULATIONs and unreliable sources. First sentence says MEK was accused by Khomeini. This is not in contradiction with many other reliable sources saying MEK did the bombing. It adds that there were SPECULATIONS the bombing was carried out by IRP leaders themselves. The author says it's a SPECULATION. Second and third sources are Abrahamian's, with the serious issues mentioned above. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The most serious issue is that you consider the talk page discussions meritless and keep reverting without trying to build consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is much to be regretted that you didn't pay attention to points which are nominated here. We said that Abrahamian's source is questionable but you introduced it again as RS.Why did you revert, While you nominated sources that emphasize on accussing MEK and add sentence about Mahdi Tafari as I said it was not supported by Abrahamian's source.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It definitely seems sources disagree on who was responsible for this. Since there is a disagreement (as well as conflicting claims at different times by the Iranian regime) - we should simply document the conflict claims, possibly attributed back to who is making them. We definitely should not choose to present a single narrative here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. If I find any other narratives from RS about this I'll include them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As you were told, you need to address the reliability of the Abrahamian source you're using for the content in question. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian is an expert in the subject area, and his book has been published by Yale University Press - a university press. So - a mainstream academic in a mainstream academic venue..... Pretty hard to challenge this RS wise - and Abrahamian is used throughout the article. Challenging Abrahamian on the basis of not liking his citations (and, one must note, that MEK's magazine is a fairly good source for MEK's words) - is a very weak argument. If you wish to challenge this - take it to RSN - it won't go far there - academic experts in university presses are generally presumed to be top-notch sources. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment shows you have not followed the comments carefully. The main issue is not "on the basis of not liking his citations" rather it's questionable because of using sources like 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London. MEK's magazine is good for their words? OK attribution is needed. I know Ervand Abrahamian well. There's no absolute reliability. We can't say all parts of a source is reliable or a source is always reliable. No, this portion of the source is clearly questionable and per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Mhhossein ^talk 16:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have followed - and not liking the citations of a Yale University Press book is a very weak arguement.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Not liking" is a very baseless self-interpretation. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

All talk and no action. why is not being reviewed the disscussion in RSN. Plz consider Abrahamian's source is not the matter, the main issue is sources that he used for the claim in his book.Saff V. (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

So we have a statement backed up by infoplease.com in the article's lede but suddenly a statement backed up by an expert scholar published in a University press is a questionable source? If you think the Abrahamian statement is not RS, then you can take "action" by taking it to WP:RSN. I have no question in mind that it is reliable, so I won't be taking it there any time soon. Besides, there are two other reliable sources (Kenneth Katzman and Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.) supporting this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said before and based on BURDEN,You are resposible for verifiability of material that you added!Saff V. (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Abrahamian source has been used throughout this article multiple times for years now. As I said before, there are also two other sources supporting this statement. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Which pages of sources?!Saff V. (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It is undeniable by such sources that MEK commited Haft-e-Tir bombing!Saff V. (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

With sources (mentioned above) are against text of Abrahamian as to Haft-e-Tir bombing, I am going to describe problem once more.Abrahamian's source is valied, but fact is that sentences used by Stefka is sourced by not reliable source in Abrahamian refrence.In other word Abrahamian used 'Mojahed' magazine (MEK's own magazine), Iran Times and Kayhan London for his claim in that book.All in all I ask Stefka to check this issue in RSN based on BURDEN.Saff V. (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to RSN if you really want to - @Saff V.: - but I think you will end up no where. A scholar may cite PRIMARY sources - and they do so all the time (e.g. in WWII war history - primary reports, orders, etc. - including Nazi German war orders - are cited by historians regularly). As opposed to us editors, who are not supposed to interpret such PRIMARY evidence, this is exactly the job description of scholars - and citing a SECONDARY source (such as Abrahamian) making such an interpretation is exactly what we are supposed to do. There has been no serious challenge here to Abrahamian's reliability as a source. What I do suggest, however, is that if you have a second (or more) academic source disagreeing with Abrahamian - that you add text sourced to that source along side of text sourced from Abrahamian - to reflect the different scholarly opinions here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for your helpful suggestion, But there is a difficulty. According to some RS, MEK committed the bombing so as to material should be written in Assassinations section. It is not perfection nominating the same material into sections (Assassinations and Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK). what is the solution?Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is disagreement between RSes - then if we include it - e.g. the assassinations section or the lede - then were need to note the disagreement - e.g. According to X MEK bombed Y, however according to Z the bombing was carried out by W. One can also prefix the whole thing with "MEK's involvement in the Y bombing is disputed:". In general - being disputed reduces DUEness (e.g. for the lede) - with the exception to the rule being that if the dispute itself is notable (as opposed to the event), then that may increase weight. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

