Jump to content

Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RAND weight in section "Cult of Personality"

[edit]

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

The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian. So it is due.I think Abrahamian is way underrepresented in the section, and even RAND is underrepresented. Major aspects discussed by both sources are not covered. I don't think any of them should be covered less in absolute terms. MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MarioGom, where can I verify that RAND is "probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that I didn't say RAND was not due, I said that it's over-represented because its content makes up about one-third of the entire section. If WP:NPOV requires that editors paraphrase from various reliable sources, then why not do this here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can verify this by actually reading the most cited academic sources within the article, as well as the most relevant tertiary sources such as Oxford Reference entries. I'll post a bibliographic review here. This will take some time. MarioGom (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be waiting for your bibliographic review, but kindly prioritize the central issue. If WP:NPOV requires that we paraphrase from various reliable sources, what is your justification for attributing one-third of the entire section to only RAND when there are dozens of sources available? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, RAND is one of the most cited, not in this article, but in academic publications. I get that you will not check this, but please, understand that preparing a bibliography review for you will require quite some effort and time. About the extension, I did not advocate for RAND to take one-third. What I said is that is should be well represented, and that other sources, especially Abrahamian (which I hope you will not dispute as being the most important author in this area), need to be represented more. So my guess is that a well written section will have less than one third specifically attributed to RAND, not because reduced representation, but because the most reliable sources (currently underrepresented) will increase in weight. MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MarioGom, note that I did not say RAND was an unreliable source, I said RAND is being over-represented (and it is). A workshop should be set in place now so that portion of the section complies with WP:NPOV through additional sources. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you endorse such a workshop? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've been reviewing bibliography and drafting some material and I'll be happy to post it here for further discussion. MarioGom (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not been involved in this topic recently. But there was a time when I would read about MEK day and night. Based on my research, MarioGom is correct in saying "The RAND report is probably the second most cited publication about the MEK in academia, after Abrahamian."VR (Please ping on reply) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop:RAND and WP:NPOV through additional sources

[edit]

