Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 60

Second infobox inconsistency
The second infobox is currently one big gross contravention of MOS:INFOBOX, which states that the role of the infobox, an optional page element, is to summarize information found elsewhere on the page: "... 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 ...)". I've tagged the details in the second infobox that do not feature anywhere else on the page - these inconsistencies are at odds with the very purpose of an infobox: if it does not summarize, it is useless and should be removed (especially since there are two). Either the page needs a section on the MEK's leaders, allies and opponents, or the material needs to vacate the infobox entirely; the page cannot simply host an infobox that in no way aligns with its content. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a smidgeon of detail currently in this section, but it is a partial and circumstantial match. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that almost no source, if any at all, used in the NLA infobox mention the NLA. These sources are about the MEK, and they are very clear about that. That was my rationale for merging: it is original research and its references do not support it. But given the opposition to this change, I think I'll need to explain the proposal more in-depth, which I foresee to require an RFC eventually. MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The NLA formerly served as the group's military division. It played a significant role in the military operations during the 1980s. These details are straightforward and widely accepted thus far, but if more sources are required I don't think it'll be difficult to find them. In response to the raised concerns, I will include supplementary details regarding the NLA in the article. I will remove Zakeri, Zarkesh, and Khiabani since they don't seem to be mentioned in the article (but will add that Khiabani was one of the MEK's commanders and was killed in action in 1982, don't think we need more on him for now). I will also remove references to allies, opponents, and other related information to ensure consistency between the infobox and the article per the tagging concern. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also removed the red link and the terror designations, which refer to the MEK, not NLA. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These details are straightforward and widely accepted thus far, except that sources in the infobox clearly talk about the MEK and rarely, if ever, mention the NLA. MarioGom (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since removed most content from the NLA infobox, and we seem to agree that there were no sources supporting setting it up as a separate infobox, I think we should just remove it. We can then discuss what is missing from the main MEK infobox. MarioGom (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The NLA infobox serves as a valuable resource for readers providing information about the military wing of the group. This military wing played a significant role in the major armed conflicts between the MEK and the Islamic Republic, and the infobox effectively highlights this distinction in a clear and understandable manner. There are many sources supporting this infobox, all you have to do is stop removing them as Iskandar323 did with Piazza. Also, there was no reason to remove Operation Shining start from the NLA infobox, so please restore it. In case you harbor doubts regarding the availability of sources for the NLA, I present to you a list of recommended readings to initiate your exploration:   Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This military wing played a significant role in the major armed conflicts between the MEK and the Islamic Republic: Absolutely. That is why I merged both infoboxes in the first place. But given your objections, I desisted from further changes in that direction until I come up with a more comprehensive proposal or RFC.
 * There are many sources supporting this infobox not really, most or all sources in that infobox (at least before the recent removals) discussed the MEK and didn't mention the NLA at all.
 * there was no reason to remove Operation Shining start from the NLA infobox, I don't think I touched that. No objection to adding it back from my side though.
 * MarioGom (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * About the list of sources you provided, the first one is written by a MEK member, so it is neither independent or reliable. I prefer to stick to my own bibliographic research. MarioGom (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅: The user who opposed this is blocked, so there is no remaining blocked for consensus. I removed the second infobox. Some of the information that the old infobox had could be added to the main infobox, provided it is reliably sourced and consistent with the content of the article. MarioGom (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅: The user who opposed this is blocked, so there is no remaining blocked for consensus. I removed the second infobox. Some of the information that the old infobox had could be added to the main infobox, provided it is reliably sourced and consistent with the content of the article. MarioGom (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Format of citation bundle about Israel in the infobox
Note: I beg every editor to not bring other disputes to this thread.

In the second infobox, Israel is listed as an allied state. This has a reference with a citation bundle with three sources, which is rendered as follows: 🇮🇱 Israel (see the footnote). The first element of the list is incorrectly formatted, since a reference cannot simply start with an asterisk to get a correctly formatted list. I followed the guidance at H:CITEMERGE to correct this formatting, to add an introducing sentence about the 3 sources, and replaced (diff) it with 🇮🇱 Israel (again, see the footnote).

This change was later objected by (diff) with the following rationale: 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.

However, I did not introduce Israel in the infobox. I did not change the sources. I merely improved the presentation of the citation bundle. I am open to discuss other changes to the infobox, but I think my edit does improve the citation format, and should be accepted without prejudice of other discussions about both the content and the used sources.

Iraniangal777, does that make sense? MarioGom (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What I objected to was describing a testimony from an unidentified "officer" in the infobox as a "relation between the MEK and Israel" (which constitutes a case of WP:SYNTH). We are already discussing that second infobox in a different talk page section. Iskandar323 filled that second infobox with "inconsistent" labels, which I will attend to. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you mind reading my full message in this thread? Israel is already presented as an ally in the infobox, before and after my edit. The three sources do not change. My edit is definitely not SYNTH, it is an accurate presentation (in a footnote) of the subsequent citation bundle of three sources. The inconsistent label is irrelevant here. If you object to Israel being present in the infobox as an ally, that is a completely separate topic, and you are welcome to open a separate discussion about removing it. Is there any objection to the modification to the citation bundle in the context I have described in this thread? MarioGom (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given this edit, this discussion is obsolete. So my proposed edit is no longer relevant. This settles the issue unless someone contests/reverts the removal of that material. MarioGom (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox size
Note: I beg every editor to not bring unrelated disputes to this thread.

I recently changed logo and flag sizes in the infobox as well field wrapping in the infobox (diff). I'm following up on question: why change the logo and infobox size? (diff). My rationale for this is that the infobox used to be both too tall and too wide. Its width was primarily caused by the nowrap in the Founded and Membership parameters. In one device I have seen this infobox take up to half of the available horizontal space, in another it was up to a third. Obviously this cannot be right for every possible device, but I see no reason to change sizing parameters that seem unjustified to mitigate this. On the other hand, the infobox height is a problem because it pushes down other images and they are rendered outside of their corresponding sections. The two flags used to take 400px of height when combined, which seems excessive. The logo used to take 180px. Overall, 580px of vertical space consumed for these. In my opinion, this is bad presentation, when they are perfectly visible at a smaller size. So I tweaked sizes, wrapping, and positioning, to make the infobox size a bit more compact, without affecting readability of the infobox itself. MarioGom (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you agree, it would be nice to have some explicit acknowledgement. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * MarioGom, If I come across any concerns regarding any of your recent edits, I will inform you. Given the multitude of discussions and extensive edits taking place on this article, I may not be able to respond to each and every one of them due to time constraints. In this specific instance, I currently do not observe any pending issues, otherwise I would have provided feedback. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But note that when you request explanations for my changes (which you did here), and I spend a good amount of effort in detailing the rationale, I expect a minimum of courtesy in the follow up. If you object to many changes and then just disappear, it feels like imposing an unfair burden on editing by others. Best, MarioGom (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Iran Aid case
Note: I beg every editor to not bring unrelated disputes to this thread.

