Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Revert of names

TheDreamBoat can you explain this revert? I found dozens of scholarly sources (of which I gave 6 citations because I thought that'd be enough) that refer to the organization by alternative, fully English, versions of its name. So when I added these names I qualified it with "This is sometimes translated into English as...". So why would you remove this? VR _talk 13:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see my edit summary, but I can explain more if you need. Many sources in the article (and also many not in this article) indicate that the most common names used are "People's Mujahedin of Iran", "Mojahedin-e-Khalq", "PMOI", and "MEK". Then there are other alternative names or spellings or translations (some among them "People's Mujahideen", "Mujahideen of the People", and so on and so on). If a clarification is needed in the article because a source uses an alternative spelling or translation, then we can make that clarification. But the section "Other names" already has the most WP:DUE names the scholarly literature uses when referring to the MEK. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheDreamBoat: WP:DUE doesn't mean we completely omit information, except when "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority". But this is not the case here. In fact, ngrams suggest that until 1983, "People's Strugglers" was more common than "People's Mujahedin". How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? VR _talk 14:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's worth mentioning all of the names used authoritatively by reliable sources at some point. The Ngram strongly suggests that the "People's strugglers" was used widely from 1975 to 1985 and was the dominant term in the late 1970s. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are 25 sources that use the two English translations for MEK:

• "People Strugglers":
• "Holy Warriors":, Government of Canada[1], United States Department of the Treasury[2], NPR[3], LA Times[4], The Intercept[5], Carnegie Council[6], Slate[7], The Guardian[8], WSJ[9], NBC News[10], CBC News[11], Washington Post[12].

Honestly, this should not have been a controversial edit. All I did was add English translation of the Farsi/Arabic name and provided 6 scholarly sources. I should not have to dig up 25 sources just to make small edits.VR _talk 17:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat I see you've been making edits to several articles, including this one, so can you please respond here as well? Thanks, VR _talk 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The MEK went through a strange period in the 1970s, specially from around 1975 to the Iranian Revolution. Most of its members were killed by SAVAK or incarcerated during this time, and the few left were pressured to convert to the Marxist splinter group that around that time became Peykar. I think that distinction is important, and it is a distinction that is sort of made in the article.

About "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors", most of the sources you provided make the distinction that they are referring to Mujahideen-e Khalq or MEK (and its different spellings), and these are already in "Other Names". Below I wrote an overview of the sources you gave and how they all make that distinction.

1. uses "Mujahideen-e Khalq" (and then gives a translation),
2. I don't have access to this source
3. gives the description "Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran - known henceforth as MEK"
4. I could not access page 188, but page 334 says "Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (People's Strugglers of Iran)
5. "The People's Strugglers of Iran (Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran)"
6. "People's Strugglers (Muhajedin-e Khalq)" (unpublished PhD thesis?)
7. page 242 says "The People's Strugglers (Mujahideen-e Khalq)"
8. "The Iranian People's Strugglers (IPS: Mojahedin-e Khalq)"
9. "Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Strugglers)"
10. I don't have access to this source
11. I don't have access to this source
12. "The Mujahedine Khalq (MEK; People's Holy Warriors), also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO)"
13. "the Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors)"
14. "Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) (also known among other names as Sãzimãn-i Mujãhidin-i Khalq-i Irãn (Holy Warrior Organization of the Iranian People) / Sazman-i Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran (Organization of the Freedom Fighters of the Iranian People) / Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (Organization of People’s Holy Warriors of Iran) / Sazeman-e-Mujahideen-e-Khalq-e-Iran, Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Mujahiddin e Khahq, al-Khalq Mujahideen Organization, Mujahedeen Khalq, Modjaheddins khalg, Moudjahiddin-é Khalq, National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) (the military wing of the MEK) / Armée de Libération nationale iranienne (ALNI) and People’s Mujahidin Organization of Iran (PMOI) / People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) / Organisation des moudjahiddin du peuple d’Iran (OMPI) / Organisation des moudjahidines du peuple)"
15. very long list of names for the MEK, and all include the ones already in the "Other names" section (plus many more)
16. "They were unhappy with two stories about the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors, MEK). "
17. "This is Camp Ashraf, home to the Mujahedin Khalq: the people’s holy warriors."
18. "the MEK, whose name translates to “Holy Warriors of the People,”" (article uses "MEK" throughout)
19. "In the matter of the designation of Mujahadin-e Khalq, also known as MEK, also known as Mujahadin-e Khalq Organization, also known as MKO, also known as Muslim Iranian Students' Society, also known as National Council of Resistance, also known as NCR, also known as Organization of the People's Holy Warriors of Iran, also known as the National Liberation Army of Iran, also known as NLA, also known as National Council of Resistance of Iran, also known as NCRI, also known as Sazeman-e Mujahadin-e Khalq-e Iran, "
20. "The NLA’s parent organization—called the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)—or “People’s Holy Warriors”"
21. Article refers to the MEK as "MEK" throughout most the article
22. "The Mujahedin e-Khalq, or People's Holy Warriors..."
23. Article refers to the MEK as "MEK" throughout most of the article
24. Article refers to the MEK as "MEK" throughout most of the article

So whatever variant name or translation is used, most of these sources make it clear that we are talking about the Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK (and its different spellings). Like i said in my first comment, the most common names used are already in the "Other names" section. If there are variant in translations of the name in English that need a clarification, then we can make that distinction in the article, but the names in "Other Names" section are so prominent that even the sources you provided are already making that clarification for us.

The section "Other names" contain the most WP:DUE names already. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Note this was TheDreamBoat's original comment, which was later modified.VR _talk 20:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat's above comment doesn't make much sense to me because no one is disputed the "MEK" name for the organization, I'm only saying that alternative names are also commonly used. If there are no more objections (as TheDreamBoat has now been tbanned) I will restore my edit.VR _talk 20:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The section doesn't need more name variations since the main ones are already listed in that section. I agree that it's ok as it is. Ypatch (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is not OK if we add the English alternative of the Persian phrase "Mojahedin-e Khalq" to the "Other names" section but it is OK if we clarify it every time we use it in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, can you explain why "the section doesn't need more name variations"? Simply opposing an edit without a reason is not enough.VR _talk 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK or PMOI) and People’s Mujahedin of Iran are the names used in most of the scholarship. Adding more spellings or acronyms (for something that books already clear up for us) will give a confusing idea of what the most common names are. Most books already clarify who they are talking about when they write about the MEK, and those names are already in the article. Ypatch (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

All names used by a wide variety of reliable sources at one time or another should be mentioned at some point in the copy. It appears that such names here include "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors". Providing clarity means mentioning all relevant names along with appropriate redirect/disambiguation links. If there is a risk of confusion between current common names and historic but now outdated common names, this can be easily contextualised in the form of a sentence such as: "Past English versions of the group's names include ..." There is no reason to exclude any names repeatedly used in reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq are not usually known as "People's Strugglers" or "Holly warriors". A few sources using some translations or other spellings doesn't mean we should be using them as the group's other names (because they are not the group's other names). Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020:. I am repeating VR's question above: How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Iranian People's Strugglers" appears at least once in that US Camp Ashraf report, but does it appear only once? Because then it might be undue. "People's Holy Warriors" appears a lot times as the translation of MEK in US sources. (Also, see Ngram) Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Holy Warriors" is a not very known name for the MEK, and is used for describing the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization, a different group. Sorry. Ypatch (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean sorry? As if that was conclusive? You barely made an argument, let alone a convincing one. I provided an Ngram for "People's Holy Warriors", which is a lot more specific than just the second two words alone, and is a direct translation of MEK used in US sources. It is irrelevant which other groups may or may not use "Holy Warriors" as part of the translation for their name. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I see at least 3 different arguments from 3 different editors (including myself) giving reasonable explanation why that section doesn’t need more names added. The names you added back to the article had already been added (but that edit was reverted), so your recent edit may be a violation of the article’s WP:consensus required restriction. If you’re not aware, this article is under Wikipedia:ARBIRP and WP:GS/IRANPOL (there is a warning on top of this talk page “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit.”). I will provide a formal notice on your talk page so that this is clear. About this content, if you feel that strongly about it, start a RFC (which is the process for consensus building when editors cannot agree on something), but please do not edit war since this could lead to sanctions. Ypatch (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: It would be great if you could summarize those 3 arguments, because I personally haven't seen anything that provides a compelling case for ignoring reliable, secondary sources, the bedrock of Wikipedia content development in favour of selectively omitting certain names. It is also widely reported that the PMOI does not like the name "People's Holy Warriors" for instance, as it is considered bad PR these days. It concerns me that this poorly explained WP:STONEWALLING against clearly encyclopedic material just so happens to fairly neatly align with the PMOI's public relations preferences. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: When you mention consensus, there are three editors in this discussion thread in favour of inclusion, with now only you in opposition. DreamBoat, who originally removed the material, has been indefinitely topic banned, so is no longer an active voice on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The 3 arguments are my comment on "04:20, 14 February 2022", TheDreamBoat's comment on "19:21, 2 January 2022", and Hogo-2020's comment on "20:23, 14 February 2022". I don't know what you are trying to say with "It is also widely reported that the PMOI does not like the name "People's Holy Warriors" for instance, as it is considered bad PR these days.", but such baseless comments are not helpful here. Ypatch (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This was all in the sources I provided, and you could have read about it yourself if you had not removed them on the grounds of there being 'no consensus':

"Until the 1990s it was known as the People's Holy Warriors of Iran, but that's not the kind of name to win support in the west these days so it tweaked the name. Two decades ago, the state department identified the MEK as running what it called "a determined lobbying effort among western parliamentarians"."

"To conduct its propaganda campaign the group has established offices through western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and the Middle East. Through such efforts, the (MEK) attempt to transform western opprobrium for the government of Iran into expressions of support for themselves"."

