This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related toIran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project where you can contribute to thediscussions and help with ouropen tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOrganizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsocialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Fiona Hamilton (7 January 2023)."How Wikipedia is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities".The Times. Retrieved8 January 2023.On the MEK's English Wikipedia page over the summer a string of information describing human rights abuses by Iranian officials was deleted. The anonymous users who changed the content cited the need for "trimming" or claimed that the material was trivial.
Farid Mahoutchi (18 January 2024)."In the War for Narratives Iran's Regime Takes to Wikipedia".National Council of Resistance of Iran. Retrieved18 January 2024.For instance, on the English language Wikipedia page for "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", the writing suggests that "At one point the MEK was Iran's 'largest and most active armed dissident group,' [18] and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group,[19][20][21] but it is also deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in Iran–Iraq War.[22][23]" The sources of this statement, which carries a significant amount of misinformation, are articles from reputable outlets. However, it's noteworthy that the authors, who have historically expressed hostile views toward the organization, contribute to the narrative.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1978 Iranian politics, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
This page isprotected. You must be logged-in to anextended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must beaware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject tothe usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Neither of the two sources mentioned in the article state when and by whom was MEK designated as a terror organisation in Iraq. A designation like this would have to be made in parliament. I did not find any such law being passed by the Iraqi parliament. One of the sources only mentions the Iraqi judiciary issuing arrest warrants, and the other makes an unsubstantiated statement that three countries (including Iraq) designate MEK as a terrorist organisation without mentioning when exactly was this done and by whom.Montblamc1 (talk)09:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The line "The MEK is known to be deeply unpopular today within Iran" cites a 2009 article. That's 17 years ago, far from "today".21:58, 10 January 2026 ~2026-21003-1
Not done unless there's a more recent article saying otherwise. If no new sources say anything different, there is no RS basis to assume anything has changed. There are also about a dozen sources attached, and the MEK's lack of domestic popularity is well known and written about in numerous expert sources, including those cited. Also: this material was worked into the lead on the basis of previous RFCs, so requires consensus for removal. It's not a simple non-EC request.Iskandar323 (talk)19:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There have been pretty significant changes to this article's lead section since the recent protests in Iran have started making headlines. These changes mostly revolve around rewriting the organization's alleged prominence within Iran. Notably, MEK is now portrayed as "one of the main" dissident political actors, and a previous statement which portrayed the organization as "deeply unpopular within Iran" has been changed to a far more ambiguous phrasing. The armed status until 2003 and current Albanian HQ were both moved out of the first sentence for no apparent reason.
Let's look at these most major claims: the "one of the main actors" claim, inserted byUser:Picolo Piano, cites one source, arecent BBC article which isn't actually about the MEK, but mentions it. The problem is that MEK is not characterized as a "main" or major actor in the article. It is simply portrayed as "a group". Funnily enough, it also calls MEK "unpopular among many Iranians", a claim whichuser:PatriceON has sought to expunge from the lead section. So, needless to say, the characterization of MEK as "one of the main actors" is not exactly verifiable, certainly not from the source provided.
Then, the claim that the popularity of MEK within Iran ("length of support", an odd phrasing) is "unclear". Previously, the lead claimed that the MEK is "known to be deeply unpopular within Iran". This was based on a groupcite of six sources, which was comprised of citations to Reuters, the Economist, and fouracademic sources, with quotes from each. These references were removed for "aggressive framing" by PatriceON and replaced with four sources: VOA, Middle East Eye, Radio Farda, and Jamestown Foundation. VOA and Farda are (were?) both explicitly US-funded pro-dissident orgs, which makes their reliability on this topic questionable, but that's beside the point: theRadio Farda article makes no mention of current popularity, only noting that supporters have been executed. TheVOA article makes no categorical claims regarding popularity, only noting that its support within Iran is questioned by critics and that it can still rally supporters (this might as well be a reference to the fact that the article is about a rally of exiles in Paris). TheJamestown Foundation piece makes a one-off claim that support is unclear, but this is not backed by academic sourcing, as the previous groupcite was. Themiddleeasteye article quotes a guy who claims that MEK has "no constituency" and, again, makes a one-off, uncited claim that support is "difficult to ascertain". The current citing is far less robust than what was there before it, and two of the sources cited don't even confirm the claim they're supposed to be backing up.
Lastly, MEK's armed status until '03 and current Albanian HQ were removed from the first paragraph by Picolo Pianowithout explanation. I see no reason why these facts are not salient enough to be included in the first paragraph.
