Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 59

More unexplained reverts by Fad Ariff
You reverted another edit by Ghazaalch and me and wrote see talk page in your edit summary. There is no explanation on the talk page. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See VF discussion. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any explanation there. Please explain what is wrong with adding Its members killed several US military personnel and civilian contractors in the 1970s and supported the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. to the lede?


 * Also, why did you change MEK assailants to men while the source says "MEK assailants" not "men"? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read it again. There is a lot of material there attributing that to the Mojahedin M.L. (Marxist–Leninist). And support for the seizure of the US embassy in 1979 is not something for the lead, particularly considering the group itself denies it. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many sources that talk about assassinations carried out by MEK, it doesn't matter if they were Islamist MEK or Marxist-Leninist MEK, because, as Iskandar323 pointed out, until 1978 they were two branches of the same organization. See page 163 of Abrahamian's book where he entitled one of the sections of his book "Two Mojahedins (1975-8)"
 * Now explain what is wrong with adding Its members killed several US military personnel and civilian contractors in the 1970s and supported the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. to the lede?
 * Also explain, why did you change MEK assailants to men while the source says "MEK assailants" not "men"? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it appears that the MEK officially split in October 1975, which I suppose the Abrahamian chapter heading above also aligns with - confirming that there was no split (other than ideological) prior to that. The key point is that all of the notable assassinations of American personnel and contractors also occurred prior to October 1975. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at this other chat I already had with Iskandar323. When I suggested we resolve this with WP:3O, Iskandar323 stopped replying. The sources are crystal clear about what happened between the Marxist and the Muslim Mojahedin, and also about when these things started to happen. Would you be willing to participate at WP:3O? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC, Literal translation of Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)
Should we include the literal translation of Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) in the article? Yes or No? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
I suggest putting a parenthesis in front of "Mojahedin-e-Khalq" in the Other names section and add the following green material inside it:
 * Mojahedin-e Khalq

Survey
Yes, As discussed above, it is often necessary to include a literal translation for the article titles that are not originally in English, but there has been stonewalling. These are some other sourses for above proposal:
 * "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.

Ghazaalch (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - Is this really contentious? It's useful, well sourced information.  Of course it should be included.  Heck, I'd consider it vandalism to remove, given the sources provided. Fieari (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes - not really controversial and never really should have been. Just well-worn translations. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No - These are not "literal" translations, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING are the main problems with Ghazaalch's proposal. The group's name is already translated into English throughout the page. Actually one of the main books used in the page summarizes it as "Mojahedin-e khalq (the Persian translation of People's Mojahedin)" . Ghazaalch is cherrypicking some translations and trying to add them as official translations in a section reserved for WP:ALTNAMES, but these aren't official (or even WP:DUE) translations. Newcomers should look at this analysis where the academic literature was rigorously reviewed and where this same conclusion was reached. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify your objection, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "People's Mojahedin" isn't a translation because Mojahedin isn't English, so that literally can't be the "real" translation. And how can all the references given above be cherrypicking when those are all mainstream well established WP:RS? Fieari (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you see the links? "Mojahedin" (Mujahideen, Mujahidin, etc.) has many definitions. In some cases, "A mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد mujāhid) is one who struggles for the sake of Allah and Islam. The literal meaning of "Mujahid" is "struggler" or "striver" and common in Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian names. The plural form of mujāhid is mujāhidūn in standard Arabic but the colloquial or dialectal form mujāhidīn (alternately spelled mujahideen) is more frequently encountered." In other cases, it's defined as "warrior, fighter, contender, combatant, struggler, striver". below linked the Mujahideen page with more definitions and translations (all established from WP:RS consensus). And Mojahedin (Mujahideen, etc.) is the only word that this RFC is meant to translate since the rest of it is already in  ("  "). There are so many sources providing different spellings, variants, and translations of those variants, that it would be inaccurate to declare that there is a "literal" or "official" translation or meaning of the word. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because that's their official name doesn't mean it's "in English", and the literal translations are what they are because they are present in reliable sources. Generic meanings of Mujahideen are not the subject here. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No:
 * In the last discussion we had about this, Ghazaalch and Vice regent were claiming that "People’s Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors" should be added to the group's alternative names using these same sources. Ghazaalch now changed the approach saying that these are "literal translations" of the group's name, but the problem with that is that they're not. Fundamentally, "People’s Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors" are two completely different interpretations, so they both cannot be the same literal translation of the same name. Even Ghazaalch's sources vary about this:
 * Mujahideen-e Khalq (the People's Strugglers)
 * Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (People's Strugglers of Iran)
 * the People's Strugglers of Iran (Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran - known heneforth as MEK)
 * Mujahidin-i Khalq (Holy Warriors for the People")
 * The Mujahedine Khalq (MEK; People's Holy Warriors)
 * Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors)
 * If "People Strugglers" or "Holy Warriors" were the common (or literal) translations, then this would be clear in the literature, but the most common translation of Mojahedin-e-Khalq is People’s Mujahedin of Iran, and there are plenty sources in the article that corroborate this. Hogo-2020 (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the list of sources provided are not reliable sources? It's not uncommon for translations to vary, as translation is not an exact science-- it has to go through interpretation.  I am not surprised at all that there are multiple possible translations of it.  Typically, when multiple translations are in common use, we include them all.  There certainly do seem to be a lot of sources using these translations of the name, suggesting they are in common use. Fieari (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Translations to English as used in several reliable sources, including academic sources, belong to the article and are due weight. Wikipedia has no obligation to conform to the NCRI branding guide for English publications. MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is confusing. Why vote in this rfc and then remove the entire section about other names in the article? Iraniangal777 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the section, I restructured it. I explained my rationale in edit summaries and in . This does not change my !vote to this RFC, which can still apply to the lede or a footnote. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
The title of the article is "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran", which is already translated into English except for the word "Mojahedin". Mojahedin-e-Khalq is only an alt name. "Mojahedin", or Mujahideen, is already analysed in the Mujahideen page. Why not just link that somewhere in this page? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mojahedin-e-Khalq is a Farsi/Arabic name and there is no literal translation for it in the article. Even if it is an alt name as you say, there should be no problem adding it to the "other names" section. Ghazaalch (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mojahedin-e khalq (the Persian translation of People's Mojahedin) That solves it as well. Ghazaalch, cherrypicking translations of alternative names that aren't considered alternative names creates WP:POVFORK problems. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We usually translate from the original name and the original name is "Mojahedin-e-Khalq". Just because you have found a source that did it the other way around, it doesn't mean we have to do the same.Ghazaalch (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff, What does this have to do with POVFORK?VR talk 14:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (Invited by the bot) May I suggest you state and explain the proposal briefly and exactly and then separate your other discussion etc. as a part of your response.  The way that it is structured now I don't think that you'll et much feedback.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, see if this is better now? Ghazaalch (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The most common name is, once again and as always, irrelevant to the discussion of alt names. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Workshop, Maryam Rajavi's divorce and marriage
Following the suggestion from User:Vanamonde93, the content about Maryam Rajavi’s divorce and marriage needs more workshop before going for a RFC. I suggest it be more balanced with other material, like this:

What are your objections or suggestions? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will prepare my proposal in a few days.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is stupid euphemism, and we don't entertain euphemism. Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi quite clearly divorced so that Massoud Rajavi could marry her (and it wasn't 'recently divorced'; they divorced and re-married more or less instantaneously). Maybe "facilitate the ideological revolution" is meant to be some sort of sexual euphemism, but, again, WP:EUPHEMISM. The only real "unjust organization order" in the sordid tale of the MEK was the prohibition on relationships between members following the "ideological revolution" while Massoud married Maryam - which again ... "act of supreme sacrifice" ... pfft - if we're going to include any crap like this then we also need to properly contextualize it and expand on the criticism, which I imagine calls this out as the weird and frankly creepy propagandistic bullshit that it all is. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The new version sounds cult-ish. Is the new version really better supported by sources more than the previous one? I would be very surprised. MarioGom (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Another unexplained revert by Fad Ariff
, explain why you deleted this sources? Ghazaalch (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * my revert was explained in my edit summary, so please stop with the defamatory titles. You placed three sources after "Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."", but I cannot see how those sources can be used to support that quote or even make that paragraph more proportionate (I pinged you about this in the above section). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You also removed Many criticized Maryam Azodanlu's giving up her own maiden name (something most Iranian women did not do and she herself had not done in her previous marriage). They would question whether this was in line with her claims of being a staunch feminist.. Are you objecting that addition too? MarioGom (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That material is still in the article. I'm objecting that the full paragraph is made up of cherrypicked lines cited only to Abrahamian. Don't you think it should be more WP:BALANCED with other POV (even from Abrahamian or other authors)? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Replacing one-sourced material with another text with four sources
, I replaced the one-sourced material with another text which has 4 sources. I hope you are satisfied now. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The old text
Five weeks later, the MEK announced that its Politburo and Central Committee had asked Rajavi and Azondalu, who was already married, to marry one another to deepen and pave the way for the "ideological revolution. At the time Maryam Azodanlu was known as only the younger sister of a veteran member, and the wife of Mehdi Abrishamchi. According to the announcement, Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had recently divorced in order to facilitate this 'great revolution'. According to Ervand Abrahamian "in the eyes of traditionalists, particularly among the bazaar middle class, the whole incident was indecent. It smacked of wife-swapping, especially when Abrishamchi announced his own marriage to Khiabani's younger sister. It involved women with young children and wives of close friends – a taboo in traditional Iranian culture;" something that further isolated the Mojahedin and also upset some members of the organization. Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."

