Jump to content

Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Request for comment

Should we replace "...a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." with -

..."which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran."

Idealigic (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

More neutral scholarly sources? What kind of sources are they exactly? Also, I have provided highly reliable 20 sources ([1] and [2]), 10 of them being scholarly works that support the current wording. Further, can you please say how your suggestion is "more neutral"? --Mhhossein talk 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose removing "viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians". The lead currently has two statements about MEK's popularity:
    • 1. "[MEK is Iran's] biggest and most active political opposition group" (a positive statement)
    • 2. "[MEK's alliance with Iraq] was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians" (a negative statement)
Idealigic opposed removing #1 from the lead by citing a single non-scholarly source. By contrast #2 is supported by dozens of reliable sources. Mhhossein provided 20 reliable sources[3][4] (including several scholarly sources published by Oxford University Press, University of Chicago Press and several peer-reviewed journals) that say Iranians viewed MEK's actions as treason. View #2 is way more prevalent in scholarly sources yet Idealigic wishes to remove it. View #1 is hardly mentioned in scholarly sources yet Idealigic tries to keep it in the first paragraph of the lead. This is a strong violation of WP:DUE. It is obvious that this is WP:POVPUSHing.VR talk 15:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This analysis by VR is original research. There are lots of ("positive" and "negative") statements in the lead (the lead in fact is too long and needs to be made shorter). The more neutral version ("which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran.") is supported by more high quality scholarly sources than the biased version. So the more neutral version is WP:DUE, and it is in fact VR and Mhhossein who are WP:POVPUSHing. Idealigic (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by biased version? By the way, you are accusing me of POV pushing, which is certainly a personal attack against me. You should comment on the content, not the editors. You need to strike this attack. --Mhhossein talk 12:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

Hello. IP 5.211.193.240 made an edit to the article, which was reverted (per cherrypicking WP:CITEKILL), but the IP reinstated the edit. I explained to the IP that the article has WP:CRP restrictions but IP did not respond or self-revert. Can an admin please revert the IPs edit? (I cannot because that would infringe the CRP restrictions). Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The IP is correctly adding citations to a text which is being discussed on the talk page. There's no WP:CITEKILL concern. --Mhhossein talk 12:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a CRP violation, and Mhhossein is supporting it. All regards for policies seem to be going out the window in this article. Idealigic (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y". Melmann 00:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Melmann: thank you for your assistance. The edit that needs to be reverted (or undone) is this one: [5]. Idealigic (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Melmann: I am against CRP violation and I have reported Idealigic for this. As for the IP's edit, before any revert, there should be substantiated objection from Idealigic which is missing here. As I said before, There's no WP:CITEKILL concern. In contrary to what is pretended, the citations are in accordance with WP:CHALLENGE. The materials being supported by this edit are falsely challenged by Idealigic et al. So, addition of a citation is quite OK. --Mhhossein talk 18:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: this is clearly a CRP violation which you won't stop defending it. Do you have a COI with this IP? It gives that impression. Idealigic (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Idealigic, you just added 8 citations to a sentence in the lead. How can you then complain about WP:CITEKILL?VR talk 01:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@idealigic: Your personal attack is now followed by casting aspersions against me. You are strongly advised to see Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Mhhossein talk 06:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, since there's no substantial objection against the IP's edit, I think there's no concern. --Mhhossein talk 06:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Idealigic: You already said you could not revert the IP since it would be counted as a CRP violation. But now, you have reverted them without substantiating your objection. You were told that CITEKILL is not a concern here (it's indeed not a concern). So, you should not have made the revert. This example well represents your editing pattern. (pinging @Melmann: for their attention) --Mhhossein talk 12:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I realize that restoring to the longstanding version is not a CRP violation (you've done this many times). I did substantiate my revert. Cherry-picking sources (when there are other sources using other terminology) in a sentence that already has many sources is POV pushing. The IP also made a CRP violation by adding this after it was reverted, which you are still defending. Idealigic (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
1- I have provided 20 reliable sources (10 of them being scholarly ones) [6]&[7] supporting the current wording. So, NO cherrypicking is happening here. 2- You are even still challenging the wording which automatically calls for more sources to be added, hence there is no citekill concern (also you did not say why this edit by you is not a citekill. You were told these things in the past, making the issue with your reverts more problematic. --Mhhossein talk 07:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Two important discussions

I guess discussion-1 & discussion-2 are worthy of attention. In this one there is objection against the sentence in the lead saying MEK is the most active opposition group. --Mhhossein talk 14:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request 5 NOV 2021

