Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran

Continued manipulation of the site by removing categories and faking sources

The page has users active that consistently edit in comments in favor of the MEK. After proving that all the sources they add are related to the MEK or don't actually exist they refuse to acknowledge and engage in edit warring.

The original point mentions that the MEK won a court case against major German Newspapers that they have to retract an article. When checking the sources we can find the following:

1.Source is ArabNews

This was a local court case in Germany, no major German newspaper reports about it but a Saudi government affiliated newspaper does. Then when we look at the author of the piece we can see that author is affiliated with the MEK.

Link to MEK website:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/ali-safavi/

2. Source is Freitag.de a small local newspaper in Germany. We can see that the article is marked with the following statement:

"Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um ein Blog aus der Freitag-Community" which translates to "This post is taken from a blog of the Freitag-Community"

The Author mentions a court document with ID: 324 O 233/20

First googling this document ID, will once again only lead to MEK sources. Going directly to the courts website we can see that this document does not exist:

https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/bsha/search

We can also once again see that the author is affiliated with the MEK:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/martin-patzelt/

The 3. Source is once again an obscure newspaper with very limited reach. The author is Struan Stevenson.

We can once again see that the author is associated with the MEK:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/struan-stevenson/

This is a clear part of their disinformation campaign:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/nov/09/mek-iran-revolution-regime-trump-rajavi

A Summary:

All three sources are affiliated with the MEK. Mentioned court document does not exist. No major German or Non-German outlets reporting, but obscure ones in Saudi Arabia do. This is clearly damaging to the reputation of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and Spiegel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If Arab News reports something that a German newspaper does not report, then that is what it is. We don't edit according to national reports. When you find something that shows Arab News in invalid as source, then add this information here. Until then, the content has sources that are valid. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You are purposefully ignoring that the author is also listed as a supporter on the MEK site itself, that makes him biased by the rules of wikipedia. This is also a damaging allegation and the ArabNews only mentions it without any reference material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You are doing too much investigation work, and all you need to do is show where it is indicated that ArabNews is not a good source for Wikipedia. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your argumentation is dishonest. First you argue that ArabNews is trustworthy, which by itself is questionable. There is no freedom of press or freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, it is also directly influenced by the government of Saudi Arabia a major enemy of Iran, this by itself makes it biased enough. Then after I show even further that the source is biased, by the fact that the author is a supporter of the MEK, you suddenly shift your argument that to me doing to much investigative work. There is nothing in the rules that says we need to take any sources by face value. This is also very easy to verify by a simple google search and all in all took 5 minutes with public sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.58.208 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not our job to determine the level of freedom of press in Saudi Arabia. You do too much investigative work like I say already. Arab News is a reliable source as far I know. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So you actually accept that source is biased, but you want to keep it because I did too much "investigative work". Have you even read the rules of wikipedia? You have not, this will be deleted by the mods eventually and hopefully the page will be permanently protected against you disinformation trolls.

• As it is mentioned in this list, there is no consensus that Arab News is a reliable source, especially on the subjects related to Saudi Arabian politics.Ghazaalch (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus that ArabNews is not reliable, and the subject in this page is "Iranian politics" not "Saudi Arabian politics". If we were to follow such standards, we should also ban American politics from this article just because some American press has been favorable of the MEK and against the dictatorship in Iran. So there has not been any "manipulation" or "faking sources". 103.233.2.129 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are trying to divert the discussion from the author, who obviously is either an MEK member of supporter to a discussion about if ArabNews is unbiased. The author is already not, there is no further discussion needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.75.33.149 (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources like this are still supporting this fact. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

So if this happened in the court ordered them to take it down why is it still up?

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/iran-eine-politsekte-in-albanien-will-das-regime-in-teheran-stuerzen-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000162407686 "Über 2000 ihrer Leute leben in einem Camp in Albanien – Aussteiger erzählen von Psychoterror." Once again you come up with another fabricated source, that neither shows the court order and this time does not even have an author. You MEK people can pay some authors and fake some articles, but what you can can't do is make it actually disappear from the newspapers you are slandering.