the response is not clear to me. Consider, right now, the material about 7Tir bombing has been written in the Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK section, but due to other RS, the event is appropriate with Assassinations section. We can not point to an event in two sections of the article, it causes NPOV.I suggest to write about 7tir bombing and death of Beheshti in Assassinations and move against material from Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK to Assassinations.Saff V. (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to inclusion in the assassinations section, however the text should make clear that others have been accused as well and that MEK's involvement is disputed (e.g. by Abrahamian). Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I also think other views should be included as long as they're supported by reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It reveals that there is not any against opinion to inclusion in the assassinations section. I will move all of the narration to that section.Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources are telling us that Ruhollah Khomeini accused the MEK of this incident, and we know from other reliable sources that there were also other suspects, then why aren't we including this in the " Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" section? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody? Any feedback? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

According to most of RS, I disagree to move that material to the Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK, as well as I am going to suggest to merge these two sections "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" into "Assassination of MEK members outside Iran".Saff V. (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

RS tells us that the Islamic Republic of Iran waged a disinformation campaign against the MEK. RS tells us that all broadcasting from Iranian soil is controlled by the state and reflects official ideology. RS tells us that since 1981 until present day, declaring any support for the MEK in Iran will result in imprisonment or execution on the basis that they are "waging war on God and are condemned to execution". About the Hafte Tir bombings, RS tells us that two days after the incident, it was Ruhollah Khomeini who accused the MEK of this incident. Based on RS, and a previous consensus that, concerning political topics, IRI-controlled media should be used to reflect IRI views, then IRI allegations against the MEK need to be attributed as such. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There are many things reliable sources say. The above comment is just a cherry picked portion of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I am surprised to see this edit. After that comment from Icewhiz we have argued about a lot but u just did base on one opinion and ignore others. Yes, RS tells us that two days after the incident, it was Ruhollah Khomeini who accused the MEK of this incident, but in the following, we have at that RS which MEK never denied their role!All in all these material "A few years later, a Kermanshah tribunal executed four accused "Iraqi agents". Another tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. In 1985, the head of military intelligence informed the press that this had been the work of royalist army officers" are so disputed and I don't have any solution other than asking in RSN or supporting by another source.Saff V. (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Responsibility for Haft-e-Tir bombing is clearly in dispute. I suggest you hammer out a formulation that presents all views - not just one.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Took this to RSN - lets try to move forward past this issue. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Who did the MEK take armed struggle against, and why?

This edit concerns Mhhossein's request to clarify why the MEK took up armed struggle in Iran, an the targets it chose.

As the page outlines, the MEK responded to the IRI's suppression by targeting Iranian officials, but claiming it targeted civilians (specially in the lede) it's UNDO per RS:

• "The Mojahein attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; favouring clerics who had collaborated with the previous regime, even those who had participated in Mosaddeq’s overthrow; venerating the arch-reactionary Shaykh Fazlollah Nuri... violating the rights of national minorities; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their oppoonents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."

• "The violence was targeted almost without exception against the state, meaning Iranian regime officials, security forces, buildings, etc; and second, all of these actions occurred in the context of ongoing two-way conflict between MEK and the regime enforcers of the Shah and later the ruling mullahs."

• "The Mojahedin's targets were the Islamic Republic's. governmental and security institutions only."

• "The [Islamic Republic of Iran] regime illustrated, in launching this wave of repression, that it feared the internal network the Mojahedin proved it could activate… This pre-emptive measure on the part of the regime provoked the Mojahedin into escalating its paramilitary programs as a form of opposition… The Mojahedin continued its war of attrition against the regime, attacking government buildings."

• "After a brief period as a legal organization with the Islamic revolution of 1979, the group was outlawed by Iran in 1981 after a severe crackdown on one of its demonstration. The Mojahedin took on the regime, which responded with repression, with thousands of its members being killed."

Also, MEK leader Masoud Rajavi stated that they did not target civilians:

• “I pledge on behalf of the Iranian resistance that if anyone from our side oversteps the red line concerning absolute prohibition of attacks on civilians and innocent individuals, either deliberately or unintentionally, he or she would be ready to stand trial in any international court and accept any ruling by the court, including the payment of compensation.” Daily Hansard proceedings of the British House of Lords on March 27, 1991.