The reference with doi:10.1093/milbal/103.1.344 should have URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/milbal/103.1.344 added, since the DOI is non-functional. The doi-broken-date should be updated to today also, since it still no longer works. and the broken date is the last checked date. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This {{citation|title=Table 41: Selected Non-State Armed Groups|publisher=The Military Balance|volume=103|pages=344–353|doi=10.1093/milbal/103.1.344|year=2003|doi-broken-date=31 May 2021}} Table 41: Selected Non-State Armed Groups, vol. 103, The Military Balance, 2003, pp. 344–353, doi:10.1093/milbal/103.1.344 (inactive 31 May 2021){{citation}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2021 (link) should become {{citation|title=Table 41: Selected Non-State Armed Groups|journal=The Military Balance|volume=103|issue=1|pages=344–353|doi=10.1093/milbal/103.1.344|year=2003|doi-broken-date=5 November 2021|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/milbal/103.1.344}} "Table 41: Selected Non-State Armed Groups", The Military Balance, 103 (1): 344–353, 2003, doi:10.1093/milbal/103.1.344 (inactive 5 November 2021){{citation}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2021 (link) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Second edit should be done. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1406811/%7B%7B should be changed to https://www.arabnews.com/node/1406811 because somehow junk got added to the end. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Third edit: the dead url http://www.academia.edu/download/32838100/bahgat.pdf should be replaced with https://web.archive.org/web/20170809064528/http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Articles/08winter/bahgat.pdf and the s2cid=150794709 should also be added. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I added it as archive-url, which I believe is the correct way — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Forth edit needed: dead url http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a495015.pdf needs replaced with https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a495015.pdf AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I added archive-url. I just need the archive-date for these. (I am unable to access these links so I can't get this information myself.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Cats that need source supporting

Can somebody provide sources supporting these categories?

Category:Anti-government factions of the Syrian civil war Category:Banned socialist parties Category:Iranian money launderers Category:Iranian fraudsters Category:Islamic socialist political parties Category:Political organizations based in France

103.233.2.129, you put this back in the article, can you please show the sources for this? 103.233.2.129 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You removed them, so the burden of proof is on you not on me. There is many sources in the wiki article, if they had a change of orientation nowadays then they should still be mentioned as it is historically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find sources to prove they don't belong in the article. It works in the contrary way. If you want these categories in the article, you (or someone else needs to give sources to show they are relevant. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources that they are are a socialist party etc. are in the wiki article I am not going to to engage in a dishonest discussion where you try me to get the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not seen any source that say the PMOI is a socialist party in the Wiki article. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle". Members who did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK.[128] This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. They appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy".[129] Ghazaalch (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read that section carefully, you will see that this information is about Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, this is talking about how in the 1970s the OSEWC "adopted Marxist, more secular and extremist identity". Maybe that needs to be made more clear in the article, but nothing in the article indicates that the MEK is or was a socialist party, so that category is wrongly placed here. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A 2009 U.S. Department of State annual report states that their ideology is a blend of Marxism, Islamism and feminism.[269]

According to a RAND Corporation policy report, the MEK initially acquired supporters and members through "its Marxist social policy, coeducational living opportunities, antipathy to U.S. influence, and—unlike traditional Leftist groups—support for a government that reflected Islamic ideals. The members, which primarily consisted of University students and graduates, were encouraged to live together and form close social bonds. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I read the article. The PMOI incorporated some Marxist elements in their ideology in the 1970s. After a schisms between the Marxist part and the Muslim counter part, the PMOI has been Muslim. So while it's ok to explain this in the article, to categorize the group as a "socialist party" is plainly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.233.2.129 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Vice regent can you please check this revert by you? The source does not say that the MEK bombed the United Nations compound in Iraq, it only says that this happened. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The page number doesn't seem to be given. I checked the source and on page 88 it says "August 19, 2003: Bombing of UN compound, prompting UN withdrawal from Iraq". Is that what you're referring to? If so, you're correct.VR talk 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the removal[8]. I presume, based on your edit, that you were looking at the same page as me.VR talk 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference about foundation

The sentence The MEK was founded on 5 September 1965 by leftist Iranian students affiliated with the Freedom Movement of Iran to oppose the Shah Pahlavi. currently has two references:

  • Newton, Michael (2014). "Bahonar, Mohammad-Javad (1933–1981)". Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-61069-286-1. Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished. Various mujahedin were arrested and executed in reprisal, but Kashmiri apparently slipped through the dragnet.
  • Chehabi, Houchang E. (1990). Iranian Politics and Religious Modernism: The Liberation Movement of Iran Under the Shah and Khomeini. I.B. Tauris. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-85043-198-5.