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

  • I'd be curious to see how frequently each source was cited. For comparison, the RAND article has 33 citations according to google scholar. And the source is both entirely dedicated to MEK, and covers the MEK comprehensively. The first is important, because it assures us all the citations are indeed MEK related. The second is important for establishing relative WEIGHT.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello VR. Wildfried Butcha's Who rules Iran? : the structure of power in the Islamic Republic (which ellaborates on the MEK thoroughly) is not cited in that section ("Cult of personality") at all and has 390 citations according to Google scholar, while almost of a third of the entire section remains attributed to only RAND. That's obviously against WP:NPOV. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source fails the first criteria that the "entirely dedicated to MEK". How many of Butcha's 390 citations are about the MEK? Likely a small minority. However, we can be confident most, if not all, of citations to Abrahamian are regarding the MEK.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "first criteria" that a source is required to be "entirely dedicated to the MEK" is being imposed by you? I tend to follow WP:POLICIES, and Wildfried Butcha's book (published by a reputable publisher and provides extensive coverage of the MEK) appears to comply with policy. But since we're in this topic, I have found two other papers entirely dedicated to the MEK: Raymond Tanter's Terror Tagging of an Iranian Dissident Organization: A White Paper, and James A. Piazza's The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile. The Mojahedin-e Khalq and its Struggle for Survival. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not imposed by me, its imposed by WP:COMMONSENSE. Given, Butcha's book is not dedicated to the MEK, can you indicate how many of its 390 citations are about the MEK? I went through the few citations in google scholar and didn't find a single citation to the MEK. It seems Butcha's work is well received for its scholarship o Iran in general, but not necessarily the MEK.
Raymond Tanter's book looks to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED (its published by IPC, of which Tanter himself is president). Piazza is better, as its published in Digest of Middle East Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. But it has only 4 citations on google scholar, so its not as widely regarded as RAND.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many of Butcha's 390 google scholar citations are about the MEK, but his book does provide extensive coverage of the MEK. Are you suggesting that book can't be used because it isn't entirely dedicated to the MEK? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not suggesting that at all, and I'm not sure where you got that from. We can definitely use Butcha's book, giving it WP:DUE weight. All I'm saying is that google scholar number of citations for Butch's can't be compared in an apples to apples way to the google citations to RAND or Abrahamian. Thus, RAND and Abrahamian remain the most scholarly publications on the topic, but again Butcha can be cited with WP:DUE.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, what material from Butcha did you want to cite? I notice he accuses Rajavi of a "dictatorial leadership" (p 113-114) and goes into details about MEK's "propaganda machine" (p 114-116) and then also calls it a "political religious sect" and says it is run like a "totalitarian, single-party dictatorship" (p 116).VR (Please ping on reply) 15:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VR Refer to the initial discussions in this thread. I pointed out that a considerable amount of the section is sourced from only RAND. I proposed combining this information with other sources because it heavily relies on just one reference. Do you concur with this suggestion? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VR Follow-up ping. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you propose something specifically? In principle, bringing in more sources is a great idea.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VR here is a specific proposal bringing in more sources:
A RAND Corporation report states that during Masoud Rajavi's "ideological revolution," MEK members were expected to show loyalty to their leaders, resembling cult behavior with authoritarianism, though these claims are disputed by MEK supporters.[1] During the ideological revolution, the organization's slogan "Iran is Rajavi, Rajavi is Iran" emphasized membership unity.[2] In a statement regarding the MEK, Rudy Giuliani said, "But we’re not a cult. We’re a people who are joined by something timeless: the love of freedom, the love of democracy, the love of human life."[3] The group reflects aspects of the original Iranian revolutionary movement before it was overtaken by Khomeini's faction.[4]
This offers a variety of perspectives and sources Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why Giuliani is a reliable source, or even relevant, but mostly important what does that have to do with being a cult? For Cohen, you'll have to give page number so I can read the context.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source about Giuliani is from the Observer, and the claim by this U.S. politician is relevant since he is addressing the cult accusations. For Cohen, the page number is xi. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any content relating to MEK being a cult on that page. The only instance of the letters "cult" there are in the word "difficult". Bringing in Guiliani's views to balance out those by RAND, Abrahamian, Cohen etc is pretty WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR, last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Wikipedia. Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian Abbas Milani Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR, I'm answering all your questions, could you please respond? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again sorry for the delay. "last I checked the statements from U.S. politicians quoted in The Observer were acceptable in Wikipedia." That really depends on what they're talking about. Current US politics? Sure. History? Not at all (per WP:HISTRS).
Abbas Milani calls the MEK "terrorists-cum-cultish extremists"[1].VR (Please ping on reply) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR. "Not at all (per WP:HISTRS)." Which section of that essay suggests that it's against the policy to use a statement from a U.S. politician regarding the characteristics of a foreign political group?
"Would you also disapprove of including Iranian-American historian Abbas Milani as a source?" Could you answer with yes or no? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check WP:HSC. Guiliani's opinion doesn't fall under any of the historical scholarship.
If Milani has published in a a peer-reviewed publication or any of the forms recommended by WP:HSC then yes that particular source would be good.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Giuliani, we're addressing current allegations (not "historical scholarship") that the MEK is a cult and Giuliani offering his perspective, which seems completely unrelated to the WP:HSC policy you're citing.
On Milani, there are several citations referencing him that don't align with the standards you're describing, so I'll go ahead and take them out. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go and do that, we need to have consensus on talk page to only use scholarly sources. Once we have such a consensus, we need to apply it to content regardless of whether it frames MEK positively or negatively.VR (Please ping on reply) 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR This is beginning to look like WP:STONEWALLING. Please address my point about the Giuliani statement. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already repeated: Guiliani is not a RS and what you're doing here is WP:FALSEBALANCE. You're trying to counter the arguments made by scholars using the opinion of a random American politician.
I advise you to review this list of scholarly sources which all describe the MEK as a cult.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR sorry but it's unclear how, according to you, a quote from a U.S. politician in The Observer isn't a reliable source, while the commentary pieces you recently included in the article are? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to cite this commentary piece, as we can cite this article by Seymour Hersh.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR It wasn't just the Middle East Eye commentary that you put back into the article; you also put back other opinion pieces. Why are those acceptable according to you, but an article from The Observer isn't? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Rajavi's letter to Gorbachev requesting a loan? Here's a photo of that letter. Here is a translation of it from the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History. Other source:[2] VR (Please ping on reply) 10:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that still begs the question: why did you cite the commentary sources instead?
The citation from The New Yorker you're suggesting now quotes from Egyptian politician Mohamed ElBaradei. Why is it acceptable to quote him, but not Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take these sources to WP:RSN? I'll abide by whatever consensus is achieved there. I'm getting tired of this back and forth. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR When you revert changes, it's important to provide a rational explanation. Why do you find it acceptable to quote ElBaradei but not Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR: that's a biased double-standard. How is it appropriate to use Seymour Hersh citing Mohamed ElBaradei, but not The Observer citing Rudy Giuliani? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism removed from the lead