What is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation? (The Guardian) - Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I suppose my question here is: do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest with the PMOI? Because you appear to be pushing the public relations stance that they took up in the 1990s on translations of the group's name. And the only other editor who has contributed significantly to pushing this position is a convicted meat puppet who has ceased activity since they were banned from the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

However, thanks for pointing out the comments in question. The first point (from the banned DreamBoat) is unclear. They say that all of the sources are clearly talking about the MEK. Yes, that's the point. If they weren't, they wouldn't be sources. They then say the translations are not common enough to be in "other names", but the pull quotes that they have actually quite helpfully pulled out quite effectively make the opposite case, by showing the numerous instances in which these names are used quite matter-of-factly as natural, default and accepted translations of the group's name. The second point (yours) about common names is moot, as I am not suggesting putting them at the top of the lead as common names, but down below as other names. The third point (Hogo's) about not basing it on just a few sources, is also made moot by the presence of not a few, but dozens of sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unless further, substantiated arguments on this matter, I am going to restore the reliably sourced material on other names on the basis of their being more active editors in favour of this material than against it. There is certainly no clear consensus or justified motive for omitting reliably sourced other names. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323: 3 substantiated arguments have been given on this matter. Also please see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Start a RFC if you continue to think that this should be in the article. I know I have mentioned this before, but please be aware that WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") and the article's restrictions including Consensus required, WP:ARBIRP, and WP:GS/IRANPOL. Ypatch (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I've addressed the three points that you have directed me towards and you haven't responded in kind. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit further, because if you are not open to talk page discussion, how exactly do you expect the type of consensus you are looking for to emerge? RE: WP:ONUS, three editors in favour of including something is quite compelling consensus when set alongside only one editor objecting to inclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already answered you here, here, and here. You think the argument of the 3 editors that want to add more names to the article is compelling. I think the argument of the 3 editors opposing adding more names to the article is compelling. For this reason I have suggested you start a RFC if you want a concrete consensus. Ypatch (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I have responded to all three points, explaining why they are not good arguments. Now I am giving you the opportunity to defend them. Just because three editors have made some sort of point at some point does says nothing about the quality of the points made. Wikipedia is based on quality not quantity of arguments.

1) Hogo made no point, apart from saying that these names are not usually used - which we can all agree on: none of them are currently the group's WP:COMMONNAME (both are primarily historic and linked to usage by Western governments) - hence no one is arguing to have them at the top of the article.

2) I am not 100% clear what Dream Boat's point was (for what their opinion is worth, as a banned editor), so perhaps you could explain it. All I see is a list of sources justifying the inclusion of these names. However, I would note that even Dream Boat said that if there are other translations we can make that distinction in the article.

3) You say adding more names will be confusing. How so? The principle names are BOLDED at the top of the article. The other names are in a dedicated section entitled 'other names'. Seems pretty obvious and self-explanatory. Torn between reliable sources and your sense of confusion, I'm going to go with reliable sources.

As I see it, we are left with basically one, fairly suspect argument from yourself about it potentially being confusing despite the use of these names in multiple reliable sources and the proposed placement of them in a section which specifically disambiguates these alternative names from the principle names currently in active usage.

Hence, perhaps you could expand on this: why should we raise an RFC over disagreement from a single editor? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, my point was that by adding these names to "that section" you are suggesting that these are "the group's WP:COMMONNAME (both are primarily historic and linked to usage by Western governments)", something you agree they are not. An editor here gave an analysis of all the sources with these alternative names and spellings, and most of those sources specify that they are talking about the Mujahideen-e Khalq or MEK. Another editor explained that "Holly Warriors" is used by a similar group, which would make to have it here as the group's other WP:COMMONNAME. Look at Google trends for searches PMOI or MEK, and compare that to People's Holy Warriors (of Iran), People's Strugglers of Iran, or Muslim Iranian Students' Society. Fundamentally, people don’t search for the PMOI using these names. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020: You seem to be confusing the WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ALTNAME guidelines. WP:COMMONNAME refers purely to article titles. The relevant guideline for all other significant names that are not determined to be the titular WP:COMMONNAME, but which "may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages", is MOS:ALTNAME. With alternative names there is no need to pick and choose or create a hierarchy between them, because they can all be included so long as their usage is supported by reliable, secondary sources - of which there are plenty. The discussion of the relative importance of other names compared to the title is not relevant under this guideline. BUT, one of the first roles of any encyclopedia entry is to clearly outline all relevant and related names and terminology, past and present. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, so we agree that these are not common names of the MEK. About these being ‘other significant names’, I responded with a chart that shows how what you call ‘other significant names’ are inexistent in comparison to MEK, PMOI, or Mojahedin e-Khalq. Having them in a section reserved for that kind of information is misleading. Some of the sources you are using for this are not great, like this carnegiecouncil source that copies verbatim this other this source, or like this source and this one which don’t seem the most objective or reliable news source specially when comparing to the many books that use "PMOI", "MEK", or "Mojahedin e-Khalq". If we are following WP:WEIGHT, then an alternative name should be in proportion to other alternative names. ‘People's Holy Warriors (of Iran),’ ‘People's Strugglers of Iran or Iranian People's Strugglers’, and ‘The Muslim Iranian Students' Society’ are far off from being in that category. I am reverting some of your edits to the original way the article was before you edited it. Hogo-2020 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020: You are misquoting me and making up non-existent policy. I do not at all agree with you about them not being common names. I have said the Wikipedia guideline WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here. That does not mean they are not names that commonly appear in sources. I have also explained, at some length, how MOS:ALTNAME makes no specific demands on the relative weight of alternative names to qualify for inclusion. In any case, the names not in the lead are already being given less weight than those in the lead, so that particular wish of yours was already accommodated. Please stop attempting to bend non-applicable guidelines to your will and instead discuss the content. I have, already in this thread, provided numerous reliable secondary sources for "People's Holy Warriors", including a Guardian source that specifies the time frame in which it was used, making it a fairly unambiguous historical name: "Until the 1990s it was known as the People's Holy Warriors of Iran, but that's not the kind of name to win support in the west these days so it tweaked the name. Two decades ago, the state department identified the MEK as running what it called "a determined lobbying effort among western parliamentarians"." Please talk content. What possible reason do you have (other than you just don't like it WP:JDL) to exclude this information and ignore reliable sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020: On the subject of the other sources, what on earth do you have against Slate or the Intercept? These are both perennial reliable sources - see WP:RS/PS. The Carnegie Council source meanwhile, yes, does contain the details of the US Federal Register statement signed by Hilary Clinton. I have given both primary and secondary sources because it often useful to link back to government statements for reference purposes on matters such as the designation of terrorist group status. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I am also saying that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. And I’m also saying that a handful of sources using alternative spellings or translations does not mean these are the group’s ‘other significant names’. There are many other spellings and translations covered by a small minority of sources. Although you have selected just a few of those for some reason, the list could go on and on (even in sources that are much more reliable than Slate or Intercept such as in this source [13] or the list in this other source [14]). The article should be reflecting what is representative of most academic sources. The names you added to a section reserved for this type content do not reflect the group’s ‘other significant names’, they reflect what a minority of sources have rarely used. Since you don’t agree with my version and I don’t agree with yours, I will restore the correct long term version and I’m starting a discussion on my proposal below (like VR has done here). Hogo-2020 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This version is what I think we should have listed in the section ‘Other Names’. Although there are some sources using alternative spellings and translations, most of the academic books and journals use the names in the version that I have given. That section in the article is reserved for that kind of information (alternative names used by most of the academic books and journals). I don’t agree with Iskandar’s version because it is representative of a small handful of sources. Another editor explained that "Holy Warriors" is used by a similar group, so having this as the MEK’s ‘Other names’ is confusing. I also gave Google trends for searches PMOI or MEK, and compared that to People's Holy Warriors (of Iran), People's Strugglers of Iran, or Muslim Iranian Students' Society. Hogo-2020 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Hogo-2020: Says what policy? What Wikipedia guideline specifies that the section in question should be "reserved for that kind of information"? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, what I see in other Wikipedia articles is that sections are usually a summary of what is in most academic books and journals about a subject (when such sources are available, and many sources are available for this subject). Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Hogo-2020:, You did not answer my question above: How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? Ghazaalch (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, only one source was given for “People's Strugglers”. Google news, google trends, and google books searches show this name is hardly used at all. It isn’t a matter of how many sources I require. If this was commonly used as the group’s other name, it would be all over the literature like the other names are. Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020:, If "People Strugglers" was commonly used as the group's other name, we should have mentioned it in the Lede as an alternative name, but since it was common until 1983 (more common than People's Mujahedin, as ngrams suggest) we put it in "Other names" section.

Moreover, it seems that you have not read VR's comment above, where they mentioned 25 sources that use the two English translations for MEK: "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors". Ghazaalch (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ervand Abrahamian, who is one of the best known historians of the PMOI, in his 1982 book "Iran Between Two Revolutions" describes them as the "Islamic Mujahedin". This CSM source from 1981 uses "Islamic Mujahideen." This Times article from 1981 uses "Mujahedine Khalq (People's Crusaders)". Other sources from 1982 use "Mojahedin-e Khalq", "Mojahedin-e Khalq", “Mojahedin Orgnization of Iran (PMOI)"), or "Mujahidun e-Kalk", or this book from 1983 uses "Mojahedin", or this New York Times article from 1983 which uses "People's Mujahedeen". If "People Strugglers" or "Holy Warriors" were names common for the PMOI until 1983 then the historians of that period would have mainly used that name, but it doesn't seem like they did. Hogo-2020 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hogo-2020, when a name of something is a common name, it does not mean that all people should use that name; because it is not be the only common name of the thing. Some people including the writers you named used one common name ("People's Mujahedeen") and many other writers including the ones who VR named, used the other common names ("People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors" and ...).Ghazaalch (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020: As noted by @Ghazaalch, you are continuing to talk at cross purposes. No one is suggesting that any of these alternatives are the "most common" name (even less so the pre-eminent WP:COMMONNAME, which is a whole other definition entirely) - the point is simply that they prevalent enough and visible in sufficient numbers of reliable sources to qualify as being noted as alternative translations in the "other names" section. It is not relevant which sources these translations are not used in: it is only relevant which sources they are used in. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 the point is simply that they are not prevalent enough, not before 1983 (like I showed) or now. The “People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)” is the group's name. “Mujahedin-e khalq”, “MEK”, “MKO”, and “People’s Mujahedin of Iran” is what is prevalent in academic sources as the group’s other names, and I think that’s how we should be organizing the article too. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All you have shown is nine sources were these names are not used, no more, no less. This is very anecdotal evidence and says little to prevalance. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I showed what historians were mostly using before 1983 (the basis of the argument for having or excluding these as the group’s other name). Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no use discussing with you Hogo-2020. You keep repeating one thing again and again, and pay no heed to others's points. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Selective quoting of NYT article

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

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

I see Ypatch made that edit, so I hope they can explain.VR _talk 05:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

VR: the source supports the passage, but if you think that the passage can be written better, then propose a revision (rather than pinging me with "I hope they can explain"). Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ypatch, it is the responsibility of every editor (including myself) to "include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source." So if I ever err in not including qualifying information in the same source then please ping me and remind me of my mistake as well (esp if that information is in the very next sentence), and I will strive to correct it. Anyway, I have rewritten the passage. Feedback is welcome.VR _talk 05:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You've skipped proposing a revision and just edited the article, also removing some things that we didn't talk about (so I find you edit summary sort of misleading). I have partly restored that content and also kept some of what you added about Captain Woodside. I hope that resolves this. Ypatch (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I don't see a functional difference in this edit (maybe I'm missing something), so I'm fine with your edit. And I generally prefer to follow the WP:BRD cycle (which means make a bold edit first, then discuss, but do not edit war).VR _talk 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Vice regent. Still I think the existing text is not a fair representative of the NYT. As you wrote above, the original text is saying that the two officers who gave a good view of MEK, had been suggested to NYT by MEK itself, while the one who NYT reporter, himself, chose, gave a different view, and this should be clarified in this article. The overall content of the NYT is against MEK hypocrisy, while the existing text in this article shows that most of officers had a good view of MEK. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Ghazaalch: feel free to suggest an alternative. But my bigger concern is that there is duplication of material and that the sources used earlier in the paragraph appear to be WP:SELFPUB. The book "The United Nations and Human Rights in Iraq" is published by a publisher which describes itself as "New Generation Publishing is the leading UK self-publishing service dedicated to helping more writers to sell more books". Likewise, "People's Mojahedin of Iran – Mission report" appears to be the self-published work of some politicians. And look carefully at the url, it links to "http://ncr-iran.org", which is the official website of the NCRI/MEK itself.VR _talk 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