There is a passage about the Iran Aid case that currently reads as follows: It also operated a UK-based charity, Iran Aid, which "claimed to raise money for Iranian refugees persecuted by the Islamic regime" and was later revealed to be a front for its military wing (according to conversations at the Nejat Society). In 2001, the Charity Commission for England and Wales closed it down after finding no "verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran".

I propose to change it to The MEK also operated a UK-based charity, Iran Aid, which claimed to raise money for Iranian refugees. In 2001, the Charity Commission for England and Wales closed it down after finding no "verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran".

I think it is more sucint, with less quote, and the attribution to conversations with a MEK defector at Nejat Society is unnecessary, since it is only part of Clark 2016, who interviewed MEK defectors, but the information is also supported by both Leigh 2005 and Goulka et al. 2009 which are previous to Clark's interviews with Nejat Society. So the relevant source passages are as follows:


 * Leigh 2005: The group raised up to £5m a year in Britain through a charity called Iran Aid, until the Charity Commission closed it down in 2001, saying it was unclear where the money was going.
 * Goulka 2009: The British Charities Commission closed another MeK sham charity, Iran Aid, after finding no “verifiable links between the money donated by the British public [approximately £5 million annually] and charitable work in Iran.”14 (cites Baldwin 2000)
 * Clark 2016: In Great Britain, the organization “Iran Aid” was closed by the government for being an MEK front (author’s conversations at the Nejat Society)

So, yes, Clark 2016 is based on a Nejat Society testimony, and I would support in-text attribution if that was the only source. However, this information is supported by other sources, both unrelated to Nejat Society, and coming from sources prior to Clark's interviews with Nejat Society. And Clark 2016 is actually the less detailed source. Current in-text attribution is misleading because it implies that the preceding information is merely a Nejat Society claim, and it is not. MarioGom (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Yes, the current attribution is effectively an error, as it incorrectly over-attributes. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you perceive this alternative proposition? "The organization obtained financial support via a UK charity known as Iran Aid, which was subsequently shut down by the Charity Commission due to a lack of clarity regarding the destination of the funds." Fad Ariff (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is much more vague than all the cited sources. What is your rationale for this proposal? MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you objected this change in the first place, it would be nice to hear your thoughts about this. MarioGom (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅: . Iraniangal777 never substantiated the objection. Fad Ariff never brought up a rationale for the alternative proposal. Since they are both blocked, there is not much more to discuss here. MarioGom (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Help please!
on "Inside Iran" section, the first sentence has a "page needed" tag. I found the page. The sentence refers to page 77 but I don't know where i insert the number.Thanks! GharaDash (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking that. Various details are stated across multiple pages, so I've added them all. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

MEK and other parties in the NCRI
I recently changed the following passage:
 * MEK is today the main organization of the NCRI, although the NCRI previously hosted other organizations, such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran.

to:
 * While other organizations, including the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, were initially part of the NCRI, they later left the coalition as Rajavi consolidated control over the organization.

I think this reflects the source material more accurately, which says:
 * As [Massoud] Rajavi increasingly transformed the NCRI from an umbrella organization into a MeK subsidiary, early partners separated from the consortium, including the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. Banisadr himself withdrew from the NCRI in March 1983, and Rajavi divorced Banisadr’s daughter, whom he had married the previous year.