@Theodore Christopher: Yep, all of the above, and I also have no idea what "aggressive framing" is. Also, the existing sourcing was more or less all academic, so its replacements are poor ones. As I tried to explain a few times, most of the material in the lead is the result of RFCs, so the violation of consensus on a contentious topic page is pretty serious. I just haven't gotten around to rummaging through the archives.Iskandar323 (talk)03:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
? I reverted your quite sweeping changes to the lead because you seem to have unilaterally decided to completely rework the lead without consensus.
You have not provided an adequate explanation for the diff I've cited, you've basically ignored the question.You provided a wall of sources (which you did not cite for your new version of the material), without actually explaining your justification, or why you used totally different (and much weaker) sources to replace this content. In fact your only justification seems to be that you didn't like the "aggressive framing" of the previous version (which had been in the lead for >2 years and was apparently the subject of extensive discussion in the past).DiodotusNicator (talk)18:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Theodore Christopher, thank you for acknowledging the blanket removal. I'll respond to your points.The "Support" section in the page covers support acrossdifferent periods and regions, using robust sources (already reflected neutrally in the lead).
Cimment, James (2011). World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, 2nd Edition. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315697994. ISBN 978-0765682840.
Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
Cohen, Ronen (August 2018). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6): 1000–1014.
Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.
Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
Abrahamian, Ervand (1982). Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton University. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1fkgcnz.
"Government fights to keep ban on main Iranian opposition group". The Guardian.
"Iran blacklists US officials for supporting 'terrorist' group MEK". Al Jazeera.
TheIranian opposition page names Reza Pahlavi (Iran National Council), Hassan Shariatmadari (United Republicans of Iran), and Maryam Rajavi (MEK) among the main dissident groups: on what basis would this be considered wrong? Also its 2003 disarmament and current Albanian HQ details were not removed, only reworded for context, and remain in the lead.PatriceON (talk)20:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323: "aggressive framing" means promoting one side of an argument while marginalizing other well-supported viewpoints. All the sources cited above are academic and support the content of the existing lead.PatriceON (talk)20:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're implying that other editors are pushing a POV then that is an aspersion about behaviour that you should either make as a formal accusation at a noticeboard, or drop altogether from your edit summaries.Iskandar323 (talk)03:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of Albania in the lead anymore, so how exactly is that a rewording? Also, other Wikipedia pages are not a reliable source, so you can't useIranian opposition to support the alteration of content here.Iskandar323 (talk)03:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you obviously weren't using these sources to inform your changes to the lead, since you decided to use internet news sources instead and removed another raft of reputable academic sources. Albania is hardly contextualized, just randomly deposited between info about terrorism designation and ideology in the last paragraph. What does headquarters have to do with those things? As for armed status, this is arguably pretty important to any preliminary understanding of MEK drawn by readers from the first sentence---the organization was armed for the majority of its history, and the better part of its notable actions (at least as far as I can tell) were armed.Theodore Christopher (talk)17:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theodore Christopher, great that you noticed that Albania wasnot removed from the lead. It was moved further down because several earlier events led to the group relocating there (conflicts in Iran, France, Iraq, etc., all detailed in the article). Since the move to Albania happened in 2018, I placed it after the terrorist designations from 2013. I also moved the sentence on the Iranian Revolution before the conflict with the IRP, as it predates it.PatriceON (talk)22:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding armament/disarmament: stating in the opening sentence that the group "was an armed group until 2003" skips the events that led to that point (early disagreements with the IRP, harassment by the IRP, Ruhollah Khomeini's1981–1982 Iran Massacres, the founding of the NLA, etc.). These developments are explained in the history section:
"On the final day of the elections, Rajavi met with PresidentAbolhassan Banisadr, complaining that the IRP and its Hezbollah supporters were systematically intimidating voters, disrupting rallies, assaulting campaign workers, and setting ballot boxes on fire. The MEK then arrived at two key conclusions: first, that they had enough popular backing to serve as an opposition to the IRP; and second, that the IRP would not allow them to operate as an opposition.[1] The group began clashing with the rulingIslamic Republican Party while avoiding direct and open criticism of Khomeini.[2] The MEK was in turn suppressed by Khomeini's revolutionary organizations.[3]In response to the widely disputed impeachment of President Banisadr, the MEK organized alarge-scale protest against Khomeini on June 20, 1981, intending to topple the regime.[4] Big crowds gathered in various cities, with the Tehran protest alone attracting up to 500,000 people. Leading clerics proclaimed that demonstrators would be considered "enemies of God" and face immediate execution regardless of age. This marked the beginning of the1981–1982 Iran Massacres led by the Islamic government.[5][6][7][8]In the area around Tehran University, 50 people were killed, 200 wounded, and 1,000 taken into custody, surpassing the intensity of most street battles during the Islamic Revolution. 23 demonstrators were also executed by firing squads, with teenage girls among those executed. From June 24 to 27, the regime executed an additional 50 people. The reported number of executions increased to "600 by September, 1700 by October, and 2500 by December." Initially, the regime publicly displayed the bodies and took pride in declaring the execution of entire families, "including teenage daughters and 60-year-old grandmothers."[9][10][11] The MEK responded by declaring war against theGovernment of Islamic Republic of Iran,[12] and initiating a series of bombings and assassinations targeting the clerical leadership.[2]"
Hi Patrice, you still didn't use the academic sources you invoked to inform your changes, as I noted in my last reply. In any case, the fact that information about the current location of the group is so hard to find that some readers don't notice it is testament to the fact that, perhaps, it's not where it should be. Its presence in Albania is not a one-off historical event which is part of a more general chronology, it is a current state of affairs that is important to any visitor's cursory understanding of the group. SeeMOS:OPEN: "If appropriate, it should give the location and time". Given that MEK is a groupin exile, its location is quite pertinent to the average visitor's understanding of the group.
