Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

This article has been mentioned by a media organization-BRD

I added In the War for Narratives Iran’s Regime Takes to Wikipedia by National Council of Resistance of Iran to this talkpage-template, and was reverted on that, "this is not a media organization, but a self-published post by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (an organization with at least one member banned by WMF T&S"

Reasonable people can disagree on what counts as "media organization" in this context, I thought it was close enough, though I tend to be a bit inclusionist on these things. I think of a political org's official website as a media org, in general. Not that it comes up in this context very often, most of it will be some kind of "news". Fwiw, the website has "News". If you have an opinion, please share. However, "an organization with at least one member banned by WMF T&S" doesn't matter in this context, but it's interesting info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's fair. MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: As you note, it's a political party's blog. While it might contain media, that does not make it a "media site" by any standard definition of the term. WP:PRESS and the press template are strictly for press sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs is the place for blog mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The site has a blog-section, but afaict, the article in question is not there. Some political parties used to publish their own newspapers and magazines (maybe some still do), I don't consider this very different. But that's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Characterization as a cult

Hogo-2020: You reverted [1] my change changing the title of the section "Cult of personality" to "Characterization as a cult". Your rationale was While some sources use this term for the MEK, others don't. It is irrelevant that some sources do not describe it as a cult. Some do, and in-text attribution is used to note it. The section is not about "cult of personality". The content and the backing sources are way more broad and discuss the extent to which the organization can (or cannot) be characterized as a cult. It is simply incorrect to name this section "cult of personality". It does not match the content. It does not match the sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh God, the topic's back. Yes, it's described as a cult, but not a cult of personality. It wasn't one of these things where everyone hung the pictures of the leaders on the walls. Characterization is a more usefully descriptive/functional subtitle. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. I reverted your edit (didn't change the title as you say) because it was a deeply biased change. It is not irrelevant that other sources use the term "Cult of Personality". All reliable sources need to be considered, and if that's what's missing in that section, then perhaps we should be discussing that instead. I take it from the above comment that this has been previously addressed. If you're adamant about this change, we should look at those discussions as well as sources and determine what new information would support such a change. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hogo-2020: Do you realize that the section is not about "cult of personality"? Neither the content or the sources are about that. It just does not make any sense. Which title would you propose for this section? MarioGom (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also note that you are free to propose any other changes to the content, but trying to keep a title unrelated to the content is the kind of filibusterism that has plagued the 62 pages of archives already . MarioGom (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom, as already said, this looks like a deeply biased change because you're overlooking a major part of the literature. I will survey sources (also in the archives) and start a list here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the title is biased at all. The title is not "Cult", "Cult characteristics", or "This is a cult". "Characterization as a cult" is a fairly neutral heading for a section that discusses the sources that describe it as a cult, a politico-religious sect, etc. Some of these sources are as reliable as they can get, such as Ervand Abrahamian. But in any case, the heading "Characterization as a cult" does not preclude adding reliable sources that try to refute the others or represent a different viewpoint on the topic. MarioGom (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you please say which sources use the title "Characterization as a cult" (or similar)? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a summary of the content. What would be your preferred title? MarioGom (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How did you arrive at that summary? through which sources? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, just see the content of the section. These sources state that the organization has characteristics of a cult, with different aspects being discussed. How would you call a well-sourced section that discusses the extent to which an organization is a cult or displays some characteristics of a cult? The exact title does not need to be in the sources, just like "History" or "Controversies" do not need to explictly come from the sources, as long as the sources discuss history and controversies. So, again, what would be your preferred title for this section? MarioGom (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I got your overall point: you think my proposed title is "deeply biased" and it's unlikely I can persuade you. That's why I wonder what would be your proposal, or if you think the current title is just correct. Given the track record of this page, this would likely need an RFC, but it would be unfair if it did not represent all options. MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm as confused as Mario about what you think is "deeply biased" here. I can't see any bias, and you haven't explained any bias. I see one, arguably inaccurate descriptive subhead that has been exchanged for a related, but less specific and objectionable descriptive subhead. I don't see where bias comes into it at all. All labels of "cult" are characterisations, and there "Characterisations as a cult" is a perfectly reasonable subhead. Your objections, on the other hand, are as yet entirely unexplained. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. This list of books use "Cult of personality".

• Iran today : an encyclopedia of life in the Islamic Republic. Authors: Mehran Kamrava (Editor), Manochehr Dorraj (Editor). Publisher: Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 2008. Page 338.
• Terrornomics. Authors: Sean S. Costigan, David GoldPublished March 16, 2016. Publisher: Routledge. Page 68.
• Deadly connections states that sponsor terrorism. Authors: Daniel Byman. Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 Page 37.
• Conflict in the modern Middle East : an encyclopedia of civil war, revolutions, and regime change. Author:Jonathan K. Zartman (Editor). Publisher: ABC-CLIO, 2020. Page 209.
• The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 255.
• The Thousand and One Borders of Iran Travel and Identity. Author: Fariba Adelkhah. Publisher: Routledge, 2015. Page 270.
• Iran Agenda The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis. Authors: Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer. Publisher: Routledge, 2016. Page 99.
• Terrorist Argument. Author: Christopher C. Harmon. Publisher: Brookings Institution Press, 2018. Page 170.

