Jump to content

Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

NPOV

There is little value in deleting large chunks of this article simply becaus eit does not fit. You might well think that HUman Rights Watch has goofed up and has become the victim of Iranian governmental disinformation, but this requires then evidence to be more than your personal opinion - and then it will be mentioned. Deleting accusations though is poor show. Similarly ideology - if you think the MKO/PMOI are democratic, fine - many others do not think so, so both POVs need to be there. Refdoc 11:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was category removed?

Obviously someone objects to describing the PMI as "syncretic" but no explanation was provided so I'm reinserting the references. Mjk2357 23:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete information

This article doesn't mention MKO's involvement in terrorist activities inside the country. For example terror of Rajai and a lot more.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.62.251 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist?

Can we call them islamist,while there is no relevance to islamic fundamentalists? Harry 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference in the article to the MEK seeking to maintain Sharia law as the present Iranian regime does, so no. Jeremy Nimmo 23:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
They are obviously a secular movement, not an "Islamist" movement as stated by the intro. See "Pour une démocratie laïque en Iran" ("For a secular democracy in Iran, in the French Parliamentary review). Saying they are Islamist is like saying that the Christian-Democracy is fundamentalist and against the separation of the state & the church... Satyagit
Well maybe that's what they are claiming now. As the article points out, they have gone through several ideological shifts during the last two decades (although their leaders have not changed: Masoud and Maryam Rajavi all along). But it is worth noting that at the beginning of the islamic revolution of iran (1979) they were in fact an islamist group by all accounts including their own description of themselves. as you know, the MEK was actually the main organized group during this revolution which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. they were the major driving force behind the establishment of a theocratic islamic regime in iran. up until the time they were expelled. personally i think they still are islamists, but they have simply found they have a better chance of surviving in the political weather of the west if they claim a change in policy and introduce themselves as seculars. even now they continue to practice strict religous code within their organization, for example if you look at pictures of their president (mrs. maryam rajavi) and all their female members at all of their meetings and gatherings they have a very strict code of hijab. i know theoretically there's nothing wrong with being religous and secular at the same time. but, you know, it gives a you hint. nothing has practically changed in their organizational behaviour. if you knew the history of this group and you had followed their policies continously for the last three decades, you would be reaaaallly suspicious of their sincerety as seculars. anyway .... what is worth mentioning in the article is that they have only recently claimed to be seculars. maybe we should drop the adjective "islamist" or "secular" from the introduction and leave this to be explained in more detail in "ideology and influence" section. i think this will give the reader the chance to form his or her opinion based on a more accurate explanation. March 14 2006
Hijab hasn't much to do with that, apart if you expect every woman to carry the hijab to be an Islamist fanatist (which would show complete lack of knowledge of the Middle-East). This said, in 20 years I sure hope they have changed, and the world also has changed. It they had the same ideology than 20 years ago, this would only show their lack of understanding of history. As you say, there is nothing wrong with being religious and secular: this is the basis of secularism, actually. You are entitled to be suspicious; as a matter of fact, suspicion is necessary in these kinds of fields. But it is quite unfair describing them as "islamists", since they refuse this; and even if you take the group in the 1970s, I would like someone to explain how this "mix of Marxism and Islam" can makes Islamism? One would automatically expect it to be secular, i.e. adaptation of marxism to a country where Islam is predominant. Satyagit 15:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
would a secular government, dictate hijab as a mandatory rule for all women? this is what's going on in the MKO right now, they have mandatory religous codes for the members. a female member will most definitely not be allowed a high position in the group if she doesn't wear hijab. is this the way of a secular group? ok. i think the main problem we have with this article is that there's very little information on the internet from independent sources (esp. in english) about the MKO from 1979 up until a few years ago. for example their public statements, speeches, interviews, news, news photos, etc. ... i will try to see if i can find some during my free time and i encourage others that are interested to do so too. i personally have read and heard a lot about them during the last two decades, mostly in persian language newspapers/TV/radio networks, and from people that were actually members of the group, etc. etc. but well, that's not verifiable information for wikipedia! i certainly think that the general public in iran recognizes the MKO as an islamist group. to give you some more background on this: before the 1979 revolution during monarchy of the Shah the political system of iran was already a secular system (that is verifiable, look it up in wikipedia or anywhere else) and this group was the strongest advocate of establishing a religous government. for example about the issue of hijab; you know that before 1979, hijab was not at all customary in iranian cities and it was considered a sign of backwardness among the more "modern" communities such as universities (again this is verifiable) but the last years before the revolution, it is known by most iranians that the only female students in Tehran university that wore hijab where from the MKO and it was kind of like a sign that said this person is an MKO supporter. specially since they had a rather strict version of hijab (for those times) which wasn't even common among regular religious families. my point is that comparing to the cultural atmosphere of that time they were definitely considered as very very religous and religion was part of their political ideology too. they were not adapting marxism to a predominantly islamic society. the foundation of their slogans was islamic values and they never directly referred to marxism but they incorporated some marxist ideas that they deemed compatible with islam in their ideology for running a country. it is not my opinion, but a fact, that during the revolution the MKO used to be famous for being a very strong advocate of a rather fundamentalist version of Islamic government (as opposed to the secular government of the Shah, at which time most islamic customs were not encouraged and even unofficially discouraged by the state). i hope i can find some more sources that go back to those years to prove these facts. again i encourage other people that are interested in making this an unbiased article to try to gather verifiable information from the 70's and the 80's on the group.
Personally, I think the term "Islamic socialist" is perfectly appropriate to describe MEK/PMOI; I don't think this whole deal of trying to re-define them as "Islamic anti-fundamentalist" makes any sense. If you want a glimpse of what Iran would probably look like if they ever came to power, Libya is probably the closest approximation (Qaddafi also calls himself an "Islamic socialist" and his ideology blends Islam with Marxism and Arab nationalism). The fact that so many neocons are now encouraging the U.S. government to support them is nothing but a sick, ridiculous joke. I should also point out that MEK is evidently aware of the neocons' support for them (their web site regularly posts Daniel Pipes' editorials supporting them); if this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if they started trying to present themselves as "crusaders for democracy" or "anti-Islamists" to get American support. I would encourage everyone here not to be fooled - if they do this, it'll be just like Jonas Savimbi in Angola when he started as a Maoist, and then re-packaged himself as a "Christian democratic anti-communist" to get American support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.174.149 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes soon?