Next, the "armed group until 2003" statementdoesn't carry a value judgement. It is just a fact, and a very pertinent one at that. Seeing as the fact of its armed status is neutral in nature, "justification" in the very first section isn't needed---if readers wish to learn more about the very complicated story of MEK in and outside of Iran, there's a whole article under the first paragraph for that. And one hopes that they will read that article! But the fact remains that your and Picolo Piano's changes to the lead section fundamentally alter its neutrality. Also, I'm going to remove the "main" claim from the first sentence, per my first comment in this discussion, as it is certainly not confirmed by the BBC article that's cited.Theodore Christopher (talk)19:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Theodore Christopher, I'm really struggling to understand you. I've provided more sources, moved them into the lead per your request, and explained the placement of Albania and disarmament.PatriceON (talk)12:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Theodore Christopher, the current headquarters is not hard to find, it appears in the lead, the infobox, and multiple sections of the page.PatriceON (talk)12:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
^Cite error:The named reference:4 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).
^Abrahamian 1989, p. 206-207,219-220"Prominent clerics declared that demonstrators, irrespective of their age, would be treated as 'enemies of God' and as such would be executed on the spot. Hezbolahis were armed and trucked in to block off the major streets. Pasdars were ordered to shoot. Fifty were killed, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested in the vicinity of Tehran University alone. This surpassed most of the street clashes of the Islamic Revolution. The warden of Evin Prison announced with much fanfare that firing squads had executed twenty-three demonstrators, including a number of teenage girls. The reign of terror had begun." sfn error: no target: CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
^Cite error:The named referencemerat2018 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).
^Cite error:The named referenceKatz=boycott was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).
The silliness had to end, so I'verestored the lead as of 31 December, before all sorts of unconstructive, non-consensus editing shenanigans began. Please seethese directions from an admin on the expectations for challenged content to only be restoredafter consensus for any changes is achieved on talk.Iskandar323 (talk)16:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This wholesale reverting approach without actually challenging the edits in the talk page won't do. You could start by explaining the rationale for removing that government killings in the 1980s were "directed against protesters and opposition movements."[1][2][3]JoseJan89 (talk)22:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that MEK is a leading opposition group was challenged by Iskandar and Theordore, sources were produced, and those users stopped responding. The other points were not addressed anywhere. Ceasing to respond and then asserting consensus does not constitute consensus.JoseJan89 (talk)23:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator comment: The article has been fully protected for two days due to back-and-forth reverting between EC users. Please continue the discussion here to reach a resolution and avoid resuming such behaviour.Yue🌙 (talk)08:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided an adequate explanation for the diff I've cited [above], you've basically ignored the question. You provided a wall of sources (which you did not cite for your new version of the material), without actually explaining your justification, or why you used totally different (and much weaker) sources to replace this content. In fact your only justification seems to be that you didn't like the "aggressive framing" of the previous version (which had been in the lead for >2 years and was apparently the subject of extensive discussion in the past).