The quote given for the first reference seems to be completely unrelated. I wonder if it was initially added to support something else and text-source integrity has been lost. Does anyone have access to these sources to verify if they support the statement, if the page is correct, and possibly fix the quote? Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That was added in this edit. As the user is tbanned, I can't ping them or ask them about this edit. I didn't find any mention of "Freedom Movement of Iran" in Abrahamian (though its possible he mentions them with a slightly different name). The beginning are mentioned around pages 87-88. Actually I think our current article doesn't do justice to the very early history of the MEK. But this article is fairly large without much room to expand. Maybe we should consider WP:SPLITing out various parts of the article into separate ones.VR talk 19:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I looked into the source and found the quote "founded by leftist Iranian students in 1965 to oppose Shah Pahlavi". I didn't find anything in the first source about the Freedom Party of Iran. I couldn't access the second source.VR talk 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking up the edit introducing the reference. So the quote was obviously misplaced since it was introduced. The following source:
States that [...] repressive policies of the Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi's regime against the nonviolent opposition, prompted some members of the religious group within the Liberation Movement of Iran (LMI) to reconsider their strategies in the struggle against Pahlavi rule. [...] younger LMI activists, all university students [...]
This is quite consistent with what Abrahamian (1989) says (sorry, I don't have the quote at hand right now). We can replace the bad source with this encyclopedia entry, and/or Abrahamian with the right page and quote, change the organization name to Liberation Movement of Iran to match the source. Also a few sources mention September 1965, but I didn't see the exact date 5 September 1965 yet. MarioGom (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Continued manipulation of the site by removing categories and faking sources

The page has users active that consistently edit in comments in favor of the MEK. After proving that all the sources they add are related to the MEK or don't actually exist they refuse to acknowledge and engage in edit warring.

The original point mentions that the MEK won a court case against major German Newspapers that they have to retract an article. When checking the sources we can find the following:

1.Source is ArabNews

This was a local court case in Germany, no major German newspaper reports about it but a Saudi government affiliated newspaper does. Then when we look at the author of the piece we can see that author is affiliated with the MEK.

Link to MEK website:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/ali-safavi/

2. Source is Freitag.de a small local newspaper in Germany. We can see that the article is marked with the following statement:

"Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um ein Blog aus der Freitag-Community" which translates to "This post is taken from a blog of the Freitag-Community"

The Author mentions a court document with ID: 324 O 233/20

First googling this document ID, will once again only lead to MEK sources. Going directly to the courts website we can see that this document does not exist:

https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/bsha/search

We can also once again see that the author is affiliated with the MEK:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/martin-patzelt/

The 3. Source is once again an obscure newspaper with very limited reach. The author is Struan Stevenson.

We can once again see that the author is associated with the MEK:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/struan-stevenson/

This is a clear part of their disinformation campaign:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/nov/09/mek-iran-revolution-regime-trump-rajavi

A Summary:

All three sources are affiliated with the MEK. Mentioned court document does not exist. No major German or Non-German outlets reporting, but obscure ones in Saudi Arabia do. This is clearly damaging to the reputation of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and Spiegel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If Arab News reports something that a German newspaper does not report, then that is what it is. We don't edit according to national reports. When you find something that shows Arab News in invalid as source, then add this information here. Until then, the content has sources that are valid. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You are purposefully ignoring that the author is also listed as a supporter on the MEK site itself, that makes him biased by the rules of wikipedia. This is also a damaging allegation and the ArabNews only mentions it without any reference material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You are doing too much investigation work, and all you need to do is show where it is indicated that ArabNews is not a good source for Wikipedia. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Your argumentation is dishonest. First you argue that ArabNews is trustworthy, which by itself is questionable. There is no freedom of press or freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, it is also directly influenced by the government of Saudi Arabia a major enemy of Iran, this by itself makes it biased enough. Then after I show even further that the source is biased, by the fact that the author is a supporter of the MEK, you suddenly shift your argument that to me doing to much investigative work. There is nothing in the rules that says we need to take any sources by face value. This is also very easy to verify by a simple google search and all in all took 5 minutes with public sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not our job to determine the level of freedom of press in Saudi Arabia. You do too much investigative work like I say already. Arab News is a reliable source as far I know. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
So you actually accept that source is biased, but you want to keep it because I did too much "investigative work". Have you even read the rules of wikipedia? You have not, this will be deleted by the mods eventually and hopefully the page will be permanently protected against you disinformation trolls.
There is no consensus that ArabNews is not reliable, and the subject in this page is "Iranian politics" not "Saudi Arabian politics". If we were to follow such standards, we should also ban American politics from this article just because some American press has been favorable of the MEK and against the dictatorship in Iran. So there has not been any "manipulation" or "faking sources". 103.233.2.129 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You are trying to divert the discussion from the author, who obviously is either an MEK member of supporter to a discussion about if ArabNews is unbiased. The author is already not, there is no further discussion needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.33.149 (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources like this are still supporting this fact. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
So if this happened in the court ordered them to take it down why is it still up?

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/iran-eine-politsekte-in-albanien-will-das-regime-in-teheran-stuerzen-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000162407686 "Über 2000 ihrer Leute leben in einem Camp in Albanien – Aussteiger erzählen von Psychoterror." Once again you come up with another fabricated source, that neither shows the court order and this time does not even have an author. You MEK people can pay some authors and fake some articles, but what you can can't do is make it actually disappear from the newspapers you are slandering.