This article reads like an opinion paper- where can I find accurate information on this topic from an unbiased source? Saintboy 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently some people are arguing that the Iranian regime is changing this article to portray the MKO as a brutal terrorist organization. In my personal opinion, if that's the case, then it has to be the ONE time where the Iranian regime is actually expressing the view of the majority of it's people and we should commend them for that! :-) But that's just my personal opinion. I have included a link to U.S. Department of State's April 2005 report[1] on the organization. I would imagine it will be a bit difficult to argue the Iranian regime has changed their reports too!! The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it. MKO is a terrorist organization and that's a fact that can not be changed.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnetj (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is incredibly biased. If you insist that it should be pro-mujahedin, shouldn't it atleast have a "neutrality of article is disputed"-tag?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arashis (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Saddam's allies during the Iran-Iraq War

i think there's an important piece of information that has not received the attention it deserves in the article and also in the discussion page. we all know that it is a fact that the MKO was saddam's ally up until the american invasion of iraq. but for understanding the significance of this issue in shaping the public opinion of the iranian people towards the MKO, it needs to be emphasized that the MKO was allied with saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. that means that when iranian men, women and children (from all walks of life) were being killed and bombed by saddam, the MKO was cooperating with him. if we don't point this out, then many people might not understand the huge impact of this issue (MKO's cooperation with saddam) on the iranian public opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnetj (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Involvement in Threats Against Iran

The material on possible MEK member involvement in Iran is sourced correctly. It should not be mass deleted without discussion. Abe Froman 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

i deleted it by accident (apparently i saved my edit on an older version). i only intended to remove the word "alleged" from the first paragraph of the article. however, i just read what you have added, and i must say that in my opinion it is going to spark a new round of edit wars in this article. if you study the background and history of the edits on this article, i think you will agree that the last version of the article was the best and most stable compromise reached after a looooong period of constant reverts and edits. anyway, i've left it there. Barnetj 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll clean it up and move it back to under Iraq. Abe Froman 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


On the contrary, the wikipedia article states clearly that MKO is a designated terrorist organisations. Perhaps this should be made clearer in the first paragraph. AndrewRT 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary Marriage of the leader

Why the Revolutionary Marriage of the leader is missing here? Did it tally up with the Islamic Laws or not? In Islam women cannot re-marry for at least 90 days after divorcing the previous husband. And I understand Maryam married the new husband in a few days after her divorce! http://www.rickross.com/reference/mujahedeen/mujahedeen3.html Rajavi's meteoric ascent within the group was coupled with the dumping of her first husband and pairing off with the rugged Massoud, fuelling criticism from detractors who say the group is little more than a cult. Kiumars 14:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

MEK participation in Iraq invasion of Iran

I saw some reports on the Iraq TV at the time showing MEK Tanks and troops near Kermanshah (Iran) shelling the city! Kiumars 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism denial

I just reverted an attempt to remove the word "terrorist" from the introductory paragraph. That PMOI is a terrorist organisation is an undeniable fact. That fact is referenced twice in the text to ensure there is no doubt about it. PMOI is a listed terrorist organisation in the USA, the European Union as well as in Iran itself. Should that situation change in the future feel free to remove the word "terrorist" from the description. Until then removing it is blatant vandalism. --Dave 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, there's no vandalism, you shouldn't use that term. The undeniable fact is that it's a designated terrorist organization. This is simply wikipedia policy not to call ANY organization in the world "terrorist" but only designated terorrist. See relevant articles on Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, PFLP and so on. This is official wikipedia policy in naming conventions. I don't mind changing it but that's the current situation. Amoruso 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is official Wikipedia policy you should have no trouble pointing me to an official Wikipedia policy statement to that effect. It seems to me however that calling the PMOI a designated terrorist organization instead of simple a terrorist organisation is simply an example of using weasel words. I had intended to return to this article over the next few weeks and eliminate a lot of them. --Dave 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with you in principle, but just like X can't call Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Hizballah and the rest terrorist groups, so can't Y call PMI like that. It's not a weasel word but a factual word that solves the problem between the debate whether any group is terrorist or "freedom fighter". If the Palestinians groups for example who openly killed hundreds of children in buses, malls, pubs and markets are defined this way , so are other groups defined this way, and they do....
I have no hesitation in describing the groups you mention above as terrorist organisations. After all, they are terrorist organisations. Why is it necessary to use weasel words to avoid that unpleasant truth? --Dave 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy : Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism

There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below.

1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.) 2. It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Wikipedia has handled terrorism can be found at:

  • Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The * Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Ireland, the US] and many other countries..."
  • Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."

Encyclopedic:

  • X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
  • X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].
  • Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...]

Not encyclopedic:

  • Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
  • After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

Note : if you're talking about an individual that actually killed a child in cold blood for instance then nobody will dispute that he's a terrorist, murderer etc. But the group itself can't be labeled as such. Amoruso 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You make the fundamental mistake right at the beginning of your response by using the word Policy when the material you provided is clearly labelled as a Guideline. In case you missed it I will include the template message here:

{{style-guideline}} and WP:WTA (template replaced with links --Quiddity 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

The first paragraph in the article you quoted from reads:
There are probably no words which one can say should never be used in Wikipedia articles. There are words that are good flags for text that is inappropriate for an article. These can, if misused, convey a meaning which editors may not intend. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, may be unintentionally pejorative, or may be simply bad writing, e.g. clichés.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not use the word terrorist unintentionally, to promote a point of view, or as a perjorative. I used it as an accurate description, with solid references. The word did not convey a meaning the editor (me) did not intend. It was my intent there should be no confusion whatsoever about the nature of the PMOI. I have no particular views on Iranian politics (I'm Australian), but I do believe organisations should be accurately and succinctly described in their introductory paragraph. Even if that offends the POV of some readers. --Dave 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that can not be done. This guideline has effectively become a policy, ask any established neutral adminstrator. You can take it up upstairs or you can try to change all other wikipedia articles mentioned above. This is how all wikipedia articles in english are described... this can't be an exception. The organization is not more terrorist than Palestinian/Afghanistan/Irish/Israel/French/Sri Lankan and so on "terrorist" organizaitons. And this I say without having any bias , as I'm not sure what my position on this group is supposed to be. Lastly, don't use a tool called "vandal tool" for content disputes please. And if you think about it, it doesn't concern any other articles or policies - simply it's that famous line "one terrorist group is another's freedom fighter group" - we can object to it, but I'm surprised it hasn't been enforced already... perhaps the group doesn't enjoy many supporters on wikipedia as do others. Amoruso 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't be done? I did it! If the guideline had indeed become a policy you would have been able to point me to a policy document instead of merely a guideline. I agree the PMOI is no more terrorist than the organisations you mention, but the fact remains it is a terrorist organisation. Using weasel words to soften the impact of this fact breaks another Wikipedia guideline. Oh, and please don't get upset when I continue to use an anti-vandalism software to revert your edit. It just happens to be the tool I use nearly every day. Under Wikipedia policy tou have 2 reverts left today. WP:3RR So do I. Think about that. I suggest you leave that section of the article alone and we seek the assistance of a mediator on the issue. --Dave 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello all, I've taken up the case as mediator. I've read through this discussion as well as the main article's edit history. As far as I can see, both the terrorist-organization labelling and the weasel word 'rules' are BOTH guidelines. However, under the former of the two guidelines it specifically says that NO organization can be directly labelled as a terrorist one; only somebody else designating them as such is permitted. Under weasel words (the Wikipedia guideline) there are numerous examples given as to what constitutes as 'spin' and what does not. So whilst I disagree that the terrorist guideline has unofficially become Wikipedia policy, I do not agree with Dmoss/Dave labelling the organisation's activities as directly terrorist, as it may contravene not only the terrorist guideline, but also the NPOV policy.

