Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 58

RFC, 25 February 2023
Should we include 1981 bombings in the lede? Yes or No? Ghazaalch (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently we have the following sentences related to the events of 1981 in lede:

Should we replace them with the following paragraph?
 * By 1981, authorities had banned the MEK and begun a major crackdown on the group's members and supporters, driving the organization underground.
 * In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état. Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers. As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982.
 * On June 20, 1981, the MEk organized a demonstration against Khomeini with the aim of overthrowing the regime, in which 50 demonstrators were killed. On June 28, the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party was blown up, allegedly by MEK, and more than 70 members of the leadership were killed.       Facing the subsequent repression of the MEK by the IRP, Rajavi fled to Paris.   During the exile, the underground network that remained in Iran continued to plan and carry out attacks  and it allegedly conducted the August 1981 bombing that killed Iran's president and prime minister, Rajai and Bahonar.

Survey, 25 February 2023

 * Yes the main events of the 1981 as attested by many scholarly sources are the Assassinations allegedly done by MEK, but there is no coverage of them in the lede. Of course, there are some sources that mention other suspects besides the MEK, but most of the sources consider MEK responsible for the bombings. Fad Ariff objected above (see 1981 events in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)) that it should not be stated as fact, that is why I used the word "allegedly" in my proposal. I hope it is okay now.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No. The lead's original version is a more accurate review of the academic literature and the article's sections. Also cherrypicked allegations is not something for the lead. Looking at those pages about the bombings for example the only things that seem beyond doubt is that "Khomeini blamed the MEK, which didn't take credit but also never denied responsibility", and that the bombings "were shocking displays of the regime's faulty security and infiltration by foes". The sources in those articles also attest that "It is possible, as Claude Van England notes, that those who planted the bombs were assisted by the Mujaahideen though they were not actually members of the organization. Much of the expertise involved was thus not necessarily that of the old Mujahideen, but may have been the product of collective efforts with other opponents of the regime." Also that "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombing may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, including current iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rasanjani, to rid themselves of rivals with the IRP" Abrahamian also says "Even now it is not clear who planted the bomb", and that "SAVAK", "the Iraqi regime", "the Mojahedin", "Iraqi agents", "Mehdi Tafari", "royalist army officers" were all either charged or accused.  Another source also attests that "the bomb explosion in Tehran on 30 August 1981 - which killed Muhammad Ali Rajai, the newly elected president of the IRI, as well as prime minister Muhammad Javad Bahunar - was attributed to the United States and its local agents." We also already had a conclusive RFC about part of what Ghazaalch wants to remove from the lead a few months ago. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the key words in those statements are 'possible' and 'speculation' - you are transparently avoiding the sources that assign blame in no such uncertain times, e.g.:, . That alternative postulations exist does not detract from the mainstream narrative, and frankly, given the number of sources fingering the MEK for this particular bombing, it's a bit ridiculous. If the IRP wanted to make a scene with a, sigh, false flag operation, it hardy need to blow up 70 of its own members to do so. Again, speculation. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, there are many scholarly sources that say the bombings are done by MEK, how many scholarly sources say that they are not? Nothing. If you can't find a similar number of scholarly sources that deny the allegation, then your argument amounts to WP:FALSEBALANCE. As Iskandar323 said, you are trying to cherrypick some speculations from some sources that if you look into them you'll find that those speculations are not even the authors' view. The last quote for example starts with "according to ..." which you preferred to cut it from your quotation. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, your proposal acknowledges that all this finger pointing largely consists of only allegations, yet your proposal wants to remove verified content from the lead and replace it with allegations. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes LEAD: the lead section should be a summary of most important contents of the article. The 1981 bombings are among the most important contents of this article and contain a large section called Assassination. The current version of the lede is biased because it keep repeating that Islamic Republic of Iran banned and executed members of MEK because of a peaceful demonstration.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion, 25 February 2023
Hello. I am agree with your edit here, however since part of the lede you changed is under an RFC, I guess you should revert the part, but you could put your vote concerning changing the whole lede in above RFCs. Thank you. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Rajavi's "ideological revolution" in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)
Currently there is no information about Rajavi's "ideological revolution" in the lede. I suggest changing the fourth paragraph of the lede from:
 * In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq following a meeting between Massoud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz.  In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris, so in response, it re-established its base in Iraq. The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic. It was involved in Operation Mersad,  Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun    and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.  Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to support the MEK.

to:
 * In 1985, Rajavi launched an "ideological revolution" banning marriage and enforced divorce on all members who were required to separate from their spouses. He married one of the new divorcees, Maryam Azdanlou, who became his senior lieutenant.  In 1986 when France expelled the MEK from the country, it located in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran. In 1987, MEK sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War; a decision that caused it to lose support within Iran.  It took part in Operation Mersad,  Operation Forty Stars, operation Shining Sun    and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.  Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of the prisoners said to support the MEK.

Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we could do the replacement. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that there are no objections, I will implement the new proposal. Do you have any comments? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many different things to consider about the ideological revolution. Why would you choose something about "divorces" specifically for the lead? Also why would you remove "so in response, it re-established its base in Iraq" from the lead? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there is currently no information about the current MEK leader and the way she became the leader, in the Lede. If you have no other objection I will implement the changes. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed either one of my objections. If you want to put material about the ideological revolution in the lead, why not add for example that "For MEK members, the marriage between Massoud and Maryam Rajavi became a platform for women to challenge forced marriages." ? Also why would you remove "so in response, it re-established its base in Iraq" from the lead? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because what I proposed is a fact and what you propose is an opinion. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First, Shirin Saeidi’s passage is not an opinion. Second, you are attempting to remove from the lead review of the academic literature with cherry picking. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Shirin Saeidi’s passage is Cherrypicking because it is not supported by mainstream sources about MEK. Ali Ahwazi's addition, in contrary, is supported by multiple academic sources written by subject matter experts.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC, 30 March 2023
Should we add some information about Maryam Rajavi, and the way she became a leader of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran to the lede? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To add the information about Maryam Rajavi, I suggest changing the fourth paragraph of the lede from:


 * In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq following a meeting between Massoud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz.  In 1986, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) requested France to expel the MEK from its base in Paris, so in response, it re-established its base in Iraq. The MEK then sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war taking part in several operations against the Islamic Republic. It was involved in Operation Mersad,  Operation Forty Stars, Operation Shining Sun    and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.  Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of thousands of political prisoners said to support the MEK.

to: Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In 1985, Rajavi launched an "ideological revolution" banning marriage and enforced divorce on all members who were required to separate from their spouses. He married one of the new divorcees, Maryam Azdanlou, who became his senior lieutenant.  In 1986 when France expelled the MEK from the country, it located in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf near the border with Iran. In 1987, MEK sided with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War; a decision that caused it to lose support within Iran.  It took part in Operation Mersad,  Operation Forty Stars, operation Shining Sun    and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.  Following Operation Mersad, Iranian officials ordered the execution of the prisoners said to support the MEK.

Survey, 30 March 2023
Yes. Because currently there is no information about Maryam Rajavi as a leader of the People's Mojahedin-e Khalq, and the way she became the leader, in the Lede. Note that I condensed the old information of the paragraph a bit to make more room for new information. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are a variety of problems with this RFC. First, the MEK has two current leaders, not one. Second, Ali Ahwazi’s proposal doesn’t address his own RFC question and instead cherry picks a small aspect of a very complicated ideological revolution. These problems were mentioned in the above discussion, where Ali Ahwazi proposes to replace review of the academic literature with cherry picking. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, I fixed the first problem for Ali Ahwazi. I do not understand the second. What you mean by Ali Ahwazi’s proposal doesn’t address his own RFC question? Ghazaalch (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ghazaalch the RFC question suggests that we should replace some (indisputable) material with some information about how Maryam Rajavi became a leader of this group. Although something like 'Maryam Rajavi was a candidate for the parliamentary elections in Tehran in 1980, and was elected as the Mojahedin's joint-leader in 1985, later becoming the Secretary General of the organization' would be a suitable proposal for this, Ali Ahwazi's proposal is the usual WP:COATRACKing with no context. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ali Ahwazi's proposal is not a replacement, but it is an addition. And as you see, nothing important has been removed from the lede. Now tell me what is disputed about adding some information about Rajavi's ideological revolution and the way he turned the MEK from an active political group into a Cult of personality? there are at least two sections concerning these changes in the main body of the article. Why shouldn't we have a bit of them in the lede?Ghazaalch (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Follows-up RFC

 * Hello, some RFCs like the one above were only objected by users like Fad Ariff and Iraniangal777 who were blocked later. Could we implement the changes they objected into article or should we open new discussions? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say implement them and see if there's any other objections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