In any case, I think my version is generous enough with the MEK, and it better reflects the process by which other initial partners withdrew from the NCRI.
 * You previously objected to this change . Do you think this change is justified? If not, why do you think the previous version is more suitable and how does it better reflect the source? Best, MarioGom (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The key is not about being "generous," but rather about accurately representing the collective information from various sources. I'm not sure about your method of searching on Google, but it's quite easy to confirm that the NCRI is commonly referred to an exiled coalition of Iranian opposition groups led by Maryam Rajavi: . Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What I changed was precisely to represent the cited source more accurately (see the quote above). The text in question does not contradict that it is "an exiled coalition of Iranian opposition groups led by Maryam Rajavi", neither before or after the edit. It refers to the early partners that withdrew from the coalition. MarioGom (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The original passage provides a clear and concise overview of the NCRI's organizational composition. By altering the passage to emphasize that Rajavi increasingly transformed the NCRI from an umbrella organization into a MeK subsidiary, you're not only emphasizing biased perspective, but you're also ignoring the rest of due weight sources that provide WP:NPOV descriptions of the NCRI's organizational composition. The original passage accurately acknowledges the presence of other organizations within the NCRI, while your suggested revision introduces a narrative that favors one viewpoint. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not citing my passage (While other organizations, including the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, were initially part of the NCRI, they later left the coalition as Rajavi consolidated control over the organization). The text you are citing is the quote from Goulka 2009. About giving weight to other sources, you are welcome to add further sources that discuss the membership and later withdrawal of Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran and other partners, which is the topic at hand. I modified the passage based on the source that is currently referenced. MarioGom (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅:, the only objection was by a blocked user. MarioGom (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral claims to prominence in lead
The sentence: "It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group." is still extremely problematic, not least in that it fails to define what it means by "opposition group". The reformists within Iran are "opposition groups" by any normal understanding of the term. The Council for Coordinating the Reforms Front is a vast and sweeping coalition of opposition groups, some of whose constituent members have also been banned. There are also numerous, populous Kurdish opposition groups, as we have seen in the recent protests. All of these are demonstrably larger and more 'active' in Iran than the PMOI, which was once a major actor in the country, but no longer. I suggest we follow a wording more akin to the Global Security citations, which is "... the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran." Two things here are key: first, it does not make the claim of 'most active', just 'most militant', and it is not the 'largest opposition group', since there are plenty within the Islamic republic; it is just the most significant opposed to the entire edifice of the Islamic Republic itself, which makes them, more accurately a dissident group. Finally, once all of this is understood, one might well note that none of this is much different to the sentence: "It advocates overthrowing the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and installing its own government." I wonder if these two sentences could not simply be combined into: "It is the most prominent Iranian dissident group that actively advocates for the complete overthrow of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Claims about MEK being the largest and most active opposition group in the present usually come from non-independent sources like MEK fronts and lobbyists, while independent sources rarely make such claims unless they refer to a few decades ago. However, given the lengthy discussion at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 57, I think the only way forward is preparing a source analysis of everything that was brought before to substantiate a new proposal. I can help with this, maybe we can use a sandbox to prepare the proposal. What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I plan to start a source assessment at User:MarioGom/sandbox/MEK characterization proposal. MarioGom (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I do agree with your proposal and I support to implement it. No objections from me. But I'll still go through the sources since I expect the change to be contentious given past discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree too, but if it is contentious, we could close the RFC and start another one, proposing to remove the contested part entirely.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there an active RFC open that affects this specifically? The last RFC about related material was closed as no consensus, so does not affect further discussion one way or another. If we get consensus, we can make the change. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't think we need an RFC right away, only if the new proposed changes are reverted/contested and we fail to build consensus in the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While it is true that there are various opposition groups within Iran, it is essential to consider the specific context and criteria used to define the "largest and most active political opposition group." The claim regarding the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) being the largest and most active opposition group may be based on factors such as historical significance, organizational structure, and influence both within and outside of Iran. While reformist groups and Kurdish opposition groups certainly play a crucial role in Iranian politics, the PMOI's longstanding history and international recognition may contribute to its characterization as the most prominent opposition group. The reference to the PMOI as the "most active" could stem from its continued engagement in political activities, including advocacy and lobbying efforts on a global scale. Additionally, it is important to note that the proposed alternative wording suggesting "the largest and most militant group" may not accurately capture the PMOI's overall nature. Therefore, the original sentence, stating that the PMOI is Iran's largest and most active political opposition group, acknowledges its significant role and impact within the opposition landscape based on factors such as historical significance, organizational structure, and ongoing engagement in political activities. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My source analysis is still not complete, but so far what I gather from reliable sources is that they generally do not support any claim about being the main opposition or largest group at all, some even suggesting it is fairly small or fringe today. I would just drop the sentence altogether, no replacement. There are other things that sources do agree that make the MEK the most notorious in some way, but definitely not in size in the present. MarioGom (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Historical significance is not relevant here. This sentence is not about what the group was in the past, but what it is today. It may have been the largest opposition group in the 1980s (and the most threatening militant group throughout the 1990s), but that has zero bearing on how we should frame a sentence describing the group as it is today, in the present tense. Past activities in prior decades are only suitable for statements on the group's historic role, in the past tense. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The concept of having a page dedicated to source analysis: I will make an effort to create one myself. By the way, stating that "historical significance is not relevant" on Wikipedia seems contradictory. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to lines on what an extant organization is in present tense. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I guess everyone would agree that "It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group" has been contested by many sources and should be removed in the first place. Then we can decide on finding a good replacement for it. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if everyone would agree, but I do. MarioGom (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Though there may be some differing viewpoints and contested claims regarding the MEK's status as the largest and most active opposition group, there is still a significant consensus among reliable sources supporting this characterization. For decades many reputable publications and expert analyses consistently refer to the MEK as the main Iranian opposition. Given that there is ongoing source analysis being conducted by various individuals in this discussion, I would like to contribute by conducting my own assessment. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a consensus just because you say there is one. Either you provide a source saying that there is a consensus about something, or we form a local consensus, and that we clearly do not have. "For many decades" is not a relevant timeframe to grasp at here - we should be looking for the latest, high-quality references in the last decade or so, not least because the group's fortunes have changed immensely post-2003 and post-2009, making any source written before then borderline redundant and useless for any form of contemporary characterization. Incidentally, the The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism (2011) chimes in here too, noting that after 1979 it became "Iran's largest and most active armed dissident group" (my bolding) - that wording is, in fact, so similar to what we have right now, but with "political opposition" in place of "armed dissident" that I can't help but wonder if someone just switched the words at some point. One way or another, these statements are deeply historical; for the present day we need even more recent sources, within the last decade. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am currently in the process of analyzing sources related to this topic. It is important to exercise patience as this task requires careful evaluation and thoroughness. It is not a race but rather a process that necessitates time and attention. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll keep an eye to see if there's any new interesting finding. In the mean time, I would suggest you to avoid doing bibliographic research with ChatGPT, since it tends to produce citations to publications that do not exist. MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As Fad Ariff and Iraniangal777 were blocked, I am deleting the Non-neutral claims.Ghazaalch (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of fundraising MEK
, In this edit, you removed the following items from the lead. Why?Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to some sources, Saddam Hussein gave the MEK millions of dollars from the UN's Oil-for-Food program.  When Saddam was overthrown, the group claims that it received funding from Iranian diaspora organizations and private contributors. Ervand Abrahamian who works on the history of the group says the money come from Saudis.
 * Considering that the lead section is already of substantial size, the objective should be to condense it rather than expanding it further. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The alliance with Iraq is due in the lede because it's present in most tertiary sources like encyclopedias (which are already in summarized form) and most longer-form secondary sources. However, I don't think this level of detail about funding belongs to the lede, but just to the relevant sections in the article. MarioGom (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While the alliance between the MEK and Iraq is important, the specific details about funding may be better placed in the corresponding sections within the article. This approach ensures a concise and focused lead section while allowing for a comprehensive exploration of funding sources in the relevant sections of the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , Do you think this shortened version could be included in the lead?: During its life in exile, MEK was financed by Saddam Hussein or fake charities based in European countries. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My new favorite tertiary source also has some nuggets in that regard: "The MEK was also at one time described as stooges for Saddam Hussein's military government, where its organization of several thousand fighters was based. ... During this period, the MEK received the majority of its funding from the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Hussein also provided the MEK with weapons, bases, and protection within his country." - so something on all that, definitely yes; European funding, TBC. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds reasonable to me. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I have your consensus to add the shortened version to the lede? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although you didn't use a ping to notify me, I'll provide my input on this. The article already liberally covers the MEK's connection with Iraq and Hussein in the 1980s. Unless you are introducing new information, I don't agree with reiterating this content. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The Mojahedin spent almost all of the fateful years of their exile in Iraq, so it is natural that the connection between the Mojahedin and Iraq/Hussein is covered more in lede. We still don't have anything about the financing of the Mojahedin Khalq by Saddam in the lede. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't include all the things in the article, and it shouldn’t. Iraq/Hussein is already mentioned in the lead though, and the rest of the article teases out details about that relationship. I will assess the Iraq/Hussein content within the article to determine notable exclusions or undue emphasis. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iraniangal777: That's not your line in other threads where you defend excessive details. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fundraising" section in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)
There is currently a section called Fundraising in the article that I think we should include this shortened version of it in the lede:
 * During its life in exile, MEK was financed by Saddam Hussein  or fake charities based in European countries.
 * Explain clearly why you disagree? Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again since the objections was by blocked users, I am restoring the agreed version.Ghazaalch (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of the role of the U.S in supporting the MEK
, In this edit, you removed the following items from the lead. Why?Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * The prevailing sentiment on this talk page suggests that the lead section is already excessively lengthy. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, as Iskandar323 said, there is no such consensus. I will restore the content unless you provide a reason for the revert. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what I found in the "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism":
 * "After Iraq was invaded and Hussein was overthrown by the United States in 2003, MEK members surrendered to the coalition forces and were held in a special prison, Camp Ashraf, and promised protection under the Geneva Convention...However, the new Iraqi government announced in 2009 that members of MEK would soon have to return to Iran or to some third country."
 * Ghazaalch (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Skewed lead
As an uninvolved reader, when reading the lede, I can't help but feel as if it is meant to present the organization as a nearly infallible group that has unjustly been bullied around by everyone in power. Everyone is to blame, except the group or its ideologies itself. Every decision or action the organization has undertaken up to the present, is presented in such way to make it seem as if those decisions were always "the right thing to do" in the grand scheme of things. At least, that's the overal feel I get from reading.

