Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

RFCs on Summarizing the article

Extended content

No opening statement. I have requested admin help here. I do not really think opening an RFC this multi-faceted and chaotic is productive, if even allowed. This page already had two open RFCs. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC) @Iskandar323: As an RfC statement, that is useless. See how it shows at the RfC listings. It tells us nothing whatsoever about the matter at hand (not even in the form of links to previous discussions); moreover, whilst brief, it is certainly not neutral. It also starts with a list, which is prohibited. Please see WP:RFCST and also WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC) *::@Redrose64: That isn't an RFC statement. I didn't create the RFC. There is no opening statement. That was just a note I added for admin help in addressing the malformed RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral (Summoned by Bot) I have very little knowledge of Iranian politics. Admin attention was requested. I am not an Admin, yet I can see that this RfC is not viable, let you know that Wikipedia does not employ a journalistic lede, nor the "Lede summary", and that you may find much of what you need to improve this article here: Wikipedia:Article development. Lindenfall (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Collapsing and removing admin help request, as this RFC has been seemingly abandoned by its creator. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Objections to copy editing in the lead

Iskandar323, I am reverting several of your many changes to this article because they appear to be nonconstructive.

• [1] It was the IRI government that made the request, not "Iran"
• [2] It is considered the IRI’s most significant opposition group.
• [3] it was better explained before your edit
• [4] This stamp is by the Islamic regime (already in the infobox box of Hafte Tir bombing).
• [5] Operation Mersad was already linked as "Operation Eternal Light"
• [6] The lead has not been shortened, so it is still too long.
• [7][8] Long paragraphs are difficult to read, so I think the lead was clearer before you re-arranged it. We need four paragraphs that aren’t overwhelmingly long. If you are interested in shortening and arranging the lead, we can open a new talk page discussion about that.

Also, please pace yourself when making changes to this article. You are making many edits, and many of those are nonconstructive, and it makes things very difficult to maintain order. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: I told you to stop the hair-trigger reverting. This is extremely unconstructive and unproductive. All of these clearly explained edits collectively moved amount to less material than a single, average one of your consistently poorly explained largescale edits. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" IS "Iran" for the purposes of the country making a request of another country, and it is incredibly odd for you to suggest otherwise. We likewise do not refer to "France" as the "French Republic". It is not the "Islamic Republic of Iran" making a request of the "French Republic"; it is Iran making a request of France. If you think otherwise, you are pushing a very strange position. Again, mind your language in your edit summaries like this one - you are not rescuing anything, you are reverting to a version that you simply prefer (also with an almost non-existent edit summary: 'see talk' is not a summary). Talk moves and gets archived. Edit comments endure. On the third diff, the lead confusingly mentions the coup twice, with a sentence about rising support about the intelligentsia in the middle - I was obviously eliminating the duplication and poor sentence order. The removal of the Hafte Tir Bombing image is extremely poorly reasoned. I suggest you reconsider. It is produced by the Islamic regime ... umm, yes, governments produces stamps. So what? It is already in the infobox box of Hafte Tir bombing ... ummm, that is a different page ... so what? Neither of these are reasons, let alone policy or guideline-backed reasons. Not for the first time. Operation Mersad and Operation Eternal Light are separate operations - they just link to the same page ... for now. Again, not a reason. That or you did not read the target page. Long paragraphs are not a crime, but yes, by reverting a whole range of edits you did successfully make the lead longer again. Congrats. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, you were already warned not to modify the posts of other editors[9].

I didn’t revert to a version I preferred, I reverted to the article’s original version. Many of your edits were unconstructive, that is why I reverted them.

The theocrats have had a feud with the MEK since 1979 (not the country, the government). It is the governing theocratic state who have been trying to get rid of the MEK since 1979 (and it was they who made the request to France).

I reverted your edit of the Hafte Tir Bombing stamp because this would be like posting images of MEK members that were assassinated by the regime and describing them as "martyrs" on the Islamic Republic of Iran page. It doesn’t make sense.

I reverted your edit about Operation Mersad because in its page it is described as "Operation Eternal Light, MeK's codename)", so unlike what you are saying I did read the target page.