[edit]

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

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

VR These kinds of faulty generalizations cause confusion and misinformation. Firstly, you're omitting important points from Katzman’s single-paragraph summary. Katzman explains that early MEK ideology (from around 1965 to 1971) is "a matter of dispute", with scholars generally describing it as "an attempt to combine Islam with revolutionary Marxism", while "PMOI representatives claim that this misrepresents the groups ideology in that Marxism and Islam are incompatible, and that the PMOI has always emphasized Islam". Your revision ignores the latter part entirely. And even though you removed him from the lead, Abrahamian explains this point with much more detail, here are a couple of excerpts:
"As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy. It accepted historical determinism but not economic determinism; the class struggle but not the denial of God; dialectics but not atheistic metaphysics. There are no grounds whatsoever for doubting, as some critics do, the sincerity of these religious declarations. It seems highly disingenuous of observers - not to mention hangmen - to raise such doubts when the victims invariably went to their executions espousing their faith in Islam." (I emphasized the last portion)[5]
"the regime labeled the Mujahedin "Islamic Marxists" and claimed that Islam was merely the cover to hide their Marxism. The Mujahedin retorted that although they "respected Marxism as a progressive method of social analysis" they rejected materialism and viewed Islam as their inspiration, culture, and ideology."[6]
  • Second issue is that the group's ideological identity after the Iranian Revolution (to the present) remained Islamic, but your revision suggests that it "became about overthrowing the Government", which describes a goal and not their ideology.
  • Fourth, in his book, the first thing Abrahamian writes about the MEK is:
"The Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran), generally known as the Mojahedin, is worth studying for a number of reasons. It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam - an interpretation that differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples."
In that same introduction, Abrahamian writes:
"The Mojahedin has in fact never once used terms socialist, communist, Marxist or esteraki to describe itself."[7] Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that Abrahamian is hands down the best source on early MEK ideology. He talks about it in Chapter 3 "The Beginnings" under "Ideology". He introduces it as:

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

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

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

He concludes,

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

I'm open to different wordings for both their pre- and post-exile ideology.
VR (Please ping on reply) 08:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're misinterpreting Abrahamian. He does not conclude with your last quote; he concludes with "As the organization argued from the very early days, it was willing to learn from Marxist sociology, but categorically rejected Marxist philosophy." and then ends with "These early writings of the Mojahedin represent the first attempt in Iran to develop sytematically a radical interpretation of Shii Islam." and "The prominence given to Shariati is partly due to the fact taht the Mojahedin leaders made a deliberate decision in the early 1970s to propagate radical Islam less through their own hand books, which were banned, amore through Shariati's works". Aside from the disputes about the MEK's ideology from 1965 to 1972, there are no disputes about its Shia Islamic identity (certainly since 1975 to the present), and that needs to be clear in the lead. If you disagree with Abrahamian's claim about the MEK's position concerning "Islam and modernity", then anything else that explains their Shia Islamic identity would be enough. "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" seems fitting to me. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with adding "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogo-2020 I noticed you once again removed Marxism[3], despite no consensus for that. Please don't edit war to remove longstanding content. Either engage with the sources, or seek other dispute resolution methods.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR: It looks like you're WP:BFN with Abrahamian's conclusions, so I’ve begun a dispute resolution as you asked. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goulka, Jeremiah; Hansell, Lydia; Wilke, Elizabeth; Larson, Judith (2009). The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum (PDF) (Report). RAND corporation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 February 2016.
  2. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
  3. ^ "Rudy Giuliani Tells Observer Why He Supports 'Death to Khamenei' Iran Faction". Observer.
  4. ^ Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-270-9.
  5. ^ The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 100-101.
  6. ^ Iran Between Two Revolutions (Princeton Studies on the Near East). Author: Ervand Abrhamian. Publisher: Princeton University Press, 1982. Page 492
  7. ^ The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 1-2.