I don't know why and I'm not going to do an internal investigation into what the Spiegel did or did not do. If you're that interested you can contact APNews and ask them to do a follow up story about that. And please stop calling other editors names, I did not refer to you as a "regime-paid troll", so don't call me a PMOI troll just because I provided some source you asked about. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Most of the above sources seem to be opinion pieces covered by WP:RSOPINION, where some of the authors have links to the NCRI. However, the AP News source looks like a solid, reliable source. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and replace those sources with the AP News source.VR _talk 07:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vice regent. It is OK with me. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I added the AP News citation to the article and remobed the cats i talked about in section underneath this one because nobody was able to provide citations for them. 103.233.2.129 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Vice regent can you please check this revert by you? The source does not say that the MEK bombed the United Nations compound in Iraq, it only says that this happened. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The page number doesn't seem to be given. I checked the source and on page 88 it says "August 19, 2003: Bombing of UN compound, prompting UN withdrawal from Iraq". Is that what you're referring to? If so, you're correct.VR _talk 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal[1]. I presume, based on your edit, that you were looking at the same page as me.VR _talk 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference about foundation

The sentence The MEK was founded on 5 September 1965 by leftist Iranian students affiliated with the Freedom Movement of Iran to oppose the Shah Pahlavi. currently has two references:

• Newton, Michael (2014). "Bahonar, Mohammad-Javad (1933–1981)". Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-61069-286-1. Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished. Various mujahedin were arrested and executed in reprisal, but Kashmiri apparently slipped through the dragnet.
• Chehabi, Houchang E. (1990). Iranian Politics and Religious Modernism: The Liberation Movement of Iran Under the Shah and Khomeini. I.B. Tauris. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-85043-198-5.

The quote given for the first reference seems to be completely unrelated. I wonder if it was initially added to support something else and text-source integrity has been lost. Does anyone have access to these sources to verify if they support the statement, if the page is correct, and possibly fix the quote? Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That was added in this edit. As the user is tbanned, I can't ping them or ask them about this edit. I didn't find any mention of "Freedom Movement of Iran" in Abrahamian (though its possible he mentions them with a slightly different name). The beginning are mentioned around pages 87-88. Actually I think our current article doesn't do justice to the very early history of the MEK. But this article is fairly large without much room to expand. Maybe we should consider WP:SPLITing out various parts of the article into separate ones.VR _talk 19:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked into the source and found the quote "founded by leftist Iranian students in 1965 to oppose Shah Pahlavi". I didn't find anything in the first source about the Freedom Party of Iran. I couldn't access the second source.VR _talk 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the edit introducing the reference. So the quote was obviously misplaced since it was introduced. The following source:

• Rezai, Hamid (2014). "Mujāhidīn-i Khalq". In Shahin, Emad (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press.

States that [...] repressive policies of the Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi's regime against the nonviolent opposition, prompted some members of the religious group within the Liberation Movement of Iran (LMI) to reconsider their strategies in the struggle against Pahlavi rule. [...] younger LMI activists, all university students [...]

This is quite consistent with what Abrahamian (1989) says (sorry, I don't have the quote at hand right now). We can replace the bad source with this encyclopedia entry, and/or Abrahamian with the right page and quote, change the organization name to Liberation Movement of Iran to match the source. Also a few sources mention September 1965, but I didn't see the exact date 5 September 1965 yet. MarioGom (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert of names

TheDreamBoat can you explain this revert? I found dozens of scholarly sources (of which I gave 6 citations because I thought that'd be enough) that refer to the organization by alternative, fully English, versions of its name. So when I added these names I qualified it with "This is sometimes translated into English as...". So why would you remove this? VR _talk 13:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You can see my edit summary, but I can explain more if you need. Many sources in the article (and also many not in this article) indicate that the most common names used are "People's Mujahedin of Iran", "Mojahedin-e-Khalq", "PMOI", and "MEK". Then there are other alternative names or spellings or translations (some among them "People's Mujahideen", "Mujahideen of the People", and so on and so on). If a clarification is needed in the article because a source uses an alternative spelling or translation, then we can make that clarification. But the section "Other names" already has the most WP:DUE names the scholarly literature uses when referring to the MEK. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheDreamBoat: WP:DUE doesn't mean we completely omit information, except when "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority". But this is not the case here. In fact, ngrams suggest that until 1983, "People's Strugglers" was more common than "People's Mujahedin". How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? VR _talk 14:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's worth mentioning all of the names used authoritatively by reliable sources at some point. The Ngram strongly suggests that the "People's strugglers" was used widely from 1975 to 1985 and was the dominant term in the late 1970s. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are 25 sources that use the two English translations for MEK:

• "People Strugglers":
• "Holy Warriors":, Government of Canada[2], United States Department of the Treasury[3], NPR[4], LA Times[5], The Intercept[6], Carnegie Council[7], Slate[8], The Guardian[9], WSJ[10], NBC News[11], CBC News[12], Washington Post[13].

Honestly, this should not have been a controversial edit. All I did was add English translation of the Farsi/Arabic name and provided 6 scholarly sources. I should not have to dig up 25 sources just to make small edits.VR _talk 17:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat I see you've been making edits to several articles, including this one, so can you please respond here as well? Thanks, VR _talk 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The MEK went through a strange period in the 1970s, specially from around 1975 to the Iranian Revolution. Most of its members were killed by SAVAK or incarcerated during this time, and the few left were pressured to convert to the Marxist splinter group that around that time became Peykar. I think that distinction is important, and it is a distinction that is sort of made in the article.