My proposal is to have the section consider books like these. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And the reason why I asked you where you got this title from is because I saw in the archives that it was proposed about 4 years ago by two editors that appear to be now banned from this topic, SharabSalam and Mhhossein. How did you arrive at the same verbatim biased title as they did? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding further sources, including discussion of "cult of personality" practices is still compatible with a title "characterization as a cult". On the other hand, a title "cult of personality" is not appropriate for a section that discusses broader "cult-like" practices, not limited to cult of personality. You are welcome to expand the section with further reliable sources, but expanding it with cult of personality practices does not really change my point about the title. In fact, some of the sources you bring up discuss cult practices beyond cult of personality, like Abrahamian. About your later question of previous discussions: yes, I have read many previous discussions over the years, and I'll never claim all my proposals are novel (as neither are yours), there's nothing wrong with that. MarioGom (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. Your answer is rather compelling. I previously asked you how you had arrived at the title "Characterization as a cult", and you said you had not used sources but had read and summarized the content of the section: "It's a summary of the content", "just see the content of the section", "The exact title does not need to be in the sources". However the same verbatim title change proposal was made 4 years ago by two editors that are now banned and who used an unreliable source as the basis for the title change. Where things get compelling is that you never said you were reviving this proposal from 4 years ago, you said you had come up with this proposal by looking at the current content of the section. So how can both proposals (yours, and the one from 4 years ago by two banned editors using an unreliable source) be identical? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you think I'm not acting in good faith, please, report this to an appropriate venue. Otherwise, would you engage assuming good faith in this discussion? I made the case for this proposal at great length here, and asked you some questions to try to build consensus (whether you think the current title is ok or not, whether you have another proposal, or what would you think would be appropriate options for an RFC), but you did not answer any so far. I'm not going to engage in de-railing this thread with a long exchange on this innuendo about whatever some other editor said 4 years ago. MarioGom (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom, I'm also interested in the content (I did answer about your proposal using sources, and I'm currently gathering additional sources that I will provide here soon). I'm also not interested in escalating this, but could you just please clear this up? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I answered already [2]. I'm not going to write a longer essay here about this. It's not relevant for this discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you really want to go deeper on this meta discussion on my behaviour, my talk page is open. I think this thread should continue with the substance, and avoid shifting to meta-discussions that do not serve consensus building. MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom, I have looked at sources in the article, archives, and Google Books. Here is the draft list I've put together so far. I'm looking for additional sources, do you have any? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hogo-2020: I have been compiling some sources in a sandbox. It is quite early work. I am also drafting a rewrite of the section, although I expect my title proposal to stand both with the current content or my proposed content.

To ensure our efforts are directed towards some possible resolution, would you mind clarifying if the current title ("Cult of personality") is your preferred choice based on your current understanding of the sources? Otherwise, do you have any other option in mind? MarioGom (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That being said, I think there's a misconception in your draft. "Cult" and "cult of personality" are not mutually exclusive. Some discuss "cult of personality" without labeling as "cult", while others discuss "cult of personality" as part of an explicit labeling as a cult. This is the case of Ervand Abrahamian, who you classify as "absolutely cult of personality", but he is the scholar describing the MEK most unambiguously as a cult (and yes, also discussing the cult of personality aspects). This can be seen in the following passages:

• Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 255. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. In short, the Mojahedin had metamorphized from a mass movement into an inward-looking sect in many ways similar to religious cults found the world over.
• Abrahamian, Ervand (2013). Cronin, Stephanie (ed.). Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. Routledge. p. 274. ISBN 978-1-134-32890-1. The Sazman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq [...] declared that the revolution had been betrayed, took up arms against the Islamic Republic, and, setting up bases outside the country, turned into a cult resembling medieval Shi'i sects. Its leader elevated himself into an infallible imam with the power to determine policy and reinterpret thirteen centuries of Islam.