The new text
During the "ideological revolution" Rajavi forbade marriage and mandated "eternal" divorce for all members, who had to divorce their spouses or wives. He married one of the new divorcees, Maryam Azodanlu. Rajavi declared in 1985 that he had chosen Maryam Azodanlu, the spouse of his close friend Mehdi Abrishamchi, to serve as co-leader of the MeK. Soon after, she would divorce her husband and wed Rajavi. They would work together to start a new "ideological revolution" that would eventually turn the MeK into a cult. According to Cohen, Rajavi needed five days to persuade the Neshest's members to agree to his key revolutionary demand—that they divorce their spouses. Cohen continues to write that Rajavi wanted to make sure that members' sexual identities would be suppressed in order to win their total loyalty to him as their leader. In February 1985, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi exchanged vows. An intellectual justification was presented to the audience: "Maryam chose to divorce her husband in favour of her marriage to the Mojahedin's ideological leader so that she could work with him as cooperating leading partners." According to Abrahamian, the Mojahedin had transformed from a populist movement into an exclusive sect that resembled religious cults around the globe in many ways. With Rajavi's recent marriage, this change quickly crystallised in the beginning of 1985.Until that point, Mojahedin activists had only known Maryam Azodanlu as the spouse of Rajavi's close friend Mehdi Abrishamchi and the younger sister of a veteran member.In order to clear the way for this "great revolution," the declaration also revealed, almost casually, that Maryam Azodanlu and Mehdi Abrishamchi had just divorced.When Abrishamchi announced his own engagement to Khiabani's younger sister, it strongly reeked of wife swapping.
 * , the objective was to make that paragraph more WP:BALANCED with other views and context, and you expanded using the same types of views. I'm reverting your edits to the original stable version and starting another proposal.  Fad Ariff (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * whose objective was that? Just you? Iskandar323 called your proposed addition a "bizarre inversion of the material as it is presented in the actual source" and MarioGom called it "cult-ish". And the policies say: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. If you do not give an acceptable explanation for your reverts I would restore them. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , please calm down. My objection to the current material in that paragraph is WP:Balance problem, and I also think your version was not neutral. If my proposal has not been approved, I will make another one (like I said in my last comment). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I warn you to stop deleting other people's verified additions to this article. This article is about a cult-like militant opposition group that has carried out many assassinations and has been designated as a terrorist organization by almost all countries for years. So it is obvious that you can find a lot of negatives and few positives in the goup's history. Now, does WP:Balance and Neutral point of view mean we should use the negatives and positives in this article equally, or should we look into the mainstream sources? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I almost have the new proposal ready. I have been checking through the sources you added to that material, but cannot understand how they support "Also according to Ervand Abrahamian, "the incident was equally outrageous in the eyes of the secularists, especially among the modern intelligentsia. It projected onto the public arena a matter that should have been treated as a private issue between two individuals."". Please provide quotes or precise page numbers. For example the Guardian article says that "Rajavi launched an "ideological revolution", banning marriage and enforcing mandatory "eternal" divorce on all members" but does not subscribe to Abrahamian's quote or view (that the incident was seen as "outrageous" in the eyes of secularists or that it should have been treated as "private"). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * we are talking about the new text that I quoted above. Please explain why did you revert it? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * you have changed the arrangement of this discussion, perhaps to avoid the question? I am asking you how the sources you added support the quote where you added them. I am waiting for your answer. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You deleted three sources from the end of the old text. I asked why, and you explained above that the three new sources did not support the quotation given by Abrahamian. To fix the issue, I scattered the three sources inlines of the paragraph, and changed the old text to fit the sources. But you reverted this changes too. I asked you why, and you thought (pretended?) that I am talking about the old revert not the new one (revert of The new text). That is why I quoted Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran above in order for you to see it clearly. So please explain why did you revert The new text? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * what you say is not true. I reverted three sources you added to the article and then asked you how those sources are relevant to the quote where you added them. You don't seem to want to answer this which indicates that those sources were not relevant to that quote. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I summarized the new text as bellow. Do you see any problem with putting it with in the place of the old text? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * During the "ideological revolution" Rajavi forbade marriage and mandated "eternal" divorce for all members, who had to divorce their wives. He married one of the new divorcees, Maryam Azodanlu. Rajavi declared in 1985 that he had chosen Maryam Azodanlu, the spouse of his close friend Mehdi Abrishamchi, to serve as co-leader of the MeK. According to Ervand Abrahamian, when Abrishamchi announced his own engagement to Khiabani's younger sister, it strongly reeked of wife swapping. persuading members to divorce their spouses, Cohen believes, Rajavi wanted to make sure that members' sexual identities would be suppressed in order to win their total loyalty to him as their leader. The justification concerning Rajavi's marriage with Maryam Azodanlu was that "Maryam chose to divorce her husband in favour of her marriage to the Mojahedin's ideological leader so that she could work with him as cooperating leading partners." According to Abrahamian, with Rajavi's recent marriage the Mojahedin had transformed from a populist movement into an exclusive sect that resembled religious cults around the globe in many ways.
 * , should I restore this modified version? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , Due to the reasons mentioned previously, I still stand by my proposal. However, I suggest we hold off on making any decisions until we have addressed the other many outstanding issues on this talk page. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Documentary films section
sections looks too long and trivial for the main article, and there is a good in-depth list at List of works about the People's Mujahedin of Iran. I think this section in the main article should either be removed, or replaced by a short prose summary and a Main link to the full list. What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The material already looks fairly duplicative, since it's already been copied to the list. More generally, the sourcing quality is terrible. Many of these documentaries are of extremely questionable notability, having only poorly referenced fa.wiki pages, or references to marginal quality sources at this end - so yes, I am all for a trimming of the material on the page here. Only a handful look good. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would keep the entries, or a mention of the entries, supported by the Lesch book source, those with en.wiki main article links, and possibly, though not too fussed, the ones with Tehran Times & Mehr news links, i.e.: Cyanide and Mina's choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it would also help reduce article length. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ . Feel free to improve or expand the summary. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I am skeptical about the edits made by some users who tend to remove the parts that are critical of MEK.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained Revert of attacks on 13 Iranian embassies
, why you did delete this information from the lede? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , read WP:ES, and then the edit summary (Rv Ghazaalch. This is not "new information".), and then in the article "In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10 Iranian embassies including the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York using different weapons, taking hostages, and injuring Iranian ambassadors and embassy employees. There were dozens of arrests.". Fad Ariff (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're just trying to justify your reverts by listing some irrelevant Wikipedia policy. The content you quoted belongs to the main body of the article. What I did was to add a summary of the material to the Lede. So please explain why you reverted it. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * calm down. You said that my revert was not explained, and I’m just showing you that it was. Just because some content is in the body, it doesn’t mean it needs to go in the lead. You have been editing this article long enough to know that. You are making many edits, and many of those are nonconstructive, and it makes things very difficult to maintain order. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When I proposed adding the material to the article above, you objected that I should have included MEK's view as well, that say attacks on Iranian embassies derived from attacks on the Mojahedin that is why I included a note explaining MEK's view/response, also Iran's view/response to the the attacks. Now you are objecting that attacks on 13 Iranian embassies is not significant enough to go to the lede. Can you explain what makes it insignificant? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * where did I say this was "insignificant"? What I said was that just because some content is in the body, it doesn't mean it needs to go in the lead. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So if you agree that the material is significant enough to go to the lede, what made you to delete it from the lede?Ghazaalch (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am waiting for your response. Your silence shows that I should restore the following part to the lede? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10/13 Iranian embassies including the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York.
 * which part of my last remark did you not understand? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NINJA changes in the lead
why did you delete this information from the lead which said that "In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq following a meeting between Massoud Rajavi and Tariq Aziz."? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Umm ... I didn't? As that's a key detail. I just shortened it to "In 1983, the MEK allied with Iraq..." Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't just shorten it, you changed it to something that is not supported in the sources. The sources don't say that the MEK allied with Iraq in 1983, they say that a 1983 meeting between Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tarqi Aziz and Massoud Rajavi was considered "ties", but not an alliance between the country and the group. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What fresh nonsense is this? I changed it from "alliance" to the synonymous "allied". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems you have an objection to content that was already present before the edit you cited. It is not clear if you're objecting to anything about this particular edit. MarioGom (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the sources say "ties" and not "alliance", I think that's a noteworthy distinction. I have copyedited the lead in a way I think better represents the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the mainstream sources say "alliance" and not "ties", cherry-picking a text that say "ties" is not accepted. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fad Ariff: "started ties with" is illiterate English - please think of a better phrasing that satisfies your peccadillos in this area. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article already had "alliance" before the edit:
 * Before: In 1983, the MEK started an alliance with Iraq
 * After: In 1983, the MEK allied with Iraq,
 * I understand you're objecting to such content, but that has nothing to do with the edit you cited, WP:NINJA, or anything remotely close. So let's stop this. Please. MarioGom (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * the "MEK was founded by a group of students that opposed the Shah" duely represents what's in the page and also the sources, but you seem to have changed it to represent a standalone source? Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dude, where? At least include a diff of what you're talking about. We're not all psychic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely unrelated to the edit discussed in this thread. MarioGom (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