For instance, how come there's barely anything in the lede about the financial and political support the group has received in the past, and still continues to receive in the present day? That's crucial info regarding the way an organization operates and functions. The fact it "sided" with Iraq in the 80s doesn't cut it; there's much more to it than just that, both before, during and after the Iran-Iraq War. The lede is quick to reveal US "backing" of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (as early as the first sentence of alinea #2), yet the entirety of the lede barely contains anything (if anything at all) about the MEK's own extensive ties to the US, the Mossad, as well as formerly the Soviet Union and even the Taliban.

The lede currently doesn't pass WP:LEDE in this regard IMO, and contains too much detail about the organization's decades old history (i.e. imbalanced), which makes it dfficult to read. For the record: this is not an accusation towards any of the users who've been working dilligently on improving this page. Just my 0.02$ on aspects that can perhaps be improved in order to make this page shine even brighter. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @LouisAragon: Welcome to the wonderful world that is the MEK. I think pretty much all the group does these days is work to gentrify their checkered history and con Western politicians - like Trump and company - into believing that they are some form of credible opposition in Iran in order to extract checks to supplement whatever other forms of illicit funding they are getting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ’s discussion here is very similar to that of here. To address their comment I (and Ali Ahwazi) tried to start some RFCs aimed at modifying the lede (see above RFCs). However I do not know whether it helps or not because there are always some accounts that vote "No" without giving a plausible reason, and there are always some mediators that just count the votes while closing the RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "here are always some accounts that vote "No" without giving a plausible reason, and there are always some mediators that just count the votes while closing the RFCs"? Preconceptions are often strong in this topic, so we need to focus instead on what is in most of the academic literature. If anyone here provides such a review, I'll also provide my 0.02$ there. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To make an example, while voting "No" in above RFC you explain: 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)"[20]. Ghazaalch is cherrypicking some translations... Then asks you 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? and you have no reasonable answer. Also  asks you @Fad Ariff, What does this have to do with POVFORK? and again you have no answer. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * here is the answer about my vote to Fieari. That you don't like my vote or my answer does not mean they are not "reasonable" or "plausible". Earlier you also said that I "cannot stand a words of it in the lead", and when I also asked you about that, you did not reply. You are also accusing mediators of "just count the votes while closing the RFCs", but you don't have any proof about that either, so these all look like senseless accusations. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fad Ariff, Like Ghazaalch and others, I am not satisfied with your explanations either. Also not satisfied with your unexplained reverts. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am also dissatisfied with your and 's explanations, but that does not give me grounds to make false remarks against others like you both do. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This article needs more editors willing to improve it based on reliable sources and other content policies... and be able to follow up with the insufferable amount of RFCs that are needed for everything, as well as the recurrent RFC manipulation with sockpuppets and meatpuppets. You have all my moral support if you're up for it ;-) MarioGom (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your input. I'm glad there are more users that have spotted the same POV-loaded problems in the lede. I will propose a new draft version for the lede, hopefully in the near future (if time allows). But if anyone wants to beat me to it in the meantime, by all means, please go ahead and I will provide feedback/my 0.02$ as soon as possible. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most parts of the lede is currently under RFC. Can we edit the parts, or should we find someone to close the RFCs first? Or we should withdraw the RFCs? Which one do you deem advisable? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current RFCs should not prevent proposing a completely new version. If that gains any traction, it could supersede the previous RFCs. MarioGom (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. But, my experience say that we could never reach consensus with some users who are here to remove any material that are critical of MEK. That is why I had to start that much RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Process is that you wait until May 20th to close unless there is very clear concensus to WP:SNOW close it, or if it's withdrawn, and there's good reason to follow process particularly when there is disagreement-- and the more disagreement, the more you should go to WP:CR for an impartial ending. There, the closer won't just count the !votes, although that is allowed to influence the result... they need to actually read over the arguments and determine whether there are legitimate arguments on each side, if the arguments have been answered, and so forth.  But regardless of the process for this RFC, there's nothing wrong with having another concurrent RFC in the meantime.  Or not even a formal RFC, just a discussion here on the talk page while waiting for this RFC to close.  You only need an RFC when there is disagreement, and I suspect there's hardly disagreement when you're just workshopping specific wordings, which you can do with the assumption that this RFC will end a particular way even without it formally doing so as long as it sticks to the talk page here.  For the main page?  I strongly recommend waiting 'till it closes.  Waiting out the month when there are disagreements as to what is or isn't POV being resolved by won't hurt too much. Fieari (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry! I somehow didn't fully understand your question!  (Blame bleary eyed early morning editing)  This RFC is limited in scope, and of course anything within its scope shouldn't be touched on the main page, but aspects of the article, including the lead, that are NOT within the scope of this RFC... that can follow the usual WP:BRD method like anything else. So don't touch the translation question, but go ahead and fix anything else without worries. Fieari (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not just talking about the RFC immediately above. There are a dozen of open RFCs above. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents anyone from proposing a completely new version of the lede in the talk page, which goes beyond the scope of any single open RFC. Ongoing RFCs do not prohibit further proposals. MarioGom (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT proposal
So it's pretty obvious that, despite being WP:TOOBIG at more than 100kB of readable prose, the bulk of this article's length is going nowhere, since everything is contentious, and nothing can be agreed upon, so the obvious solution is the standard history split to History of X, i.e. History of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. In this particular instance, such a split will be doubly useful in helping to differentiate between the history of the MEK of yesteryear when it was first a prominent opposition and militant group in Iran, later in an exiled form in neighboring Iraq, and today's current organization. This would also help refocus the article as a whole on the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While I think that one or more splits would make sense, I don't think they are going to solve any problem with disputes. They might actually amplify them: dispute for the split history article content, and dispute for the summarized content in the main article. MarioGom (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I claimed it would solve the disputes. But I am thinking more of a clean split, where all of the material is removed, and only a brief summary reconstituted here - otherwise the desired reduction in page length wouldn't happen. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think this would amplify disagreements. If a page reduction is the objective, then removing some WP:OVERCITE, or some repetitive or trivial material (like I.R. propaganda "documentaries" about the MEK), would surely get the article below 100kb. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not like 100kB is a good article length; that's still the upper limit before a split is more or less required, per WP:TOOBIG, but articles are actually recommended to be divided as soon as they start passing the 60kB threshold, and small changes here and there are not going to have a big impact. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We should first try to clean the article from all the excessive material it has (and it has a lot), and then see if we need a different article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given how controversial this article is, I think we can afford some overciting here, with abundant footnotes and quotes. In fact, I think this also justifies some excess in article length as measured in bytes. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Checking Islamic State (301kb) and Al-Qaeda (304kb) compared to People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (274kb), I do not think we have a so pressing size issue. Some splits might make sense, but I think that more often WP:TOOBIG is just an excuse to remove material when there are simply no policy-based arguments justifying it. MarioGom (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOBIG is based on readable prose size, not back-end page size. By this metric, Islamic State is 60kB, Al-Qaeda is 89kB, and this page has 103kB. Any page over 100kB is pretty out of control. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. MarioGom (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After further review of the history section, I think it can still be summarized before a split. There's lot of repeated text, excessive verboseness, etc. I am not sure how much can it be cut, and I am sure that one or more splits from this article will be needed. But I think we should try to get the main article in better shape before spreading to more articles. MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