Third opinion

[edit]

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

Viewpoint by Hogo-2020 (talk · contribs)

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

Viewpoint by Vice_regent (talk · contribs)

The three most important book-length treatments on the MEK all agree that Marxism was an important part of its early ideology (along with Shiism): Abrahamian[1], RAND report[2] and Cohen[3]. Abrahamian says MEK was Marxist in his own voice, while attributing any denials to the MEK itself.[4] Conen also notes their denials but find they had Marxist elements nonetheless.[5] RAND notes some of these denials are politically motivated.[6] Hogo keeps saying MEK's ideology was based on Shia Islam, that's correct, but how is it relevant to the question whether or not the lead should mention Marxism as an early ideology? VR (Please ping on reply) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Abrahamian pg 92, 100
  2. ^ pg 2, 55, 58
  3. ^ Cohen, pg 18, 29-30
  4. ^ Abrahamian pg 100
  5. ^ Cohen, pg 30
  6. ^ RAND pg 58
Third opinion by voorts
....

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

Thank you, @User:voorts, for your efforts here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try to shorten your comment? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts please let me know how many words I should take to summarize my position.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogo-2020 and @Vice regent: Could you please do 100 words max each without quotes from the source itself (refs to page numbers okay), and describe what you think the source says. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Revised, thanks. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @VR Nearly a week has passed since voorts offered his assistance. Since you asked for this dispute resolution, please provide your response. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I've been busy IRL.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hogo-2020 and @Vice regent. Could you each please provide what you would like the disputed lead text to say (share the whole paragraph and underline the sentence so that I can see the context). Also explain what portion of the article this is summarizing per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@voorts. The group's ideology should be addressed in the lead simply as "The group's ideology offers a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati." This is both an accessible overview of the group's ideological perspectives before and after 1979, and also reflects what's important about the subject.
VR has repeatedly stated that Abrahamian is undoubtedly the best source for this content, yet the author doesn't say that "Marxism was an important part of its early ideology" (see quotes above). Adding "Marxism" in the lead (what VR wants to do), especially devoid of context or counterarguments, would contradict the cited policies as this relates to a brief timeframe and requires careful clarification. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best form would be: "The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism." But I'm also ok with:
  • "The group's ideology is rooted in "Islam with revolutionary Marxism", and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati."
  • The group's ideology is rooted in Islam and Marxism, and offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati.
This would be summarizing People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Before the revolution, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Early years (1965–1971) and People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Schism (1971–1978).VR (Please ping on reply) 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. It will take me some time to review all of the materials and come to a conclusion. I also anticipate being busy this weekend and next week, so there might be a delay. Please ping me if you don't get a response by the 8th. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR and @Hogo-2020: thank you both for your patience. I think that Marxism should be in the lead, but I think that the group's denial should as well. Abrahamian (1989, p. 92) states that the group's early ideology as expressed in its writing "can be described best as a combination of Islam and Marxism", and that their ideological position combined Shia Islam with Marxism (p. 100). Cohen (2009, p. 18) likewise reads Abrahamian the same way, stating: "In his book Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, Abrahmian describes the organization's ideology as a combination of Islam and Marxism, i.e., a blend of pure Islamic ideas with ideas about social development and Marxist historical determinism." Cohen later writes about the group's denial of Marxist influence, although he finds it unconvincing (p. 30). Here's a very rough draft of what I'm proposing: The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati, combined with Marxist and neo-Marxist thought and practice. Scholars have stated that the group's ideology continues to have Marxist elements, which the group has denied. I think this would adequately summarize the weight that the body of the article affords to scholarly labels and the group's denial. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@voorts. I appreciate your input. I'm not sure if you’ve read Schism (1971–1978) in the article, but the MEK already has a Marxist faction that is rival to this, the Muslim faction. Their rivalry stems from one being Marxist and the other Muslim. Don't you think that labeling the Muslim faction as "Marxist-Muslim" in the lead is bound to make it very confusing for readers? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia lead on that article on that Marxist faction does make it clear "Members associated with it declared that they no longer self-identify as Muslims but rather only believe in Marxism–Leninism". And the lead of this article makes it clear that this MEK believe in both Islam and Marxism.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should be describe as "Marxist-Muslin" in the lead. I think that it should be explained in the way I noted since there's some nuance here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@voorts Thanks, I agree. Since it's the lead, I'm aiming to make it as concise as possible. How does this version sound to you? The group's early ideology offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati. Some scholars suggest that it was also influenced by certain Marxist elements, which the group itself has denied. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be okay with me. @VR? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's both not concise and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I would suggest ""The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam and Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences." Shariati is just one of the author's mentioned in the body that influenced the MEK and the article doesn't focus on him a lot. Finally, MEK's Marxist influences should be stated in wikipedia's voice, not as something that is a view of a minority of scholars (because this is absolutely the view of every major work on the MEK).VR (Please ping on reply) 07:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR You keep changing your stance whenever the outcome doesn't align with your desired version of the article. You had said before that "I'm ok with adding "The MEK offered a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati" as long as we mention their Marxist influences too.'", but now you're not ok with this? Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited as this would be the WP:NPOV approach. Also @Voorts points about nuance are overlooked in your new proposal. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding attribution, since the content is in dispute, both sides should be credited Please review WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm also going to dip out at this point. If y'all still can't agree, maybe try WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@voorts Thanks again. Since you've already reviewed the sources and spent time on this, could you please let me know if "Marxist-Muslim" should be removed from the lead until VR and I can agree on a more nuanced and accurate way to phrase this, or should the lead be left as is? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did. So we can go with this: "The group's ideology is rooted in both Shia Islam, including the writings of Ali Shariati, as well as Marxism, though the MEK has denied Marxist influences." Hope this is an acceptable compromise.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @VR, that would overlook the nuance given in the third opinion. Abrahamian says that it provided a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam. Since the ideology does not align with either conventional Shia Islam or traditional Marxism, we can go with this?: "The group's ideology was influenced by Islam with revolutionary Marxism, offering a revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam influenced by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you want to drop MEK's denial of Marxist influences? I thought you wanted that? VR (Please ping on reply) 21:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @VR, Can we go with this?: "The group's ideology was influenced Islam with revolutionary Marxism, and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was largely shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the "influenced by X with Y" part here isn't grammatically sound. It's also lengthy compared to some of the alternatives. If this is for the lead, it needs to act like it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group's ideology was influenced by Islam and revolutionary Marxism; and while they denied Marxist influences, their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati."
  • "Their revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati." Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of content backed by reliable sources from the article