@Ghazaalch: be WP:BOLD and do it yourself, and if someone objects, engage in post-edit discussion as per WP:BRD.VR _talk 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There are three former American military officers making one argument, and one former naval reservist making another argument, so I have made that clear in the article while retaining some edits by Ghazaalch. I have also made this a bit shorter since the article needs some summarization in general. Ypatch (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ypatch You didn't make it shorter and you didn't make it clearer. You wrote it in a way as if the three officers were independent. Why are you doing this? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I restored the more accurate information changed by the banned user, Ypatch. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ypatch, per this edit, you need to explain why the sources are reliable? They appear to be WP:SELFPUB to me. Self-published sources can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF but that requires the "it does not involve claims about third parties", but clearly the claims being made here are about third parties.VR _talk 20:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I did explain it in my edit summary. "This is attributed to "the MEK and four Members of the European Parliament" and is published by L'Harmattan". L'Harmattan seems a reliable publisher, and the information is attributed to the MEK and European Parliament members. Ypatch (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are all books by "L'Harmattan" reliable? I came across this article in Le Monde. Based on the google translation, L'Harmattan's model seems to be self-publishing. Further, one of the authors mentioned, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, has financial ties to the MEK. Hence this can't be regarded as an WP:INDEPENDENT source.VR _talk 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• I am going to omit the self published content, as the banned user, Ypatch, is no longer part of this discussion. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I might add that given that this self-published content appears exceedingly fringe, one would certainly be expecting some sort of reliable, secondary backing for it to support its inclusion. The phrasing alone is bizarre, and makes it out as if things like "impromptu" inspections are a bad thing, when random inspections are exactly what you would want to see. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about image that was added recently

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

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

I don't know who is right or wrong about the copyright, but VR added this image to the article [15], and it was then replaced for another image by Ypatch[16]. But Ghazaalch then restored Vice regent's edit, which is a violation of the "Consensus Is Required" restriction of this article.

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

• The copyright claims should be discussed at Commons. Is there any other reason to oppose the inclusion of this image? MarioGom (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that nobody has brought up the issue at Commons, and so far there is no other objection to the image, I have restored it [17]. MarioGom (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ypatch's concern was not valid so my edit was not violating anything. Copyright concerns should be taken to Commons.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that we don't see eye to eye about this. According to WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Begin a RFC if you think your points are strong enough to have those names in the article. I know I mentioned this already but please familiarise yourself with the article's restrictions including WP:ARBIRP, WP:GS/IRANPOL and "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." Ypatch (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If you could simply remove material on the basis of a false premise, the DS in place would be extremely vulnerable to abuse. For material to be considered disputed assumes valid reasons for dispute. The copyright concerns raised here are not in evidence, and, if they were, the suitable venue for them would be the Commons, and the image would then be deleted automatically, no editors required. The other issue you raise is with the accuracy of the captions on the images, but this claim has not specifically been made here: are you suggesting that the image here is not of MEK leader Massoud Rajavi sitting with Saddam Hussain? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it is best for this to be decided at Commons. Ypatch (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Summarization

If there is any willingness here to summarize the article, I'd be willing to help summarize it to meet WP:ARTICLESIZE guidelines. My principle for first pass summarizing is as follows:

• reduce the character count as much as possible
• while preserving all significant information

These principles might seem contradictory but I think they can be maintained with some clever wordsmithing. The second principle is especially important because removing information can open a (POV) can of worms, so I won't do that. The reason I'm posting here is to ensure my efforts have consensus. If my hard work summarizing just gets reverted (as it did in the past), I'll probably just give up and go work on some other article.VR _talk 06:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

VR, I agree and I will give my assistance in this task. I notice that you added more text to the section "Fundraising", which is already a very long section. I will start with that section.

Here is an explanation of what I will do:

Merge all of the Terrornomic interviews with Nejat Society in one paragraph

Separate information by IBTimes and the Guardian source.

Remove "In December 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation discovered what a 2004 report calls "a complex fraud scheme involving children and social benefits", involving the sister of Maryam Rajavi" because this is about Rajavi's sister and not the MEK.

Also remove "Initially, The Greens supported these organizations while it was unaware of their purpose." because it is unrelated to "Fundraising".

Also remove "In 1999, after a 2 1⁄2-year investigation, Federal authorities arrested 29 individuals in Operation Eastern Approach,[12] of whom 15 were held on charges of helping MEK members illegally enter the United States.[13] The ringleader was pleaded guilty to providing phony documents to MEK members and violation of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[14][15]" because it is unrelated to "Fundraising"

I think the section will be turned to about the right size for something like "Fundraising", also keeping all the sources. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat I specifically said "while preserving all significant information" yet you seem to have removed significant information in your edit. Also you need to stop making edits (eg this) that make it hard to follow what exactly you are doing. So some of your summarizing in that edit might be good, but it is lumped with removal of significant information which I don't agree with. So I suggest you self-revert, then make changes one paragraph at a time, and I suggest sticking to summarizing without removing significant information.VR _talk 15:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat: Remove "In December 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation discovered what a 2004 report calls "a complex fraud scheme involving children and social benefits", involving the sister of Maryam Rajavi" because this is about Rajavi's sister and not the MEK. No. The cited report is a criminal investigation of MEK. It was investigated and reported in the context of MEK. It could use better sourcing (or check what Goulka 2009 says about this), but I don't think the claim that this is unrelated to MEK has much merit. MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom ok, I missed that this was in the context of an investigation about MEK, so i will put it back in the article. I suggest this summary:

"In 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation discovered what a fraud scheme involving social benefits and children in relation to Maryam Rajavi's sister."

Let me know if you agree.

Vice regent can you explain which part you think should be restored to the article and why? also please don't bring discussions from other articles into this talk page, that makes everything more confusing. Thank you. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have summarized the section into 273 words, down from 507 words that it was before (including moving an unrelated sentence out of the section).[18] I believe my summary retains all significant information but expresses it in about half the words. For reference, TheDreamBoat's summary was 206 words. I have also replaced an unreliable source (WP:IBTIMES) with more reliable sources. Hope that is satisfactory for all.VR _talk 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to help with this too. The lead is far too too detailed and much of the article reads the same way. Pious Brother (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• There are sources repeated in that section that don’t need to be repeated. For example, RAND and Clark sources were repeated multiple times in the section. That is unnecessary, so I have tried to merge them. Tried also to find a middle-ground between VR's edit and what was there before. By the way, I could not find the source for “Cohen, 2013”. About the material supported by Cohen 2009, this seems to be in context of the 1980s, so I added this to the article. Ypatch (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ypatch: Multiple footnotes to the same source, even within the same section, are often required to maintain text-source integrity. Also, given how controversial this page is, supporting a statement with multiple reliable sources is important, and they should generally not be dropped if they support the statements. MarioGom (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom: I don't think that repeatingly quoting the same sources is helpful, especially when we are trying to summarize the section. Can you explain what crucial information is missing in that section that isn't there at the moment? Ypatch (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch: I haven't been able to check the sources, so I don't know if any is missing. But per WP:INTEGRITY, if one of the footnotes was meant to support the immediately preceding content, it should stay. A footnote in a different place is not implied to support that content. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom: Can you explain where I have placed a footnote in a different place where is not implied to support that content"? Ypatch (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: you are confusing "repeatingly quoting the same sources" with "repeating the same content". The former is absolutely fine, and given some sources are more comprehensive than others, we will certainly be quoting some sources very often.VR _talk 05:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of your edit. Your edit creates several issues and its not clear what exactly were you trying to fix? Here are some of the issues with your edit:

• You have qualified well-known facts with "according to". For example, MEK's funding by Iraq is a well known fact attested to by multiple reliable sources. Are there any sources that deny this? If not, why did you qualify this with "according to". It waters down a fact into an opinion.
• You changed:

A UK-based charity, "Iran Aid", claimed to raise funds for poor Iranians, but the money instead went to MEK militants in Iraq. It collected approximately £5 million annually, until it was closed in 2001 by the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

to:

Through a charity called Iran Aid, MEK also raised around £5m per year in Britain, which was closed in 2001.

Why did you remove that (1) the money was collected under false premises, and (2) it was diverted to military purposes? Goulka calls it "MeK sham charity", Cohen says "The money was supposed to be given...to poor Iranian families... [but instead] used to finance the Mojahedin’s armed fighters based in Iraq".