The substantive issue here is that you are replacing a pointed, substantial statement with a vague, mealy-mouthed statement, and in the process replacing very good sourcing with poor sourcing.DiodotusNicator (talk)22:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you've cited some policies here, please scroll up to the top of this page:
"Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism."DiodotusNicator (talk)23:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DiodotusNicator you say you're having difficulties finding the explanations for the changes, so I'll cite them individually below so you can address any specific objections, also so you can't continue to cling toWP:EDITCONSENSUS as the rationale for your blanket removals now that Iskandar323 has beenbanned.User:JoseJan89 wasin favor of the changes, and so am I. That gives these changes consensus, and most importantly, grounded in the rationales cited below.PatriceON (talk)17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to be clear: have you read the top of this talk page? The sanctions on this article override standard wikipedia policy. Additionally, you seem to believe "consensus" means a simple majority - this is not the case. If your edits are being reverted and challenged on the talk page, you donothave the affirmative consensus required to be making those edits.DiodotusNicator (talk)03:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First, consensus is determined by the strength of policy-based arguments, not by veto or repeated reversion. The explanations for the changes have been explicitly laid out and grounded in WP:LEAD and MOS:BEGIN; they are not contingent on the participation or absence of any single editor. Second, discretionary sanctions do not override core policies, nor do they redefine consensus as unanimity or grant any editor a default right to block changes. Finally, your constant blanket reversions is deleting other content that has not been addressed in any capacity.PatriceON (talk)08:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"While MEK has received the support of several Western politicians, the length of its support inside or outside Iran remains unclear."Cite error:A<ref> tag is missing the closing</ref> (see thehelp page).[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
The Support section documents support across different periods and regions using robust sources, which is what's being reflected in the lead.
My objection to the prior version is based on its evident lack ofWP:NPV, aggressively promoting one part of an argument while marginalizing other well-supported viewpoints.PatriceON (talk)17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are now boldly misrepresenting sources.
The Cohen paper supports the previous version:"Since the Mojahedin had lost all credibility in the eyes of the Iranians because they were fighting side by side with Saddam Hussein against their homeland, they tried to use their (alleged) battlefield successes in the Iran–Iraq war as a propaganda tool..."
"It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization... Some would claim that since the Mojahedin are fighting alongside Iraq, then the Iranian people detest the organization."
Abrahamian 1989 fails verification for this cite, moreover it lends strong support to the prior version:
Whereas the Islamic Republic enjoyed these assets, the Mojahedin suffered from a major liability. Their social support, even though highly intense, committed and enthusiastic, was confined predominantly to the ranks of the young intelligentsia, especially the intelligentsia bom into the traditional middle class. The Mojahedin had little support among the traditional middle class itself. They had equally little support among the older generation of the modem intelligentsia. They had a somewhat greater, but still limited, following among the urban working class - the industrial workers and the bazaar wage earners. And they had almost no support among the rural masses, especially among the landed and landless peasantry. Confined to the intelligentsia, their 1981 insurrection was doomed to fail. The only way they could have overcome this obstacle was through a military coup. But their support in the army was also very limited. The failure of the Mojahedin was therefore sociologically predetermined. pp 259-260
Cimment citation completely fails verification, perhaps our versions are different but pp 73-74 covers Anarchism in France in the late 1800s. The section that actually covers Iran does not address the group's current support within Iran.
Abrahamian 1982 completely fails verification, p. 491 simply mentions the MEK and says nothing at all about the group's support within Iran.
The sources are represented in line with the stated change:
Cohen 2018: "This led to the government's major activities being focused upon the organization’s supporters inside Iran, in particular those sitting in Iranian jailhouses... The executed citizens were accused of assisting Iraq and the Mojahedin but the Mojahedin viewed these executions as a dubious achievement for the government because it, in fact, demonstrated the level of support within the Iranian population that the Mojahedin had."(see p.7)
Abrahamian 1989: "the Mojahedin reached two major conclusions: first, that they enjoyed enough popular support to constitute the main counterweight to the clerical power structure". (see p.205)
Cimment: "The MEK is the largest and most active Iranian dissent group".(see p.605)
Piazza: "President Rafsanjani’s program to end the Islamic Republic’s isolation from the international economic community and Iraq’s continued support for Iran’s main opposition, the Mojahedin". (see p.24)
Abrahamian 1982: "Despite these heavy losses, the group survived and found new members." (see p.491)
VOA: "While its critics question its support inside Iran and how it operates, it remains one of the few opposition groups able to rally supporters."
The Guardian: "Government fights to keep ban on main Iranian opposition group"
Al Jazeera: "The Iranian government has blacklisted United States officials over their backing of a group that Tehran considers to be a “terrorist” organisation"
James Town: "Moreover, the group has gathered significant support from important U.S. leaders who do not shy away from expressing their support for MEK’s potential rise as Iran’s future “democratic government”"PatriceON (talk)08:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity's sake, I'll go down the list, noting that this specific part of the dispute is about the removal of the sentence"The MEK is known to be deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War and continued ties with the government of Saddam Hussein afterwards" from the lead:
This quote is about the MeK's own assessment, in 1988 - we should obviously not be using this for a neutral assessment of their current support in Iran
Another quote using the MeK's voice, this one from 1989
Seemingly hallucinated citation, page 605 is about the 9/11 attacks
Says nothing about the MeK's popular support in or out of Iran
"Despite these heavy losses, the group survived and found new members." Unclear why this quote is relevant
Quotation is referring to a rally organized by the MeK in Paris
"Main opposition group" is not an assessment of their popular support
VOA 2025 says it "remains one of the few opposition groups able to rally supporters"
Cohen 2018 (page 1) and Cimment 2011 (whatever pagethis page is) maintain that MEK support inside Iran is difficult to assess given the regime's systematic repression of supporters and protesters.