And to other sections
The article has experienced a significant increase in the removal of content, and this removal appears to lack clear substantiation or justification. I have reverted numerous changes back to the longstanding text. For example there is no good reason to change the short description from "opposition group" to "dissident group". Also I don't see a good reason to change the description of "political" party to a "militant organization". I would be glad to address any other reverts if you can provide a reason for implementing them. It's important to have a clear understanding of the rationale behind proposed changes in order to engage in productive discussions and make informed decisions about the content. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which change you are referring to, since the claims are pretty broad. But if you are thinking about any of my recent changes, I tend to give fairly detailed edit summaries. Let me know if you have any objection or suggestion about any particular change. Note that you should not mass revert by default. If the change has an explanation (even in an edit summary) it is up to you to give some substantiation for the revert. MarioGom (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My arguments were specific and focused. For instance, the removal of numerous reliable book citations has caused a chaotic situation in the reference section with missing citations. While I agree with the removal of redundant sources (and did not touch those edits), the absence of citations (like Katzaman or Abrahamian) has created a mess. Additionally, the change from "political" to "militant" group in the infobox does not align with most sources that describe the MEK as a political group rather than a militant one. I attempted to implement your suggested changes to revert the infobox to its original "political" designation, but the format did not allow for it, so I had to restore the original infobox. If you wish to make changes to it, please refrain from altering the designation.
 * Furthermore, I don't understand the reason behind wanting to reduce the list of leadership. By the way, I do agree with changing the location to Camp Ashraf 3. Regarding the removal of Brigadier General David Phillips' claims, I disagree. He held the position of senior US military police commander responsible for the Camp Ashraf area, and therefore, his claims carry weight in this context.
 * I do acknowledge that some of your edits were acceptable, particularly those concerning membership and the Camp Ashraf attacks. I agree with those changes, so I did not revert them.
 * I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussions regarding objections or suggestions. However, it is crucial to note that mass changing the article should not be the default approach. As you are aware, we have undergone several RFCs to make incremental improvements here, so adopting a "mass change" approach is unlikely to be effective for this article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Brigadier quote, as well as any general discussion on human rights at Camp Ashraf, is due on the Camp Ashraf page, not here: in fact, there's probably a good wad of material that could and should be removed to that page. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I did mass changes, by any measure. Creating RFCs for each sentence as the first option is not the way to go. We should only go for that after WP:BRD and meaningful discussion has failed. I have opened upfront discussions (not RFCs) before when I expected a change to be reasonsbly contested or I needed help with sources. I didn't think any of my recent changes would fall into that category, but I'll be glad to discuss them. I will try to address your other comments later. MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An opposition group is one that stands in opposition to the government within a political system; a dissident group is one that challenges the entire political system as it stands. I amended this is the short description because in a three-word summary of the group without context, "opposition group" is a highly ambiguous term that would readily mislead mobile readers. As for changing it from a "political party", I imagine the logic there would be the fact that it hasn't been a registered political party within Iran now for about three decades; it's a political organization, for sure, but that's about it. Maybe it's infobox template should simply be for an "organization". I imagine the temptation to use the military organization template arises from the fact that, on the organizational front, it continues to have a rigid chain of command from when it was a militant terror group. As far as I am aware, since that time, it has not held any leadership elections within its membership that would suggest it operates on the level of any kind of modern political party. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Iskandar323: The RFC explicitly stated to place the translations within parentheses in the "Other names" section, so your edit and Ghazaalch's edit is not following the RFC consensus by putting the translations where it was not agreed.


 * The article has for a long time being described as an "Iranian opposition group", so if you are going to change that, you need to explain how WP:WEGHT is in favor of that change.


 * About the section of Other names, I think a compromise can be reached. Maybe let's keep the translations there and also explain that NCRI is a separate organization.