On Douglas MacArthur II kidnapping attempt
This paragraph on Douglas MacArthur II kidnapping attempt could be improved:
 * According to Jamestown Foundation the MEK tried to kidnap the U.S. Ambassador to Iran Douglas MacArthur II in 1970. Some sources attribute the attempted kidnap to other groups.

I don't think it needs in-text attribution, but it lacks a lot of context. What I could grasp is that there was a kidnapping attempt on 30 November 1970 (some sources seem to get the date, even year wrong) by unnamed gunmen. Then there is a disparity in sources when it comes to attribution. And it could have played a role in Rajavi's later arrest. Anyone up to helping with gathering sources about this event? --MarioGom (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * the MEK was responsible for the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s.387 The same terrorist group wounded Air Force General Harold L. price and attempted to kidnap U.S. ambassador Douglas MacArthur II.
 * Ambassador Douglas MacArthur … was in Iran, where his harrowing escapes from kidnapping at the hands of the militant People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI, or MEK in Farsi) presaged the growing inner turmoil which would erupt into the Iranian Revolution.
 * Il 30 novembre del 1971 fallì un attentato condotto dal MeK contro l'ambasciatore americano a Tehran40, Douglas MacArthur, mentre nel maggio del 1972 venne ferito in un agguato il generale dell'Usaf Harold Price41.

Ghazaalch (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , would you add the new sources to the article? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I plan to, but I'm thinking about changing the text to add the exact date, a bit of context, and a better description of the disputed attribution. MarioGom (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of attack on MEK base in Iraq by US-led coalition
, In this edit, you removed the following items from the lead. Why?Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Attacks on Iranian targets were intermittent 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.


 * The conflicts between the I.R. and the MEK were already in the lead (and more neutral), as well as the 2003 ceasefire agreement between the MEK and the US. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , there is currently a vague sentence in the lead (In 2003, the MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf.[70][71]) with no explanation as to what events led to that ceasefire and why the U.S. should sign a ceasefire with the MEK. Also, there is no information about the activities of MEK from 1988 to 2002 in the lede. Don't you think we should at least have parts of the deleted sentences in the lead?Ghazaalch (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since many of these lead discussions are going nowhere, I encourage everyone to view the The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism to understand what sort of material is due or not in an encyclopedic summary of the group. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, concerning the text that Fad Ariff removed, I found the following in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism:
 * In the 1990s the MEK carried out and claimed responsibility for a number of attacks ...In April 1992, in a large-scale attack ...In 1998 a member of the MEK tried to ...In February 2000 the group claimed that it had launched over 12 attacks against Iran, .... Later that year, the MEK regularly accepted responsibility for mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids along the Iraq-Iran border;...It also accepted responsibility for for six mortar attacks on government and military buildings in Tehran. During this period, the MEK received the majority of its funding from the Saddam ...
 * After Iraq was invaded and Hussein was overthrown by the United States in 2003, MEK members surrendered to the coalition forces and were held in a special prison, Camp Ashraf...
 * Ghazaalch (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the intersection between the MEK and Saddam's Iraq is currently a bit minimalized on the page at present. The MEK was essentially an Iraqi proxy group from 1981 through to 2003, so that's more than two decades of this activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert about MEK attack on Iranian embassies

 * , you deleted In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10/13 Iranian embassies which has numourous reliable sources from the lede but insist on keeping this one in the lede? Why? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * if you want a quick answer, the prevailing sentiment on this talk page suggests that the lead section is already excessively lengthy. If you wish to engage in a more comprehensive discussion on this matter, please direct your comments to the relevant talk page discussion. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that material cannot be added to the lead, so this is a non-reason. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved this to a separate discussion, since the one above is about a different topic. I hope you don't mind. MarioGom (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Including MEK attacks on 13 Iranian embassies in the lede(WP:RFCBEFORE)
Should we include MEK attacks on 13 Iranian embassies in the lede? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest closing this and continuing the already open active discussion. This talk is already overly plagues by RFCs, and I do not think the existing discussion has fully played out, nor is it substantive to the level of WP:RFCBEFORE. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar, I am closing this per your comment but my experience tell me that we could never add anything critical of MEK this article without starting a RfC.

Proposal
I propose including the following in the lede:
 * In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10/13 Iranian embassies including the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York.

Alternative proposal
If above sentence is too long for the lede we could summarize it as bellow; and we could also delete the footnote:
 * In April 1992, the MEK attacked 10/13 Iranian embassies.