VF
since you removed ‘verification fail’ from the sources  and , can you show how those sources support those statements? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "The MeK carried out a number of violent attacks on a range of Iranian government and Western targets that it deemed to be supportive of the Shah." That is only cited to RAND, so why are you stating it as fact? But I think the main problems here are about the Assassination of Paul R. Shaffer and John H. Turner, for example, which are attributed to: Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, who confessed to the killing and later was executed. What about the U.S. civilians killed in 1976 as well as Harold Price or Lewis Lee Hawkins? The article is saying that despite Vahid Afrakhteh and Bahram Aram confessing to the killings of Americans, some sources have nevertheless attributed the assassinations to the MEK. Why are you overlooking that information? Also nobody has commented on the pending challenge concerning WP:V in Piazza 1994 and Abrahamian 1982. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except it's not just cited to RAND, is it? Because RAND in turn cites Slavin and Abrahamian, which anyone can see if they take but a few seconds to look at the footnotes. And yes, the footnote expands that the MEK has claimed that it wasn't responsible (as per usual), and has tried to shift the blame elsewhere, but, as always, MEK denials are just MEK denials. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But wait, the sources in Lewis Lee Hawkins, Assassination of Paul R. Shaffer and John H. Turner, and in this article show that the people who confessed to these assassinations were part of a different group. Why would you ignore that? ParadaJulio (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of those pages are start-class and clearly have major problems. Peykar only became Peykar in 1978, and the split between the two MEK splinters only occurred in October 1975 - that's on the Peykar page - so later. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Those pages don't have "major problems", and the schism separating the group into a Marxist camp and a Muslim camp started in 1973 (that's on the MEK page), with its official announcement in 1975 . Those who were charged and executed for these assassinations belonged to the Marxist camp (rival of the MEK). It's clearly said in the citations of those articles. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, so you agree it started splitting on 1973, but only actually split on October 1975, i.e.: up until that point, the same. It doesn't matter what 'camp' of MEK they were in; they were still in MEK at that point. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle" "This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity" "This led to two rival Mojahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities" "The new group was known initially as the Mojahedin M.L. (Marxist–Leninist). A few months before the Iranian Revolution, the majority of the Marxist Mojahedin renamed themselves Peykar"  . The information in the article makes it clear that the Mojahedin M.L. (Marxist–Leninist), as it became known in 1973, is not the same group as the Muslim MEK (the subject of the page). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read again: it "led to" two rival groups - yes, separate groups, from October 1975, when they actually split. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:HUH? By 1973, the new group was called the Mojahedin M.L. (Marxist–Leninist), and by 1975 the same group was called Peykar (read also the Peykar page: "Originating in 1972 and officially founded in 1975, by the early 1980s Peykar was no longer considered active." . Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Founded in 1975..." - that this needs explaining over and over again just raises WP:CIR issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:HUH?? "By 1973, the new group was called the Mojahedin M.L. (Marxist–Leninist)". Sources are saying that the members of the Mojahedin M.L. (Marxist–Leninist) were the ones charged for this. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It helps when you read full sentences. By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle". N.B. "internal". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Read the full sentence if you prefer, it still doesn't change the fact that this was attributed to members of Marxist Mojahedin, a group that broke away from the MEK and became the MEK's rival. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * why have you not replied about removing the ‘verification fail’ from the sources  and ? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of the lead
These are the last two paragraph of the lede:

In 2002, the MEK was a source for claims about the nuclear program of Iran. Following the occupation of Iraq by U.S.-led coalition forces in 2003, the MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf. The European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan have previously listed the MEK as a terrorist organization. The MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran and Iraq.

In June 2004, the U.S. designated MEK members in Camp Ashraf ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War  which expired in 2009 after the attainment of the full sovereignty of Iraq. Its critics have described the group as "resembling a cult",  while its backers describe the group as proponents of "a free and democratic Iran" that could become the next government there.

I'm going to merge them as bellow and add some context:

In April 1992, MEK carried out attacks against Iranian embassies in 13 countries. since 1997, MeK was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and many other countries. Following the occupation of Iraq by U.S.-led coalition forces in 2003, the U.S. did not hand over MEK fighters to Iran. Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney argued that the MEK should be used against Iran. In June 2004, Donald Rumsfeld designated the MeK as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since 2009, when the Iraqi government became openly hostile to MEK, the U.S. led efforts to get the group's members out of Iraq. At the same time the MEK paid Western political influencers to lobby for its removal from the list of designated terrorist organizations. After it was no longer designated as a terrorist group, the US was able to convince Albania to accept the remaining 2,700 members who were brought to Tirana between 2014 and 2016.