 * And was it you who removed
 * "In December 2018, Albania expelled two Iranian diplomats due to alleged involvement in the bomb plot against the MEK (where Mayor Giuliani and other US government officials were also gathered) accusing the two of "violating their diplomatic status"."
 * "On 22 June 1981, IRGC and Hezbollahis responded to anti-regime demonstrations against the dismissal of President Abolhassan Banisadr, to what came to be known as "reign of terror" in Iran. The Warden of Evin prison announced the firing squad executions of demonstrators, including teenage girls."
 * "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government."
 * "Prisoners were charged with "moharebeh" or "waging war on God""
 * "According to Ilan Berman, in 2002 the NCRI publicly called or the formation of a National Solidarity Front against the Iranian regime saying that it is "prepared for cooperation with other political forces" that seek a republican form of government and are committed to rejecting Iran's current theocracy."
 * "According to Lord Alex Carlile, the organization was put on the terrorist list "solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran"."?
 * There seem to be reliable sources supporting all that material, it is crucial for you to provide an explanation for these changes prior to participating in further edit wars. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me if I removed things? Find the diffs you are taking issue with, check the diffs and their edit summaries, and if you still take issue with the edits, direct your questions at the appropriate persons. Don't guess. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

More problems with recent mass changes
Why are you attempting to include text from the RFC that did not gain consensus?


 * 1 - it may be easier to just remove "allies" and "opponents" rather than just putting "inconsistent" labels all over the infobox.
 * 2 - No, simply having a testimony from an unidentified "officer" does not justify including a claim of a "relation between the MEK and Israel" in the infobox.
 * 3 - Iskandar323, in your edit summary, you mentioned restoring a source, but it appears that you have also included additional content that could be perceived as pushing a particular point of view.
 * 4 - Iskandar323, Consolidating does not imply selectively choosing your preferred material while excluding verified content from the article.
 * 5 - The sources presented provide varying attributions on the matter.
 * 6 - Iskandar323, If you prefer, we can attribute the CNN op-ed to its authors who are judges and politicians.
 * 7 - the same thing here, we can attribute it to judge Alex Carlile.

why change the logo and infobox size? And I don't think this attribution is redundant here, on the contrary. - And I understand your preference [here, but I believe the current version is more suitable. Additionally, if there is any lack of clarity, please note that I have included a source to support the information.[[User:Iraniangal777|Iraniangal777]] (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Text doesn't need to be approved by RFC to be included; it only needs to be sourced. There was no consensus or conclusion on the other material in question, so it is just like adding any other material. As for the infobox, see the discussion on the infobox. I didn't add the other note, only restored it. Yes, I restored a source and added content. No real mystery there. The source was in further reading and MarioGom deleted with "no prejudice to restoring it as a source", so I did where I deemed it relevant, because it contained valid, verifiable, reliably sourced information - again, no one's permission is needed to add reliably sourced content. This line of questioning is bordering on gatekeeping. In the "consolidating" edit, I didn't removed any material; I only clarified it - the 'disagreement' is attributed solely to Lord Corbett: you can see for yourself if you check the source. No idea what you point about "varying attributions" is about. As for the opinion pieces, no - these are not a reliable sources and the opinions of these non-experts are not due, even attributed. Find reliable sources if you think this material is important. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ironically, given the diatribe above, in this edit you appear to have deleted several reliably sourced additions without any explanation at all. You can't really have it both ways; demanding exhaustive explanations of the edits of others while providing little to no explanation of your own edits. And there is in fact a third way too, which is to simply discuss things before reverting. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit, because it's the second time you (and Fad Ariff) have performed mass indiscriminate reverts to several unrelated edits together, where many of them have no objections expressed either in the talk page or the edit summary. However, I'm going through your objections here, and I will self-revert as needed. MarioGom (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As the discussion is getting unwieldy, I will open dedicated threads for each topic. MarioGom (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iraniangal777: A broader point here. These aren't "mass changes"; this is just normal editing with small discrete edits with useful edit summaries; this is the opposite of any kind of large, sweeping changes/reverts - they couldn't get much smaller. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I guess this might be induced because of the 1RR limit. But we can also self-revert as needed when objections are raised. Mass reverts of several unrelated edits by multiple editors need to stop. They are extremely disruptive. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the stable version before the edit warring. MarioGom, before restoring the edits that have been challenged, it is essential to address the extensive list of concerns raised in order to ensure a thorough resolution. You and Iskandar323 have made roughly 85 edits to the article in the last 10 days only, containing many mistakes, removal of reliable material, and inserting content from RFC that did not have consensus to be on the page. Continuing to engage in edit-warring after the challenged edits have been raised is disruptive and counterproductive to the collaborative editing process. I agree that it would be beneficial to address each challenge separately by opening separate topics for discussion. But it is important to address these challenges before restoring the edits in question. It is worth noting that not all of your edits have been reverted, so let's ensure an accurate representation of the situation at hand. The issue lies not with the minor edits but with the extensive removal of content. These sweeping changes are indeed significant and should be halted to maintain the integrity of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine. I'm addressing each topic separately, since we won't have any productive discussion about so many unrelated changes in a single thread. About indiscriminate reverts, I don't think I'm misrepresenting it. Since I had to restore the same source fixes (e.g. missing pages) a few times, and I don't think these were intended reverts. I can and will self-revert if asked, but it would be great if these bundled rollbacks stop. MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's not fine. If people want to perform reverts, they need to provide their substantive, policy-based reasons up front, not just give some sort of vague WP:IJDLI-style handwave and mumble a few absent-minded objections on talk. Reverting is an action of last resort, after improving upon or balancing the work of other editors has failed; on this page, editors are treating it like a first resort, and that is not only not the Wikipedia way, it's disruptive. Either editors have the energy to provide coherent reasons for their actions, in which case they can sit down and everyone can discuss it, or they do not - in which case, they should just leave the editing to editors willing to do thing properly. In the above comment, I still do no see a single, substantive reason provided. Furthermore, the reverting editors have restored unattributed opinion in the mix. This violates WP:BURDEN and WP:NEWSBLOG, i.e. policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of bundled revert is inappropriate (although unfortunately induced by 1RR) and that explanations for many of the reverts were clearly insufficient. But I'm moving on and will open a thread for each objected change. There's only so much we can get accomplished in a thread like this, where more than a dozen different topics are discussed together. And there is a point at which lengthier discussion about behavioral conflicts will go nowhere in this page, and it just makes sense to move on unless a report elsewhere (e.g. arbitration enforcement) is due. MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

, this is the concluding sentence of Ghazaalch's unsuccessful RFC proposal:


 * Iran, acknowledging the raid, said it was carried out in retaliation for attacks on two villages in the west of Iran by the Iraq-backed MEK guerrillas.