Abrahamian 1989 (1-3) speaks about how it became a major force in Iranian politics, later in the book describing organizing major rallies across the country.
Piazza 1994,The Guardian, and many more sources in the lead at the moment, describe it as a "main Iranian opposition group", which is indicative of some kind of support. How much support? it's "unclear".
To try to make this as clear as possible, you want to remove the sentence
The MEK is known to be deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War and continued ties with the government of Saddam Hussein afterwards.
in order to replace it with
While MEK has received the support of several Western politicians, the length of its support inside or outside Iran remains unclear.
The first version, standing in the article for at least a year, is cited to two reliable publications and 4 scholarly sources, expressly dealing with the group's current popular support within Iran.
Economist 2009:In return, the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors.
Ostovar(2016):Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland.
Kirchner(2017):With regard to weakening the Iranian regime domestically, MEK failed to establish itself as a political alternative, its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq.
White (2016):The group is not popular in Iran because of its alliance with Saddam Hussein and Iran–Iraq war.
Cohen 2009:there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy – Iraq – during the long years of the war
Reuters 2017:The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.
Please do not continue to cite sources from the 80s or 90s, or sources which do not address the actual dispute at hand here, like the VOA article you've repeatedly linked which covers a rally in Paris. Additionally, the sentence you want to remove isnota violation of NPOV, seeWP:POVDELETE orWP:FALSEBALANCE.DiodotusNicator (talk)20:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Classification as a leading Iranian opposition group
MEK — legitimacy problems among many Iranians "...[the MEK] has deep legitimacy problems among many Iranians because of its history, internal-control allegations, and its long exile posture — factors that limit its ability to act as a unifying opposition vehicle inside the country. That is why claims that it functions as a foreign 'Trojan horse' resonate."
And in the Newsweek article:
"The NCRI/MEK, which relocated to Iraq and collaborated with the Iraqi Army throughout the war against Iran, has been reduced to a cult-like political sectlacking any significant domestic constituency," Ali Alfoneh, senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, told Newsweek.
So, my impression is that the pre-existing wording (before your changes) of"At one point the MEK was Iran's "largest and most active armed dissident group", and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group." is more accurate on the whole.DiodotusNicator (talk)01:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are selectively citing passages from sources that identify this as a major Iranian opposition group. Nevertheless additional sources will be incorporated.PatriceON (talk)08:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was placed further down in the lead because numerous prior events preceded it, including conflicts in Iran, France, and Iraq; early disputes and harassment by the IRP; the 1981-1982 mass killings under Ruhollah Khomeini; the founding of the NLA (all of which are detailed in the article). The Albanian headquarters is also noted in the infobox, multiple sections, and the lead.PatriceON (talk)17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point of these changes, and their primary effect is to muddle the lead. The purpose of theWP:LEAD is not to provide a chronological summary, but a concise overview. The details you seek to move out of the first paragraph (especially armed status until 2003, ideological positions, and current popularity within Iran) provide very relevant context, seeMOS:BEGINDiodotusNicator (talk)01:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the changes is not to impose a strict chronology, but to preserve coherence in the lead, in line with WP:LEAD and MOS:BEGIN. The reader needs sufficient contextual grounding before introducing later developments that are contingent on prior historical context.PatriceON (talk)08:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BEGIN:It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "The reader needs sufficient contextual grounding before introducing later developments that are contingent on prior historical context." What developments? To clarify the dispute for any third parties, you want to replace the following content in the first paragraph:
It was an armed group until 2003, afterwards transitioning into a political group. Its headquarters is currently in Albania. The group's ideology was influenced by Islam and revolutionary Marxism; and while it denied Marxist influences, its revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati. After the Iranian Revolution, the MEK opposed the new theocratic Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeking to replace it with its own government. At one point the MEK was Iran's "largest and most active armed dissident group", and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group. The MEK is known to be deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War and continued ties with the government of Saddam Hussein afterwards.
with
It is a leading Iranian opposition group opposing both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Monarchism in Iran.