• You replaced ""Committee for Human Rights" was a charity used to supported MEK's military activities with ""Committee for Human Rights" was a charity used to support MEK's activities". You omitted "military" when the source specifically says "money was going in part to support the group's "terrorist activities""? Another source says that the charity's money was "used to buy rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons for fighting the Iranian government." Is there any RS that denies this?
• You removed "In Germany, the MEK operated a charity for Iranian orphans, using false pictures of children. At its height, the charity raised 600-700 DM/day, until it was closed in 1988 by police." Why?
• You removed "The MEK has also been linked to international money-laundering activities." Why?
• Your edit completely messed up the order. My 1st para summarized Iraqi and Saudi funding, my 2nd para summarized MEK funding by charities. But in your edit, you first mention Iraq and Saudi funding, then you mention charities in the US, Germany and Britain, then you come back to Iraq funding again, then you go back to charity in the UK. Why?
• You added "[the Dutch intelligence agency, AIVD's] allegations constituted "lies from the Iranian regime"". I did find this in this source. Saying that the Dutch allegations came from Iran is not the whole story. The 2002 AIVD report seems to attribute its intelligence to "Western intelligence and security services" as opposed to the Iranian government.VR _talk 05:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ypatch: I suggest you self-revert your problematic edit and discuss each of the above mentioned problems one by one before you implement them in the article.Ghazaalch (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I can either explain my edits, or we could revert to the long standing version and VR and I can propose a summary of this section through DR. Ypatch (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• You can revert to the longstanding version only when there is a convincing and substantiated objection. VR showed in detail that your edit has substantial problems. Therefore, it seems better for you to undo your edit, which contains several problems. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I did not change the content, only attributed it to the sources. About Iraq, this word is mentioned a lot in the article (over 150 times). I think we can find a way to summarize the MEK’s relation with Iraq.
• Regarding Iran Aid, Cohen says that "The MISS [Muslim Iranian Students Society] founded a capital-raising system called Iran Aid", and funds were used to finance Mojahedin armed fighters. Goulka says “In great britain , the organization "Iran Aid" was closed by the government for being an MEK front (author's conversations at the Nejat Society)”. Nejat Society is a strange organization not suited to be quoted at large in contentious material. Also it is not clear how MISS is related to the MEK, so I thought making it short and neutral would be a good way to keep this. If most editors support adding that the money was “used to finance the Mojahedin’s armed fighters in Iraq”, then I don’t oppose putting this in the article. However the matter about “Iraq” being repeated a lot in the article remains an issue, and if we revise this we could put all the Iraq content in the same paragraph.
• About “committee for Human Rights” the Guardian says the US attorney's office said "the money was going in part to support the group's terrorist activities". VR, you wrote “military activities”. The new source you presented does say “grenades and other weapons for fighting the Iranian government”, so if all agree, we can put that in the article.
• Then I summarized that the “MEK ran front fund raising organizations in Germany, U.S., and Great Britain” (because the point of these edits were to summarize).
• About the order, I agree that we could put things according to region. If everyone else also agrees, I will write this section again based on all the things mentioned here. Ypatch (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, you still haven't explained what was wrong with my summarization? I asked you this on Jan 15 but still you haven't substantiated your edit. If you don't substantiate your edit, I will revert it. Your above comments also don't address all of the problems I mentioned with your summarization. Can I assume that your lack of response to my objections above means you agree?

Regarding your points above:

• the MEK was located in Iraq for two decades, so yes that will be mentioned a lot in the article. What's wrong with that?
  • we could put all the Iraq content in the same paragraph. That's not necessarily good organization. We arrange content thematically. Can you specify your objections to my arrangement?
• My summary did not quote Nejat society, but rather quoted a scholarly book published by Ashgate Publishing (a scholarly publisher). Of course, authors and historians sometimes interview witnesses. There is no rule that a historian who interviews witnesses is an unreliable source on wikipedia.
• My phrase “military activities” is a good way of summarizing "terrorist activities" and "grenades and other weapons for fighting the Iranian government". What's your objection to that?

VR _talk 20:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You haven't explained what is wrong with my summarisation. That the MEK was located in Iraq for two decades can be summarised in a few lines, so there is no need to have it repeated over 150 times. Nejat society is who the author quotes as source, and that is not a good source as you probably know? I did offer some compromises with your edits in my summarisation, but you insist in only having your version of the summary. Ypatch (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I gave a very detailed explanation of what is wrong with your summarisation above on Jan 15. It seems your only objection to my summarization is that I quote a source that cites the author's conversations at Nejat society as one of its sources? Do you have other objections to my summary besides that? VR _talk 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, its been 12 days since my last response, and nearly month since your last response. Thus I have reverted your edits to that section. I'm happy to engage constructively in improving the current text. VR _talk 02:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent:, I understand that you prefer your version over mine, but you should have at least pinged me before edit warring your version back into the article. In restoring your version without reaching consensus (after it had been reverted) you've violated the article's restriction that say consensus is required: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." I will restore the longstanding version to the article, and we can have others vote about whether my version or your version is more suitable. Please stop disregarding the article's restrictions, weren't you warned not to do this already? Ypatch (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: My version had never been reverted until now, so I don't see the CRP violation. You on the other hand just committed a CRP violation (perhaps accidentally?). The version you restored was written by TheDreamBoat on Dec 31 and reverted by myself on Jan 6. But you re-reverted to TDB's version.VR _talk 11:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This is the version you added on January 6 (with your edits [19][20][21]). That content was then modified by other editors, and then you restored that content again to the article on January 25([22]) Do you see it now?

I was trying to revert the version before the different versions were added. Is this it? If it is not, please restore to the correct version that was in the article before this mess. Ypatch (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Since Ypatch is tbanned, I've restored the correct long term version. I'm starting a discussion on my proposal again below.VR _talk 05:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That the MEK was located in Iraq was 20 years of intense activity of MEK history and this article is about MeK. So it is not strange if we have to repeat it while writing about MeK. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
References

• How is the Summarization coming along? The lead too long tag has been on the page since June 2021. Perhaps we can start by defining its scope and which details are due? Pious Brother (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• FYI, I have topic-banned Ypatch from post-1978 Iranian politics, including this page. Since this has been a problem before, I want to clarify that his previous comments remain as valid as those of any editor, but he cannot contribute to discussions until he successfully appeals his ban. Any previous consensus he participated in establishing is not invalidated, but his previous opinions cannot contribute to future discussions either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• I want to once again see if there is any objection to my summarization proposal. It reduces the text from 507 words to 257 words. The only objection given above was that my proposal cited Nejat Society as a source. This is not true. What I cited was a book called Terronomics published by Routledge (an academic publisher), edited by professor Sean Constigan and professor David Gold, and the chapter was written by Mark E Clark (who has published other scholarly material[23]); this book in turn cites Nejat Society as a source. I think it is acceptable for reliable secondary sources to sometimes cite primary sources of unclear reliability because we assume that said sources will sort out truth from fiction. Still, if there is disagreement, we can take this to WP:RSN.VR _talk 05:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent, I have not looked at all your content here yet, but your opening sentence already looks like you are editorialising. The source doesn’t say that “Western countries banned the MEK from fundraising”, the source says that the MEK recognised “that most Western countries would not allow it to solicit funding publicly under its name.” The author arrives to this conclusion from his “conversations at Nejat Society”. Is Nejat Society linked to the Iranian regime? I don’t know, but your opening sentence seems like a clever way of trying to eventuate something that did not actually happen. Hogo-2020 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between "Western countries banned the MEK from fundraising" and "Western countries would not allow it to solicit funding publicly under its name"? The former is shorter (which is exactly the point of summarization) and says the same thing. Secondly, that Western countries clamped down on the MEK does not come from conversations at Nejat Society - these are well known facts published in other newspapers. MEK was designated a terrorist organization by many countries and terrorist organizations are not allowed to do fundraising. Other conclusions of the author do rely on his conversations at Nejat Society, but there's no wikipedia rule that forbids reliable, secondary sources from carefully using sources that wikipedia might not consider reliable. Ultimately most information on the inner workings of MEK will go back to either eyewitness reports by journalists or interviews with its current and former members, and it is the job of reliable sources to sort truth from fiction.VR _talk 13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent, your comment answers things that have no relevance to what I wrote. The source says that the MEK recognised "that most Western countries would not allow it to solicit funding publicly under its name", and the author arrives at this from his "conversations at Nejat Society". The MEK making a recognition, and that recognition deriving not from the MEK itself but from conversations with Netjat Society, has nothing to do with what happened in real life. Your edit literally makes it look as if "Western countries banned the MEK from fundraising" is something happened in real life, and the source clearly doesn't say that. Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The word "recognize" means to "acknowledge the existence of". So when the author says that MEK "recognised" it was banned from fundraising, the author is claiming that MEK was indeed banned from fundraising and that MEK knew that. This particular claim is not coming from Nejat society and has nothing to do with Nejat society. It is also supported by many other sources. Independent sources cited in this section show that MEK was a designated terror organization; that alone means MEK would be banned from fundraising. Can you imagine any conceivable scenario in which the US or EU would make it legal for terror organizations to raise money? In fact, The Guardian says about the MEK, "Its inclusion on the terrorist list has meant that it is a felony to provide any "material support" to that group."[24] Politico also says "The listing meant, among other things, that individuals who provided “material support” to the group could be prosecuted under U.S. law."[25] This is not merely theoretical: the US indeed arrested those who "raised funds to support the activities of the Mujahedin-e Khalq" and charged them with "provid[-ing] material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization".[26] VR _talk 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent, the Comment is Free article in the Guardian (which you quote as "The Guardian says about the MEK") mentions that the United States federal law prohibits providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization (similar to what the other 2 source you provided are saying). The MEK was removed from the United States list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2012, so something like "according to federal law, the MEK was not allowed to raise funds in the United States during its terrorist designation (*1997 to 2012)" would be a more realistic description than "Western countries banned the MEK from fundraising" (which seems more a synthesis of published material). Hogo-2020 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Saddam and Rajavi.jpg

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

Requested move 21 February 2022

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

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

---

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

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

• Support - Agree with Iskandar323 on this one. Ypatch (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, seems more common as VR said above. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duplicated history

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

Reduction of lead

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

Sure, the first example actually shows some material that was moved down the article - if you scroll down the diff, you will see where it was moved to. The second example was part of my reduction in the length of the lead, which was tagged as too long. A long quotation like that had no place in a lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, you wrote int your edit summary that you are Removing recently added material not found in the body copy (in violation of MOS:LEAD), but Khomeini preventing the group from taking part in elections of the new government seems to be in the body. I have modified some of your edits, putting in the body some pov about how the MEK is perceived in the section "Perception", and making clear the information about the elections (in the body and in the lead). The lead has been kept short. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: 'Modified some of your edits' seem pretty euphemistic for the massive changes you just tried to make to the lead. Perhaps you can break down and actually discuss what you would like to change rather than just making the equivalent of dozens of different edits - each of which, in the context of an article this contested and disputed, would ideally benefit from their own individual edit comments and talk page explanations. Perhaps start smaller. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I directly addressed the point about having that long primary source quotation in the lead. Why not discuss that here, since the subject is already open? I see two problems with this quote. First, it is primary, not secondary. Two, it is not neutral, because it is the specific POV of MEK. To make it neutral, we would need an opposing and contrasting quote of everything the Iranian regime accuses the MEK of, and then the lead would begin to get rather silly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar is right that your edits went way beyond "modify some of your edits". Your edit summary "Updating the lead, explaining in talk page" is misleading since you have not explained most of your changes on the talk page.VR _talk 14:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fad Ariff, among the content you removed in this edit was the 1983 alliance between the MEK and Iraq. This material has been the subject of at least two RfCs and at one mediation/moderated discussion, after which multiple admins concluded that this event was a significant point in MEK's history deserving mention in the lead. Please don't remove it again without consensus.VR _talk 14:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Iskandar, you actually made a major change to the lead, and other parts of the article, and most of which you did not discuss here [27][28][29][30]. In the lead you removed information about the conflicts between Khomeini and the MEK which are sourced to experts, why? Also what is the primary source you speak of? I see these are Abrahamian's quote, not the MEK's. You also removed information that is sourced by Ronen Cohen? Khoemini's Fatwa preventing the group from taking part in elections of the new government is very significant, and is sourced to major academic sources. Saying it's "redundant" is a poor reason for removing this. Also, why did you change this heading? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I made a series of much smaller edits, each with individualized edit summaries, many of them relating to specific Wikipedia guidelines - particularly MOS:LEAD and its injunction that material that is not in the body of the article has no place in the lead summary. On another of your points, just because something is well sourced does not mean it should be in the lead, which should summarise the most essential information. The inclusion of individual facts is a matter for consensus, and you are welcome to argue the case for the re-inclusion of any of those facts - just open a discussion! But the lead as it stood was too long and needed cutting. For the same reason, there is not really space for lengthy quotes. Again, perhaps open a discussion? The explanation for the heading I changed was included in brief in the edit summary - because the section also included failed attempts and other actions, such as kidnappings, the overall section header didn't work. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Incidentally, if any of this material was placed in the lead on the basis of any pre-existing consensus that I may not have been aware of, that would obviously be something that I should amend. As it stands, I am unaware of any such instance. My priority was to reduce the lead length as per the cleanup tag, and this required some cuts be made. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Iskandar, my objection to your lead edits is that they remove essential information:

"Because of conflicts and the major support the MEK received among different minorities and Iranian sectors, Ayatollah Khomeini published a fatwa that prevented the group from taking part in elections of the new government."