And this what you are currently edit-warring into the article :


 * According to Iran, that raid was in turn carried out in retaliation for attacks on two villages in the west of Iran by the Iraq-backed MEK guerrillas.

Both of them are essentially the same. Could you provide an explanation, please? Alex-h (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've already answered this. The RFC conclusion itself noted the "significant support" for the additional prose, and, in the RFC itself, no one actually disagreed with the addition. So there is currently no reason not to include it, not least since it comes from the exact same source, which weights the two pieces of information exactly the same. What reason do you think there is on this talk page not to include it? Because, as far as I am aware, there is none. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to regurgitate that RFC, but the final consensus says "significant support for additional prose suggested in the alternative proposal as well, although not enough to say that there is consensus to include.". Are you aware that by persisting in incorporating the alternative proposal, it appears that you are disregarding the consensus expressed in the RFC? Alex-h (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not disregarding anything, but you seem to be very confused. Just because there is no consensus for material does not mean there is any consensus against it. On the contrary, from the perspective of the RFC there is no consensus on it, while, more generally, from the significant support for it, combined the lack of opposition, there is a silent consensus for it. If you would like to state your opposition to it, you need to do so, but at the moment, there is no apparent opposition either in the RFC or here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

regarding your edit summary the 'stable' version being reverted to has not been identified. It is identified as the version before some of the recent modifications to the article.


 * Regarding your bypassing the RFC consensus, if you think the RFC was closed in error, then the right thing to do would be to ask rather than edit war. I enquired about a different RFC close that did not make much sense to me, and you're not above such procedures.


 * "The report included telephone interviews with a dozen former MEK personnel that painted "a grim picture of how the organisation treated its members", while The Guardian separately interviewed a former member that had been left on crutches after a group beating for objecting to the group's "self-criticism" sessions. He was later denounced as an Iraninan spy and handed over to the Iraqi secret service, who imprisoned him at Abu Ghraib and continued the abuse." The article has already extensively covered the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report. While that content can benefit from copyediting, you are effectively expanding the content rather than simply copyediting it. I'd like to try to copy edit it if you don't mind.


 * ""Unapologetically siding with Saddam", this armed wing of the MEK "fought side by side" with Iraq." The MEK's connection to Saddam and the MEK has already extensively covered in the article, there is no necessity to repeatedly emphasize or reiterate this.


 * "blown up, allegedly by MEK, and more than 70 members of the leadership were killed." The previous version was more comprehensive as it acknowledged that various different groups, including the MEK, were implicated or blamed (WP:NPOV).


 * "Iranian political-militant" This is currently under discussion in a previous section above.


 * "MEK is today the main organization of the NCRI, although the NCRI previously hosted other organizations, such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran." Based on the majority of sources, the description of the NCRI has been reinstated in accordance with WP:DUE.


 * "In 2004, the United States also considered the group as "noncombatants" and "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions." There is an ongoing discussion in this talk page regarding this material.


 * "According to Lord Alex Carlile, the organization was put on the terrorist list "solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran"." Here the material is attributed to Lord Alex Carlile, so it apparently passes WP:RSEDITORIAL, but allow me a couple of days to explore the possibility of finding a more reliable source.

Should you have any inquiries regarding the points I have raised, please feel free to discuss them. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Continuing the pile on adding comments about more and more edits by multiple editors under this thread is completely unproductive. I'm not sure how one would expect to be able to go in-depth about any specific change here. MarioGom (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Other names section