When it comes to the actual edit disputes, I'm probably missing some point here because I don't understand the difference between the two versions for the edit under "Line 1". Can someone clarify that for me? As for the subsequent ones, avoiding any direct mention of "terrorism" without any reference to somebody else labelling them as such would be advisable (e.g. 'militant' attacks preferable to 'terrorist' attacks). Jsw663 07:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Unless Dmoss/Dave can justify the weasel word guideline somehow taking preference over the terrorist + NPOV guidelines, is Amoruso's version so unacceptable? Jsw663 07:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, to a point. I have reverted the article to Amoruso's version and will leave it like that, at least until we clear this up. My point is that the PMOI is a terrorist organisation. Although some of its supporters claim it is not, there is a general consensus across the world that it is a terrorist organisation. It is possible to cite terrorist acts it has performed, and its inclusion on official lists of terrorist organisations in well respected countries such as the USA and the EU. Iran certainly considers the PMOI to be a terrorist organisation. Describing the PMOI as a terrorist organisation does not breach the NPOV requirement because it is simply a dispassionate statement of fact. We should not be afraid to state facts on Wikipedia, even if doing so makes readers with a particular POV uncomfortable. When we state facts we should do so clearly and succinctly, without using weasel words. Failing to state PMOI is a terrorist organisation, on the other hand, does fail the NPOV test. it deliberately omits a crucial fact because including it might offend people with a particular POV. I therefore believe I have WP:NPOV on my side of the argument, as well as WP:WEASEL. --Dave 08:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Dave, simply if we do that, we have to change all the other organizaitons and people feel very strongly about it. The supporters of PMOI see it as a freedom fighter group I suppose, which is the reason it's not possible to label them as such in objective sense. To maintian objectivity, organizations are not called terrorist in wikipedia. See all Irish, Palestinian. Muslim, Jewish, American organizations and I gave you plenty of examples. You realise PMOI can't be an exception for this I'm sure. Amoruso 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Dmoss/Dave, do you remember the phrase "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"? I believe it is because of this that Wikipedia has quite clearly stated that no organization may be called terrorist, even if it appears to some people to be "common sense". Therefore, instead of telling people an organisation is terrorist, Wikipedia simply says that so-and-so countries / states have listed this organization as terrorist. That way, when the average person reads wikipedia for encyclopedic information, they will be able to see that most countries and/or states have listed them as terrorists, even if those members consider themselves to be freedom fighters / patriots / whatever. It is only in this way that we can truly adhere to WP:NPOV - the only official Wiki policy among the three quoted above. If there are no further questions Dave, then hopefully the mediation can be concluded soon. Jsw663 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the reason Amoruso gave, just because something has been done incorrectly in the past is not a reason to keep doing it that way in the future. (As a systems analyst I give this advice frequently, but a but more tactfully ;-). As I am not fanatical about this topic I will accept the views of our impartial moderator though. Thanks for helping Jsw663, and thanks for improving the article to Amoruso. I think we are done with this issue now. --Dave 00:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


If I'm permitted to put my grind in the debate, that the PMOI is a controversial organisation is an evidence. That it has a long history, and has evolved along time as did the world is another. But there is also a clear evidence, made appearant by the 2003 raid organised by the French police and the subsequent release of all PMOI activists: the designation of this group as a terrorist organization is clearly dependent on relationship — which varies in time according to geopolitical conjoncture — between Tehran and the various states of the Western world. The PMOI was not labelled as a terrorist organisation by the European Union until recently. And just in December, the European Court has judged this label unfounded. Furthermore, if you follow this affair closely, you will see that there is absolutely no doubt that the PMOI is a bargain chip between Tehran and the Western world. One of those bargain is even in the article. Another interesting article is this one E il Sismi tese la mano ai nemici della Cia - Un piano italiano di «approccio binario» per collaborare con i khomeinisti ha diviso i due servizi segreti alleati from the Corriere della Sera, 10 October 2005 (rough translation: And the SISMI gives its hand to the enemy of the CIA - An Italian plan for a "binary approach" to collaborate with the Khomeinisti (Italian press name for the VEVAK) has divided the two Italian allied services). European elites are aware of that, and a lot of them, from various background, very well know that this "terrorist label" is due to foreign relations between Tehran and others states. This explains why the PMOI can receive support from such different people: see UK: 2000 jurists and MPs call for the removal of PMOI from the terror list, 405 British Parliamentarians consider PMOI a legitimate resistance group, Belgian Senate unanimously calls on EU to remove PMOI from terror list, etc. etc. One can rightly be wary about the PMOI, but it would be very naive indeed to ignore the political negotiations which have been going on between European and US states and the Islamic Republic since 1979 and its influence on shaping the policies of the Western world. One can also be, and I'm more of a dove than a hawk, against war in Iran, without believing Tehran's propaganda. And one must really ignore Tehran's power and its blackmail, in particular concerning the nuclear program (which a war will not stop, IMO - too late... & remember who started providing nuclear power to the Shah...), to dismiss any manipulation concerning PMOI so-called "terrorist" status. Tell me, Dave, who supports this label: what kind of bombing did the PMOI do on Western world territory? Can you please quote me a bombing done on European or US territory, which justify this label? AFAIK, the PMOI has only engaged in attacks on Iranian territory. You may think whatever you want about the PMOI, but you automatically fall under suspicions of supporting the Mullahs if you claim that it is "terrorism" to struggle against this dictatorship. As said by our other friend, what can be said is that PMOI is labelled as a terrorist organisation, no more... Tazmaniacs 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

this link does not mention it clearly anyway i have not removed it but pl check and let me know.User talk:Yousaf465 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

National Endowment for Democracy and the National Iranian American Council

That the National Iranian American Council lobbies for, or against, the People's Mujahedin, and for, or against, Tehran, is their legal right. But, as they transparently say, they are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which everyone knows was founded by Reagan in 1982 to give a legal appearance to the CIA support of political organisations in others countries. In other word, the Iranian American Council bears well its name, and is not just an association of Iranians exilees in the States, but has intimate links with Langley. Thus, I do not think that it qualifies as a WP:RS when it comes to the PMOI, and certainly not in the lead. For the sake of archival, here is the removed sentence: 

and Nathan Hunerwadel, in an article published by the
National Iranian American Council, <ref>{{cite web
  | last = Hunerwadel
  | first = Nathan
  | authorlink =
  | coauthors =
  | title =Iran Policy Committee urges covert military action against
 Iran, support for Mujahedin
  | work =
  | publisher =[[National Iranian American Council]]
  | date =February 16, 2006
  | url =http://www.niacouncil.org/pressreleases/press318.asp
  | format =
  | doi =
  | accessdate = 2006-12-28}}</ref>

Cheers! Tazmaniacs 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged MEK activity in Iran

I'm new to the editing process, but nearly this entire section is based on a single alternative news source. Since the claim is somewhat controversial, perhaps it should based on more reliable sources, or removed altogether. Thanks Dchall1 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq

I have a serious problem with this section, primarily the suggestion that the US broke its ceasefire agreement to disarm the group. According to all the research I've seen, disarmament was part of the ceasefire agreement. I can't find the sources cited to back up this claim, and they aren't linked. Also, I do not feel that the picture in this section adds to the article. If no objections, I will revert back to the previous version. Dchall1 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does surrounding and forcing a surrender at gun point count as breaking a ceasefire? I am not criticizing the US government, I am just trying to accurately describe what happened. I was there when we took the MEK compound in Fallujah. We lined-up about a brigade’s worth of tanks around the compound and had F-16's do fly-bys to intimidate the MEK, then some higher-ups went and presented the head of the compound with declaration of surrender. They took all the MEK into custody, and then we went room-by-room clearing the (extremely large) compound.
Now, to me sticking a gun in someone’s face and demanding surrender is breaking a ceasefire, but feel free to change that to a more fitting term. I tried sourcing this article the best I could so as not to be accused of original research. - Atfyfe 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I still disagree, simply because the term "breaking a ceasefire" is such a strong term for what is at best an ambiguous situation. I've been looking through LexisNexis for articles that support us either way, and there's not a lot there. Still, you have to admit that this was generous treatment for a group that (agree or disagree) is still on the FTO list. Anyway, I think the original version explained the situation without the controversy. Thoughts? Dchall1 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Connection between MEK and US conservatives

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/terrorism-awareness-indeed like Daniel Pipes, Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot; with many links to further research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.29.71 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

Although the OMPI is today the main organization of the NCRI, the latter hosted before others organizations, such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran. [1]

--Filll 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

Just to give one example, the lead says

Following the war 2003, several US agencies interviewed and screened every single resident of Ashraf,

without explain that Ashraf is the headquarters (admittedly the box does that) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Some "users" with no users pages - AlborzTaha and Tib72 - have been reverting edits I've made to made to the article. The edits are an attempt to make the article more readable and useful. If you have issues with them please discuss this here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This and related articles have suffered a slow-burning edit war as long as I've been here. I'd really like to see it stop, and am willing to work towards a compromise version that is acceptable to both sides. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What there are so much reverts?

Dear Chris, I appreciate your objective to have undisputed articles. But it is also good to know that the Iranian regime has launched a heavy misinfrormation campaign against the PMOI which makes it very difficult to figure out the truth. You agree why a regime that is after nuclear weapon and is fomenting unrest in the region by expoting terrorism and fundamentalism and suppresses the people at home should do so. You can just refer to piles of articles and news in the media. It is good to be fair, but be careful not to be impressed by users like BoogaLouie. Tib72 (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version has better grammar, better sourcing, and fewer general mistakes. Please work off this copy rather than reverting to yours, which (through no fault of your own) is full of errors. Also, I really don't care what kind of regime is in Tehran and I don't see how it affects what is in this article. We will fight just as hard to keep Iranian propaganda out as we will fight PMOI propaganda. And please do not accuse myself and user:BoogaLouie of being Iranian agents. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I second Chris's comments and protest the idea that I am in any way doing the work of the IRI. If you have any doubts, take a look at these edits I've made to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the MeK controversial?

I sympathise with those who are attempting to make this piece impartial, but the idea that the MKO/PMOI/NCRI (or whatever they choose to call themselves on any particular day of the week) are controversial, is really wrong. They are not controversial. They are a small, aging, largely irrelevant group of brainwashed fanatics, with no relevance to the political life of Iran. The main reason they are irrelevant is because they sided with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war (and were armed by him with heavy weapons, used by him against the Kurds and other dissident elements). Their only successes come through propaganda, and the low credibility of the current Iranian regime - hence the long list of western parliamentarians that have been taken in by them. If you are looking to make this piece impartial, consult the books dealing with this subject - eg John Simpson Lifting the Veil, Ervand Ebrahamian, etc. Look at the MKO survivors' website. Look at the writings of Massoud Khodabandeh (one of the survivors). The unhinged extremism of its partisans should not form one pole of a range of opinion, within which you attempt to take a mean. As someone once said, there can be no happy medium between the fire and the fire engine. 86.164.203.60 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't entirely agree. They may be universally detested by Iranians but they have support from american neocons, and the IRI government seems to find them enough of a nusance to make them a issue with the US government judging by an interview with a Revolutionary Guard honcho I saw on PBS TV Frontline. So you might call that controversy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll settle for them being controversial among the ignorant, or among other crazies. Balanced people who know the facts see them as a rather sad, irrelevant remnant. 86.157.254.76 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverts by Tom davy

User:Tom davy you been asked repeatedly to join the discussion page before reverting edits. The article lead is a place for a summary of the article, not for details of MeK's recent legal desputes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Continued reverts by Boogalouie Dear all, I believe that some users such as Mr Dchall( Chris) and his friend Bougaloui are misusing this wikipedia by constantly making biased edits on the PMOI. For example the whole paragraphs about several resolutions or recent court victories of this group in the European Court of First Instance and the UK court have been deleted by the above gentlemen. I do not wish to accuse either of them of any thing, but this is rather un-believable of how they are so keen to repeat the allegations made by the current theocracy and by deleting such facts which are good for users to know when they want to make a study about PMOI. I hope I have not offended any one but I am really suspicious of the motives of the above. Yours sincerely, Tom Davy

(Copied from Tom davy user page) Your information about the several resolutions or recent court victories of PMOI is already in the article in the Designation as a terrorist organization section. That's where it belongs. The lead is not the place for it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page for a week whilst editors find a way to work out this dispute about the lead and other disagreements. I will lift this protection sooner if an agreement is reached. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the opening page of PMOI

About the PMOI opening page, since the present version has deleted all their court victories, one gets a very negative impression about this group which is not fair. I suggest we add this sentence : "On 7 May 2008, the UK Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, against a decision by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission to remove the PMOI from the list of groups banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was no evidence that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran was currently involved in terrorism. [6][7]"

This is a fact and is nothing to be disputed and is quite balanced. For your information the British Government has implemented the verdict by lodging a written order with the British parliament , seeking to remove the PMOI from the terrorist list.

Tom Davy Tom davy (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The lead (not an "opening page") is already quite long and already contains this half sentence: "Although the European Court of Justice has overturned the EU designation in December 2006 ..." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "eu-fto" :
    • {{cite journal|title=Council Common Position 2005/847/Cfsp| journal=Official Journal of the European Union|year=2005|volume=L 314|url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf|pages=44}}
    • {{cite journal | title=Council Common Position 2005/847/Cfsp| journal=Official Journal of the European Union| year=2005| volume=L 314| url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf| pages=44}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POV section

"Armed conflict with the Islamic government" section is very one-sided, and makes it seems as though MKO had no role in the campaign of violence that followed the revolution. It fails to mention that MKO refused to disarm or recognize the new government following the revolution, and that Rajavi was just as guilty as Khomeini in provoking the violence. It also fails to mention that MKO's violent activities in the early years of the revolution, the militaristic atmosphere they created, gave Khomeini an excuse to suppress otherwise non-violent leftist groups as a result. The section should be re-written by neutral editors. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality problem.