"The MEK then attacked the new government of the Islamic republic for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists."

"In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris, so it re-established its base in Iraq "

This content is in the body, has reliable sources, and is encyclopedic, and so your reasons for removing this from the lead do not make sense. Also I actually shortened the lead, so your objections about lead size (or about “primary sources”, or saying the information is “redundant”) also do not make sense.

For example you made the sentence "The EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated the MEK as a terrorist organization" longer by rewriting it as "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan."

So please either self-revert your edits to the lead and then we can talk about changes one by one, or lets find a middle ground for including this content to the lead. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Hold on a second - I have a ready answer to all of these points, though they are all very different: hence they were made as individualized edits.

1. There is 100% no mention in the body copy of a fatwa preventing the group from taking part in the elections (regardless of the merit of having the material in the lead), so this still fails MOS:LEAD.

2. Without an accompanying Iranian government quote, the long, partisan quote you mention is problematic in terms of neutrality. In addition, in the body copy it is phrased as: "According to Ervand Abrahamian ..." ... suggesting that past consensus has determined that this material is unsuitable for placing in WikiVoice without contextualization and attribution.

3. The mentione of the MEK moving from France to Iraq is very arbitrary. Why should this be in the lead? The group has changed the country of its headquarters multiple times. You would not mention this for a company. It is now based in Albania, which is not mentioned. In any case, all of this material is in the infobox and does not need spelling out in the lead.

4. If you look at this full diff for the paraphrasing of the material on the group's designation as a terrorist group, you will see that I made the text MUCH shorter. The original text read: "The European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan have previously listed the MEK as a terrorist organization. This designation has since been lifted, after a legal battle launched by the PMOI, first by the Council of the European Union on 26 January 2009, by the U.S. government on 21 September 2012, by the Canadian government on 20 December 2012, and by the Japanese government in 2013. The MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq. In June 2004, the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which expired in 2009 after the attainment of the full sovereignty of Iraq." Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:

1. You deleted the fatwa mention in the body. I will put it back in the body since you have not given a reason for removing that, and will also put back the information you deleted from the lead that said Khomeini prevented MEK members from running in the new government. Now please explain why the fatwa mention cannot be added to that in the lead?

2. First you said Abrahamian's quote was a "primary source" and now you are saying it is "partisan"? It is neither, and the original text had other sources supporting it as well, so I will put this back too.

3. The information is not about the "MEK moving from France to Iran", it is about "the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris", which is what led to their move to Iraq. This explains their alliance with Iraq, and since you have not explained why you deleted this, I will put it back.

4. You seem to be avoiding the point here too. I never said anything about the “original text”. Your edit made the sentence "The EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated the MEK as a terrorist organization" longer by rewriting it as "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan." You still have not explained this. Fad Ariff (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Thanks for taking the time to respond. However, I'm not sure why you keep making changes before anyone else responds in turn. You should wait for the discussion to get somewhere. Also, if there is something I didn't explain adequately, you could ask more specifically rather than taking someone else's silence as somehow an affirmation of consensus, which it is not. As an added point, you have lengthened the lead again back to five paragraphs, making it too long, so you are actually editing the article backwards in a direction opposition to Wikipedia guidelines.

1. I had not realized that you tried to add it to the body at the same time as you modified the lead - again it was a rather large and only partially explained edit. My point was that it was not ALREADY in the body. But you are correct, there is no reason why that should not be in the body: on the contrary, you are more than welcome to add any reliable information in the body.

2. I was incorrect about the Abrahamian quote being primary. However, it expresses the MEK viewpoint, which is where the partial element of it comes in. It is also not a neutral quote. It expresses the grievances of the MEK towards the Iranian government but not vice versa. The lead must also summarize, and the repetition of lengthy quotations is the opposite of summarization. As a side note, the source is also hard to verify. It is not even specified which period this statement is referring to. If you have access to the book, please can you provide the full, contextualised quote in the reference.

3. You seem to missing the point. The lead was too long, and some material needed removing. I removed less critical detail. The specific reason for deletion is that this material seemed less important than things like joining Iraq in wars, etc. However, now that you mention it, it is also information that is difficult to verify. One source is an article behind paywall and the other is supposedly a television episode (it is unlinked). If you are able to access the article, perhaps you can provide a quote from the supporting text in the citation for the reference and scrutiny of other editors.

4. I don't understand what you are saying here. I have shown you the diff and how I contracted an entire paragraph into a single sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: On closer inspection, all three of your recent edits are problematic. Aside from the fact that you are restoring material to the lead that has been challenged and while a discussion is still ongoing, without leaving adequate time for any to respond to your points, all three edits also simultaneously engaged in unexplained content removal, which is obviously particularly ironic given that you are restoring material based on the same premise. Here you delete the narrative-critical detail of the group targeting clerical leadership, unexplained; here you delete an Abrahamian quote, unexplained, despite arguing that it is vital to include an Abrahamian quote of your choosing in the lead and protesting against its removal; and, finally, here, where you delete the all-important phrase 'suppression of' in reference to the 1991 Iraq uprisings - with this removal, the material now leaves ambiguous/implies the opposite of the original meaning of the statement. I am incidentally also curious as to why you included a piped link to 'People's Mujahedin of Iran#Operations Shining sun, Forty Stars, and Mersad', with the old page name. I am sure you have seen the change in the name of the page, so this strongly suggests that you are simply reverting to older material on principal without even sense checking your own edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar, you have it backwards. It is you who made the changes to the article, and it is you who has avoided explaining several of them, this is why I restored some of the original text. Also I already explained how my version made the lead shorter, and how you reverted it.

1. Here you are admitting that you are reverting without really looking at what you are reverting. Also you still are not explaining why you removed the fatwa from the lead. If you don’t explain it in your next comment, I will put it back in the lead.

2. Wrong. It doesn’t explain the MEK viewpoint, it explains the author’s (Abrahamian) research.

3. Once again the edits I made to the lead made the lead shorter, and you reverted that. The source from Digest of Middle East Studies says that "The Islamic Republic had further encouraged France’s complicity in granting the request to deport the Mojahedin by promising to use its influence on Shi’i militas in southern Lebanon to relinquish French hostages which they were holding. On June 8, Rajavi visited Bhadad and held a series of publicized meetings with various high ranking Ba’athist officials in which he effectively secured Iraq as a base for the opposition and cultivated what was to be a long-lasting, relationship with the Iraqi regime. The Mojahedin, effectively backtracking Khomeyni’s move a decade before, had secured a desirable base for their paramilitary operations and a valuable patron in Baghdad. The deportation from Paris and move to Baghdad remains an intriguing and crucial episode in the history of the Mojahedin’s exile. In examining both the accounts provided by the Islamic Republic’s media sources and the press organs of the Mojahedin, it seems clear that the Khomeyni regime intended the Mojahedin to be exiled to an obscure and distant country which would weak their contacts with allied oppositions and keep them out of the European limelight. Instead, Iraq hastened to court the Mojahedin prior to its ousting, and the Islamic Republic found the opposition moved to a location which allowed the Mojahedin to resume its border raids, a tactic it had not been able to take advantage of in in significant proportions since its collaboration with the Peshmarga in the early 1980s, and which guaranteed that it would be well armed and nurtured by its predator in Baghdad. Illustrating the precarious position the Islamic Republic was placed in with the relocation of the Mojahedin to its enemy, Iraq, an Iranian Foreign Ministry official was quoted privately as saying, ‘We hope the day will not come when we see (?that) we should have asked France to keep Rajavi on its territory [where he had been far away from Iran, monitored by French intelligence, and barring small arms, deprived of weapons] at all costs and prevent his departure from Iraq’. This source by France24, this source by UPI, this source by Yahoo news and this source also seem to support this.

4.You reverted "The EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated the MEK as a terrorist organization", making it longer by rewriting it as "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan." Why?

5. Please don’t change the title of this discussion. If you wish to start a new discussion with the title “Reduction of the lead”, then do that instead. Also in your last paragraph you are making a bit of a mess out of this discussion. All I did was restore some edits to the original text where you failed to explain their removal. If you want to add or replace something in the lead, then start a new discussion about how we can make it shorter. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

@Ghazaalch, Ok let's attribute that quote to Abrahamian. About your other point, like i already said I am not talking about reducing the original text, i am talking about Iskandar making the version I edited longer (see Point 4 in my last comment), which is not necessary. i will also revert this diff because Iskandar put warnings on my talk page, but Iskandar's edits need some kind of understandable reasoning (please do not continue avoiding the issues). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I have explained point 4. over and over again now. Here is the diff showing me reducing an entire paragraph into a single sentence. You are focusing on a single sentence, but I removed an entire paragraph! @Ghazaalch can see this and has noted the same in his comment. Please just look at this again and hopefully you will see. Also, please tone down your rhetoric and stop with the excessive references to myself here and in your edit comments (WP:AVOIDYOU), and just stick to discussing the content, with reference to the appropriate diffs. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323:

4. I will shorten "Several national governments have historically designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, including the EU, US, Canada and Japan. The group remains designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq" to "The Islamic Republic and Iraq have designated the group as a terrorist organization, while the EU, US, Canada and Japan previously designated it as a terrorist organization." (reducing text from 208 characters to 173 characters). You have not explained why this needs to be 208 characters, so this is why I’m making it shorter.

5. I am reverting to the original title of this thread

6. In this edit that you made, the lead already talks about the MEK attacking the clerical leadership. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You do realise that you don't have to just revert other people's work on principle right? You can just work collaboratively. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is there still information about the attacks on the clerical leadership in the lead? The sentence merely mentioning attacks is not the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I am working collaboratively with you, but some of your edits have serious neutrality problems.