Based on this RS I will move the civilian target text to the article's body per UNDO. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Or to be precise - I think this should be framed differently. It is quite obvious that MEK says it attacks regime targets and not civilians. Conversely, it is also quite obvious that the IRI says that MEK is a terrorist organization that attacks innocent civilians in Iran. We should clearly present both views - without taking sides here in our voice. Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, too. :For the nth time: Wikipedia does not accept what MEK (be it MEK its leader or else) says as a fact and Wikipedia is not MEK's exclusive website. Rather we write articles based on the reliable sources, without having them cherry picked. There are reliable sources saying "In Iran, the MEK—supported by the Hussein regime— launched regular raids on civilian targets such as automobiles.."[19](P:68), "While the group says it does not intentionally target civilians, it has often risked civilian casualties."[20], "...for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians"[Reuters], "The state department described the MEK as cutting a "swath of terror" across the country in the following years and of "violent attacks in Iran that victimise civilians".[The Guardian], "...the Obama administration is wiping away the stigma from a cultish group that wants to overthrow the Iranian regime so badly it has attacked Iranian and other civilians to advance its agenda."[21].

As for the reasoning behind the attacks by MEK; No, they were not only reactions to the regime's actions, rather, among other things, the group did them "to advance its agenda". The RAND source also sheds light on this: "After Khomeini forced Banisadr out of ofce in 1981, the MeK launched violent attacks against IRP targets." (P:2). @Stefka Bulgaria: So, don't insert the narration YOU think is right in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources I just provided are not those of Iranian government (they're are independent of the subject). --Mhhossein ^talk 10:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I disagree, too. As I have seen between RS in such subjects, It is common that some opposition parties be armed against the regime in the country as well as sources collected by Stefka Bulgaria reveals. In other hands, the important point is the attack against civilians which supported by Mhhossein. So there is no reason to remove civilian's attack by MEK from the lead. Also, Stefka provided sources just arguing attacks of MEK against the regime, while I can't judge by them that MEK did not commit war against civilians, it can be possible but maybe the source doesn't involve. finally, Stefka removed the list of terrors of MEK then attached the quotation of Rajavi about a civilian attack. Interesting!Saff V. (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It comes across as misleading to say in the lede that the MEK attacked Iranian officials and citizens as something that just happened, specially when we know from reading the article that this was a response to the suppression by the Iranian government. What are the suggestions to make this more balanced/neutral? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" image

Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd black people with People's Mujahedin of Iran banners in demonstrations in front of headquarters of the United Nations, New York City.

This image, which Mhhossein included in the article, alleges that the people in the picture are "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd", but no evidence to support this allegation has been presented. @Mhhossein: please present evidence that these are indeed "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" (the evidence should be something other than your own personal assessment, which is what you've provided thus far) otherwise the image information will be corrected. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a well established fact the MEK rents people to make crowds ([22], [23], [24], [25]). Also, it's a common practice for MEK to bring African people to their gatherings.[26] Can you show one Iranian people in this picture? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This does not provide any evidence that the people in the image are "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd". Please provide actual evidence that the people in the image are "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd", otherwise this information will be corrected. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Are they Iranian? The information is correct and I provided enough sources for this. This picture clearly shows non-Iranian black people. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you know their nationality? If so, how? This is not about your personal assessment of the image, we need an actual source to confirm the claim. You have not provided a single source that asserts that the people in this image are "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Where ever they come from, It's pretty clear they're not Iranian. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What's pretty clear is that you don't have any evidence to support this statement (comparing it to "the sky is blue" is just ludicrous) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Be polite please. I Provided plenty of sources for that. They're certainly non-Iranian, as is the blue sky. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly where was I impolite? You have not provided a single source that asserts the people in this image are "African-Americans rent-a-crowd". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Describing my comparison as "ludicrous" was certainly impolite. Be careful for your next comments. Certainly non-Iranian. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, see this source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is your evidence that the people in the image are "African-American rent-a-crowd"? A smear propaganda piece by a fringe Iran Press agency? Right... Either provide a reliable source or the text will be corrected. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not the only evidence. You're already provided with enough sources and clues. Are you going to engage edit warring by making more reverts? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The only "evidence" you've provided about this image is a propaganda piece by a fringe political opposition source trying to smear the group, which justifies even more why this text needs correcting: Wikipedia should not be used as a smear/attack platform. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OR - remove (or at the least - remove "rent a crowd" from the caption). From reading the above - no WP:RS asserts that the people in the photo are rent-a-crowd. While it might be likely that Black people are not Iranian - that is OR. Assuming the people photographed were paid - is also OR. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)