Regarding the lead, I tried to make it shorter before, but you reverted that. Since we don’t seem to be agreeing about the lead, why don’t you open a talk page discussion or RFC instead of making many changes to the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you wrote neutral talk discussion headers, instead of using them to cast aspersions, I wouldn't feel the need to change them. The 'governing theocrats' as you call them are the state, just as the 'governing democrats' are the state in the US, or the 'governing conservatives' are the state in the UK. You don't get to pick and choose how you refer to a country's foreign policy based on who is in government. An official stamp about a bombing demonstrates its historical significance, and the article needs more pictures. I want a policy-based reason for excluding that too. You are welcome to include historical images of MEK members that were assassinated by the regime - please do if you have some, as that would be a useful addition. Operation Mersad is still a separate operation, so why would you not include it in a list of operations in the infobox. In fact, Operation Mersad is the primary topic of the target, so one were to include one and not the other, one would keep Mersad and dispense with Operation Light Eternal (Forough Javidan). Also Operation Light Eternal is the same as Operation Forough Javidan, not Operation Mersad, so you may have read the page, but none too carefully. Re: the lead, low-level copyediting is not the sort of stuff to take to RFC. Like this, it would be a waste of community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "Iskandar323’s many new changes to the article" [10]. Did you not make many changes to the article recently? How can this be "casting aspersions"? Fad Ariff (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: It's in the guideline is WP:TALKHEADPOV: "Don't address other users in a heading ... Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the regime executing MEK because they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)"

@Ghazaalch: on this revert[11] you deleted "the Iranian regime executes MEK members with the justification that they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)" carrying on an "unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers"", but where does the article mention that the regime executes MEK members because they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)"? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This statement, like many other, is useless information without context. It is very general. Such a blanket statement cannot refer to all MEK executions ever. It would be nonsensical. What time period does this refer to? What is the context? I imagine plenty of MEK members have been executed for more straightforward terrorism charges, at least since designated as such. Much more context needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: If it's the context and time period that is troubling you, that is an easy fix. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: and @Iskandar323: Abrahamian writes this in the present tense (and his book was published in 1989). So we can quote him as "According to Abrahamian's 1989 book, the Iranian regime executes MEK members with the justification that they are "monafeqin (hypocrites)" carrying on an "unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers". If you do not respond, it will be assumed that there is consensus on your side for adding this to the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to say Abrahamian: he is a reliable, secondary source, so Wikivoice is fine. Maybe: "In the late 1980s, the Iranian regime carried out executions of MEK members with the justification that they were "monafeqin (hypocrites)" carrying on an "unholy war at the behest of sinister foreign powers". Basically it's for treason - does the book not mention an official charge? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Fad Ariff, before giving you an answer I would like you give a reasonable explanation to the following question in the following subsection. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the explaining why MEK is called a cult by Abrahamian

@Fad Ariff: on this revert[12] you deleted "Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members., but where does the article mention the reasons why Abarahamian called MeK a cult? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know that too. Where else in the article can we see the pre-eminent subject-matter expert on the MEK explaining exactly why the group has been called a cult? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in other discussions [13], we can turn this article into a collection of quotes or we can follow WP:NOTEVERYTHING and instead have a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: For the millionth time, WP:NOTEVERYTHING is outlined by a collection of relevant examples: which one are you referencing in this case? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject") is policy, and doesn't have to be complimented with any further "relevant examples". You can continue to refuse to listen if you prefer, but that is the policy. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: The policy IS a list of examples, and you should be able to point to the example that you think is analogous here. Just reciting seven words is not making a point. Everything on Wikipedia is already a summary, including the Abrahamian material mentioned here, which is already summarized and not even a quotation. Make a point. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 what I'm quoting IS in fact policy, and refusing to listen won't change the policy. There is now a RfC about this content anyways[14]. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Seven words is not the policy: it is a fraction of the intro to one section. I'll not press the point further. You clearly have no reason for the removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You are picking which parts of the policy you prefer and avoiding other parts. Even if you don't like that part of the policy, it is policy. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fad Ariff: You're describing your own behaviour. Refusing to elaborate your position is just WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I gave you a reason from policy as you asked, and also I gave a proposal about this content in the last RfC (a RfC you are calling "perverse"![15]) While you have not even provided a reason for why you removed reliable content from the article! Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it is a stupid RFC, and no, you haven't given a reason from the policy. You're playing silly games and stonewalling. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You are calling RFCs "stupid" and "perverse", and also saying policy has not been cited here. Ok. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

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[16], United States Department of the Treasury[17], NPR[18], LA Times[19], The Intercept[20], Carnegie Council[21], Slate[22], The Guardian[23], WSJ[24], NBC News[25], CBC News[26], Washington Post[27].