1. I will restore that Khomeini prevented MEK members from running for office because it is part of the original text and you have not provided a convincing reason for removing it. You still did not explain why you removed the fatwa from the lead.

6. The way you added "The MEK then initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982” right after “the MEK attacked the Iran regime for ... " makes it look as if there were two attacks on the regime, but that is wrong. You are also quoting the source out of context because the source does not say that "The MEK then initiated attacks", it says that the attacks happened after "clergy-led terror"(what Abrahamian is also saying): "The president’s fall paralleled a period of open resistance to the Khomeinist government by leftist organizations. The IRGC promised to tackle opposition’s armed resistance "against Islam and the Quran" head on, vowing to "punish these enemies of the people for their anti-Islamic and anti-religious acts". The fighting between the IPR-aligned forces led by the IRGC and the oppositionists resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iranians, many of whom were jailed, subjected to torture, and executed by court order. The clergy-led terror not only decimated the ranks of opposition groups and their student supporters; it also targeted innocent, non political civilians, such as members of the Baha’i religious minority, and others deemed problematic by the IRP. As opposition forces suffered severe losses in the fighting, the MKO initiated a series of suicide bomobings and assassinations aimed at the clerical leadership - a vigorous campaign that continued through 1982." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. The flow was poor. I've switched that sentence and the quote around - I still don't know what time period that quote refers to. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran lead quotation

Simple question: does the following quote: According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the Iran regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing political activists". ... have a place in the lead of the article? (Yes/no) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe this RfC is not well posed. It lacks Neutrality. To me, the question implies that the correct answer to be given is "no". P1221 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323:, per P1221's comment above, you could pose your first question above as you RFC proposal; and pose the second part of the paragraph ("The lead of this article has previously ... is a single source, in the author's voice.") as an explanation for your vote, which is No. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, fair enough. I haven't proposed any RFCs before, and actually having looked at others, I realise they are normally very short and to the point. That's moved. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• No: The lead of this article has previously been tagged as being too long and requiring summarization. This quote is from an academic source that is pertinent to the topic and is included in greater length in the body copy, but adds considerable length in the lead, and is arguably not neutral as it outlines the objections of the article's subject towards a third party but not vice versa. There is also the question of weight, as this is a single source, in the author's voice. Is it suitable to have this in the lead, or would it be better to remove it? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323: First you said that this was a "primary source quotation", then you said “it expresses the MEK viewpoint”, and now you say this quote represents "the objections of the article’s subject". You are wrong. This sentence gives the author’s (an expert’s) research. If the problem is the length of the lead, I provided a solution that made the lead shorter but you reverted that. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• No: Lede is a place for basic facts supported by multiple sources not a long controversial quotation with a single source. Ghazaalch (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Ghazaalch: The regime attacking the MEK is supported by multiple sources in the article as a basic fact. Even the source Iskandar added recently to the lead supports this as a basic fact: "The president’s fall paralleled a period of open resistance to the Khomeinist government by leftist organizations. The IRGC promised to tackle opposition’s armed resistance "against Islam and the Quran" head on, vowing to "punish these enemies of the people for their anti-Islamic and anti-religious acts". The fighting between the IPR-aligned forces led by the IRGC and the oppositionists resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iranians, many of whom were jailed, subjected to torture, and executed by court order. The clergy-led terror not only decimated the ranks of opposition groups and their student supporters; it also targeted innocent, non political civilians, such as members of the Baha’i religious minority, and others deemed problematic by the IRP. As opposition forces suffered severe losses in the fighting, the MKO initiated a series of suicide bomobings and assassinations aimed at the clerical leadership - a vigorous campaign that continued through 1982." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Other sources cannot support a direct quotation by Abrahamian - only the work by Abrahamian can do that, unless another source quotes it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• No - As per comment above. In addition, the phrase is repeated almost verbatim in the body of the article (section "Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)". It doesn't make much sense to repeat the same sentence in the lede if it is not further expanded in the body. P1221 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• @P1221:That can easily be fixed without removing the reasons why the MEK fought against the regime attacks from the lead (which is a key episode in the conflict between the two). I will now try to address what you suggested about the body of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Fad Ariff I understand your point, however I believe that the lead shall be as much concise as possible.

  In my opinion, the lead shall contain a brief statement like: "The MEK then initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982, because the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil rights and liberties", without putting any quotation. You can then do a deep dive on this in the body of the article, by fully quoting Abrahamian and also Afshon Ostovar, cited in the comment below. P1221 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@P1221: yes, I agree with what you are suggesting. How about a brief statement like "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff It's good for me. Mine sentence was just an example, it can be written for sure in much better ways. P1221 (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok then, unless anyone disagrees I will replace the Abrahamian quote with this suggestion. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit completely misses the point of the RFC. The issue was not the MEK "openly criticizing the Iranian government", the issue was that "The new regime not only reversed the gains of the revolution but also surpassed the shah’s dictatorial regime in several aspects. " (see quote below). Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020: The RFC entails a simple question about one source. Your discussion of an entirely unrelated source is off topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, if you want to remove Abrahamian's quote because it's just one quote from one author, then replacing that with other sources that describe the human right abuses the new regime was doing to the Iranian people (including the MEK) would solve this. Yet you don't seem to want that either, which basically means you want to remove that information from the lead altogether, and that can't happen because this is a very important part of the history. @Hogo-2020: do you agree with the suggestion that P1221 and myself have agreed on? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: This RFC is about including a single quote, yay or nay. If you want to discuss another quote, start a new RFC. But you're basically missing the whole point, which is to remove needless lengthy quotes from ANY individual authors in favour of simple sentences summarizing the key details, as is the purpose of the lead. In this edit I incorporated a line about civil rights based on your feedback, along with that of P1221 and VR. Now you seem to be going back on that and shifting goalposts. Make up your mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If we remove the quote about human right abuses by the new regime because this is quoted to one author, then replacing it with multiple sources is a rational solution. I agree with agree with Fad Ariff and P1221's proposal. Hogo-2020 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020: Are you talking about the lead or the body? You're making it very unclear. As I understand it, @P1221 suggested removing the quote in the lead and replacing it with "a brief statement", while noting that a range of quotes from multiple sources clearly do have a place, but in the body. I think the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Iskandar I am talking about the lead (I think everyone here is). In case it needs further clarification, I support removing the quote from the lead and replacing it with Fad Ariff's and P1221's proposal. The regime in Iran clamping down on civil and human rights in the 1980s is hardly a secret, and there are many sources confirming it. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• There is much more to this than the quote by Abrahamian and the source by Afshon Ostovar. This is how it's described by this scholarly work "It wasn’t long before the Iranian people realized the true nature of Khomeini’s regime. The new regime not only reversed the gains of the revolution but also surpassed the shah’s dictatorial regime in several aspects. The demolition of women’s and minority rights, censorship of all news news media and a total ban on all opposition papers, widespread corruption and fraud, along with social and economic chaos were the achievements of Khomieini’s regime. The answers that the people received for their problems was inconsideration and more violence and suppression. On June 20th, a rally organized by Mojahedin gathered 500,00 people in one of Tehran’s squares to object the total dictatorship practiced by the regime. Acting on Khomeini’s order, the Revolutionary Guards opened fire on the peaceful demonstrators, killing 50 and wounding 300. This cowardly response of killing peaceful and unarmed demonstrators clearly showed that the government was not going to tolerate any opposition towards themselves. Since then, approximately 4000 people have been executed or killed under torture by the government." "The extent of brutality was best expressed in an article by Time magazine on October 12, 1981: “While Khomeini’s Islamic Guards are executing enemies of the regime in the streets, they are also torturing suspected opponents behind prison walls, with a ferocity unequaled even by the deposed shah’s notorious SAVAK agents. Many of the prisoners who are being tortured are merely relatives of dissidents sought by the polical police.” The people’s response to all these cruelties showed itself through well-spread armed resistance and negative responses to Khomeini’s calls for cooperation with the security guards. To organize the opposition, a coalition was formed by People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), Bani Sadr, the ousted President and several other popular organizations and elements. The new democratic front called the “National Council of Resistance” (NCR) set its goals as independence, freedom, and social-economic justice for all people regardless of sex, race, ethnci background or religion." If Abrahamian’s quote is removed it should at least be replaced with an explanation of what Khomeini’s regime did in that time period. Hogo-2020 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• I want to point out that this quotation is misplaced. According to the source the timing of these accusations was "by late 1980" (p206), but currently its placed after the events of 1981. The source says this was part of MEK's "vociferous propoganda war against the Islamic Republic in general and the Islamic Republic Party in particular". Nevertheless I agree with Hogo-2020 that many of their accusations were true and can be stated in wikivoice. So as a compromise this quote can be replaced with "the MEK criticized the Iranian government's repressive policies".VR _talk 13:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Abrahamian, and the other sources describe a "reign of terror" where "many of the prisoners who are being tortured are merely relatives of dissidents sought by the political police." (nothing to do with "propaganda" or "criticism of repressive policies"). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  The sources can quite readily say both. There can be a reign of terror AND there can be propaganda pushing, and if that's what the reliable source say, we can mention all of it, even if the information is contradictory, but, CRITICALLY, all of this sort of stuff is the sort of detail needed in the BODY of the article, which, unlike the lead, has as much space as you need to add material to. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Propaganda pushing" is completely unassociated with the regime's reign of terror of early 1980s, which is the reason the sources say the MEK attacked the clerical leadership. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

VR's proposal looks fair to me. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I also agree with Hogo-2020 that much of this is true and can be stated in wikivoice. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Iraniangal777 Do you agree with replacing that quote with a brief statement like "As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Iraniangal777 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: At the moment, the sentence about attacks on the clerical leadership directly follows the sentence on the regime arrested and executing MEK members. Your suggestion of inserting a phrase onto the beginning of that sentence would just confuse the narrative. The attacks on the regime weren't in response to mere attacks on rights, but arbitrary detentions and executions. VR pointed out that the Abrahamian quote referred to 1980. That is why my edit placed the paraphrased material earlier in the lead (in 1980), before the events of 1981 and the harsh regime crackdown. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The regime was not only violating human rights on the MEK but also on the rest of the Iranian population who were protesting the new government. The sources say that when this happened the MEK then attacked the regime. The paragraph in the lead would say

"In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June, 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état. Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers. As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights in Iran, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982."