I tried to add this to the lede but Fad Ariff reverted it and wrote in the edit summary that This is not "new information". I explained above that the information was not included in the lede and tried to reach consensus but they did not give me a satisfying explanation. I am open to more explanation here. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * For obvious reasons related to this material being related to a multinational attack on diplomatic missions, this was a significant event. However, I'm not entirely sure it is due in the lead. The material is not particularly expanded upon even in the body. It would be worth finding reports from all 10 countries in question and determining if the attacks resulted in any further ramifications or repercussions. As it stands, this event is not on the same order as other bombings and operations that are notable to the extent of having their own pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ghazaalch: I've changed my mind after seeing it in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The point under discussion holds a relatively low level of notability compared to other well-documented aspects. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you assert that, without source, immediately after a tertiary source has been provided saying otherwise? Part of the discussion process is absorbing new information and reacting to it, otherwise it's not collegiate. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are ten sources for the text, including the one suggested by Iskandar323, but I'm sure there are more:
 * In April 1992, the MEK attacked 13 Iranian embassies.

Replacing a text with one source with a similar one that has four(WP:RFCBEFORE)
Since above discussion became a mess and Fad Ariff stopped replying me, I am opening a new straightforward discussion here.

I am going to replace this one-sourced material:
 * 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."

with the following which has four sources:
 * 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.

Any comment? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The forbidding of marriage and eternal divorce line at the beginning corrects important omissions, but I'm not sure about the wider changes. I do not mind much of the original material and the extended commentary from Abrhamian, which is pretty insightful as to the reaction from the wider society at the time. I think some smaller changes or just simple additions might be preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so you agree that we could add the sentence "During the "ideological revolution" Rajavi forbade marriage and mandated "eternal" divorce for all members, who had to divorce their wives." before the starting this paragraph: "Five weeks later, the MEK announced that ...".

, do you see any problem with adding this sentence? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is another discussion already addressing this material. Could you please clarify the rationale behind initiating a separate section to discuss the same topic? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an RFCBEFORE discussion along entirely different lines - what's to understand exactly? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.Ghazaalch (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Lack of name until 1972
Currently the article states The group had no name until February 1972.. This is an interesting aspect that could use some further context. I vaguely recall reading something about this in another source, but I lost track of it. Any idea about other sources? If they had no name for ~7 years, how they were known or how did they call themselves, even if informally? MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it a "violation of primary source"?
In the section related to human rights, we have this sentence, "Yonah Alexander also claimed that the HRW had been deceived by former MEK members then working for Iran's Ministry of Intelligence". A sentence by Yonah Alexander was referenced by a source written by him. This is an example of violation of primary source, "materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Isn't it? GharaDash (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * His book is a primary source for his views, but attributed, as an expert, it's ok. However, the paragraph attributed to him, basically as a quote, should probably be paraphrased down into a brief sentence noting his opinion. More than that is not due. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough reply!GharaDash (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Largest and most active political opposition group?(WP:RFCBEFORE)
why you are insisting on restoring It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.[19][20][21] which is contested by many sources? Ghazaalch (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources defying the claim:
Ghazaalch (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The M.E.K. advocacy campaign has included full-page newspaper advertisements identifying the group as “Iran’s Main Opposition” — an absurd distortion in the view of most Iran specialists...
 * Analysts say it has little support inside Iran today, where it is regarded as a terrorist organisation and has been accused of assassinating senior politicians and targeting civilians.
 * "When [MEK] lost, it became the tool of Saddam Hussein until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is now little more than a Rajavi cult with little influence in Iran and even less popularity."
 * "While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran."
 * "the US and UK politicians loudly supporting a tiny revolutionary group stranded in Albania ... a fringe Iranian revolutionary group that has been exiled to Albania, known as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran..."
 * the organization as a fringe group... Their population in Iran hovers between negligible and nill
 * "the M.E.K...a fringe Iranian opposition group, long an ally of Saddam Hussein, that is designated as a terrorist organization... "
 * "a fringe Iranian diaspora group, Mujahideen-e Khalq, or MEK"
 * "a fringe group of militant Iranian exiles known as the Mujahedin-e Khalj (MEK)..."


 * Oops. I didn't see this before posting. I have opened below to prepare an RFC, since this will probably require it. MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll withdrew this discussion.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Designating MeK as a terrorist organization
In my opinion, using the word "previously" in The European Union, Canada, the United States, and Japan have previously listed the MEK as a terrorist organization is to downplay the importance of designating MEK as a terrorist organization. Not mentioning the reason for the designation, and the reason for delisting is another reason for downplaying the importance. I suggest replacing it with:


 * From 1997 to 2012, the MEK was on the list of terrorist organizations of the U.S. (and other countries) for its string of international assassinations including killing of U.S. personnel in Iran during the 1970s.

What do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since no objection, I am restoring this proposal.Ghazaalch (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I object, this doesn't align what is in the article. Alex-h (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which part does not align? should it align with what in the article or it should align with what is in the sources? Ghazaalch (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more precise to outline the period, whereas 'previously' is vague. It might need phrasing slightly more carefully to reflect the fact that the US was 1997 to 2012, but the other countries were different years + Japan till 2013. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? MarioGom (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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


 * 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.