I don't know why and I'm not going to do an internal investigation into what the Spiegel did or did not do. If you're that interested you can contact APNews and ask them to do a follow up story about that. And please stop calling other editors names, I did not refer to you as a "regime-paid troll", so don't call me a PMOI troll just because I provided some source you asked about. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of the above sources seem to be opinion pieces covered by WP:RSOPINION, where some of the authors have links to the NCRI. However, the AP News source looks like a solid, reliable source. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and replace those sources with the AP News source.VR talk 07:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vice regent. It is OK with me. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I added the AP News citation to the article and remobed the cats i talked about in section underneath this one because nobody was able to provide citations for them. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:consensus required restriction

@Vanamonde93: and @El C: Some editors have been restoring edits in this article after they were reverted. Is this page still under WP:consensus required restriction? Ypatch (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a re-reminder: please don't ping me to this page. I'll let everyone know if and/or when I wanna change that. Since WP:ARBIRP has concluded, potential violations can be summitted to WP:AE now instead of the more chaotic usual places. El_C 10:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about image that was added recently

This image added by VR recently was uploaded by the same editor that uploaded the image removed at commons for copyright violation. I've been going through some of the user's other uploads, and they all seem to be relating to the MEK, some making outlandish allegations, like these ones "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd woman and her children in PMOI rally""African-American citizens with People's Mujahedin of Iran banners in demonstrations in front of headquarters of the United Nations, New York" "Statement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran about attempted assassination of an American diplomat via Bakhtar Emrooz". There are also many with questionable copyright claims (like the one that was previously deleted). I will take this up at Commons in detail. For now I'm replacing the image with an image from Operation Mersad (which is relevant to that section). Ypatch (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain the copyright issue with the image I uploaded? Just because an image was uploaded by someone who has made copyright mistakes in the past doesn't make it a copyright violation. If there's confusion then perhaps I can ask an admin who is an expert in copyright issues.VR talk 05:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or wrong about the copyright, but VR added this image to the article [9], and it was then replaced for another image by Ypatch[10]. But Ghazaalch then restored Vice regent's edit, which is a violation of the "Consensus Is Required" restriction of this article.

Ghazaalch are you aware that the article is under Consensus is required restrictions? It's indicated on top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The copyright claims should be discussed at Commons. Is there any other reason to oppose the inclusion of this image? MarioGom (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ypatch's concern was not valid so my edit was not violating anything. Copyright concerns should be taken to Commons.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's clear that we don't see eye to eye about this. According to WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Begin a RFC if you think your points are strong enough to have those names in the article. I know I mentioned this already but please familiarise yourself with the article's restrictions including WP:ARBIRP, WP:GS/IRANPOL and "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." Ypatch (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    If you could simply remove material on the basis of a false premise, the DS in place would be extremely vulnerable to abuse. For material to be considered disputed assumes valid reasons for dispute. The copyright concerns raised here are not in evidence, and, if they were, the suitable venue for them would be the Commons, and the image would then be deleted automatically, no editors required. The other issue you raise is with the accuracy of the captions on the images, but this claim has not specifically been made here: are you suggesting that the image here is not of MEK leader Massoud Rajavi sitting with Saddam Hussain? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe it is best for this to be decided at Commons. Ypatch (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated history

It seems like there is some significant duplication in the history section, with what reads a bit like a summary at the start of the section. It begins with the founding and goes the subsequent decades ... before the subsections start, beginning again back at the founding. This false lead needs either moving or editing out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran → People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran – I think this page should be aligned with the name used by this group, for itself, in English. Wikipedia would not normally ignore the official name of an organization like a company, and I don't think it should be handled differently here. There is already plenty of discussion on the various different names of the group within the article. In terms of spelling, all of the various names of the PMOI /MEK /MKO have been variously transliterated using either 'mujahedin' or 'mojahedin'. However, while it is a bit of a toss up in the sources, 'mojahedin' is the spelling quite clearly used by the organization itself, and I don't see any compelling reason to ignore the organization's own spelling. I also think the article should pick and stick to one or the other spelling, preferably 'mojahedin' for each of the names wherever there are multiple spellings. This would be best for consistency. Otherwise, without a firm consensus-backed decision on the matter, there is nothing to stop these spellings endlessly bouncing backwards and forwards, and, as demonstrated in a recent edit, the lead is liable to find itself intermittently filled up with two, perhaps three versions of the same name. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - I was struggling to find this article quickly because this alternative spelling 'mujahedin' is coming up instead of the official spelling 'mojahedin'. I understand the importance of alternative spelling(s) when a language (like Farsi) has transliteration issues, therefore I would also support having 'mujahedin' listed as an "also known as". PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree that the most common spelling is "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". Fad Ariff (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, not because it is an official name, but because it is the WP:COMMONNAME, at least in google books. This ngram shows that the spelling proposed by Iskandar and the addition of "Organization" yields the highest results. And here is how the ngrams compare when we use variants of "Mojahedin-e-Khalq".VR talk 05:07, 24 February 2022 (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.