This article is like a advertisement for the PMOI. It claims that the islamic republic launched a campaing to crush them. This might have something to do with the fact that they carried out bombings. That deserves a mentioning.TheTruthA (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This article can just as heavily be argued to be negative misrepresentation of the PMOI, with many antiquated descriptions of the organization's ideologies and goals. It should be noted that there is a significant chance that most statements directly defending the Islamic Republic republic in regard to this article, such as the one above, were written by an individual working for or under the control of the Iranian government. This is probably the case because the PMOI, among other things, is a dangerous threat toward the political stability of the Iranian government and the government's vehement effort to suppress questioning ideology. It would not make sense for the Iranian government not to try to tamper with this page, given its efforts to ban and filter controversial literature, movies, websites, etc. From a cursory analysis of the grammatical structure of the statement made above, it seems that the statement may have been written by someone who speaks Farsi as a first language and wrote the English statement outside his/her native tongue (in other words, the statement seems to have been thought up in Farsi and translated in English, but this of course is speculation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violajoke (talk • contribs) 06:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement under the picture of Maryam Rajavi is disputable: "In 1991, Maryam Rajavi as then leader of PMOI's army forces directly ordered the massacre of Iraqi Kurdish people" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.240.54 (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I read the following in the Mashad (Imam Reza bombing paragprah). Could someone please post it under MKO's wikipage.

"1994 Imam Reza shrine bombing

On June 20, 1994, an explosion from a bomb occurred in a prayer hall of the shrine of the Imam Reza[8] The bomb that killed at least 25 people on June 20 in Mashhad exploded at Ashura.[9] Mehdi Nahvi, a member of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MKO), an Iraqi-based opposition group, claimed responsibility. The MKO stated that the bombing was carried out to commemorate the anniversary of the group's founding on June 20, 1981.[citation needed] Although government blamed the Mujahedin-e-Khalq in a TV show to avoid sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni[citation needed], the Pakistani daily "News" of March 27, 1995 reported, “Pakistani investigators have identified a 24-year-old religious fanatic Abdul Shakoor residing in Lyari in Karachi, as an important Pakistani associate of Ramzi Yousef. Abdul Shakoor had intimate contacts with Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and was responsible for the June 20, 1994, massive bomb explosion at the shrine Imam Ali Reza in Mashhad.”[10]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hunger Strike

There is a note to take article out by 2/09 unless citations are used. I have made some changes in the article which may satisfy objectors.Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


The MEK is a damn joke. You have a couple of different forces at work here. First, the MEK and secondly Iran. YOU BOTH SUCK. You're both a bunch of lying, psychotic nutcases! You want to see a cult? Visit Ashraf. Ta ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.10.154 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad Article - Not Controversial

This article has got worse (for example, no mention of killings of Americans by the MKO in Iran in the 1970s; and the section on 'Before 1979' gives an absurdly rosy account of MKO ideology) since I last visited it a couple of years ago, seemingly as a result of constant harassment from MKO people. This is what I put in to the discussion then (with a comment from BoogaLouie) - no less true now -

I sympathise with those who are attempting to make this piece impartial, but the idea that the MKO/PMOI/NCRI (or whatever they choose to call themselves on any particular day of the week) are controversial, is really wrong. They are not controversial. They are a small, aging, largely irrelevant group of brainwashed fanatics, with no relevance to the political life of Iran. The main reason they are irrelevant is because they sided with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war (and were armed by him with heavy weapons, used by him against the Kurds and other dissident elements). Their only successes come through propaganda, and the low credibility of the current Iranian regime - hence the long list of western parliamentarians that have been taken in by them. If you are looking to make this piece impartial, consult the books dealing with this subject - eg John Simpson Lifting the Veil, Ervand Ebrahamian, etc. Look at the MKO survivors' website. Look at the writings of Massoud Khodabandeh (one of the survivors). The unhinged extremism of its partisans should not form one pole of a range of opinion, within which you attempt to take a mean. As someone once said, there can be no happy medium between the fire and the fire engine. 86.164.203.60 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't entirely agree. They may be universally detested by Iranians but they have support from american neocons, and the IRI government seems to find them enough of a nusance to make them a issue with the US government judging by an interview with a Revolutionary Guard honcho I saw on PBS TV Frontline. So you might call that controversy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll settle for them being controversial among the ignorant, or among other crazies. Balanced people who know the facts see them as a rather sad, irrelevant remnant. 86.157.254.76 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

81.158.253.239 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The section on the killing of American's seems quite weak. It repeatedly talks about civilians being killed yet it only lists military and diplomatic staff at a time when the US was supporting the government the group opposed. Additionally, this was a Marxist group and most, if not all of the people they were alleged to have assassinated were engaged in operations against the USSR. To add to that, the 3 Rockwell employee's were under the direct control of the CIA and allegedly killed by the CIA, who supposedly used this group as a cover. There is no mention of this so the article reads like a justification of this organisation being on the terrorism list of the USA rather then a factual & neutral article that uses all sources available.--203.206.205.156 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"the 3 Rockwell employee's were under the direct control of the CIA and allegedly killed by the CIA ..." source? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Have to disagree with some of the recent edits made by Kurdo on April 13.

  • "Islamic-Marxist" is kind of a contradiction in terms and certainly the MEK doesn't agree it is "Islamic-Marxist". In any case in recent years there's been a shortage of anything resembling Marxism coming from the MEK. (Also, see this.)
  • The lead is too long.

However other than that I can't complain too much and am already in conflict with Kurdo at 1953 coup article so I will leave this to someone with more time on their hands. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

MEK providing funds to US officials, which resulted in them taking them off the terrorist watch list

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9xCqUlLnp8&feature=g-user-u

The MEK are buying up US lobbyists, but it's illegal for US citizens to accept money from terrorist organizations. So, the MEK have been taken off the list.

The MEK are also anti-Iranian terrorists, killing Iranian civilians. So, the MEK are terrorists that not only work for US interests, but are paying high officials.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.41 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss before blanking

Recently User:Libash91 blanked a large portion of the article, removing sources, without discussing his edits or seeking consensus. I'm sympathetic to MEK and their fight against the Iranian regime, but changes as drastic as this must be discussed first.--Vivianspilot (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of title

I believe the title of the article is spelled incorrectly. MEK/MKO is an Iranian organization, so I would think the spelling of "Mujahedin" should reflect that, and be spelled "Mojahedin". Only, I don't know how to change it... Can anyone do it for me? Manocihr (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Most English sources I have seen it as "Mujahadeen-e-Khalq". See the Council on Foriegn Relations: Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) (aka People's Mujahedin of Iran or PMOI) --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved Mujahadeen-e-Khalq to opening sentence

Moved "Mujahadeen-e-Khalq" higher up since the abbreviation of MEK is used throughout the article, not PMOI, and that is the name widely used by the Council on Foreign Relations and the BBC, among others. There is also the article MEK Compound. The name seems to be very common in English. That was certainly the name used in the recent news about the de-listing by the US State Department. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

the article does not say when they where designated as a terrorist group by west — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanganeh (talk • contribs) 11:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up Terrorist designation section

Just added delisting info section there but see now that this whole section hardly written in Wikiepdia style. Chronology seems a bit disjointed too.