As well as other works, including the following interview:

• Vick, Karl (21 June 2003). "Iranian Dissident Group Labeled a Terrorist Cult". The Washington Post.

where he stated they stopped being a mass movement with Marxist roots and became basically a cult MarioGom (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. My list evaluates which terminology aligns with WP:DUE, which would determine if a potential title change is necessary. I will add your quotes to the list, but are you also able to find sources with other perspectives? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said, there's a conceptual problem with that. "Cult of personality" is one aspect. Some sources discuss it as part of broader cult-like behavior. "Cult of personality" as a section title is not broad enough to convey that the section discusses what different sources claim about cult-like behavior, not limited to cult of personality. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Analysis or synthesis about how certain authors discuss cult-behavior within the broader concept of "cult of personality" is a patent Wikipedia:No original research breach. My list displays quotes from reliable sources to determine what terminology and content aligns with WP:DUE, also including the sources you mention that discuss both "Cult of personality" and "Characterization as a cult" aspects. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the most relevant sources, and I think you have done so too. I think the discussion is stuck because it is not a matter of reading the sources again, but an essential disagreement on how to interpret them, and how to conceptualize the different aspects. I'll start workshopping a possible RFC. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a few observations on the discussion so far. First, yes, the concept of "cult" in general is broader than just "cult of personality", so the latter does not adequately encompass the former. Secondly, in Hogo's source analysis, the "allegations" column is largely not allegations, but reliable and/or notable opinions. A good example is HRW, which is a reliable source in its own right. If they characterise it as a cult, that's a reliable characterisation. Finally, if it is purely a phrasing question, other formulations could be things like "cult-like attributes", "labelling as a cult", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand people will have personal observations, but my list only displays quotes from reliable sources without any personal analysis or editorializing. If a source attributes claims as coming from critics, governments, or certain analysts, then that's how I have also listed them. For example the AP article has two contrasting opinions, one is by a critic and the other by someone rejecting that criticism. These are two contrasting opinions coming from the same source, and I've quoted them accordingly without any further appraisals. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course those are opinions. Those are just statements by politicians. Those aren't the examples I gave. The voices of subject-matter experts, research organisations and independent bodies are not just opinions however - these are reliable, expert statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The source quotes them as opinions, and I'm doing the same. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but random opinions in random news pieces are not very relevant. This sort of stuff carries little to no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My source analysis prioritizes content from books. Let me know if you have any other book you'd like me to consider. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Workshop: RFC on section title

I intend to open an RFC to resolve the above discussion. It could be as follows:

== RFC: Section title for the current "Cult of personality" section ==

What should be title title of the section currently titled "Cult of personality" (permalink)?

• Option 1: "Cult of personality" (statu quo)
• Option 2: "Characterization as a cult"

Alternatively, if it turns out there are no further options, I can turn it into a yes/no question, along the following lines:

== RFC: Section rename to "Characterization as a cult" ==

Should the section currently titled "Cult of personality" (permalink) be renamed to "Characterization as a cult"?

What do you think? Are these the two options that we would consider? Is there any other? cc participants in the above discussion (Hogo-2020, Iskandar323). MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Hogo can respond to my final comment above first. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. Before starting a RFC about the title, there are unresolved questions about the content of the section. For example the sentence:

• The MEK has been described as a "cult" by governments and officials in Iran, the United States, France, and Iraq.

My list shows how Owen Bennett Jones in The BBC and the AP article provide contrasting opinions, yet the sentence selectively represents only one point of view. That is one of several WP:NEUTRAL problems in the section. Would you like to help me clean it up? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the section needs to be rewritten, but at least for my proposal, I do not think it would change the title choice. So I don't think we need to wait for or hold back content changes. That can continue its own editing cycle. For what it's worth, I'm drafting new content, which would open with the following paragraph (still work in progress): Whether the MEK can be characterized as a cult or not is a frequent discussion among scholars. Some of them, including Ervand Abrahamian and Michael Axworthy, consider that, after the Iranian Revolution, the organization became a cult. Others, including Ronen A. Cohen and Eli Clifton, consider that the organization has some characteristics of a cult. However, Cohen notes that these characteristics are common across military organizations in times of war, and that the MEK cannot be considered a cult. I think the sentence you quote should be replaced as part of a rewrite, since I think it gives undue weight to declarations by some individual government officials, and scholar sources should have more weight.

Hogo-2020: I'm sorry for being repetitive, but back to the point: do you think all reasonable options for the title are represented? Or do you expect to support any other? Do you think the formulation of the RFC, as presented, would be neutral? MarioGom (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hogo-2020: We are all volunteers and obviously you have no obligation to answer any question, but I have asked this many many times in this thread, without receiving any answer. I intend to keep answering your questions and concerns, but it would be really great if you had the courtesy of answering the most basic question I made (repeatedly): Do you think all reasonable options for the title are represented? Or do you expect to support any other? Do you think the formulation of the RFC, as presented, would be neutral? MarioGom (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom: I have already addressed this. But if it's still unclear, the title should align with WP:DUE terminology. So far most sources (particularly books) use "Cult of personality". If it can be established that "Characterization as a cult" (or any other terminology) is more frequently used in sources, then I would support whatever terminology is WP:DUE. I have been analyzing the sources in that section and found that often the content selectively represents only one point of view, so I cannot tell you yet if your title choice is reasonable until we address this. Now would you please address the WP:NEUTRAL problems in that section that I asked about? Why delete from the page that RAND also describes the group as a cult of personality and that this claim is being denied by supporters, and only keep RAND's list of cult characteristics? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have done quite a lot of review of sources, so I thought by now you would have a rough idea of the possible choices. I'm not asking for you to commit to anything, none of this is binding for a future RFC, but ok.