About "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors", most of the sources you provided make the distinction that they are referring to Mujahideen-e Khalq or MEK (and its different spellings), and these are already in "Other Names". Below I wrote an overview of the sources you gave and how they all make that distinction.

1. uses "Mujahideen-e Khalq" (and then gives a translation),
2. I don't have access to this source
3. gives the description "Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran - known henceforth as MEK"
4. I could not access page 188, but page 334 says "Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (People's Strugglers of Iran)
5. "The People's Strugglers of Iran (Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran)"
6. "People's Strugglers (Muhajedin-e Khalq)" (unpublished PhD thesis?)
7. page 242 says "The People's Strugglers (Mujahideen-e Khalq)"
8. "The Iranian People's Strugglers (IPS: Mojahedin-e Khalq)"
9. "Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Strugglers)"
10. I don't have access to this source
11. I don't have access to this source
12. "The Mujahedine Khalq (MEK; People's Holy Warriors), also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO)"
13. "the Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors)"
14. "Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) (also known among other names as Sãzimãn-i Mujãhidin-i Khalq-i Irãn (Holy Warrior Organization of the Iranian People) / Sazman-i Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran (Organization of the Freedom Fighters of the Iranian People) / Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (Organization of People’s Holy Warriors of Iran) / Sazeman-e-Mujahideen-e-Khalq-e-Iran, Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), Mujahiddin e Khahq, al-Khalq Mujahideen Organization, Mujahedeen Khalq, Modjaheddins khalg, Moudjahiddin-é Khalq, National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) (the military wing of the MEK) / Armée de Libération nationale iranienne (ALNI) and People’s Mujahidin Organization of Iran (PMOI) / People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) / Organisation des moudjahiddin du peuple d’Iran (OMPI) / Organisation des moudjahidines du peuple)"
15. very long list of names for the MEK, and all include the ones already in the "Other names" section (plus many more)
16. "They were unhappy with two stories about the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors, MEK). "
17. "This is Camp Ashraf, home to the Mujahedin Khalq: the people’s holy warriors."
18. "the MEK, whose name translates to “Holy Warriors of the People,”" (article uses "MEK" throughout)
19. "In the matter of the designation of Mujahadin-e Khalq, also known as MEK, also known as Mujahadin-e Khalq Organization, also known as MKO, also known as Muslim Iranian Students' Society, also known as National Council of Resistance, also known as NCR, also known as Organization of the People's Holy Warriors of Iran, also known as the National Liberation Army of Iran, also known as NLA, also known as National Council of Resistance of Iran, also known as NCRI, also known as Sazeman-e Mujahadin-e Khalq-e Iran, "
20. "The NLA’s parent organization—called the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)—or “People’s Holy Warriors”"
21. Article refers to the MEK as "MEK" throughout most the article
22. "The Mujahedin e-Khalq, or People's Holy Warriors..."
23. Article refers to the MEK as "MEK" throughout most of the article
24. Article refers to the MEK as "MEK" throughout most of the article

So whatever variant name or translation is used, most of these sources make it clear that we are talking about the Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK (and its different spellings). Like i said in my first comment, the most common names used are already in the "Other names" section. If there are variant in translations of the name in English that need a clarification, then we can make that distinction in the article, but the names in "Other Names" section are so prominent that even the sources you provided are already making that clarification for us.

The section "Other names" contain the most WP:DUE names already. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Note this was TheDreamBoat's original comment, which was later modified.VR _talk 20:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat's above comment doesn't make much sense to me because no one is disputed the "MEK" name for the organization, I'm only saying that alternative names are also commonly used. If there are no more objections (as TheDreamBoat has now been tbanned) I will restore my edit.VR _talk 20:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The section doesn't need more name variations since the main ones are already listed in that section. I agree that it's ok as it is. Ypatch (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is not OK if we add the English alternative of the Persian phrase "Mojahedin-e Khalq" to the "Other names" section but it is OK if we clarify it every time we use it in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, can you explain why "the section doesn't need more name variations"? Simply opposing an edit without a reason is not enough.VR _talk 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK or PMOI) and People’s Mujahedin of Iran are the names used in most of the scholarship. Adding more spellings or acronyms (for something that books already clear up for us) will give a confusing idea of what the most common names are. Most books already clarify who they are talking about when they write about the MEK, and those names are already in the article. Ypatch (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