 * I made a few changes to the Other names section to make it a Structure section (diff). My rationale is that the section contents is not that much about alternative, synonymous names, but about organizational structure and fronts. Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization is an equivalent name already listed in the first lede line, while National Liberation Army of Iran and National Council of Resistance of Iran are front organizations, not merely alternative names. As part of this restructure, I also moved the paragraph about monafiqeen further down in the body and the comment about the lack of an official name to a footnote in the history section . Do you have any objection to this rationale? MarioGom (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it makes sense. I'd been meaning to do something about the MKO duplication myself. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * National Liberation Army of Iran was the group's military wing (now defunct), and National Council of Resistance of Iran is a coalition led by the P.M.O.I. For these reasons something like "Associated organizations" (or similar) would be more accurate than "Structure". Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A military wing means part of the same organization, and the NCRI has been widely identified as simply being the organization's political wing. Yes, it masquerades as being a different entity, but you may note the identical leadership. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Academic sources are pretty clear on this. The NLA was the armed wing, so it was part of its structure. The NCRI, while nominally a separate entity with different cadres, is part of the MEK structure. This is not so different from other political organizatios that are structured as multiple entities (e.g. youth org, foundation) and mass fronts (e.g. unions, coalitions). That being said, I don't think "Associated organizations" would be strictly wrong. MarioGom (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the only objection was the section title, I have reinstated my changes together with the title proposed by Iraniangal777. I'm open to continue the discussion about the title, but there is no reason to hold other changes because of this. Best, MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC Literal_translation_of_Mojahedin-e-Khalq_(MEK) has been closed, and it has been suggested to put these translation in the Other names section. I have reinstated that section to ensure proper implementation of the RFC. Perhaps we can explore the possibility of integrating it into a section dedicated to "Associated organizations", but I'm not sure how some translations would fit there. By the way, is there a specific issue with keeping it as "Other names"? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That RFC has been implemented already in the lede (and it could be moved to a footnote if needed because of verbosity if needed). It has nothing to do with that section. The problem with keeping it as "Other names" is that it's conflating two different things: MEK synonymous (PMOI, MKO) and MEK-connected entities (or fronts, or associated organizations, or whatever you want to call it) like NCRI and NLA. I'm actually very surprised you're opposing this change, since I think you have repeatedly argued about the NCRI being a different entity, and you had no objection other than the section name, which I honored by changing it to your proposal. MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The implementation of the RFC in the lead section was not appropriate since the proposal clearly stated that it should be included in the "Other names" section. Therefore, it should be placed there accordingly. While I agree that the "Other names" section should be improved and differentiated from "Associations" (which could also be renamed as "Other names and Associated Organizations"), we need to first address the consensus reached through the RFC. I will relocate it to the agreed-upon location, and if you still wish to include it as a footnote (as you have suggested), we can finalize the separation between names and associated organizations in that section.. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is what this revert and the subsequent revert were in aid of then I would plead you to just stop. The conclusion to the RFC actually just acknowledged consensus to include the translations, without expressing where, and we have already discussed in this thread, the redundancy (and in fact error) of repeating names from the lead in "Other names". You cannot state a name once and then repeat it again under "Other names". You are restoring errors on the page that have already been resolved collaboratively through discussion right here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, it looks like that RFC does propose that translations should go under "Other names". ParadaJulio (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree on a transactional proposal for both the literal translations and the other names section. I'll open a separate thread with a proposal that is hopefully acceptable for everyone. MarioGom (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I collapsed the remaining content of the other names section to a footnote, which is still in line with the decision of including the literal translations, while reducing clutter. Hopefully this is also ok for those who opposed the inclusion of these translations in the first place, since they are less prominent. MarioGom (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

On the "Establishment" section
Why was this section changed so much so quickly? I checked the sources and they seem to support the material. If I'm wrong let me know and I will attempt to fix it. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As I explained in the edit summaries, I tried to improve the flow of text, remove redundant information which was repeated right in the next section, removed some non-RS, etc. I plan to do this with every section, and I think the endless previous discussions about the article being too long and too hard to read support this course of action. Are you objecting to any particular change? Do you think it should be improved in some way? MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'll remind you that you should not revert changes just because. You should substantiate your objections. MarioGom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to pester you, but it's hard to move anything forward if you revert things with vague explanations and then ignore the follow up. MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , what you have to say? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems unclear why you are removing well-sourced material under the justification that it is "redundant". I support the idea of copyediting the article to make it more concise, but it is ultimately your responsibility to explain the reasoning behind these changes. Additionally, much of the material being removed is sourced from an expert in the field, Ervand Abrahamian, and provides valuable insights into the MEK's stance towards the Shah, the Liberation Movement, and the ideology and membership of the organization in its early stages. It is difficult to understand how such information could be considered redundant. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Much of the discussion about ideology and Islam interpretation is repeated right at the beginning of the next section. Try reading both sections in a row. It looks like it's the same things repeated over and over without any meaningful order. MarioGom (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To better illustrate this, I have coded in the same color each redundant passages that should be consolidated, ordered and summarized:
 * ":::::;Establishment
 * The MEK was founded on 5 September 1965 by leftist Iranian students affiliated with the Freedom Movement of Iran to oppose the Shah Pahlavi. Mohammad Hanifnejad, Saeed Mohsen and Ali Asghar Badizadegan are mentioned as the founders of the MEK..
 * The MEK opposed the rule of the Shah, considering him corrupt and oppressive, and considered the mainstream Liberation Movement too moderate and ineffective., who, while still culturally attached to Islam, rejected its old-fashioned clerical interpretations". Unlike the clergy, it accepted Western concepts (especially in the social sciences).
 * Early years (1965–1971)
 * In its first five years, the group primarily engaged in ideological work. Their main source of inspiration was the Islamic text Nahj al-Balagha, a collection of analyses and aphorisms attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib.  Despite their Marxist influence, the group never used the terms "socialist" or "communist" to describe themselves.


 * I know these passages do not say exactly the same, but if you look at the sources, these different passages are extracted from the same source material. In this text, they are disjointed, repetitive and confusing. MarioGom (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * MarioGom: more than what you've highlighted here was removed from the Establishment section (which is a short section as it is). With regards to the text you highlighted, I propose removing:
 * And changing "" to something like "The MEK's ideology…". Does that proposal meet your requirements? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. I would suggest you next time, rather than reverting by default, try incrementally improving the text, or even discussing without reverting. These changes are something you could have just applied on top of my edit. MarioGom (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And changing "" to something like "The MEK's ideology…". Does that proposal meet your requirements? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. I would suggest you next time, rather than reverting by default, try incrementally improving the text, or even discussing without reverting. These changes are something you could have just applied on top of my edit. MarioGom (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at your proposal in comparison to sources. If you don't mind, I will not respond in this thread to the unrelated content you brought up in the second part of your comment. Part of the reason why most discussions in this talk page derail is because they are never on point, and every unrelated dispute ends up being brought up everywhere until the core of each discussion is unidentifiable. MarioGom (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅: . MarioGom (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Human Rights redundancies
I am starting a new section. Do you have any concerns if I merge the following?