I did not delete, I reverted, which is not the same. I objected to your changes and explained why. Your edit removed or replaced the following passages:

• [According to a RAND Corporation report for the US government, the MEK had] "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options."
• According to RAND, members were lured in through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries" and then prevented from leaving.

and I have not seen any justification other than Merging RAND [3], which is definitely not an explanation for such a change, in an area that is already proven contentious. MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indeed done a good review of some of the sources, and the main problem with that section is its selective misrepresentation of a single point of view. This was the rationale for merging RAND in a manner that includes the various perspectives the source presents. If representing all significant views is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, then why not include the various perspectives the source presents here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit removed key points of the RAND report, the ones I quoted. I have no problem expanding, and in fact, I already mentioned I think the section needs expansion. MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that section should be better written to represent the different points of views rather than expanded, but ok, I will add the missing views and then we can open a new topic about rewriting certain passages. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it will eventually need a rewrite to better represent what reliable sources say, with attention to due weight. Adding more info on cult of personality contributes to that. Removing well sourced mentions to cult beyond cult of personality does not. MarioGom (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In terms of due weight, RAND is cited to a large percentage of the entire section. There are dozens of sources available in this topic, so one source should not carry that much weight. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

These are not useful sources. The BBC piece is half opinion piece itself, is not focused on the issue and merely recollects the uninformed opinions of anonymous soldiers. The AP piece just trots out a few opinions from politicians. There are much more serious, secondary, analytical voices to be referenced here. We don't need trivial, unfocused news clippings and opinions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom: What is the reason for removing from the article the 13 sources that match the section title "Cult of personality"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, see the edit summary: Several issues: 1) removes well-sourced content (e.g. cult characteristics), 2) misrepresents the RAND report, which describes cult characteristics (not just cult of personality), 3) completely unreasonable refbomb in the body. By refbomb, I mean an indiscriminate list of inline references, where some seem tangential, and there seems to be even duplicates. Although format-wise, it can be improved by using a citation bundle (many examples in this article). Also, please, use proper citation templates. Although my main objection is that the change misrepresents the RAND report, where you changed the quote, seemingly implying that the source discusses only cult of personality, when it goes way way beyond that. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have partially restored your edits. The one for the initial sentence. Reference selection and style can be refined later. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

RAND weight in section "Cult of Personality"

Currently the section "Cult of Personality" has 323 words, of which 102 words (about one-third) are attributed to just one source, RAND. There are dozens of sources available in this topic so the weight given to RAND is undue. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian. So it is due.I think Abrahamian is way underrepresented in the section, and even RAND is underrepresented. Major aspects discussed by both sources are not covered. I don't think any of them should be covered less in absolute terms. MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom, where can I verify that RAND is "probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also note that I didn't say RAND was not due, I said that it's over-represented because its content makes up about one-third of the entire section. If WP:NPOV requires that editors paraphrase from various reliable sources, then why not do this here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You can verify this by actually reading the most cited academic sources within the article, as well as the most relevant tertiary sources such as Oxford Reference entries. I'll post a bibliographic review here. This will take some time. MarioGom (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for your bibliographic review, but kindly prioritize the central issue. If WP:NPOV requires that we paraphrase from various reliable sources, what is your justification for attributing one-third of the entire section to only RAND when there are dozens of sources available? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said, RAND is one of the most cited, not in this article, but in academic publications. I get that you will not check this, but please, understand that preparing a bibliography review for you will require quite some effort and time. About the extension, I did not advocate for RAND to take one-third. What I said is that is should be well represented, and that other sources, especially Abrahamian (which I hope you will not dispute as being the most important author in this area), need to be represented more. So my guess is that a well written section will have less than one third specifically attributed to RAND, not because reduced representation, but because the most reliable sources (currently underrepresented) will increase in weight. MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom, note that I did not say RAND was an unreliable source, I said RAND is being over-represented (and it is). A workshop should be set in place now so that portion of the section complies with WP:NPOV through additional sources. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you endorse such a workshop? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I've been reviewing bibliography and drafting some material and I'll be happy to post it here for further discussion. MarioGom (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have not been involved in this topic recently. But there was a time when I would read about MEK day and night. Based on my research, MarioGom is correct in saying "The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Workshop:RAND and WP:NPOV through additional sources