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 [28] or the list in this other source [29]). 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)

I am restoring the deleted content by the blocked user per WP:BLOCKEVASION. This edit shows that TheDreamBoat have been a proxy working of behalf of a blocked user. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch We have been through this already. I don’t agree with your addition because it is only representative of a small handful of sources. If we are following WP:WEIGHT (and we should be), 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’ are far off from being in that category. There are other problems with this inclusion (as said in this old discussion), but mainly this section is reserved for what is representative of most academic sources, and what you’ve added there is not it. 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. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hogo-2020; per WP:BLOCKEVASION you are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of the blocked editor.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch; where in the world did you get the idea that I'm posting material in the direction of a blocked editor? I'm reverting you for the problems I explained in my previous comment (which your senseless comment doesn't address). Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

per WP:BLOCKEVASION

1. You (used to refer to any person in general) are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying")
2. TheDreamBoat posted material at the direction of a blocked editor. See here
3. Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule

Ghazaalch (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Hogo gave you an explanation about why they reverted you. Please stop edit-warring and making aspersions. If you continue to do these things the next step is to get an administrator involved. I will leave a formal warning on your talk page. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I will be waiting for you to get an administrator involved, since, as I said here the main problem with this page is that there is no admin to moderate, and it is useless discussing with you because as I said before, you (Plural: pro-MeK users: Fad Ariff, Hogo-2020 and Iraniangal777) do not discuss to reach consensus but you discuss to justify your reverts and to show that there is no consensus on restoring the reverts. I would explain your Gaming the system in details where I know there are some admins watching and moderating our discussions. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: instead of responding to Hogo's objections, and despite many warnings, you continue to edit-war and cast aspersions. You have now been reported. Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hogo's objections have been already responded here and here by Vice regent in response to the blocked user TheDreamBoat who was editing/deleting on behalf of another blocked user.(see here.) That is why I reverted the deletion, and now Hogo is citing the same objection again and again. I have already quoted Vice regent's response two times [30][31] for Hogo and I won't do it again, because now the main issue is that per WP:BLOCKEVASION, TheDreamBoat shouldn't have done the deletion on behalf of a blocked user and you two shouldn't get involved in an edit war to reinstate the deletion.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: Hogo had answered Vice regent’s points in this and this edit (which TheDreamBoat or WP:Blockevasion have nothing to do with). Also Hogo's last comment about your edit (comments I agree with) haven't been addressed by anyone. You just keep on edit-warring your preferred version into the article, using false narratives, in spite of warnings, policy, or ANI reports. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Iraniangal777, you have not given one reason to remove the names even as you edit war. The substance of the Hogo comment that you refer to was responded to, let me repeat it again: the alternative names are given in 25 reliable sources. That does not constitute "a small handful of sources" by any means. Much of the content you argue in favor of keeping in other sections of this talk page can't be referenced to more than 5 reliable sources, so it's strange for you to suggest that material referenced to 25 reliable sources is undue.VR _talk 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

VR, you are making many strawman arguments.First of all, we are talking about the names "People's Struggler's" and "Holy Warriors". There aren't 25 reliable sources for these two names, so please stop repeating "25 sources", it's not true. Another strawman argument that you made was that this was these were the most common names before 1983, and it was also proven that this is not true. Ervand Abrahamian in his 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 they didn't. Another strawman argument you are making is saying that Iraniangal777 is "edit warring", when it has been you guys who keep trying to add (edit war) this. Once again, the section "Other names" is reserved for what is representative of most academic sources, and what you and Ghaazalch are trying to add are not even close to being in the WP:WEIGHT category. 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. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hogo, have you read the discussion in this section? In this edit I presented 25 sources. I count 25, how many do you count?

Second, this graph shows the name was most common before 1983. Do you dispute the validity of this graph? Third, no one said that "Mojahedin" wasn't common before 1983, only that it wasn't as common as the other names.