That is the narrative according to the sources, and is a clear narrative. This would also resolve your objections about Abrhamian’s quote and making the lead shorter. Most of the editors in this RFC are also in favor of this change. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: VR has already clarified that the quotation relates to late 1980, so it would be inappropriate to paraphrase it within the context of events in 1981. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My proposal paraphrases from a number of sources, all of which say the new regime started to clamp down on human rights against Iranians protesting the new government, which led to the MEK attacking the regime. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

There is not enough room in the lead to discuss the reasons why MeK attacked Iranian regime, and if we provide these reasons, we should also provided the reasons why Iranian regime executed the MeK members, which would take lots of long paragraphs. The best option, therefor, is to omit the biased quotation from the lede and move the reasons and the counter reasons to the main body of the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If the problem is the length of the lead, I provided a solution that made the lead shorter but Iskandar323 reverted that. Also the reasons why Iranian regime executed the MeK members is already in the lead. The sources say that the Iran regime started first making human right abuses against protesters and MEK, and no good reason has been given for removing this from the lead. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff: You are welcome to discuss any changes to the lead that you like. But if I reverted a change, it was probably for a good reason, and per both WP:BRD and WP:ARBDS the path forward for any such changes is to achieve consensus. Just start a discussion clearly articulating the changes that you believe would improve the lead. Adding off-topic clutter to this RFC is not the way. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not "off-topic clutter" since the conclusion is that no good reason has been given for not having the regime's human right abuses against MEK and protesters in the lead of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description political-militant 1956 to present

@Iskandar323:: In this edit that you made, what source did you use for that? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding the date? I used the date given in the infobox and lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see anything about the MEK being militant before the 1970s. The lead also links it as being a private army. Are they a private army? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the group was militant for half its existence and political for the rest, "politico-militant" seems fair enough, and yes, "private army" fits. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Then that is the wrong description. If "the group was militant for half its existence" then the article should be clear about which half. You deleted from the lead that "In June 2004, the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."this diff The Fourth Geneva Convention "was the first to deal with humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone." If the legal status of the MEK is "civilians in a war zone", then "private army" is a wrong description. I will put back what you deleted, and change "private army" to "dissidents" since this is how they are mainly cited in the press.* Fad Ariff (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this level of detail is way to specific for the lead, which is meant to be a summary. Please just talk before you waste time making sweeping additions to the already overly long lead summary. NB: That the MEK was given civilian protections in Iraq does not necessarily guarantee that the entire groups has de-militarized.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Dissident" is a summary description (and one that is cited a lot). What is your reasoning against using this description? About your sweeping changes from yesterday, I am reverting to some original text of the article since there isn't consensus for removing them yet. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dude. Dissident is in the short description now. Just be happy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, why do you keep removing the Geneva Convention status from the lead? That information shows that "the U.S. had designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’". Like the "dissident" description, there are many sources citing this too. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a thread about the short description, not other content, but in any case, this sentence is not needed, and is another case of unnecessary material in the lead. The Geneva Convention stuff is about the MEK disarming (and becoming civilians). The lead already states that they disarmed in 2003, so this doesn't need to be said twice. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Being disarmed and becoming civilians are two different things, so I will put this back in the lead. We can make this content shorter but please discuss first instead of making weeping changes (like you have been doing to the article). I suggest "In June 2004, the U.S. designated the MEK ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention IV, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." Fad Ariff (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just read the sources and the material is incidentally being presented incorrectly, as the US ruling referred only to Camp Ashraf residents. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The "Camp Ashraf residents" were the MEK who were based in Camp Ashraf at the time (there were no other residents from other groups there, just them). If you would like to make the lead longer by adding "MEK, who were based in Camp Ashraf at the time", then that is an option (I don't think it's a good one), but just saying "Camp Ashraf residents" is not a correct description. I think the lead should say what most sources do. I provided sources for this and for the "dissident" description. What is your objection for these two exactly? (please reply with sources like I did) Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

'Camp Ashraf residents' is the correct description because it is the description used in the current sources. Changing this wording based on something you just think is original research (WP:OR), and counterfactual. In none of the available sources does a passage appear that supports the wording that you restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 again you did not provide any sources to support your wordings.

• Here is a list of sources supporting the wording that the MEK in Camp Ashraf became protected persons

"Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the PMOI members disarmed and were accorded "protected persons" status under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [31] by Amnesty

"In particular, PMOI maintained that it had ceased its military campaign against the Iranian regime (campaigns against the United States had never even been asserted), renounced violence, surrendered its arms to U.S. forces in Iraq, cooperated with U.S. officials at Camp Ashraf, Iraq (where its members operating in Iraq were consolidated) by sharing intelligence regarding Iranâs clandestine nuclear program, and its members received status as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [32] by American Society of International Law

"U.S. forces declared the exiles "protected persons" after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein." are the People's Mujahideen of Iran? by Reuters

"The PMOI are staunch opponents of Tehran, and received protected persons' status by the U.S. forces following the invasion of Iraq in 2003." [33] by UPI

"In 2004, the US gave the refugees ‘protected persons’ status under the Fourth Geneva Convention and, in 2009, the European Union removed the PMOI from its list of terrorist organisations." [34] by LawGazzette

"I refer to the plight of 3,500 members of an Iranian opposition group, the PMOI, based at Camp Ashraf, 60km north-east of Baghdad, who in 2004 were recognised as "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [35] by Geoffrey Bindman

"They are members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK; it is also called the People's Mojahedin of Iran, or PMOI), the leading Iranian opposition group. Based at Camp Ashraf in central Iraq where they are recognized as "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, they have since 2004 been under the protection of US military forces." [36] by Jpost

"in 2004 obtained 'protected person' status under the Fourth Geneva Convention for all PMOI members at Camp Ashraf based on the U.S. investigators' conclusions that none was a combatant or had committed a crime under any U.S. laws; disbanded its military units and disarmed the Pmoi members at Ashraf, all of whom signed a document rejecting violence and terror" [37] book by Wadie E. Said

"However, the United States argued that the MEK had been a good source of intelligence on Iran, especially on its nuclear program, and could in the future help it fight Iranian influence in Iraq; thus the United States declared the MEK "protected people" under the Geneva Convention." [38] book by Shireen Hunter

"After a year of interagency wrangling and debate concerning their status, the MEK were simply deemed "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention." [39] book by VanLandingham

"The MEK had turned over its weapons to the United States after the invasion, and it was given the status of "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention" [40] book by Anthony H. Cordesman

"signed a voluntary disarmament agreement iwth Coaltion forces in July 2003, in exchange for which the organization has been granted the status of "protected persons" nder the Geneva Conventions by the United States." [41] book edited by Ilan Berman

"During the Clinton years, the MEK had been added to the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list as a sop to the Islamic Republic in an effort to jump-start the "road map" to normalization between Washingtong and Tehran. Now, however, its members were protected persons under a US occupation." [42] book by Eric Edelman

"Nearly 4,000 members of the Mujahedin e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group that operated out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and which is on the State Department's terrorist list, have been granted protected person status by the U.S. military, department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said." [43] by UPI

• List of sources using the wording "dissidents"

"Iran Dissidents Pinpoint Alleged Nuclear Site" [44] by Reuters

"U.S. drops Iranian MEK dissident group from terrorism list" [45] by Chicago Tribune

"Some 3,400 Iranian dissidents are hunkered down and are now threatened with expulsion from Iraq" [46] The Economist

"Iraq plans to close Iranian dissidents' border camp" [47] by The Guardian

"Iran State TV Says Exiled Dissidents Hacked Live Broadcasts" [48] by Bloomberg

"Scores demand UN probe of 1988 Iran dissident killings" [49] by France24

"Last major group MEK dissidents leaves camp in Iraq: U.S. State Department" [50] by Reuters

"Iran state TV shows dissidents’ images after apparent hack" [51] by AP News

"Iran state TV shows dissidents' images after apparent hack" [52] by ABC News

"The People’s Mujahidin: the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change in Tehran" [53] by the Times

And there are more, but you get the point, there are many sources available supporting these terms. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 it has been almost 3 weeks since I posted 10 sources using the wording "dissidents". If you don't have an objection (one that derives from some kind of policy or sources), then I will go ahead and implement this edit. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: And I haven't known, for three weeks, what edit you are talking about. The short description has already said dissident for three weeks. Did you not check? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I'm not talking about the short description, but the description in the lead. In this edit [54], an edit that you reverted [55], I gave many citations that describe the MEK as a "dissident" organization. What is your reasoning for removing this from the lead after all the citations I provided? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The current description in the lead is fine and is supported by reliable, secondary book sources. Your disruptive edit removed published book references in favour of a gaggle of news stories, to which I would say, read: WP:NOTNEWS. Since this edit has been challenged, you may not make it again unless you gain consensus on the matter. And I remain thoroughly unconvinced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The "dissident" description is supported by many more reliable, secondary sources. What is your reasoning for not using those? You want more book citations? Just saying "it's fine" doesn't explain why you want to cite a minority view point. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

"Removal of designation" text tightening

I worked on the section "Removal of designation", making some summaries and tightening of the content. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing I reverted your edit and you need consensus before implementing controversial edits. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: You reverted all my recent edits but did not give any explanation why they are "tendentious" or "controversial" (as you are saying here), so please explain your reverts. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Ghazaalch that the article is already too long and that we should in general be looking to remove material, not add - that is in regard to the new additions. With regards to the material on the MEK's terror designation, I had my own concerns even before this revert was made about the removal of details relating to accusations of bribery and the specific amounts involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff:, some of the materials of this article are against MeK, and some of them are in favor of the MeK. You are focusing on shortening the first part([56]) and expanding on the second part([57][58]). And this is not fair. Ghazaalch (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree this is fairly obvious in your edits @Fad Ariff, as well as the way in which your edits seem to often revert the removal of any obviously pro-MEK material while ignoring the removal of other details. Now I don't know if this is a form of subconscious or conscious bias, but if the former, I suggest you become more conscious of it and avoid it while editing (regardless of your personal feelings). Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I have made the article short in some sections, and you also reverted that. For example the "Removal of designation" I tightened the text. The information I tightened is repetitive. Why did you revert that? Also why this revert? or this one?

You also reverted content that is backed by reliable sources, and still have not explained. For example

"The MEK also proposed that Islam is a dynamic religion whose role is to "advance and encourage human development" including "a fair distribution of wealth, democratic freedom and the individual’s right to elect political representatives and choose their personal lifestyle."" Why did you remove it?