Again, the details you seek to remove here provide a significant amount of context; "The reader needs sufficient contextual grounding before introducing later developments that are contingent on prior historical context." reads like LLM-prose, not a reasoned justification for *why* you want to remove all of that context.DiodotusNicator (talk)20:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think arequest for comment (RFC) on the lead is the appropriate next step. The neutral RfC question would likely read along the lines of "Which of the following should be used for the lead?", with the options being different revisions of the lead. Parties to this dispute should determine the options for an RfC question first, i.e. what their party's desired outcome is.Yue🌙 (talk)17:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the RfC question, "Which of the following should be used for the lead?", followed by two or more alternative revisions of the article's lead, as well as an option for an alternative proposal (i.e. "Other, please specify in detail"). Please provide the revision(s) you prefer below but save your arguments for later; there will be a discussion section in the RfC where you can discuss each option.
My suggestion of an RfC is a tentative proposal. Please propose an alternative resolution process or an alternative RfC question if you have one. The discussion above may also be continued without regard to this proposal; there is no timer for this dispute to be resolved or for an RfC to be started. However, editors should make use of the talk page to resolve disputes and avoid sanctions such as partial or temporary blocks arising from inappropriate behaviour.Yue🌙 (talk)19:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue I don't think an RFC would be helpful here because of the sheer size of the proposed changes. Looking through the past few archives, this version of the lead has been extensively debated with multiple previous RFCs for parts as small as individual sentences (some examples:[2][3]).DiodotusNicator (talk)20:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DiodotusNicator: Size is not a problem; RfCs on complete changes to leads have been done before and recently. A complication I anticipate is if someone supports the bulk of one revision but opposes certain details in it, or vice versa. In that case, that could be brought up in the RfC discussion, possibly but not necessarily as an "Other, please specify in detail" option (if has not yet been established beforehand in discussions preceding the RfC).
I do not think it would be productive to have multiple RfCs about the lead going on at once; the dispute is largely between two revisions of the article, i.e. the existing one before recent additions and the one with the recent additions. However, administrators are also not supposed todecide on disputes; I'm only following procedure and proposing a process that I think would work to resolve the dispute decisively. You could propose an alternative process, as can anyone else involved.Yue🌙 (talk)21:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of an RfC is it could bring attention from uninvolved but knowledgeable editors who may be editing in topics related or adjacent to this one.Yue🌙 (talk)21:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the complication that certain parts of the revision might be supported while others aren't is the main reason for my concern. I would prefer to go down the list of major changes, which I think would be doable with a sequence of 2-3 RFCs. For example my main issue is the removal of a bunch of stuff from the first paragraph; I'm not 100% opposed to moving some of the material further down in the lead, but I am strongly opposed to the proposed replacement of other material.DiodotusNicator (talk)22:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, the first would have to be on theMOS:OPENing paragraph; both PatriceON's attempted edits and Theodore Christopher's proposed version below remove almost all of the contextual details from the current version. So that would probably look like:
Should the opening paragraph
...It was an armed group until 2003, afterwards transitioning into a political group. Its headquarters is currently in Albania. The group's ideology was influenced by Islam and revolutionary Marxism; and while it denied Marxist influences, its revolutionary reinterpretation of Shia Islam was shaped by the writings of Ali Shariati. After the Iranian Revolution, the MEK opposed the new theocratic Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeking to replace it with its own government. At one point the MEK was Iran's "largest and most active armed dissident group", and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a major Iranian opposition group. The MEK is known to be deeply unpopular today within Iran, largely due to its siding with Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War and continued ties with the government of Saddam Hussein afterwards.
Be replaced with
...is an Albania-based Iranian dissident organization, opposed to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as Iranian monarchism.
After that, I don't know. It's unclear to me what PatriceON's primary goals are besides the removal of the statement on the group's support within Iran; they have stopped responding to our discussion above.DiodotusNicator (talk)22:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DiodotusNicator: First thing I will say is, I've realised that the length of the lead both before and after the edits istoo long, with the latter revision being longer than the former. The leads of featured articles are usually 250 to 400 words, and since this article is quite long, around 400 words would be the goal. The lead before the changes 585 words and the lead after is 594; it ismassive. Cutting the lead down would be preferred, but usually the goal in mind would be to make the wording more concise and summarise, with details moved to the article body (If I remember correctly you said something along those lines already).
Correct me where I'm wrong; judging from the previous discussions, your other disagreements are with how some sources are interpreted (e.g. selective paraphrasing) and used (e.g. older sources being used for descriptions implied to be current or near-current)? Would it make sense to you to have an RfC on the opening paragraph, the statement that the group is a leading Iranian opposition group, and what the lead should say about support of the group? Or is there other (additional?) details you disagree with, since those topics were chosen by PatriceON in their defence?Yue🌙 (talk)05:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue My main disagreement is the removal/replacement of the statement regarding their lack of popular support within Iran due to fighting alongside the Iraqis in the war, which is noted by far too many high-quality sources to warrant removal, and should absolutely be in the first paragraph as key context.