A bibliography review focused on paraphrasing from various reliable sources. I'll share my review soon. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be curious to see how frequently each source was cited. For comparison, the RAND article has 33 citations according to google scholar. And the source is both entirely dedicated to MEK, and covers the MEK comprehensively. The first is important, because it assures us all the citations are indeed MEK related. The second is important for establishing relative WEIGHT.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello VR. Wildfried Butcha's Who rules Iran? : the structure of power in the Islamic Republic (which ellaborates on the MEK thoroughly) is not cited in that section ("Cult of personality") at all and has 390 citations according to Google scholar, while almost of a third of the entire section remains attributed to only RAND. That's obviously against WP:NPOV. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That source fails the first criteria that the "entirely dedicated to MEK". How many of Butcha's 390 citations are about the MEK? Likely a small minority. However, we can be confident most, if not all, of citations to Abrahamian are regarding the MEK.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The "first criteria" that a source is required to be "entirely dedicated to the MEK" is being imposed by you? I tend to follow WP:POLICIES, and Wildfried Butcha's book (published by a reputable publisher and provides extensive coverage of the MEK) appears to comply with policy. But since we're in this topic, I have found two other papers entirely dedicated to the MEK: Raymond Tanter's Terror Tagging of an Iranian Dissident Organization: A White Paper, and James A. Piazza's The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile. The Mojahedin-e Khalq and its Struggle for Survival. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, its not imposed by me, its imposed by WP:COMMONSENSE. Given, Butcha's book is not dedicated to the MEK, can you indicate how many of its 390 citations are about the MEK? I went through the few citations in google scholar and didn't find a single citation to the MEK. It seems Butcha's work is well received for its scholarship o Iran in general, but not necessarily the MEK.

Raymond Tanter's book looks to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED (its published by IPC, of which Tanter himself is president). Piazza is better, as its published in Digest of Middle East Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. But it has only 4 citations on google scholar, so its not as widely regarded as RAND.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how many of Butcha's 390 google scholar citations are about the MEK, but his book does provide extensive coverage of the MEK. Are you suggesting that book can't be used because it isn't entirely dedicated to the MEK? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that at all, and I'm not sure where you got that from. We can definitely use Butcha's book, giving it WP:DUE weight. All I'm saying is that google scholar number of citations for Butch's can't be compared in an apples to apples way to the google citations to RAND or Abrahamian. Thus, RAND and Abrahamian remain the most scholarly publications on the topic, but again Butcha can be cited with WP:DUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

In any case, what material from Butcha did you want to cite? I notice he accuses Rajavi of a "dictatorial leadership" (p 113-114) and goes into details about MEK's "propaganda machine" (p 114-116) and then also calls it a "political religious sect" and says it is run like a "totalitarian, single-party dictatorship" (p 116).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

VR Refer to the initial discussions in this thread. I pointed out that a considerable amount of the section is sourced from only RAND. I proposed combining this information with other sources because it heavily relies on just one reference. Do you concur with this suggestion? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

VR Follow-up ping. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you propose something specifically? In principle, bringing in more sources is a great idea.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

VR here is a specific proposal bringing in more sources:

A RAND Corporation report states that during Masoud Rajavi's "ideological revolution," MEK members were expected to show loyalty to their leaders, resembling cult behavior with authoritarianism, though these claims are disputed by MEK supporters. During the ideological revolution, the organization's slogan "Iran is Rajavi, Rajavi is Iran" emphasized membership unity. In a statement regarding the MEK, Rudy Giuliani said, "But we’re not a cult. We’re a people who are joined by something timeless: the love of freedom, the love of democracy, the love of human life." The group reflects aspects of the original Iranian revolutionary movement before it was overtaken by Khomeini's faction.

This offers a variety of perspectives and sources Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why Giuliani is a reliable source, or even relevant, but mostly important what does that have to do with being a cult? For Cohen, you'll have to give page number so I can read the context.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The source about Giuliani is from the Observer, and the claim by this U.S. politician is relevant since he is addressing the cult accusations. For Cohen, the page number is xi. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any content relating to MEK being a cult on that page. The only instance of the letters "cult" there are in the word "difficult". Bringing in Guiliani's views to balance out those by RAND, Abrahamian, Cohen etc is pretty WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@VR, last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Wikipedia. Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian Abbas Milani Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@VR, I'm answering all your questions, could you please respond? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again sorry for the delay. "last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Wikipedia." That really depends on what they're talking about. Current US politics? Sure. History? Not at all (per WP:HISTRS).

Abbas Milani calls the MEK "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists"[4].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VR. "Not at all (per WP:HISTRS)." Which section of that essay suggests that it's against the policy to use a statement from a U.S. politician regarding the characteristics of a foreign political group?

"Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian Abbas Milani as a source?" Could you answer with yes or no? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Check WP:HSC. Guiliani's opinion doesn't fall under any of the historical scholarship.

If Milani has published in a a peer-reviewed publication or any of the forms recommended by WP:HSC then yes that particular source would be good.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Giuliani, we're addressing current allegations (not "historical scholarship") that the MEK is a cult and Giuliani offering his perspective, which seems completely unrelated to the WP:HSC policy you're citing.