"During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK." Why did you remove it? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Read my comment above in case you happen not to see it.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I did read your comment above carefully. Are you saying that I cannot add new information from good publishers to this article because the information is "in favor of the MeK", and that is "not fair"? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If the article is too long and should be shortened, then it must be done in a neutral point of view. Shortening anti-MEK content and expanding content that benefits the MEK is a kind of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and needs to be undone. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ghazaalch is saying that my recent edits in this are “tendentious”, but to me Ghazaalch is stonewalling well founded edits. For example the content I added to the article (highlighted in green above), Ghazaalch removed it because he says this is “expanding content that benefits the MEK.” I understand that the article needs shortening, and I have tried to do this in some parts, but Ghazaalch also reverted those edits. Following this logic, editors are not able to add anything to the article that Ghazaalch sees as “content that benefits the MEK” (something I don’t think it’s true), even if this is new information supported by reliable books. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fad Ariff, if you have tried to shorten the article then you shouldn't have added the contents (highlighted in green above) that already been covered in the article: MeK's ideology, for example, which is a mixture of Islam and Marxism, is already discussed in details in the section, "Ideology". Rajavi’s position toward terrorist attacks is also covered in the section "Assassinations". So the article is already too long and no need to repeat its contents all over the article.Ghazaalch (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a matter for administrators. It is a content dispute and should be resolved by the usual methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: I have shortened the “Ideology” section per your comment. Could you kindly show where in the article it is repeated that "During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK."? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

These kinds of assertions are in contradiction with the numerous assassinations done by MeK. See the "Assassinations" section. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: The "Assassinations" section doesn't talk about the period during the Islamic Revolution at all, so there isn't any "contradiction". Fad Ariff (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

For a short period of time Rajavi saved his people from government retaliation by preventing them from attacking the government. Does it worth mentioning it in an article that is already too long? And what does it has to do with promoting Rajavi's position in the Mojahedin Khalq Organization? The source says He succeeded in looking after the organization during the Islamic Revolution by preventing it from acting violently against Khomeini’s government, just as Khomeini did to the Fadaian Khalq (a guerrilla organization which was more devoted to Marxist components than the Mojahedin).17 Rajavi’s successful management raised his prestige within the organization... Ghazaalch (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It frankly seems like it would be more relevant on a page about Rajavi, as it reflects more upon his actions and leadership choices than on the history of the organization itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: you did not answer my question. @Iskandar323: this is also about the MEK, not just Rajavi. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: you made this revert saying that Ghazaalch says the article is too long while adding more cult content to the article...?. If you agree with me that the article is too long and you revert what I add, then why you insist on restoring what I reverted? And why you took this case to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? What is the dispute here? we both are doing the same thing. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and you still don't answer. This is why I took this case to Dispute resolution noticeboard, so you may answer there and we can resolve this. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You seem to think that you can dictate WHEN other editors respond to you. Many of us are not overly pre-occupied with a single area of Wikipedia and actually edit various different things. We might respond in a day, in days, or weeks - until someone responds, and agrees with you, you have no consensus. There is not some sort of time-out because you don't get an answer quickly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I have been asking since April 8, and answers like "is not fair" don't explain the deletion (just like your last comment). @Ghazaalch I reverted your edit because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article (while the information in this dispute is not in the article). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: It is often quite hard to tell which question and what content you are talking about, because you keep tagging comments onto the end of this thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff; what do you mean by cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article? You mean what I added is already covered in five different places? Where in the article is there something like what I added?Ghazaalch (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch; these are some lines that I copypasted from the article

"Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult"

"6.Cult of personality

"The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"."[351][352] Various sources have also described the MEK as a "cult",[119][353] "cult-like",[354][355] or having a "cult of personality",[356] while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult".[357][358][359] According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis". After its settlement in Iraq, however, it experienced a shortfall of volunteers. This led to the recruitment of members including Iranian dissidents, as well as Iranian economic migrants in countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq". MEK also gave free visit trips to its camps to the relatives of the members. According to the RAND report, the recruited members were mostly brought by MEK into Iraq illegally and then were asked to submit their identity documents for "safekeeping", an act which would "effectively trap" them. With the assistance of Saddam's government, MEK also recruited some of its members from the Iranian prisoners of the Iran-Iraq war.[16][page needed] During the second phase of the ideological revolution, all members were forced to surrender their individuality to the organization.

"According to Abbas Milani, lobbyists paid for by the Iranian regime campaigned against delisting the MEK calling it a "dangerous cult".[386] There have also been reports that the Islamic Republic has manipulated Western media in order to generate false allegations against the MEK.

"A Cult That Would Be an Army: Cult of the Chameleon (2007): Al Jazeera documentary directed by Maziar Bahari.

"List of cults of personality"

To add to this, you added a full paragraph by one source about why RAND Corporation writes that Rajavi’s policy turned the MEK “into a cult” (something that already resembles "According to a RAND Corporation policy report, while in Paris, Masoud Rajavi began to implement an "ideological revolution", which required members an increased study and devotion that later expanded into "near religious devotion to the Rajavis".. On the other hand what I added is not mentioned in the article at all. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, What you presented above is just a short section discussing cultic characteristics of the MeK, not five sections. And what I added to this section is: RAND Corporation writes that Rajavi's policy of turning MEK into a cult began with the failure of Operation Eternal Light. Rajavi hinted in his remarks that the operation had failed "due to insufficient devotion to the overthrow of the IRI among the MeK rank and file, who were instead distracted by sexual interests as a result of their coeducational housing." and that the operation had not achieved its objectives. To correct this, MEK members were told to divorce their spouses and live in gender-segregated residences. "Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family." Rajavi also utilized Saddam's funds to build enough medical clinics, schools, training centers, and even a prison (which called reeducation center) in order for his people to have less contact with outside world., which is different from what you mentioned above. There are different aspects for the cult Rajavi founded and there is no reason that we should cover only one or two of these aspects. RAND report dedicated a whole section, namely Cultic Characteristics of the MeK to these aspects, with the following subsections:

Sexual Control

Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership

Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation

Emotional Isolation

Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure

Deceptive Recruitment

Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation

Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options

Patterns of Suicide

Ghazaalch (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

While all very broadly about cult-like elements, the material introduced by @Ghazaalch is of a substantively different nature and reflects on different aspects of the group. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 and @Ghazaalch It's all about the same thing (alleged cult-like elements, something already in the article covered in different sections), so not of "substantively different nature". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: Well this is where consensus comes in. And at the moment, you do not have it, whereas two of us think this is complementary material. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a shortcut to shutting down any meaningful conversation about the content. A reasonable explanation for removing "During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK" still has not been provided. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, by following your logic that It's all about the same thing... not of "substantively different nature", we cannot add anything to any section. Because the content of any section is all about the same thing (it's all about the title of the section). By the same logic we cannot add anything to the article because it's all about the same thing (it's all about the People Mojahedin Organization of Iran). Ghazaalch (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, there is a big difference between a topic that is already covered in the article, and a topic that isn't. Topics that are already covered in the article don't need to be expanded (they can still be edited though), and topics that aren't in the article should be ok to be added. You still have responded why the content that I want to add to the article (which isn't covered in the article) isn't ok to be added. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think writing an answer, no matter what it is, and no matter if it is already responded, would help you justify your Tendentious editing, so go on. I won't be part of this nasty discussion any longer. If I were an admin, I would blocked People like you from discussing; and from editing, in the first place. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

MEK killed between 1981 to 1982

@Iskandar323: Why the revert?[59] "Between June 1981 and April 1982, approximately 3500 MEK members were killed." Fad Ariff (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is that a direct quotation? There is no excerpt from that source in the existing citation ... and there is no url to a location where the source can be searched, e.g.: Google Books. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I provided the book name and a page number, but here is the excerpt from the source. "Though claims and counterclaims by both sides often tend to be vastly exaggerated, independent sources confirm that between June 1981 and April 1982 approximately 3500 of the Mujahidin were either executed or fell in numerous street battles of the Pasdaran and armed groups of various revolutionary committees throughout the country." Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - the confusing thing was the way in which it was added before - inserted between an existing statement and its citation. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Chronology

Iskandar323, I reverted some of your chronology edits. The schism divided the MEK into two opposing groups, so it wasn't only an "ideological" separation. This needs its own section since it is a difficult topic. According to the sources, many Muslim MEK were put in jail during this period, and the Marxist group that came out of the schism took on a different role. Mashing all of this together makes the section confusing, so this is why I reverted some of your edits. If you want to work on the chronology then let's work on it here through consensus, but please do not edit war like you did in your last edit. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is edit warring here, it is you @Fad Ariff. This material was already mashed together and confusing, and you have provided no credible reason as to why you reverted my effort to chronologically re-order and restructure it into something half readable. Every one of these edit summaries saying "explained on the talk page" is disingenuous. For instance, here, you have not explained a single thing that was wrong with my edit. You have opined about how complex the subject is, but you haven't presented a single concrete example of something I did wrong in my edit, either by presenting a source or a statement incorrectly or by transgressing some sort of Wikipedia policy or guideline. This is what you need to be doing. Instead you are exemplifying WP:JDL by explaining what you don't like, but failing to actually outline an actual problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I am reverting edits you made to the article, but you continue to edit war your edits into the article. The reason why I reverted you is that I think that the chronology "Early years (1965–1971)" and then "Schism (1971–1978)" is better organized than what you did in lumping together "Activities in the 1970s" (with a small section "1973 ideological schism"). Like I already explained, the Schism was not only "ideological", as you have put in the title headline, it was also political and led to a bloody rivalry between two groups (it’s all explained in the section). What I would do is change the years "Early years (1965–1973)" and then "Schism (1973–1978)", and then move anything that is unrelated to the Schism to a more relevant section (if you agree, we can do that). Some other problems with your edits is that the section "Schism (1973–1978)" talks about activities by the two opposing groups, so having it all under a main headline "Activities in the 1970s" gives the wrong notion that this section is only about the MEK’s activities during the 1970s, but the section also includes activities of the new group that "adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity." (Mujahedin M.L. Marxist–Leninist or Peykar). For example, you also put in the section "Activities in the 1970s" that "The group conducted several assassinations of U.S. military personnel and civilians working in Iran during the 1970s", which in the "Schism" section explains that "The Country Reports issued in April 2006 stated: "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killings of Americans, and later was executed.[111][112][113] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK.[114] Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK. A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution".

Like I already say, if you want to work on the chronology then let's work on it here through consensus, but you have not yet explained any of your edits, and since it is you who is changing the article’s original version then you at least need to explain your edits instead of continuing to edit war. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You do realise that you can just edit without reverting, right? It is possible to build upon the work of others, not only reactively rip it down. You could just try, for once, editing with others, not against others. Perhaps try just improving on what I have already done. I find it hard to believe you cannot see the existing chronology problems. I am talking things like have dates in the 60s after dates in the 70s - pretty simple stuff. Not everything needs to be agreed in advance. That way nothing would ever get done. Sometimes it is best to just go with the flow and dynamically improve the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: If you think that reverting twice in 24 hours and 3 minutes is safe, where reverting twice within 24 hours is not, think again. This is a well-known WP:GAMING strategy for those attempting to avoid the letter of the law in terms of WP:1RR, while still violating its spirit. It is also pretty classic edit warring. I would invite you to self-revert and work with, not against my edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, please stop with all the accusations and character assassinations. I will only discuss the content. I showed how your edits had problems, so it's now your turn to explain what content specifically you want to move and where. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: True, it is a behavioral issue, and I hardly enjoy having to explain WP:1RR to you over and over again. Self-revert or we will discuss at WP:AE. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)