They are described by many sources as a prominent Iranian opposition faction, so I have no problem with that statement, though I think "major" or "prominent" would be more appropriate than "leading", which sounds promotional.
I also believe the contextual details of armed status until 2003 + ideological position belong in the opening paragraph as well, but I'm not so invested in arguing that point that I'd go beyond simply citingMOS:BEGINDiodotusNicator (talk)07:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On RFCs: from a bit of delving through the Talk archives I've gained a bit of context. The current lead is the product of extensive discussion + many RFCs over years; one highly relevant discussion can be found here[4] regarding the coverage of the MeK's unpopularity within Iran (and seemingly extensive socking dedicated to removing/obscuring this fact or generally papering over the MeK's image.)
On the length of the lead: my suggestion would be to merge the second and third paragraphs and condense the 2nd half of the second paragraph and the 1st half of the third paragraph, so something like:
The MEK was founded on 5 September 1965 by leftist Iranian students affiliated with the Freedom Movement of Iran to oppose the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The organization contributed to overthrowing the Shah during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It subsequently pursued the establishment of a democracy in Iran, particularly gaining support from Iran's middle class intelligentsia.[Condensed material to be inserted here] During the Iran–Iraq War, the MEK then sided with Iraq, taking part in Operation Forty Stars, and Operation Mersad. Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the mass execution of prisoners said to support the MEK. The group gained significant publicity in 2002 by announcing the existence of Iranian nuclear facilities. In 2003, the MEK's military wing signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and was disarmed at Camp Ashraf.DiodotusNicator (talk)07:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue Sure thing, I'll paste this alternative revision in, in light of conversation here on the Talk Page.
ThePeople's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), also known asMojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) orMojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO;Persian: سازمان مجاهدین خلق ایران,romanized:Sâzmân-e Mojâhedin-e Khalgh-e Irân), is anAlbania-based Iranian dissident organization, opposed to the government of theIslamic Republic of Iran as well asIranian monarchism.
The MEK was founded by leftist Iranian students opposed to ShahMohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1965, and contributed to the overthrow of the Shah's regimein 1979. Opposed to the establishment of theocratic governance in Iran, it boycotted the1979 constitutional referendum, resulting in its leader,Massoud Rajavi, being barred from the1980 presidential election. It became a leading voice of opposition to AyatollahRuhollah Khomeini, expressing support for PresidentAbolhassan Banisadr. Open conflict between the MEK and Khomeini's government began after an MEK-organized demonstration against Banisadr's impeachment was violently suppressed by theIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which shot into the crowds, killing fifty, injuring hundreds, and executing 23 arrested protesters after the fact. It was implicated in the 28 JulyHafte Tir bombing, which killed 74 officials of theIslamic Republican Party. A wave of retributory killings by Khomeini's government followed, part of the1981–1982 Iran Massacres.
The MEK's leadership fled to Paris in the wake of the crackdown, but its underground elements continued to plan and carry out attacks in Iran, allegedly conducting theAugust 1981 bombing that killed Iran's president and prime minister. The MEK began negotiations with the Iraqi government in 1983, and relocated toCamp Ashraf, nearBaghdad, in 1986, after it was expelled from France at the request of Iran. It subsequently joined the Iraqi side duringIran–Iraq War, taking part inOperation Forty Stars andOperation Mersad. Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered themass execution of prisoners said to support the MEK. The group gained significant publicity in 2002 by announcing the existence ofIranian nuclear facilities. In 2003, the MEK's military wing signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and was disarmed, transitioning into a political group under the leadership ofMaryam Rajavi.
Between 1997 and 2013, the MEK was on the lists of terrorist organizations of the US, Canada, EU, UK and Japan for various periods. The MEK is designated as aterrorist organization by Iran. Critics have described the group as exhibiting traits of a personality cult, while its backers describe the group as proponents of a democratic, secular Iran that could become the next government there. At one point the MEK was Iran's "largest and most active armed dissident group", and it is still sometimes presented by Western political backers as a majorIranian opposition group. However, its popularity within Iran was severely damaged by its activities in theIran–Iraq War, and remains hotly contested by scholars.
Considering that this is a draft, I haven't added citations. However, there is currently a profusion of citations in the current version of the lead and PatriceON's which would fit in here. I can add them if necessary.Theodore Christopher (talk)21:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PatriceON: Theodore Christopher's version seems to be a modified version of your preferred lead (I'm assuming your preferred lead is the one with your additions) with formatting and tone in-mind and little change to the content. Is Theodore Christopher's version your preferred lead or is it still yours? Asking with the RfC options in-mind.