On Milani, there are several citations referencing him that don't align with the standards you're describing, so I'll go ahead and take them out. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Before you go and do that, we need to have consensus on talk page to only use scholarly sources. Once we have such a consensus, we need to apply it to content regardless of whether it frames MEK positively or negatively.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@VR This is beginning to look like WP:STONEWALLING. Please address my point about the Giuliani statement. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already repeated: Guiliani is not a RS and what you're doing here is WP:FALSEBALANCE. You're trying to counter the arguments made by scholars using the opinion of a random American politician.

I advise you to review this list of scholarly sources which all describe the MEK as a cult.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@VR sorry but it's unclear how, according to you, a quote from a U.S. politician in The Observer isn't a reliable source, while the commentary pieces you recently included in the article are? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to cite this commentary piece, as we can cite this article by Seymour Hersh.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@VR It wasn't just the Middle East Eye commentary that you put back into the article; you also put back other opinion pieces. Why are those acceptable according to you, but an article from The Observer isn't? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about Rajavi's letter to Gorbachev requesting a loan? Here's a photo of that letter. Here is a translation of it from the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History. Other source:[5] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but that still begs the question: why did you cite the commentary sources instead?

The citation from The New Yorker you're suggesting now quotes from Egyptian politician Mohamed ElBaradei. Why is it acceptable to quote him, but not Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@VR? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you take these sources to WP:RSN? I'll abide by whatever consensus is achieved there. I'm getting tired of this back and forth. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@VR When you revert changes, it's important to provide a rational explanation. Why do you find it acceptable to quote ElBaradei but not Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ronen Cohen's The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq has 24 citations according to Google scholar (also missing in that section). Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cohen is indeed a good source! From what I see, Cohen says But Rajavi went beyond that: he raised himself to the rank of an Imam-Zaman, thus effectively founding a new religion: Mojahedinism/Rajavism. The new religion required blind obedience and total submission to the ideological leader (i.e. Rajavi alone) (page 46).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• This removal is inappropriate. Seymour Hersh is an award winning investigative journalist.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@VR: that's a biased double-standard. How is it appropriate to use Seymour Hersh citing Mohamed ElBaradei, but not The Observer citing Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Marxism removed from the lead

Hogo-2020 I disagree with this change you made in the lead. You removed: "The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism""
and replaced it with: "The group's early ideology asserted that science, reason, and modernity are compatible with Islam."

The MEK is widely known for its early Marxist ideology. It is certainly not primarily known for its positions on Islam and science, as admirable as they might be. Abrahamian says on page 100 that both "classical Marxist theories" and "neo-Marxist concepts" informed MEK's ideology.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

VR These kinds of faulty generalizations cause confusion and misinformation. Firstly, you're omitting important points from Katzman’s single-paragraph summary. Katzman explains that early MEK ideology (from around 1965 to 1971) is "a matter of dispute", with scholars generally describing it as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism", while "PMOI representatives claim that this misrepresents the groups ideology in that Marxism and Islam are incompatible, and that the PMOI has always emphasized Islam". Your revision ignores the latter part entirely. And even though you removed him from the lead, Abrahamian explains this point with much more detail, here are a couple of excerpts:

"As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy. It accepted historical determinism but not economic determinism; the class struggle but not the denial of God; dialectics but not atheistic metaphysics. There are no grounds whatsoever for doubting, as some critics do, the sincerity of these religious declarations. It seems highly disingenuous of observers - not to mention hangmen - to raise such doubts when the victims invariably went to their executions espousing their faith in Islam." (I emphasized the last portion)

"the regime labeled the Mujahedin "Islamic Marxists" and claimed that Islam was merely the cover to hide their Marxism. The Mujahedin retorted that although they "respected Marxism as a progressive method of social analysis" they rejected materialism and viewed Islam as their inspiration, culture, and ideology."

• Second issue is that the group's ideological identity after the Iranian Revolution (to the present) remained Islamic, but your revision suggests that it "became about overthrowing the Government", which describes a goal and not their ideology.

• Third, by your own admission, Abrahamian's dedicated book is a better author for this content (most cited author on the MEK with 259 citations on Google scholar, while Katzman has only 1 citation).

• Fourth, in his book, the first thing Abrahamian writes about the MEK is:

"The Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran), generally known as the Mojahedin, is worth studying for a number of reasons. It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam - an interpretation that differed 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."

In that same introduction, Abrahamian writes:

"The Mojahedin has in fact never once used terms socialist, communist, Marxist or esteraki to describe itself." Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that Abrahamian is hands down the best source on early MEK ideology. He talks about it in Chapter 3 "The Beginnings" under "Ideology". He introduces it as:

This ideology can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism.

He then goes onto describe that MEK themselves said "no to Marxist philosophy" but "yes to Marxist social thought". MEK believed "scientific Marxism" was compatible with Islam. Regarding MEK denials, Abrahamian says:

Although the Mojahedin were consciously influenced by Marxism both modern and classical, they vehemently denied being Marxists; indeed they even denied being socialists.