Selective quoting of NYT article

The article currently says, based on this NYT article, that "Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities". But this is selective quoting of the NYT article. The NYT points out that these particular officers had been suggested to NYT by MEK itself. And that when NYT contacted Capt. Matthew Woodside who oversaw the MEK camp (and who "was not one of those whom the M.E.K. suggested I contact"), he gave a different account. According to Woodside "American troops did not have regular access to camp buildings or to group members whose relatives said they were held by force", that American troops were allowed access to MEK members "only after a delay of several days", and that it was difficult for women to escape.

This text should be rewritten to give a more accurate representation of NYT.VR talk 16:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I see Ypatch made that edit, so I hope they can explain.VR talk 05:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
VR: the source supports the passage, but if you think that the passage can be written better, then propose a revision (rather than pinging me with "I hope they can explain"). Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Ypatch, it is the responsibility of every editor (including myself) to "include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source." So if I ever err in not including qualifying information in the same source then please ping me and remind me of my mistake as well (esp if that information is in the very next sentence), and I will strive to correct it. Anyway, I have rewritten the passage. Feedback is welcome.VR talk 05:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent: You've skipped proposing a revision and just edited the article, also removing some things that we didn't talk about (so I find you edit summary sort of misleading). I have partly restored that content and also kept some of what you added about Captain Woodside. I hope that resolves this. Ypatch (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ypatch: I don't see a functional difference in this edit (maybe I'm missing something), so I'm fine with your edit. And I generally prefer to follow the WP:BRD cycle (which means make a bold edit first, then discuss, but do not edit war).VR talk 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Vice regent. Still I think the existing text is not a fair representative of the NYT. As you wrote above, the original text is saying that the two officers who gave a good view of MEK, had been suggested to NYT by MEK itself, while the one who NYT reporter, himself, chose, gave a different view, and this should be clarified in this article. The overall content of the NYT is against MEK hypocrisy, while the existing text in this article shows that most of officers had a good view of MEK. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Sorry for the delay. I changed the text to a more accurate representation of NYT. About the self-published content, it is obvious that should be removed or replaced with a better source, so go ahead and do what you perceive better. Thanks for your good work.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: be WP:BOLD and do it yourself, and if someone objects, engage in post-edit discussion as per WP:BRD.VR talk 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There are three former American military officers making one argument, and one former naval reservist making another argument, so I have made that clear in the article while retaining some edits by Ghazaalch. I have also made this a bit shorter since the article needs some summarization in general. Ypatch (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Vice regent. Can we now restore the changes made by the recently blocked user, Ypatch? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I am going to omit the self published content, as the banned user, Ypatch, is no longer part of this discussion. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    I might add that given that this self-published content appears exceedingly fringe, one would certainly be expecting some sort of reliable, secondary backing for it to support its inclusion. The phrasing alone is bizarre, and makes it out as if things like "impromptu" inspections are a bad thing, when random inspections are exactly what you would want to see. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reduction of lead