Any comment? Ghazaalch (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This proposal provides the readers with more information, especially about the recent history of the Mojahedin-e Khalgh, and should replace the existing information.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , do you see any problem with this? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to remove that the MEK was a source for the nuclear program of Iran, or about its cease-fire agreement in 2003, or that its terrorist designation was removed by all the Western countries? And why would you want to add instead that the U.S. did not hand over MEK to the I.R., or that Cheney argued that it should be used as a proxy against the I.R.? Your proposal also has copyright violations, but balancing any form of neutrality seems to be the worst part. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You have to admit that the current two paragraphs are consisting of some irrelevant sentences with no context. What I did was to provide the contexts for readers who don't know, for example, why America signed a ceasefire with a terrorist group. Adding the context to an already long article, requires us to condense or remove the information that are not very important, such as the information about MEK being the source of claims about Iran's nuclear program, etc. Nevertheless, to address your objections, I have modified the above proposal as follows:

In April 1992, MEK carried out attacks against Iranian embassies in 13 countries. Periodic attacks on Iranian targets continued until May 2003, but ended during the US-led invasion of Iraq,  when Coalition aircraft bombed MEK bases. The leadership of MEK ordered its members not to resist. Then U.S. forces signed a ceasefire with the group that the US had designated as a terrorist organization in 1997. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the MEK should be treated as a terrorist group, but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney argued that the MEK should be used against Iran. In June 2004, Donald Rumsfeld designated MEK as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. By 2009, when the Iraqi government became hostile to MEK, the United States led efforts to get the group's members out of Iraq. At the same time the MEK paid Western political influencers to lobby for its removal from the list of designated terrorist organizations. After it was no longer designated as a terrorist group, the US was able to convince Albania to accept the remaining 2,700 members who were brought to Tirana between 2014 and 2016.

, Do you see any problem with this new proposal? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Do you see any problem with this new proposal?Ghazaalch (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, fundamentally a WP:POVFORK problem. I'll be more specific after I've addressed your other recent edits with similar problems. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * can you explain how WP:POVFORK apply here? could you name other POVs that are not included in this proposal? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You say you "provide the contexts for readers who don't know" but instead you're trying to remove any established neutrality from the lead and replace it with cherrypicks. The attacks on Iranian embassies derived from attacks on the Mojahedin, but you don't say anything about the last part. Likewise, the attacks against the I.R. were about a power struggle between the two. Also the reasons why the MEK was removed from the terrorist lists is incorrect ("Secretary of State 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.") You're still removing that the MEK was a source about the nuclear program of Iran, or that most of the countries that had previously listed it as a terrorist organization no longer do. Your edits also still contain a lot of copyright violations, and having to explain all these things to you each time is a huge WP:TIMESINK. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What one politician says is not the reason why something was done. Four sources support the notion that the MEK's delisting was linked to lobbying, and, given that the only reason that almost anything gets done in US politics is due to lobbying efforts, this is hardly surprising. Washington is basically one big laundromat for lobby money. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to add the parts that didn't object to above, but he reverted them too. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * since the only user who objected this proposal was blocked, I am restoring the changes. Feel free to summarize or modify it. Ghazaalch (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of Literal translation of "Mujahedin-e-Khalq"(WP:RFCBEFORE)
why did you delete the literal translation of Mojahedin-e khalq? Ghazaalch (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * see this post by User:Hogo-2020, and this report by  User:Iraniangal777. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am restoring a discussion here by Vice regent:

Here are 25 sources that use the two English translations for MEK: 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)
 * "People Strugglers":
 * "Holy Warriors": , Government of Canada, United States Department of the Treasury, NPR, LA Times, The Intercept, Carnegie Council, Slate, The Guardian, WSJ, NBC News, CBC News, Washington Post.
 * Fad Ariff, if you do not give me a reasonable explanation for the revert, I would restore it. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ghazaalch, once again, your addition 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),’ is far off from being in that 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) 11:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:WEIGHT about excluding information (here a simple literal translation) altogether just because you just don't like it. There are more than enough sources using this term to justify a three-word mention. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No more objections? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT like Hogo is saying. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Parroting policy is not the same thing as explaining how it applies. WP:ALTNAME says nothing about ignoring alt names. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, as I said above this is about adding a literal translation for MEK's original/Persian name, and it is quite often in articles like this.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How on Earth the English translations, as used by at least 25 reliable sources, included several academic sources are not due weight? Of course they are due weight. MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * there currently is a RFC where I was placed my vote explaining my perspective about this. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I started the RFC when you failed to give a satisfying response here. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)