He concludes,

The ideology of the Mojahedin was thus a combination of Muslim themes; Shia notions of martyrdom; classical Marxist theories of class struggle and historical determinism; and Neo-Marxist concepts of armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and revolutionary heroism.

I'm open to different wordings for both their pre- and post-exile ideology.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you're misinterpreting Abrahamian. He does not conclude with your last quote; he concludes with "As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy." and then ends with "These early writings of the Mojahedin represent the first attempt in Iran to develop sytematically a radical interpretation of Shii Islam." and "The prominence given to Shariati is partly due to the fact taht the Mojahedin leaders made a deliberate decision in the early 1970s to propagate radical Islam less through their own hand books, which were banned, amore through Shariati's works". Aside from the disputes about the MEK's ideology from 1965 to 1972, there are no disputes about its Shia Islamic identity (certainly since 1975 to the present), and that needs to be clear in the lead. If you disagree with Abrahamian's claim about the MEK's position concerning "Islam and modernity", then anything else that explains their Shia Islamic identity would be enough. "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" seems fitting to me. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with adding "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020 I noticed you once again removed Marxism[6], despite no consensus for that. Please don't edit war to remove longstanding content. Either engage with the sources, or seek other dispute resolution methods.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@VR: It looks like you're WP:BFN with Abrahamian's conclusions, so I’ve begun a dispute resolution as you asked. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Third opinion

voorts (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Hogo-2020 (talk · contribs)

We came to the conclusion that author Abrahamian is the best source here, and Abrahamian concludes that the group's ideology is based on Shii Islam. If VR wishes to further explore the group's other influences that took place in its early formation (roughly 1965 to 1971), which include some areas of Marxism (something the group itself rejects for a number of reasons, see quotes above), I recommend unpacking that in the body of the article. Placing a selectively chosen statement in the lead that pertains to a short time period, with zero context or opposing perspectives, is grossly misleading.

Viewpoint by Vice_regent (talk · contribs)

The three most important book-length treatments on the MEK all agree that Marxism was an important part of its early ideology (along with Shiism): Abrahamian, RAND report and Cohen. Abrahamian says MEK was Marxist in his own voice, while attributing any denials to the MEK itself. Conen also notes their denials but find they had Marxist elements nonetheless. RAND notes some of these denials are politically motivated. Hogo keeps saying MEK's ideology was based on Shia Islam, that's correct, but how is it relevant to the question whether or not the lead should mention Marxism as an early ideology? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Third opinion by voorts

....

Pinging @Hogo-2020 & @VR. You can each use a paragraph rather than a sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @User:voorts, for your efforts here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you try to shorten your comment? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts please let me know how many words I should take to summarize my position.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020 and @Vice regent: Could you please do 100 words max each without quotes from the source itself (refs to page numbers okay), and describe what you think the source says. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Revised, thanks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @VR Nearly a week has passed since voorts offered his assistance. Since you asked for this dispute resolution, please provide your response. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy IRL.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020 and @Vice regent. Could you each please provide what you would like the disputed lead text to say (share the whole paragraph and underline the sentence so that I can see the context). Also explain what portion of the article this is summarizing per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@voorts. The group's ideology should be addressed in the lead simply as "The group's ideology offers a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati." This is both an accessible overview of the group's ideological perspectives before and after 1979, and also reflects what's important about the subject.

VR has repeatedly stated that Abrahamian is undoubtedly the best source for this content, yet the author doesn't say that "Marxism was an important part of its early ideology" (see quotes above). Adding "Marxism" in the lead (what VR wants to do), especially devoid of context or counterarguments, would contradict the cited policies as this relates to a brief timeframe and requires careful clarification. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the best form would be: "The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism." But I'm also ok with:

• "The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism", and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati."
• The group's ideology is rooted in Islam and Marxism, and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati.