@Iskandar323:: can you explain why you deleted information in your recent edits, for example here or this here? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the first example actually shows some material that was moved down the article - if you scroll down the diff, you will see where it was moved to. The second example was part of my reduction in the length of the lead, which was tagged as too long. A long quotation like that had no place in a lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar, you wrote int your edit summary that you are Removing recently added material not found in the body copy (in violation of MOS:LEAD), but Khomeini preventing the group from taking part in elections of the new government seems to be in the body. I have modified some of your edits, putting in the body some pov about how the MEK is perceived in the section "Perception", and making clear the information about the elections (in the body and in the lead). The lead has been kept short. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: 'Modified some of your edits' seem pretty euphemistic for the massive changes you just tried to make to the lead. Perhaps you can break down and actually discuss what you would like to change rather than just making the equivalent of dozens of different edits - each of which, in the context of an article this contested and disputed, would ideally benefit from their own individual edit comments and talk page explanations. Perhaps start smaller. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I directly addressed the point about having that long primary source quotation in the lead. Why not discuss that here, since the subject is already open? I see two problems with this quote. First, it is primary, not secondary. Two, it is not neutral, because it is the specific POV of MEK. To make it neutral, we would need an opposing and contrasting quote of everything the Iranian regime accuses the MEK of, and then the lead would begin to get rather silly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar is right that your edits went way beyond "modify some of your edits". Your edit summary "Updating the lead, explaining in talk page" is misleading since you have not explained most of your changes on the talk page.VR talk 14:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Fad Ariff, among the content you removed in this edit was the 1983 alliance between the MEK and Iraq. This material has been the subject of at least two RfCs and at one mediation/moderated discussion, after which multiple admins concluded that this event was a significant point in MEK's history deserving mention in the lead. Please don't remove it again without consensus.VR talk 14:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the information about the elections was not included in the body copy, at least not in it's entirety. There was certainly nothing in the body copy about a fatwa being issued on the matter. But second to this, the information was rather redundant, as in the next sentence/phrase it stated that the group was driven underground, which is a somewhat more dramatic event and makes stating that they weren't allowed in elections rather redundant. It's like if someone is arrested, you don't need to say they were detained. Being driven underground implies a range of things, including not being able to run for election and presumably being pursued by the security apparatus. These things are really a given - hence it was an appropriate item to cut with a view to shortening the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, you actually made a major change to the lead, and other parts of the article, and most of which you did not discuss here [12][13][14][15]. In the lead you removed information about the conflicts between Khomeini and the MEK which are sourced to experts, why? Also what is the primary source you speak of? I see these are Abrahamian's quote, not the MEK's. You also removed information that is sourced by Ronen Cohen? Khoemini's Fatwa preventing the group from taking part in elections of the new government is very significant, and is sourced to major academic sources. Saying it's "redundant" is a poor reason for removing this. Also, why did you change this heading? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: I made a series of much smaller edits, each with individualized edit summaries, many of them relating to specific Wikipedia guidelines - particularly MOS:LEAD and its injunction that material that is not in the body of the article has no place in the lead summary. On another of your points, just because something is well sourced does not mean it should be in the lead, which should summarise the most essential information. The inclusion of individual facts is a matter for consensus, and you are welcome to argue the case for the re-inclusion of any of those facts - just open a discussion! But the lead as it stood was too long and needed cutting. For the same reason, there is not really space for lengthy quotes. Again, perhaps open a discussion? The explanation for the heading I changed was included in brief in the edit summary - because the section also included failed attempts and other actions, such as kidnappings, the overall section header didn't work. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: Incidentally, if any of this material was placed in the lead on the basis of any pre-existing consensus that I may not have been aware of, that would obviously be something that I should amend. As it stands, I am unaware of any such instance. My priority was to reduce the lead length as per the cleanup tag, and this required some cuts be made. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Iskandar, my objection to your lead edits is that they remove essential information:
"Because of conflicts and the major support the MEK received among different minorities and Iranian sectors, Ayatollah Khomeini published a fatwa that prevented the group from taking part in elections of the new government."
"The MEK then attacked the new government of the Islamic republic for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists."
"In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris, so it re-established its base in Iraq "
This content is in the body, has reliable sources, and is encyclopedic, and so your reasons for removing this from the lead do not make sense. Also I actually shortened the lead, so your objections about lead size (or about “primary sources”, or saying the information is “redundant”) also do not make sense.
For example you made the sentence "The EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated the MEK as a terrorist organization" longer by rewriting it as "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan."
So please either self-revert your edits to the lead and then we can talk about changes one by one, or lets find a middle ground for including this content to the lead. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: Hold on a second - I have a ready answer to all of these points, though they are all very different: hence they were made as individualized edits.
1. There is 100% no mention in the body copy of a fatwa preventing the group from taking part in the elections (regardless of the merit of having the material in the lead), so this still fails MOS:LEAD.
2. Without an accompanying Iranian government quote, the long, partisan quote you mention is problematic in terms of neutrality. In addition, in the body copy it is phrased as: "According to Ervand Abrahamian ..." ... suggesting that past consensus has determined that this material is unsuitable for placing in WikiVoice without contextualization and attribution.
3. The mentione of the MEK moving from France to Iraq is very arbitrary. Why should this be in the lead? The group has changed the country of its headquarters multiple times. You would not mention this for a company. It is now based in Albania, which is not mentioned. In any case, all of this material is in the infobox and does not need spelling out in the lead.
4. If you look at this full diff for the paraphrasing of the material on the group's designation as a terrorist group, you will see that I made the text MUCH shorter. The original text read: "The European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan have previously listed the MEK as a terrorist organization. This designation has since been lifted, after a legal battle launched by the PMOI, first by the Council of the European Union on 26 January 2009, by the U.S. government on 21 September 2012, by the Canadian government on 20 December 2012, and by the Japanese government in 2013. The MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq. In June 2004, the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which expired in 2009 after the attainment of the full sovereignty of Iraq." Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323:
1. You deleted the fatwa mention in the body. I will put it back in the body since you have not given a reason for removing that, and will also put back the information you deleted from the lead that said Khomeini prevented MEK members from running in the new government. Now please explain why the fatwa mention cannot be added to that in the lead?
2. First you said Abrahamian's quote was a "primary source" and now you are saying it is "partisan"? It is neither, and the original text had other sources supporting it as well, so I will put this back too.
3. The information is not about the "MEK moving from France to Iran", it is about "the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris", which is what led to their move to Iraq. This explains their alliance with Iraq, and since you have not explained why you deleted this, I will put it back.
4. You seem to be avoiding the point here too. I never said anything about the “original text”. Your edit made the sentence "The EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated the MEK as a terrorist organization" longer by rewriting it as "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan." You still have not explained this. Fad Ariff (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: Thanks for taking the time to respond. However, I'm not sure why you keep making changes before anyone else responds in turn. You should wait for the discussion to get somewhere. Also, if there is something I didn't explain adequately, you could ask more specifically rather than taking someone else's silence as somehow an affirmation of consensus, which it is not. As an added point, you have lengthened the lead again back to five paragraphs, making it too long, so you are actually editing the article backwards in a direction opposition to Wikipedia guidelines.
1. I had not realized that you tried to add it to the body at the same time as you modified the lead - again it was a rather large and only partially explained edit. My point was that it was not ALREADY in the body. But you are correct, there is no reason why that should not be in the body: on the contrary, you are more than welcome to add any reliable information in the body.
2. I was incorrect about the Abrahamian quote being primary. However, it expresses the MEK viewpoint, which is where the partial element of it comes in. It is also not a neutral quote. It expresses the grievances of the MEK towards the Iranian government but not vice versa. The lead must also summarize, and the repetition of lengthy quotations is the opposite of summarization. As a side note, the source is also hard to verify. It is not even specified which period this statement is referring to. If you have access to the book, please can you provide the full, contextualised quote in the reference.
3. You seem to missing the point. The lead was too long, and some material needed removing. I removed less critical detail. The specific reason for deletion is that this material seemed less important than things like joining Iraq in wars, etc. However, now that you mention it, it is also information that is difficult to verify. One source is an article behind paywall and the other is supposedly a television episode (it is unlinked). If you are able to access the article, perhaps you can provide a quote from the supporting text in the citation for the reference and scrutiny of other editors.
4. I don't understand what you are saying here. I have shown you the diff and how I contracted an entire paragraph into a single sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: On closer inspection, all three of your recent edits are problematic. Aside from the fact that you are restoring material to the lead that has been challenged and while a discussion is still ongoing, without leaving adequate time for any to respond to your points, all three edits also simultaneously engaged in unexplained content removal, which is obviously particularly ironic given that you are restoring material based on the same premise. Here you delete the narrative-critical detail of the group targeting clerical leadership, unexplained; here you delete an Abrahamian quote, unexplained, despite arguing that it is vital to include an Abrahamian quote of your choosing in the lead and protesting against its removal; and, finally, here, where you delete the all-important phrase 'suppression of' in reference to the 1991 Iraq uprisings - with this removal, the material now leaves ambiguous/implies the opposite of the original meaning of the statement. I am incidentally also curious as to why you included a piped link to 'People's Mujahedin of Iran#Operations Shining sun, Forty Stars, and Mersad', with the old page name. I am sure you have seen the change in the name of the page, so this strongly suggests that you are simply reverting to older material on principal without even sense checking your own edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar, you have it backwards. It is you who made the changes to the article, and it is you who has avoided explaining several of them, this is why I restored some of the original text. Also I already explained how my version made the lead shorter, and how you reverted it.
1. Here you are admitting that you are reverting without really looking at what you are reverting. Also you still are not explaining why you removed the fatwa from the lead. If you don’t explain it in your next comment, I will put it back in the lead.
2. Wrong. It doesn’t explain the MEK viewpoint, it explains the author’s (Abrahamian) research.
3. Once again the edits I made to the lead made the lead shorter, and you reverted that. The source from Digest of Middle East Studies says that "The Islamic Republic had further encouraged France’s complicity in granting the request to deport the Mojahedin by promising to use its influence on Shi’i militas in southern Lebanon to relinquish French hostages which they were holding. On June 8, Rajavi visited Bhadad and held a series of publicized meetings with various high ranking Ba’athist officials in which he effectively secured Iraq as a base for the opposition and cultivated what was to be a long-lasting, relationship with the Iraqi regime. The Mojahedin, effectively backtracking Khomeyni’s move a decade before, had secured a desirable base for their paramilitary operations and a valuable patron in Baghdad. The deportation from Paris and move to Baghdad remains an intriguing and crucial episode in the history of the Mojahedin’s exile. In examining both the accounts provided by the Islamic Republic’s media sources and the press organs of the Mojahedin, it seems clear that the Khomeyni regime intended the Mojahedin to be exiled to an obscure and distant country which would weak their contacts with allied oppositions and keep them out of the European limelight. Instead, Iraq hastened to court the Mojahedin prior to its ousting, and the Islamic Republic found the opposition moved to a location which allowed the Mojahedin to resume its border raids, a tactic it had not been able to take advantage of in in significant proportions since its collaboration with the Peshmarga in the early 1980s, and which guaranteed that it would be well armed and nurtured by its predator in Baghdad. Illustrating the precarious position the Islamic Republic was placed in with the relocation of the Mojahedin to its enemy, Iraq, an Iranian Foreign Ministry official was quoted privately as saying, ‘We hope the day will not come when we see (?that) we should have asked France to keep Rajavi on its territory [where he had been far away from Iran, monitored by French intelligence, and barring small arms, deprived of weapons] at all costs and prevent his departure from Iraq’. This source by France24, this source by UPI, this source by Yahoo news and this source also seem to support this.
4.You reverted "The EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated the MEK as a terrorist organization", making it longer by rewriting it as "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan." Why?
5. Please don’t change the title of this discussion. If you wish to start a new discussion with the title “Reduction of the lead”, then do that instead. Also in your last paragraph you are making a bit of a mess out of this discussion. All I did was restore some edits to the original text where you failed to explain their removal. If you want to add or replace something in the lead, then start a new discussion about how we can make it shorter. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff:, the long quotation The MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists".[49][50][51][52][53] should be attributed to Abrahamian, because the other sources mentioned for it ([50][51][52][53]) do not support the exact quot. So Iskandar was right in removing the attributed quotation from the Lede. Iskandar was also right in shortening the following paragraph, since there is no room in the Lede for historical details of beginning and ending designating the group as a terrorist group, by this or that country. We have the details in the main body of the article and that is enough.