 * Because it's obviously extremely undue and irrelevant. Who gives rat's arse what the MEK's nominal status was in the eyes of the US between 2004 and 2009, and how is that incredibly transient and US jurisdiction-specific detail lead-worthy? I can't think of a reason to include it. It's 100% irrelevant in 2023, one way or another. The real question is how could it be WP:DUE due? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's WP:DUE because there are many sources that support it, and there aren't any sources that contradict it. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE is about neutrally balancing sources, not weighting the contents of the lead, which reflects the article. This information is borderline irrelevant in the article as a whole; it is therefore borderline irrelevant in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it might be due in the article, perhaps in the section about de-listing. But definitely not in the lede. In the context of the lede (a summary), this paragraph is just minutiae. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's related to the US delisting, which was in 2012, but yes, minutiae. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd have to check if reliable sources discuss this in relation to de-listing. I just assumed it had some relevance in the context of the long campaign to de-list the MEK. But it was just a guess. MarioGom (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is ironically even more irrelevant than that. It's just a temporary status that the US put in place over the residents of Camp Ashraf after the Iraq invasion, presumably to stop Baghdad bombing the place. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Then Post-U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003–2016) sounds like the right place, where it currently is. MarioGom (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and given that there is only a sentence or two about it in the body - let's generously call it 50 words out of 16,700 words - it is owed 0.02% of the lead, or about 1.5 words = nada. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reputable and uncontradicted sources support this statement, which demonstrates that the information is neither fringe or disputed but rather a recognized aspect of the MEK's history. This is also a key element in the MEK's history and its developing transition, and holds significance in understanding the MEK's international standing. Including the information in the lead section is undoubtedly appropriate. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? How is it a key element of anything? What source says that? Why is the temporary status of Camp Ashraf residents relevant to anything? I am at a loss to see how. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Being verifiable is a requirement for all content, in the lede and outside the lede. However, being verifiable is not sufficient condition to be in the lede. This passage is not disputed, but it's irrelevant to the lede. I don't think you'll find it in any of the shorter form tertiary sources, which are a great tool to assess due weight in summaries (except for recent events that happened after the publication of such tertiary sources). MarioGom (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iraniangal is not only saying this is WP:DUE (which it clearly is), but also that "This is also a key element in the MEK's history and its developing transition, and holds significance in understanding the MEK's international standing." (similarly, this assertion remains applicable). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone is saying this, and yes, it is an assertion; an unsupported one. So, the only full and final way to settle confusion over what is balanced or not in a certain context is to draw upon tertiary resources, to which end I found this entry in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, which, to my surprise, includes this material, to the tune of six words "and promised protection under the Geneva Convention". - after the line on them surrendering at Camp Ashraf. So, according to an independent tertiary source, that is what is due, and - short of any producing a tertiary source that expands further on this in a 500-word summary - that is what we can have here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm getting about 1500 hits in Google scholar about the MEK becoming protected persons under the Geneva Convention. Iskandar323, your edit removed information about the cease fire agreement and the group becoming 'protected persons' under the Fourth Geneva Convention, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Given its significance, I'll reinstate this information back because it's important. ParadaJulio (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it; I moved it and balanced it to match the emphasis in an actual academic tertiary source, not some mindless numbers game. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ParadaJulio: You've reverted more than what you have explained above. Why have you relocated the material away from the events it relates to, why do you think it should be emphasized above and beyond the emphasis in academic tertiary sources? Also, why did you revert other, things at the same time in that edit, like placing the countries who no longer regards it as a terrorist organization (old news) back in front of the countries that do regards it as such (current information), when it obviously makes more sense to have it the other way around? Why also did you re-expand the EU and US, which just wastes space? You have explained none of this in the comment above in the slightest. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your comment above is highly misleading. MEK+"Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" gets just 66 scholar hits; MEK+"Fourth Geneva Convention" 80 hits; MEK+"ceasefire agreement" gets 62 hots; so, wherever you have got your 1,500 hits numbers from, your methodology was clearly bogus. Contrast this with, say "MEK"+"cult", which gets 7,000+ hits. Based on your understanding of google scholar numbers, what does that mean for the emphasis we should place on that in the lead? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Google hits is pretty much irrelevant for assessing weight in the lede. The discussion is way past that point and we're analyzing actual sources. MarioGom (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is better to remove less important issues from the lead and replace them with more important issues.GharaDash (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, countries that delisted it are named first, followed by countries that have not. There is no need to modify this. The specific wording of "EU" and "US" is also frivolous. If your intention is solely to obtain sources that demonstrate this information has due weight, these seem to demonstrate that

ParadaJulio (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Masters, Jonathan. "Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)." Council on Foreign Relations 28 (2014).
 * Wills, Siobhán. "The Obligations Due to Former ‘Protected Persons’ in Conflicts that have Ceased to be International: The People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran." Journal of Conflict & Security Law 15.1 (2010): 117-139.
 * Goulka, Jeremiah, et al. The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum. RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INST SANTA MONICA CA, 2009.
 * De Boer, Tom, and Marjoleine Zieck. "From internment to resettlement of refugees: on US obligations towards MeK defectors in Iraq." Melbourne Journal of International Law 15.1 (2014): 21-108.
 * Bahgat, Gawdat. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge." The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 38.4 (2008): 1.
 * Shay, Shaul. "ALBANIA AND THE IRANIAN TERROR THREAT." Security Science Journal 1.1 (2020): 35-44.
 * Elsea, Jennifer K. "US Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues." LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2005.
 * Bassiouni, M. Cherif. "Legal status of US forces in Iraq From 2003-2008." Chi. J. Int'l L. 11 (2010): 1.
 * Marinova, Nadejda K. "Policymakers and Diasporas in Informal Public Diplomacy." Routledge International Handbook of Diaspora Diplomacy. Routledge, 2022. 230-242.
 * Hassani, Sara. "“Maniacal slaves:” normative misogyny and female resistors of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Iran." International Feminist Journal of Politics 19.3 (2017): 281-295.
 * Warren, Marc. "The" Fog of Law": The Law of Armed Conflict in Operation Iraqi Freedom." International Law Studies 86.1 (2010): 12.
 * Anglin, Leighton W. The Effect Terrorist Labels Have On Military Operations. ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES, 2012.
 * Bahgat, Gawdat. "Iran and the United States: Reconcilable Differences?." Iranian studies 41.2 (2008): 139-154.