This would be summarizing People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Before the revolution, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Early years (1965–1971) and People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Schism (1971–1978).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. It will take me some time to review all of the materials and come to a conclusion. I also anticipate being busy this weekend and next week, so there might be a delay. Please ping me if you don't get a response by the 8th. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VR and @Hogo-2020: thank you both for your patience. I think that Marxism should be in the lead, but I think that the group's denial should as well. Abrahamian (1989, p. 92) states that the group's early ideology as expressed in its writing "can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism", and that their ideological position combined Shia Islam with Marxism (p. 100). Cohen (2009, p. 18) likewise reads Abrahamian the same way, stating: "In his book Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, Abrahmian describes the organization's ideology as a combination of Islam and Marxism, i.e., a blend of pure Islamic ideas with ideas about social development and Marxist historical determinism." Cohen later writes about the group's denial of Marxist influence, although he finds it unconvincing (p. 30). Here's a very rough draft of what I'm proposing: The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati, combined with Marxist and neo-Marxist thought and practice. Scholars have stated that the group's ideology continues to have Marxist elements, which the group has denied. I think this would adequately summarize the weight that the body of the article affords to scholarly labels and the group's denial. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@voorts. I appreciate your input. I'm not sure if you’ve read Schism (1971–1978) in the article, but the MEK already has a Marxist faction that is rival to this, the Muslim faction. Their rivalry stems from one being Marxist and the other Muslim. Don't you think that labeling the Muslim faction as "Marxist-Muslim" in the lead is bound to make it very confusing for readers? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia lead on that article on that Marxist faction does make it clear "Members associated with it declared that they no longer self-identify as Muslims but rather only believe in Marxism–Leninism". And the lead of this article makes it clear that this MEK believe in both Islam and Marxism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they should be describe as "Marxist-Muslin" in the lead. I think that it should be explained in the way I noted since there's some nuance here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@voorts Thanks, I agree. Since it's the lead, I'm aiming to make it as concise as possible. How does this version sound to you? The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati. Some scholars suggest that it was also influenced by certain Marxist elements, which the group itself has denied. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be okay with me. @VR? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's both not concise and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I would suggest ""The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences." Shariati is just one of the author's mentioned in the body that influenced the MEK and the article doesn't focus on him a lot. Finally, MEK's Marxist influences should be stated in wikipedia's voice, not as something that is a view of a minority of scholars (because this is absolutely the view of every major work on the MEK).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@VR You keep changing your stance whenever the outcome doesn't align with your desired version of the article. You had said before that "I'm ok with adding "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.'", but now you're not ok with this? Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited as this would be the WP:NPOV approach. Also @Voorts points about nuance are overlooked in your new proposal. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited Please review WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm also going to dip out at this point. If y'all still can't agree, maybe try WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@voorts Thanks again. Since you've already reviewed the sources and spent time on this, could you please let me know if "Marxist-Muslim" should be removed from the lead until VR and I can agree on a more nuanced and accurate way to phrase this, or should the lead be left as is? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I did. So we can go with this: "The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam, including the writings of Ali Shariati, as well as Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences." Hope this is an acceptable compromise.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @VR, that would overlook the nuance given in the third opinion. Abrahamian says that it provided a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam. Since the ideology does not align with either conventional Shia Islam or traditional Marxism, we can go with this?: "The group's ideology was influenced by Islam with revolutionary Marxism, offering a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait, so you want to drop MEK's denial of Marxist influences? I thought you wanted that? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @VR, Can we go with this?: "The group's ideology was influenced Islam with revolutionary Marxism, and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was largely shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the "influenced by X with Y" part here isn't grammatically sound. It's also lengthy compared to some of the alternatives. If this is for the lead, it needs to act like it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The group's ideology was influenced by Islam and revolutionary Marxism; and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati."
• "Their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Elimination of content backed by reliable sources from the article

@VR Can you clarify why you removed this content, given that it's backed by several reputable sources? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we put this elsewhere in the article or lead? Its not really about whether MEK is relevant in Iran or not. Its about a historical decision they made, so it should be in paragraph about MEK's participation in the Iran-Iraq war.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@VR The sources directly clarify the claim in the lead about why the MEK sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, so your reasoning for removing this remain unclear. If you now want to move this content to another section of the article (which you could have done instead of deleting it), the proper course of action under WP:NPOV would be to move both the claim and the explanation together, not just the explanation. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The claim in the lead is not why the MEK sided with Iraq, rather it is about the undisputed fact that the MEK sided with Iraq, and the very widely held view among scholars that this siding caused its popularity to drop in Iran.

Should we move the explanation to the paragraph in the lead (and the body) that covers MEK's pro-Iraq battles? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It is also an undisputed fact (and a widely held view among scholars) that the MEK moved to Iraq to overthrow the Iranian clerical regime, which explains why the MEK moved to Iraq (they didn't relocate there just to back Iraq, as your version wrongly implies). I also see that the content about the MEK siding with Iraq is repeated in the lead. If you prefer to keep it in the paragraph about the battles, I'm ok with consolidating this information there. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So your proposal is to have the first paragraph explain that MEK is deeply unpopular in Iran, without stating why that is? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

My proposal is to keep together the information about why the MEK had to move to Iraq, the battles that ensued, and the resulting consequences (including their eventual unpopularity in Iran). Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, given that we mention MEK's status as a major opposition group in the lead, we should also mention their deep unpopularity.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the lead where it explains the MEK's move to Iraq (the reason sources suggest it lost popularity in Iran.) Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it communist?

I wanted to add a thing about communism but is it communist? AlienBlox2.0 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Corroboration

@VR: how do the citations back up this content, and how is it related to the terrorist designation? Please give specific citation excerpts, thanks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)