The European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan have previously listed the MEK as a terrorist organization. This designation has since been lifted, after a legal battle launched by the PMOI, first by the Council of the European Union on 26 January 2009, by the U.S. government on 21 September 2012, by the Canadian government on 20 December 2012, and by the Japanese government in 2013. The MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq. In June 2004, the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which expired in 2009 after the attainment of the full sovereignty of Iraq. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch, Ok let's attribute that quote to Abrahamian. About your other point, like i already said I am not talking about reducing the original text, i am talking about Iskandar making the version I edited longer (see Point 4 in my last comment), which is not necessary. i will also revert this diff because Iskandar put warnings on my talk page, but Iskandar's edits need some kind of understandable reasoning (please do not continue avoiding the issues). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: I have explained point 4. over and over again now. Here is the diff showing me reducing an entire paragraph into a single sentence. You are focusing on a single sentence, but I removed an entire paragraph! @Ghazaalch can see this and has noted the same in his comment. Please just look at this again and hopefully you will see. Also, please tone down your rhetoric and stop with the excessive references to myself here and in your edit comments (WP:AVOIDYOU), and just stick to discussing the content, with reference to the appropriate diffs. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323:
4. I will shorten "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan. The group remains designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq" to "The Islamic Republic and Iraq have designated the group as a terrorist organization, while the EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated it as a terrorist organization." (reducing text from 208 characters to 173 characters). You have not explained why this needs to be 208 characters, so this is why I’m making it shorter.
5. I am reverting to the original title of this thread
6. In this edit that you made, the lead already talks about the MEK attacking the clerical leadership. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fad Ariff: You do realise that you don't have to just revert other people's work on principle right? You can just work collaboratively. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Where is there still information about the attacks on the clerical leadership in the lead? The sentence merely mentioning attacks is not the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: I am working collaboratively with you, but some of your edits have serious neutrality problems.
1. I will restore that Khomeini prevented MEK members from running for office because it is part of the original text and you have not provided a convincing reason for removing it. You still did not explain why you removed the fatwa from the lead.
6. The way you added "The MEK then initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982” right after “the MEK attacked the Iran regime for ... " makes it look as if there were two attacks on the regime, but that is wrong. You are also quoting the source out of context because the source does not say that "The MEK then initiated attacks", it says that the attacks happened after "clergy-led terror"(what Abrahamian is also saying): "The president’s fall paralleled a period of open resistance to the Khomeinist government by leftist organizations. The IRGC promised to tackle opposition’s armed resistance "against Islam and the Quran" head on, vowing to "punish these enemies of the people for their anti-Islamic and anti-religious acts". The fighting between the IPR-aligned forces led by the IRGC and the oppositionists resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iranians, many of whom were jailed, subjected to torture, and executed by court order. The clergy-led terror not only decimated the ranks of opposition groups and their student supporters; it also targeted innocent, non political civilians, such as members of the Baha’i religious minority, and others deemed problematic by the IRP. As opposition forces suffered severe losses in the fighting, the MKO initiated a series of suicide bomobings and assassinations aimed at the clerical leadership - a vigorous campaign that continued through 1982."[1] Fad Ariff (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. The flow was poor. I've switched that sentence and the quote around - I still don't know what time period that quote refers to. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ostovar, Afshon (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran/Archive_49&oldid=1164979291"