Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

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)

References

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).[15] 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 [16][17][18]). That content was then modified by other editors, and then you restored that content again to the article on January 25([19]) 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[20]); 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."[21] 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."[22] 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".[23] 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)

MEK killed between 1981 to 1982

@Iskandar323: Why the revert?[24] "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)

References

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)

"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([25]) and expanding on the second part([26][27]). 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)

Ghazaalch you are personalising the discussion. I answered your question, but still have not answered 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) 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References