I'll fix up terrorist designation section and meanwhile here's the varioius factoids and refs which I removed which may or not be duplicative. Please strike if you move them somewhere or find them duplicative, if I don't get there first.

On December 4, 2006, Time Magazine published an article about MEK and reported: "In 2003, French anti-terrorist police raided Maryam Rajavi's place in Auvers-sur-Oise, securing millions of euros and taking Maryam Rajavi and some of her collaborators into custody. Several of Rajavi's followers set themselves on fire to protest her arrest, confirming official French concerns about the cultish nature of the group."[2]
On September 14, 1981, Time published another article about MEK and reported: "The Mujahedin platform focused on anticapitalist, anti-Western slogans. It demanded the nationalization of all foreign businesses run by Iranians and continuation of the anti-imperialist struggle, especially against the U.S. Western intelligence sources doubt that the Mujahedin, though superbly organized, have as many followers as they claim. "They are not a popular movement," one analyst asserts. "Their ideology is not understood by the masses. They are capable, of carrying out terror operations but not of governing Iran.""[3][Added later: not available to verify.]
On April 21, 1997, Time Magazine published another article about MEK and reported "There is a cult of personality around Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi that is unhealthy," per Michael Eisenstadt, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy. "If they were to achieve power, it is unlikely they would give it up."[4]
On August 28, 1988, New York Times published an article that after chemical attacks by MEK against western Iranian cities, Alireza Jafarzadeh as then public spokesman for MEK in the United States said "Mujahedeen have learned to take proper tactics when and if necessary. We have always adjusted tactics in our fighting. The form of fighting is secondary."[5] The Mujahedeen claimed to have inflicted 40,000 Iranian casualties.[5] [Added later note: The quote was just before a report on chemicals but did not attribute to MEK.]
On July 13, 2003, New York Times published another article that in 1991 when Saddam Hussein used the MEK and its tanks as advance forces to crush the Iraqi Kurdish people in the north and the Iraqi Shia people in the south, Maryam Rajavi as then leader of MEK's army forces commanded: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards."[6] [Added later: Duplicate of info in there.]
On December 14, 2006, Time published an article about MEK and reported: "By the mid-1980s, the group (MEK) had cozied up to Saddam Hussein, who provided them with funds and a compound, Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad. The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down Iraqi Kurdish people in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran."[2] [Added later: Duplicate of info in there.]

CarolMooreDC 03:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions:

  1. The first passage should be in the section "Relations with France," subsection "Post-war." Although it should be explained what exactly "Post war" is referring to - which war? Otherwise, I'd delete the name of the subsection.
  2. I don't know if the second passage is necessary, as it could very well be outdated. It's been a few decades already. Otherwise, it's probably go in "ideaology" subsection "after the revolution." But again, my view is that this information isn't even necessary.
  3. I don't think the 3rd passage is necessary either. We should try to refrain from personal opinion statements on this article as much as possible, leaving that for the articles on those individuals themselves. I don't think it'd be compatible with the overall structure of this article, or with some of the other sections.
  4. I'd say the 4th passage goes in the section "Armed conflict with the Islamic government." Although this too may be debatable. While we have one attack in that section, we do not have a list or description of all attacks, and I don't see why this specific one would be picked. It'd certainly be appropriate for an article on the attack itself.
  5. I'd say the 5th passage goes in "Relations with Iraq under Saddam Hussein."
  6. 6th passage would go in same section.

NOTE: I havent checked for duplication.

What do you think? --Jethro B 04:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will look at soon. Just cleaned up section as promised and will take a break and then look more carefully. CarolMooreDC 05:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI, doing some clean up, I did check a few of the things above and have put [Added later: ] notes their status. Will do same with others later. Of course, I note a lot of it IS word for word as well, as I have a feeling too much of the article is. So that must be checked and fixed here and probably throughout the article! ;-( See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. CarolMooreDC 03:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if you need any help regarding the copyright issue. --Jethro B 05:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A few new academic sources on the topic

I will be posting quotes of the book in the talk page and will transfer the content to the article after paraphrasing:

1. "The Iranian Mojahedin" by Ervand Abrahamian. (Already being used in the article)

2. "Rebels with a Cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran" by Maziar Behrooz. (The link is a review of the book in an academic journal)

3. Iran and the Gulf: A Search for Stability. (The link is a review of the book by Professor William B. Quandt).

--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


PMK & the US government

'Anti-Imperialism' was always a principle of the PMK. The Mojahedin Organizatoin praised writers such as Al-e Ahmad, Saedi and Shariati for being 'anti-imperialist'.[Abrahamian p. 229] Rajavi in his presedential campaign in 1980 used to warn against the 'imperialist danger'.[Abrahamian p. 197] It was so fundamental to PMK that it criticized the Iranian regime based on that, accusing the Islamic Republic of 'capitualation to imperialism' and being disloyal to democracy that according to Rajavi was the only means to 'safeguard from American imperialism'.[Abrahamian p. 209] However, after exile, Rajavi in his interviews in the west toned down the issues of imperialism, social revolution, and classless society. Instead he stressed on human rights and respect for 'personal property'.[Abrahamian p. 245]

--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The war between MEK and the Iranian government.

"Some of these activities, however, mush be kept in careful perspective. The Iranian government has been involved in a murderous international war of assassination and couter-assassination with the Rajavi family and the People's Mujahedin since the early 1980s. This war, however, was started by the radical Marxist People's Mujahedin..."

Iran and the Gulf A Search for Stability edited by Jama Suwaidi, p. 267 --Kazemita1 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideological revolution

From "The Iranian Mojahedin", by Ervand Abrahamian, pp. 251-253:

"On 27 January 1985, Rajavi announced that he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu to be his co-equal leader. The announcement, dedicated to the memory of Rajavi's first wife, explained that this appointment would give women equal say within the organization and thereby would launch a great ideological revolution within ojahedin, the Iranian publi and the whole Muslim World. Until then, Mojahedin activists had known Maryam Azodanlu as merely the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi, one of Rajavi's close colleagues. .... The proclamation also mentioned almost in passing that Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to pave the way for this 'great revolution'. ... Whatever the true reasons behind the marriage the results were crystal clear. The marriage worked both to isolate further the Mojahedin from the outside world and at the same time, to initiate a voluntary purge within the organization itself. In the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani's younger sister. It involved women with young children and even more unforgivable, the wives of close friends - a taboo in traditional Iranian culture. The incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It seemed to confirm their worst suspicions about the Mojahedin's 'petit bourgeois' nature. It made a mockery of other people's intelligence. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals. It reminded them of the Shah who claimed to champion women's rights both when he had launched his White Revolution and when he had designated his empress to be his heir until his son came of age -especially when Rajavi organized a large wedding ceremony packed with his staunch admirers pledgin allegiance to the co-leaders and their ideological revolution. Even the poses taken by the Rajavis for their wedding pictures reminded many of the previous occupants of Niavaran Place. Sceptics also raised two rhetorical questions: what contributions, either intellectual or organizational, had Maryam Azodanlu made to deserve to be co-leader; and why, if she was such a committed feminist, was she now giving up her own maiden name to take that of her husband (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage)? Puran Bazargan, Hanifnezhad's widown and the very first woman mojahed, wrote an open letter describing the marriage as an insult to the memory of the early Mojahedin. She also stated that much of the wedding reminded her of the Shah; and that the divorce, the abondonment of children, and the marriage to the wife of a close friend was unprcedented in political movements. A feminist journal found the whole scandal to be yet another sign that Mojahedin continued the Islamic tradition of dehumanizing women and treating them as cattle to be bought and sold. A Marxist newspaper saw the so-called ideological revolution as further evidence that the Mojahedin had moved to the right, created a one-man leader ship and mimicked Khomeini's dictatorship, replacing the latter's velayat-e faqih with Rajavi's masuliyat. An anthropologist, who until then had been sympathetic to the Mojahedin, analysed the crisis as a self-administered purge to remove all who did not accept Rajavi's leadership as their article of faith. Similarly, one former member of the Mojahedin told this author that it all reminded him of the medevial story of travelling Sufi guru, who on being greeted by a large crowd, weeded out of the half-haearted from the true believers by urinating in front of them. The faithful remained, but those weak in spirit left in disgust. In the months subsequent to the ideological revolution, the paper Mojahed published a ream of letters, speeches, poems and songs in praise of Masud Rajavi." --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mojahedin and women's equal right

From "The Iranian Mojahedin", by Ervand Abrahamian, pp. 233-234:

"the Mojahedin, despite contrary claims did not give women equal representation within their own hierarchy. The book of martyrs indicates that women formed 15 percent of the organization's rank-and-file, but only 9 percent of its leadershp. To rectify this, the Mojahedin posthumously revealed some of the rank and file women martyrs especially those related to prominent figures, into leadership positions. An example is Iran Bazargan, a 56-year-old housewife without any organizational position but with many family ties to prominent mojaheds; she was not only the sister-in-law both of Hanifnezhad, the organization's founding father, and of Fatemeh amini, one of the few women mojaheds killed in the 1970s, but was also the sister of Mansur Bazargan, a leading defendant in the 1972 trials, and the mother-in-law of Khademi who immediately after the Islamic revolution had set up the Movement of Muslilm Workers. When pasdars in hot pursuit of Khademi demolished Iran Bazargan's home and in the process killed her, the Mojahedin eulogized her as yet another eternal symbol of revolutionary womanhood." --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

The file File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

The edits that have been added to this page are not neutral in nature. Edits are to be factual without bias, not opinions. This is why citations are critical. Multiple users have agreed these edits do not follow Wikipedia guidelines, and have been reverted accordingly. WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigereconomy (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely untrue. The edits were to make the article NPOV. Before my edit, the opening summary made no mention of the fact 1. the MEK fought alongside Saddam (a hugely important event in the MEK's history), 2. Killed 101 members (the edit mistakenly had 81) of the Iranian government in a bombing in 1981, including the popularly elected President and Prime Minister, and 3. worked with Israel to kill Iranian scientists and educators.
Just this fact alone makes it obvious the article was extremely biased. It looked like a major whitewash, and the purpose of my edit was to make the article neutral. The multiple (two) users have limited history in Wikipedia, and are following the same pattern of behavior of butchering entire edits without prior discussion, or without justifying their allegations of "vandalism" (you made this allegation) and "POV" (both of you made this allegation). SupaEdita (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
First things first, undoing substantial edits without prior discussion is not against Wikipedia's norms, in fact it's exactly the opposite. Please read WP:BRD you should have been the one to bring this to the talk page not Tigereconomy. However, as it stands I think most of your addition is valid. Although you have no given any sources (other than the history.com one which doesnt support what you've written), per WP:LEDE people are allowed to add stuff to the lede of the article as long as it is mentioned elsewhere. The majority of things you have added to the lede have been mentioned elsewhere in the article. While I will not revert your addition I have made a few changes to remove the unsourced parts of your addition. Also I have removed the designation of their campaign as terrorist one in the lede per WP:TERRORIST. I also think there's a lot more to add that occured between the Iran-Iraq war and 2003. Bosstopher (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Islamism

@Tigereconomy:@Garden Mixer: I'm bringing this to the talk page so we can get this edit war sorted out. First of all can both of you please use edit summaries when reverting. If you don't, there's no way anyone can understand your reasoning. Also you've confused a whole load of recent changes patrollers into thinking you're vandals. In my opinion "(though radical Islamism is not an ideology of this group)," should not be included in the article. This is because it is WP:SYNTH, there is no reason for us to bring up this topics unless a substantial proportion of the article was dedicated to accusations of radical Islamism against the MEK. Imagine if every article about an Islamic group had to include the disclaimer "however they are not radical Islamists" in the lede. It would be very bizarre indeed and unnecessary. Bosstopher (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the forged association with Ba'athist Iraq. Obviously Ba'athist Iraq was totally secular, its members were all religions and Saddam was for most of the time actually athiest - he became a proper Sunni in 1999 and kept it til he was murdered. So the fact that Iran is mainly Shi'ite and here we have Shi'ites working with non-religious allies, I feel we can safely say that People's Mujahedin is not radical, even if Islamist to an extent. --Garden Mixer (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This may be true but it does not seem relevant. There are a lot of things the MEK is not. For instance they're not anarchists. However there's no reason for the article to contain a sentence saying "However the MEK are not anarchists," unless the reliable sources note a dispute in which the MEK have falsely been accused of being anarchists. As it stands by including your disclaimer about radical islamism we are giving undue weight to a claim which while likely true, has no real major relevance that warrants it being mentioned in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Good points across your whole statement Bosstopher. I'm in agreement. One point of clarity I totally forgot to mention in previous posts and it was the most important factor of all! It is because of the word "Mujahedin" appearing in the title, that is usually associated with Islamism and its stricter forms. This is why I wanted to add something to explain the situation. --Garden Mixer (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
(Sorry for the delayed response have been busy the past few days)Well personally I believe the best way of dealing with this, would be to put more about what their ideology is in the lede as opposed to as what it isn't. But if you still want to include the sentence about not being radical Islamists, I'd be up for going to ask for a third opinion to decide this for us (assuming you'd be ok with that too). Bosstopher (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear Scientist Assassinations