I tried doing it now, but cleared the section by mistake. But will try again in a couple of days. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any issue a priori. It depends on what merge means in this context and what is the end result though. MarioGom (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * May I seek your approval for the edits I have made to the "Human rights record" section? My intention is to proceed incrementally and avoid making sweeping changes to the article all at once. Thanks. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should remove ranging from prolonged incommunicado and solitary confinement to beatings, verbal and psychological abuse, coerced confessions, threats of execution, and torture that in two cases led to death. It would be weird that we trim so much the substance of the report when it is discussed so much overall (claims and counter-claims). MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, I am also not satisfied with most of your changes. I will propose my own version soon.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I implemented the summarized version. Ghazaalch (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert about Trial of Hamid Nouri
, In this edit, you removed the following items from the lead. Why? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Iran state media and officials claim that some recent protests in Iran had links to the MEK. In 2022, an Iranian official was sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the execution of political prisoners.
 * This material is all undue. The first part just involves "claims" by Iranian state media, so it is just rumour mill stuff, not fact, nor some sort of controversy that might otherwise make it due. The lead is no more the place for Iranian propaganda than it is for MEK propaganda. The second part is simply anecdotal nonsense several degrees apart from the subject here, which is the MEK. The sentencing of an individual Iranian official, in Sweden, for something that happened in Iran in the 80s, which partially involved the MEK, is not core information about the MEK, the organization, itself. It is a mere curio and tangential in the utmost. WP:COMMONSENSE comes to mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of wikilawyering to disregard the credibility of the reliable sources. Describing the Trial of Hamid Nouri as "anecdotal nonsense"? That trial is as relevant to this article as the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners (indeed relevant and also WP:DUE). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the trial is relevant to the 1988 article, and that is it. It has zero place in this lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The lede is already pretty long, and it's already missing key information. How this paragraph belongs to the lede is beyond me. MarioGom (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears the lead is long for some content, but not long enough for other content. The assessment of the situation varies depending on the specific narrative being emphasized or promoted. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an unhealthy attitude, and also incorrect. The specific piece of material being discussed here is simply extremely granular, tangential information that also - I've in fact just realized - is currently not even present in the body of the page, so, quite simply, it is a violation of MOS:LEAD to have it in the lead summary, other issues aside. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I provide ten reliable sources that discuss the trial in relation to the MEK, would you be open to incorporating it into a section in the article? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably, assuming sources look ok. My objection was to inclusion in the lede. That's the context of the discussion. You can add further content to the article with the usual WP:BRD cycle. MarioGom (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. It has no place in the lede. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert of removal of Fox News opinion piece
to support the following passage: This passage is already supported by 2 sources, and these 2 sources are presumably more reliable than an opinion piece on Fox News. So it makes sense to remove it as redundant and less reliable. A lot of reverts in that edit appeared to be unintended, but I'm not sure if that was the case here. Do you have any objection to the removal of this reference? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * in this mass revert  you added back the following source:
 * The Clinton administration reported the Los Angeles Times that "The inclusion of the People's Mojahedin was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected president, Mohammad Khatami".
 * are you talking about my revert of some recent mass changes in the article? You are incorrect that many of those reverts were unintended as many concerns have already been provided in the above discussions. However, in the case at hand, I don't believe it is necessary to dwell on this matter extensively. Therefore, please feel free to proceed with the removal of the Fox News source if you deem it appropriate. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was both in your revert and in Fad Ariff's. I only noticed it in the last one. When I mentioned unintended reverts, I was referring to minor source fixes like adding missing pages . I'm restoring these minor (and hopefully uncontroversial) fixes on the assumption that they were an unintended consequence of the combined rollback and I have not seen any objection to this kind of fix. Anyway, ✅ . Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia as allied state in the infobox

 * In you restored Russia as MEK ally in the infobox. I'm not sure if that was intended. As I explained in the edit summaries, neither Bahgat 2008 or Clark 2016 mention Russia at all (not in relation to the MEK). Bahgat 2008 just provides the following vague statement: Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the MEK had close ties with the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, and other leftist organizations in many nations. which does not support Russia being a MEK ally between 1991 and 2003 or any other period. For Clark 2006, I could not find anything related in page 65 (the one in the reference) or any other page. Would you agree to remove it? Thanks. MarioGom (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * are you talking about my revert of some recent mass changes in the article? I have already explained this, but I will add it here again: the change from "political" to "militant" group in the infobox does not align with most sources that describe the MEK as a political group rather than a militant one. I attempted to implement your suggested changes to revert the infobox to its original "political" designation, but the format did not allow for it, so I had to restore the original infobox. If you wish to make changes to it, please refrain from altering the designation. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen another page with two infoboxes like this. Perhaps we should just delete the second. While it is dubious to identify the MEK as a "political party" in any normal sense: it's not part of the body politic, neither has it ever been elected; the parameters about political and military wings are pretty useful in the context, and, in some ways, the exact template used doesn't matter as much as its utility. The second infobox is meanwhile just a mess of information that basically contravenese MOS:INFOBOX - much of the information is simply not mentioned anywhere else on the page, and the sole role of the infobox is to summarize information found elsewhere on the page, not to supplement it: "... keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored ...)" (my bolding). Here, we have various dubious novel facts about allies/opponents, including Russia. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , : I'm trying to keep discussion topics as manageable as possible. I intend to open a more general proposal about the infobox merge, but what I'm trying to elucidate here is if there is any objection to remove Russia from the infobox, given that none of the sources mention it. It completely fails verification. MarioGom (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but again, it's not even mentioned on the page, so it can be removed per MOS:INFOBOX as undue even were the underlying verification not a problem in the first place. My point is that much of this is unsupported. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. I'll wait for Iraniangal777 to see if there is any reasonable objection. Although at this point, I don't think there can be any, given that these two references are bogus. MarioGom (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I understand from Iraniangal777 comment is that the revert was only about the MEK/NLA infobox merge, and the revert of the removal of Russia was unintended. So I will go ahead with the change. MarioGom (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)