Third, you said "not even close to being in the WP:WEIGHT category". Ok, how many sources would you want to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT? Give me a number.VR _talk 04:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been gone over a dozen times - the Ngrams alone is perfectly reasonable rational for saying the name was used in the late 70s/early 80s - Wikipedia is a reference tool, so it should be providing these details; it is isn't, the partial content that remains is a disservice to its readers, and I really can't see a good reason for fighting this, bar WP:NOTHERE. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't go by "Ngrams", we go by WP:DUE reliable sources, and the reliable sources don't match what you are saying. The "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)", "Mujahedin-e khalq", "MEK", "MKO", and "People’s Mujahedin of Iran" is what is prevalent in academic sources as the group’s other names. Hogo-2020 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC: Shortening of section "Removal of designation"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although there is a numerical advantage towards support (5-3, with one favoring splitting the article), there is no consensus to trim the section. Many of the support arguments hinge on the section being long, while not strongly refuting the policy based issues brought up by the opposition. Slight edit to language, per discussion on my talk page ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

---

All of the active editors in this talk page seem to agree that the article needs shortening, and this RFC suggests shortening the section "Removal of designation".

To avoid confusion that we faced in some past discussions, this RFC consists of 3 separate sections:

1) Discussion

2) Shortening proposals

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why

Please add your comment, shortening proposal (if any), or vote in the relevant section. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC) My proposal shortens the section "Removal of designation" to 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph about the delisting by Luxembourg European Court and UK, the second paragraph about the delisting by EU and US, and the third paragraph about views of the delisting. If you have a different proposal, place it in the "Shortening proposals" section so that others can vote which proposal is best. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1) Discussion

• An RfC statement should provide a brief and neutral statement of the problem. Your statement is fairly brief and fairly neutral - but it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the problem. Did you read WP:RFCST? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have tried to better familiarise myself with RfCs. My proposal about shortening the section "Removal of designation" is provided in the section below ("Removal of designation" shortening proposal by Fad Ariff"). My proposal shortens the section to 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph about the delisting by Luxembourg European Court and UK, the second paragraph about the delisting by EU and US, and the third paragraph about views of the delisting. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Then this should be explained in the RfC statement itself, becauls people coming in cold (which is what happens when you fire off an RfC) must not be expected to dig around. But keep it within WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The question here is that why you are focusing on shortening this section, while there are other sections that are longer than this? As I said above 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. Vice regent had also previously commented on this: In order to determine which sections need the most trimming we have to consider two things: 1) how much coverage are we giving the topic and 2) how much coverage a topic receives in literature. Ghazaalch (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, we have to start somewhere. If you think there are other sections that need more attention, then the solution is to make a proposal about that. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• As VR pointed out below, we should trim the more POV sections, such as "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" and "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" etc. Also we should split out or summarize the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. By contrast the detailed history of MEK is covered in detail in most scholarly or comprehensive sources on the group. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• @Fad Ariff:Looking briefly through Membership, I would say that section needs a lot of cleaning up. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: VR's comment that Fad Ariff's proposal is a "violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:V" is erroneous.

• Claim about WP:NPOV vio: Having "Some former U.S. officials vehemently reject the new status and believe the MEK has not changed its ways" in the article would be the same as having "former U.S. officials vehemently support the new status and believe the MEK has changed its ways" - both scenarios involve junk content. This article is not a forum about what a group of people think or believe, it's an article about facts supported by academic consensus (or at least it should aim for that).
• Claim about WP:DUE vio: Fad Ariff's proposal condenses this information, it doesn't remove it.
• Claim about WP:V vio: The proposal doesn't imply "that the primary opposition is coming from Iran", it implies what it says: ""Others criticized the delisting, including Iran state television."

VR: if you would like the reduction of text to read differently, try instead making a proposal. Far Ariff's proposal is fine as is. Alex-h (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

2) Shortening proposals

• Split History Section - (summoned by bot) - I have no background on this subject or real interest, but my gut reaction looking at the page is that the history section could easily be split into History of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and then the history section on this article could be reduced to a couple paragraphs of summary. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• "Removal of designation" shortening proposal by Fad Ariff Fad Ariff (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"In 2008, the Luxembourg European Court of First Instance upheld that there was no justification for including the MEK in the EU terrorist list and freezing its funds. The Court then allowed an appeal to delist the MEK from the EU's terror list. An attempt by EU governments to maintain the MEK in the terror list was rejected by the European Court of Justice, with ambassadors of the 27 member states agreeing that the MEK should be removed from the EU terrorism list. The United Kingdom lifted the MEK's designation as a terrorist group in June 2008.

On 26 January 2009, the Council of the European Union also removed the group's terrorist designation, becoming the first organization to have been removed from the EU terror list. Delisting allowed the MEK to pursue tens of millions of dollars in frozen assets and lobby in Europe for more funds. It also removed the terrorist label from MEK members at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. On 28 September 2012, the U.S. State Department formally removed MEK from its official list of terrorist organizations following a decision by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and lastly in Canada on 20 December 2012.