[edit]

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

Can we put this elsewhere in the article or lead? Its not really about whether MEK is relevant in Iran or not. Its about a historical decision they made, so it should be in paragraph about MEK's participation in the Iran-Iraq war.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VR The sources directly clarify the claim in the lead about why the MEK sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, so your reasoning for removing this remain unclear. If you now want to move this content to another section of the article (which you could have done instead of deleting it), the proper course of action under WP:NPOV would be to move both the claim and the explanation together, not just the explanation. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in the lead is not why the MEK sided with Iraq, rather it is about the undisputed fact that the MEK sided with Iraq, and the very widely held view among scholars that this siding caused its popularity to drop in Iran.
Should we move the explanation to the paragraph in the lead (and the body) that covers MEK's pro-Iraq battles? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also an undisputed fact (and a widely held view among scholars) that the MEK moved to Iraq to overthrow the Iranian clerical regime, which explains why the MEK moved to Iraq (they didn't relocate there just to back Iraq, as your version wrongly implies). I also see that the content about the MEK siding with Iraq is repeated in the lead. If you prefer to keep it in the paragraph about the battles, I'm ok with consolidating this information there. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your proposal is to have the first paragraph explain that MEK is deeply unpopular in Iran, without stating why that is? VR (Please ping on reply) 10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is to keep together the information about why the MEK had to move to Iraq, the battles that ensued, and the resulting consequences (including their eventual unpopularity in Iran). Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, given that we mention MEK's status as a major opposition group in the lead, we should also mention their deep unpopularity.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned in the lead where it explains the MEK's move to Iraq (the reason sources suggest it lost popularity in Iran.) Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it communist?

[edit]

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

Corroboration

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran&oldid=1265556289"