 * Your comment seems to be bear no relation with the change being discussed here. MarioGom (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is frivolous is the level of detail being maintained here above and beyond that of far more relevant details. A list of random sources has zero bearing on the fundamental balance issue here. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My intention is to reduce the text involved here to what is due based on the balance of overall sources, instead of the overwrought and misplaced text that currently stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you think these sources are "random" or "bear no relation"? They are all about the MEK's disarmament by the US, which is important to say. It's beyond me why anyone would seek to remove this considering the multitude of supporting sources available.
 * ParadaJulio (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What we are discussing here is that the following text, 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. is excessively detailed for the lede. I think Iskandar323 has done a good job explaining this, and you have not even tried to refute his arguments at all. You have added a set of quotes that, for the most part, do not address the issue. Only one, the last one, refers to the 4th Geneva Convention status grant in 2004, and none refers to its expiration in 2009. I think mentioning that the US disarmed the MEK in 2003 is due in the lede. The rest is minutiae. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323 argues that the information provided is "borderline irrelevant" to the overall article, and therefore, it should also be considered as such in the lead. However, ParadaJulio presented a range of sources demonstrating not only the relevance and significance of this content but also its extensive coverage in reliable sources. This effectively challenges Iskandar323's claim of its irrelevance. Iskandar323 removed the statement "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf" from the lead without any justifiable reason. Iskandar323 also incorrectly stated in the lead that the MEK "were promised protection under the Geneva Convention," while in reality, the MEK was granted protection under the Geneva Convention. These changes lean more towards vandalism rather than anything commendable. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iraniangal777: Please can you look at the diff more closely. I just trimmed and moved the statement. My edit actually clarified that they were promised protection in 2003, after the invasion, and then the status was conveyed by the US in June 2004. That is what you will see two if you read the sources that I referenced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These changes lean more towards vandalism rather than anything commendable. Not at all. I think there is a fair amount of policy-based arguments and sources here, both by Iskandar323 and me, to recognize this is a fair beta and not vandalism. ParadaJulio presented a range of quotes that, as I explained, were mostly not on-point, and not invalidating the edit, and then you come calling out the edit as vandalism. You've been involved in this topic long enough to know this is unacceptable. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you go through the 24 citations that ParadaJulio provided? Is your argument still that this is "borderline irrelevant" to the article? Why was "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf" removed from the lead if this marks a pivotal transition of the MEK going from being an armed group to becoming a disarmed group? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about random lists of sources; it's about establishing what the balance of sources say, and the way the material is presented in concise summaries of the group, which is what the aim of the lead is. This is exemplified by other tertiary sources. Yes, they surrendered and disarmed. That's important. No one's disputing that. It's the excessive peripheral detail being included that is unwarranted in the lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ParadaJulio (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What we are discussing here is that the following text, 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. is excessively detailed for the lede. I think Iskandar323 has done a good job explaining this, and you have not even tried to refute his arguments at all. You have added a set of quotes that, for the most part, do not address the issue. Only one, the last one, refers to the 4th Geneva Convention status grant in 2004, and none refers to its expiration in 2009. I think mentioning that the US disarmed the MEK in 2003 is due in the lede. The rest is minutiae. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323 argues that the information provided is "borderline irrelevant" to the overall article, and therefore, it should also be considered as such in the lead. However, ParadaJulio presented a range of sources demonstrating not only the relevance and significance of this content but also its extensive coverage in reliable sources. This effectively challenges Iskandar323's claim of its irrelevance. Iskandar323 removed the statement "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf" from the lead without any justifiable reason. Iskandar323 also incorrectly stated in the lead that the MEK "were promised protection under the Geneva Convention," while in reality, the MEK was granted protection under the Geneva Convention. These changes lean more towards vandalism rather than anything commendable. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iraniangal777: Please can you look at the diff more closely. I just trimmed and moved the statement. My edit actually clarified that they were promised protection in 2003, after the invasion, and then the status was conveyed by the US in June 2004. That is what you will see two if you read the sources that I referenced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These changes lean more towards vandalism rather than anything commendable. Not at all. I think there is a fair amount of policy-based arguments and sources here, both by Iskandar323 and me, to recognize this is a fair beta and not vandalism. ParadaJulio presented a range of quotes that, as I explained, were mostly not on-point, and not invalidating the edit, and then you come calling out the edit as vandalism. You've been involved in this topic long enough to know this is unacceptable. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you go through the 24 citations that ParadaJulio provided? Is your argument still that this is "borderline irrelevant" to the article? Why was "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf" removed from the lead if this marks a pivotal transition of the MEK going from being an armed group to becoming a disarmed group? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about random lists of sources; it's about establishing what the balance of sources say, and the way the material is presented in concise summaries of the group, which is what the aim of the lead is. This is exemplified by other tertiary sources. Yes, they surrendered and disarmed. That's important. No one's disputing that. It's the excessive peripheral detail being included that is unwarranted in the lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iraniangal777: Please can you look at the diff more closely. I just trimmed and moved the statement. My edit actually clarified that they were promised protection in 2003, after the invasion, and then the status was conveyed by the US in June 2004. That is what you will see two if you read the sources that I referenced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These changes lean more towards vandalism rather than anything commendable. Not at all. I think there is a fair amount of policy-based arguments and sources here, both by Iskandar323 and me, to recognize this is a fair beta and not vandalism. ParadaJulio presented a range of quotes that, as I explained, were mostly not on-point, and not invalidating the edit, and then you come calling out the edit as vandalism. You've been involved in this topic long enough to know this is unacceptable. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you go through the 24 citations that ParadaJulio provided? Is your argument still that this is "borderline irrelevant" to the article? Why was "MEK signed a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and put down their arms in Camp Ashraf" removed from the lead if this marks a pivotal transition of the MEK going from being an armed group to becoming a disarmed group? Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about random lists of sources; it's about establishing what the balance of sources say, and the way the material is presented in concise summaries of the group, which is what the aim of the lead is. This is exemplified by other tertiary sources. Yes, they surrendered and disarmed. That's important. No one's disputing that. It's the excessive peripheral detail being included that is unwarranted in the lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "That's important. No one's disputing that.": you disputed it. Now about the sources I provided, how exatly are they "random"?
 * Masters, Jonathan. "Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)." Council on Foreign Relations 28 (2014):
 * Wills, Siobhán. "The Obligations Due to Former ‘Protected Persons’ in Conflicts that have Ceased to be International: The People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran." Journal of Conflict & Security Law 15.1 (2010): 117-139.:
 * Goulka, Jeremiah, et al. The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum. RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INST SANTA MONICA CA, 2009.:
 * De Boer, Tom, and Marjoleine Zieck. "From internment to resettlement of refugees: on US obligations towards MeK defectors in Iraq." Melbourne Journal of International Law 15.1 (2014): 21-108.:
 * Bahgat, Gawdat. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge." The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 38.4 (2008): 1.:
 * Shay, Shaul. "ALBANIA AND THE IRANIAN TERROR THREAT." Security Science Journal 1.1 (2020): 35-44:
 * Elsea, Jennifer K. "US Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues." LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2005.:
 * Bassiouni, M. Cherif. "Legal status of US forces in Iraq From 2003-2008." Chi. J. Int'l L. 11 (2010): 1.:
 * Warren, Marc. "The" Fog of Law": The Law of Armed Conflict in Operation Iraqi Freedom." International Law Studies 86.1 (2010): 12.
 * Anglin, Leighton W. The Effect Terrorist Labels Have On Military Operations. ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES, 2012.:
 * Bahgat, Gawdat. "Iran and the United States: Reconcilable Differences?." Iranian studies 41.2 (2008): 139-154.:


 * In what way are these sources considered "not on-point" when they explicitly address the "protected persons" status? ParadaJulio (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's called discussion and it evolves. Hard concept to grasp, I know. I saw the status mentioned in the sage encyclopedia, so I accepted it's inclusion - to the level mentioned by that tertiary source. If you can find a respectable academically published tertiary source that mentions any more than that then I'll accept that too. You are just quoting sources that confirm what you want to hear, otherwise known as cherry picking; you are not doing a proper source analysis to establish weight or balance. But it's also probably not worth it for a lead detail this minor. Hence the utility of deferring to the tertiary sources that have already established weight and balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)