The delisting came after years of lobbying efforts by the MEK. The group also gained the support of American officials, many of them paid to give speeches calling for delisting. Others criticized the delisting, including Iran state television. Clinton said in a statement that the decision was made because the MEK had renounced violence and had cooperated in closing their Iraqi paramilitary base."

Extended content
References

3) Votes: which proposal you support and why

• Support split history section. (bot summoned) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal by Fad Ariff because it shortens the section in a neutral way. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support split history section, as the most natural way to calve off perhaps a third of the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iskandar323: we should be starting the splitting out or summarizing the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. By contrast the detailed history of MEK is covered in detail in most scholarly or comprehensive sources on the group.VR _talk 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Well perhaps ... and as noted below, there is no roadmap for it anyway. Support struck. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Fad Ariff's proposal. The "Removal of designation" section doesn't need to be longer than three paragraphs covering the central points of the designation removal (Fad's proposal). About the "split of the history section", I would also support that in principle but that seems irrelevant to this RFC (and a roadmap for that split hasn't been laid out either). Alex-h (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• At first glance I do not support splitting the history section to merely "a couple paragraphs". The history of the MEK is probably the most WP:DUE part of this article. It is also the most neutral section and really we ought to be trimming more POV sections like "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" and "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" etc.VR _talk 16:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I do not support this kind of trimming either. Instead of cutting down the content we don't like, as VR pointed out above, we should trim the more POV sections, such as "Islamic Republic of Iran allegations against the MEK" and "Intelligence and misinformation campaign against the MEK" etc. Also we should split out or summarize the least DUE parts of this article. This includes fluff material that might only be found in one or two news article but is not really covered by scholarly sources. By contrast the detailed history of MEK is covered in detail in most scholarly or comprehensive sources on the group.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support the proposal from Fad Ariff as well since that section (and the article) would benefit from that kind of copy editing. The section "Terrorist designation" is one of the largest of the whole article (20,740), and doesn't need to be that long. I also do not support the splitting of the history section since that would create many WP:DUE problems. Hogo-2020 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal (by Fad Ariff) because the article sections need condensing and this section is very long. About the other proposal, I also do not support splitting the history section into "a couple of paragraphs".NMasiha (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Fad Ariff's proposal as a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:V:
  • WP:NPOV vio: The proposal presents itself as a "summarization" yet all it does it simply remove from the section information that is critical of MEK. This onesidedness is a violation of WP:NPOV. For example the proposal retains "the decision was made because the MEK had renounced violence" but removes "former U.S. officials vehemently reject the new status and believe the MEK has not changed its ways". It retains a lengthy list of those who supported the designation removal but the proposal omits the list of those who opposed it.
  • WP:DUE vio: Some of the information the proposal removes is sourced to multiple secondary sources. For example, MEK's paid speech campaign is mentioned by so many reliable sources, yet completely omitted from the proposal. Sources that say this include: Christian Science Monitor[32], The Guardian, U.S. News[33], Washington Post[34], this scholarly book (chapter written by professor or political science at University of Oklahoma) published by Routledge, this scholarly book (written by a professor at Penn State), and another scholarly book (published by Rowman & Littlefield) and this book (published by Taylor & Francis).
  • WP:V vio: Fad Ariff proposes "Others criticized the delisting, including Iran state television." This implies that the primary opposition is coming from Iran, which is not true. It was opposed by 30 scholars and diplomats inside the US[35] including Ervand Abrahamian who is the foremost scholarly source on the MEK, and the National Iranian American Council[36]. In fact, some sources have noted the opposite of what Fad Ariff implies, namely that many of those opposing MEK's de-designation as terrorists also opposed the Iranian regime: ("it goes without saying that neither of these press organs is typically amicably disposed toward the Iranian regime"[37]).VR _talk 03:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Fad Ariff's proposal per VR's rationale. There are clear NPOV and due weight issues in the proposed cut. Essentially all that the proposal does is omit all of the information about the MEK's lobbying efforts, despite the significant media coverage of it, and therefore does little except tendentiously tilt the content away from neutrality. It is basically selective censoring. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: per what I said above and that these kind Tendentious editings are aimed at omitting anti-MeK contents.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Fad Ariff's proposal Like Alex-h's says, I also don't see any violations or "tendentious editing" in this proposal. The three-paragraph summary for that section is absolutely fine. Iraniangal777 (talk) 05:04, 20 June 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.