@SupaEdita: It's a very long article so I may have missed something, but I cant see any part where the US officials confirm an alliance with Israel. They confirm the MEK carried out the assassinations but not that they did so with Israeli aid.Bosstopher (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: The very first paragraph of the article states:
Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.
Were you looking at the same article? SupaEdita (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm Sorry, my mistake! I was basing this off of the later part, where they went into more detail about what the US officials were up to, and they don't explicitly mention the link to Israel only the assassinations. My mistake, you're right. I dont see why you've removed the fact that they've denied, the accusations though?Bosstopher (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistakenly removed the fact that they've denied the accusations. It's back in there now. SupaEdita (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Anti-American campaign section

After reading through the Bloomfield source I've made changes for the following reasons: in the sections where Bloomfield discusses the assassination attempts against US citizens (testimony and pages 28-9), he never explicitly accepts the claims the MEK makes about the assassinations as true. The phrase "according to the MEK" pops up over and over again. In fact it even notes an article in the National Review arguing that Massoud Rajavi was in control while the assassinations were ongoing. For that reason I'm merely putting it as a claim by the MEK instead of fact. However I've used the phrase "within the MEK," or "members of the MEK" instead of "by the MEK" to account for the fact that the MEK's narrative of events may be accurate, and that it could have just been a small splintery grouping. I removed the sentence about a new secretary general for 2011 because that's completely irrelevant to anti American attacks. Also I've removed the bullet points and restructured because bullet points suck.Bosstopher (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Organization of Iranian American Communities

http://www.lobelog.com/tom-cotton-allies-himself-with-the-mek/

Is this a front group for MEK? Hcobb (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MEK or PMOI

The article uses both throughout and switches between the two randomly. I would standardise them all, but I wanted to make sure first whether or not there's a consensus for one or the other. Does anyone have strong thoughts on the issue? I'm leaning towards MEK because from a rough survey it seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME abbreviation. Bosstopher (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have no strong preference, but MEK appears to be the more common. - Location (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I keep forgetting which version is the preferred by the organisation, but I can tell you that changing it to the "wrong one" will cause endless edit warring by supporters of the organisation. Unless they have had a change of heart recently. Refdoc (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on People's Mujahedin of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation Work

Brustopher (talk) Hello, it is best to discuss concerns on the article Talk Page before reversion. To clarify, my edit was to indicate which citations needed work, as the information could not be verified in some of the citations given. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Carpe765 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Carpe765: Why do these citations need work? Abrahamian is a respected historian, and the Washington Post is definitely an RS. What makes them unreliable in your eyes? Brustopher (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Post-war

The sentence I added regarding the Habilian Association seems neutral to me and based on facts reported by a reliable source. "The Daily Beast" seems to me such one according to WP:RS: it is a respected mainstream online newspaper. In my sentence, I quote only facts reported in the article from "The Daily Beast". Silvio artemis (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, Silvio artemis - while I agree that your addition is written NPOV, and that the source itself considered WP:RS, I also agree with SupaEdita that the information provided within the source should be verified with an additional source before adding, since it is based on one claim. If it is appropriate to weigh and position a claim made by one specific source (as suggested here) it would be appropriate to do so in this instance as well. An additional NPOV, WP:RS source would help verify this claim. I'm also not sure if this information is a necessary addition to this page. At the very least I don’t think it fits in the first paragraph of Post-War section. The article cited discusses the Habilian Association and their relationship with MEK, but the emphasis is mostly put on how the Habilian operates beyond its agenda regarding the MEK. Tigereconomy (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tigereconomy: I will find/add a second NPOV source, and I take up your remark that the cited article is more general, beyond PMOI, so I try to find out more about Habilian for use in appropriate Wikipedia article i.e. "Ministry of Intelligence" of Iran to which the Daily Beast article too refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio artemis (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a template for cleanup. After reading through this page, its a bit of a mess. I see many spelling and grammar errors, as well as issues with NPOV, redundant material, or material that reflects conflicting POVs. Although I'm a newbie to the page, I think it could use a good overhaul.

Here’s what I recommend:
Lead Section - reduce length, include only most notable details. There shouldn’t be six paragraphs dedicated to this section, especially since many of these details are already discussed in the article body. (MOS:LEAD).
Sections - Merge/restructure sections. Some areas of this page are organized chronologically while other areas are being organized by subject matter. I think we should keep “History” and add two additional headings: “Current” for anything chronologically happening past 2010 and “Ideology” for anything that can’t be itemized chronologically. We can then move subheadings into one of these three headlines as they fit.
Grammar/Spelling - Edits need to be made throughout the page. Example: “Lt. Col. Louis Lee Hawkins, a U.S. Army comptroller.” is a sentence fragment.
Citations - Some of the citations are outdated and unverifiable. Replacement of dead links. Some of the citations used are broken links, and could be refreshed with a NPOV, WP:RS source.

WorldAlive (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback, I've been meaning to clean up this article for a while. I'll try and make the bigger recommended changes over the summer if possible. Brustopher (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute 2

My very best wishes You argued in the last revert that:

clearly undue on this page: an offer, even IF it was actually made, has been rejected

1. The relevance of the offer is the importance the Iranian government places on the disbandment of the MKO. They offered major foreign policy concessions, including scaling back their nuclear program, and one of the few items they demanded in return was the MKO item. I see that as worth mentioning in an article about the MKO.

2. I have reduced the length of the original content in order to reduce its weight. Could you please make an effort to accommodate my concerns, the way I have been (I have made several edits to address concerns you have raised). So far I've done all of the modifications to the content, and you've only reverted my edits. SupaEdita (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

1. The "offer" was proven (not suggested, proven) to be from a Swiss diplomat and not from Iran at all, as has been shown above. This is the biggest issue you need to address: your edit introduces a known and proven error into the article.
2. The most that this should get is "in 2007, a Swiss diplomat wrote a letter suggesting all kinds of things with no awareness of actual US-Iran discussions, among them disbanding the MKO," using more up-to-date sources with more information instead of outdated sources with limited and biased information. Calling the Swiss diplomat's involvement a suggestion by merely "at least one commentator" does not legitimately address the fact that the "offer" was nothing more than the pipedream of a Swiss diplomat who had no part in US-Iran negotiations. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
1. Could you please provide a source for this claim that this was proven? I see this nowhere. People like Mike Rubin, a noted neoconservative, have claimed the Swiss ambassador authored the letter. That's as much evidence I've seen for the claim that he wrote it.
2. The letter was presented in 2003. SupaEdita (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nickname by critics

They are usually called "Munafiqin-e Khalq" by most of their critics.Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Updated the logo to the correct version used by the organization. The previous logo added does not match the logo used on the organization website Carpe765 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference fasfbi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Graff, James (December 14, 2006). "Iran's Armed Opposition Wins a Battle — In Court". Time Magazine.
  3. ^ Muller, Henry (September 14, 1981). "Iran: A Government Beheaded". Time Magazine.
  4. ^ Barnes, Edward (April 21, 1997). "Armed Women of Iran". Time Magazine.
  5. ^ a b Cowell, Alan (August 28, 1988). "A Gulf Truce Leaves Rebels In a Quandary". New York Times.
  6. ^ Rubin, Elizabeth (July 13, 2003). "The Cult of Rajavi". New York Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran/Archive_2&oldid=1137078739"