Also, not directly related to what was said above, but more than four citations for one statement isoverkill. You shouldn't need a dozen sources to verify one statement when four high-quality sources would be acceptable enough to most readers. You cited two sources generally considered unreliable or questionable, i.e.International Business Times andNewsweek, respectively; these would be examples of sources you wouldn't need to cite unless the statement is partially backed-up only by one of those sources. However, in a scenario where the several other better sources don't verify a partial detail, it might be good to think about if that partial detail is worth including.Yue🌙 (talk)05:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: You can see in the earlier discussions that Theodore Christopher and I actually talked about the changes with some depth, which is perhaps why you find some similarities. Nevertheless the lead I suggested differs significantly from Theodore Christopher's proposal, but I still think it presents a reasonable compromise.PatriceON (talk)15:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
^Cimment, James (2011).World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, 2nd Edition.Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781315697994.ISBN978-0765682840.
^Cohen, Ronen (August 2018). "The Mojahedin-e Khalq versus the Islamic Republic of Iran: from war to propaganda and the war on propaganda and diplomacy". Middle Eastern Studies. 54 (6): 1000–1014. doi:10.1080/00263206.2018.1478813. S2CID 149542445. P. 1005-1006
^Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x. p. 9
^Abrahamian, Ervand (1982). Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton University. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1fkgcnz. p. 491
I understand there's been chaotic edits lately, but I stand by the change I made. I'd hardly consider the modern MEK a left-wing organization in 2026. The Wikipedia article itself says it now believes in more broad concepts you'd see in big tent movements, such as "democracy", as opposed to more direct beliefs it used to propagate such as Marxism. I would also not consider Point 8 of Rajavi's Ten-Point Plan, "Justice and equal opportunities in the realms of employment and entrepreneurship for all of the people of Iran in a free market economy" to be something you'd see in a purely left-wing movement like socialism, as free markets are almost anathema to this. I can provide the source if needed, but for such a vague ideology, we might as well also have a source calling it left-wing in the infobox like with other party articles (which isn't the case here). This article is also part of the "Syncretic political movements" article, so perhaps we could try syncretic in the infobox? Thanks.KeysofDreams (talk)17:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very reasonable issue to raise. "Left-wing" isn't sourced, and it is only mentioned in the infobox and in the categories; not anywhere on the page. As it stands, it can reasonably be removed as unsourced. The question then is whether it can be sourced, or whether there is now a better, more appropriate sourced definition as an alternative. Obviously, the MEK was part-Marxist once, but what we really want are up-to-date sources assessing their current positioning on the political spectrum per their stated policy platform and/or political actions.Iskandar323 (talk)18:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the concept of the left has been distorted and lost its meaning to a great extent, this organization stands on a line that cannot even be feasibly referred to as social democratic. I'd go so far as directly labeling it a right-wing organization.Porcelynne (talk)22:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really say I'm surprised, but unsure where to go from here, beyond starting a fresh discussion. I think the point @Yue raised regarding the length of the lead is still relevant, so we can start with that, but I'm wondering if @Theodore Christopher still has any strong opinions about revising the current lead. Given that this whole thing appears to have been kicked up by a sock of a long-running POV-pushing scheme[5], I'm inclined to believe the lead should be left mostly in place.DiodotusNicator (talk)20:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a very unsurprising sockpuppet case. I put forward a suggestion in good faith that could be tinkered with, but as far as maintaining a stable and neutral lead section goes, I think the current iteration is strong.Theodore Christopher (talk)21:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DiodotusNicator: I suppose there is nothing urgent to discuss at the moment since the main advocate for the changes and the main advocate for their reversion have been indefinitely blocked.
Diverging from the original dispute, the lead is still quite long at the moment, so I will add a maintenance tag pointing this out; however, this is not a major issue nor the issue that was at hand.Theodore Christopher's proposal, at 456 words, is better in terms of size, but if he isn't strongly opposed to the existing revision then there's no further discussion needed yet.Yue🌙 (talk)01:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JoseJan89: I pinged you in a previous discussion because you were involved in a content dispute regarding additions byPatriceON. However, because they have been blocked as a sockpuppet ofStefka Bulgaria, I see no reason for anyone to discuss their particular edits further.Yue🌙 (talk)23:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real shame. I agree that we should keep the lead as-was, but can we still keep the ideology in the infobox as "syncretic" per my previous edit/discussion, please? Thanks.KeysofDreams (talk)21:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2026
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In "1988 execution of MEK prisoners" chapter, change "The killings were implemented a death committees," by "The killings were implemented by "death committees,"FlatKos (talk)13:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