All names used by a wide variety of reliable sources at one time or another should be mentioned at some point in the copy. It appears that such names here include "People Strugglers" and "Holy Warriors". Providing clarity means mentioning all relevant names along with appropriate redirect/disambiguation links. If there is a risk of confusion between current common names and historic but now outdated common names, this can be easily contextualised in the form of a sentence such as: "Past English versions of the group's names include ..." There is no reason to exclude any names repeatedly used in reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq are not usually known as "People's Strugglers" or "Holly warriors". A few sources using some translations or other spellings doesn't mean we should be using them as the group's other names (because they are not the group's other names). Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020:. I am repeating VR's question above: How many sources do you require to show you that "People's Strugglers" has been a commonly used name for the organization? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Iranian People's Strugglers" appears at least once in that US Camp Ashraf report, but does it appear only once? Because then it might be undue. "People's Holy Warriors" appears a lot times as the translation of MEK in US sources. (Also, see Ngram) Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Holy Warriors" is a not very known name for the MEK, and is used for describing the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization, a different group. Sorry. Ypatch (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean sorry? As if that was conclusive? You barely made an argument, let alone a convincing one. I provided an Ngram for "People's Holy Warriors", which is a lot more specific than just the second two words alone, and is a direct translation of MEK used in US sources. It is irrelevant which other groups may or may not use "Holy Warriors" as part of the translation for their name. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I see at least 3 different arguments from 3 different editors (including myself) giving reasonable explanation why that section doesn’t need more names added. The names you added back to the article had already been added (but that edit was reverted), so your recent edit may be a violation of the article’s WP:consensus required restriction. If you’re not aware, this article is under Wikipedia:ARBIRP and WP:GS/IRANPOL (there is a warning on top of this talk page “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit.”). I will provide a formal notice on your talk page so that this is clear. About this content, if you feel that strongly about it, start a RFC (which is the process for consensus building when editors cannot agree on something), but please do not edit war since this could lead to sanctions. Ypatch (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: It would be great if you could summarize those 3 arguments, because I personally haven't seen anything that provides a compelling case for ignoring reliable, secondary sources, the bedrock of Wikipedia content development in favour of selectively omitting certain names. It is also widely reported that the PMOI does not like the name "People's Holy Warriors" for instance, as it is considered bad PR these days. It concerns me that this poorly explained WP:STONEWALLING against clearly encyclopedic material just so happens to fairly neatly align with the PMOI's public relations preferences. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: When you mention consensus, there are three editors in this discussion thread in favour of inclusion, with now only you in opposition. DreamBoat, who originally removed the material, has been indefinitely topic banned, so is no longer an active voice on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The 3 arguments are my comment on "04:20, 14 February 2022", TheDreamBoat's comment on "19:21, 2 January 2022", and Hogo-2020's comment on "20:23, 14 February 2022". I don't know what you are trying to say with "It is also widely reported that the PMOI does not like the name "People's Holy Warriors" for instance, as it is considered bad PR these days.", but such baseless comments are not helpful here. Ypatch (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This was all in the sources I provided, and you could have read about it yourself if you had not removed them on the grounds of there being 'no consensus':

"Until the 1990s it was known as the People's Holy Warriors of Iran, but that's not the kind of name to win support in the west these days so it tweaked the name. Two decades ago, the state department identified the MEK as running what it called "a determined lobbying effort among western parliamentarians"."

"To conduct its propaganda campaign the group has established offices through western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and the Middle East. Through such efforts, the (MEK) attempt to transform western opprobrium for the government of Iran into expressions of support for themselves"."

What is the MEK and why did the US call it a terrorist organisation? (The Guardian) - Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I suppose my question here is: do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest with the PMOI? Because you appear to be pushing the public relations stance that they took up in the 1990s on translations of the group's name. And the only other editor who has contributed significantly to pushing this position is a convicted meat puppet who has ceased activity since they were banned from the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

However, thanks for pointing out the comments in question. The first point (from the banned DreamBoat) is unclear. They say that all of the sources are clearly talking about the MEK. Yes, that's the point. If they weren't, they wouldn't be sources. They then say the translations are not common enough to be in "other names", but the pull quotes that they have actually quite helpfully pulled out quite effectively make the opposite case, by showing the numerous instances in which these names are used quite matter-of-factly as natural, default and accepted translations of the group's name. The second point (yours) about common names is moot, as I am not suggesting putting them at the top of the lead as common names, but down below as other names. The third point (Hogo's) about not basing it on just a few sources, is also made moot by the presence of not a few, but dozens of sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unless further, substantiated arguments on this matter, I am going to restore the reliably sourced material on other names on the basis of their being more active editors in favour of this material than against it. There is certainly no clear consensus or justified motive for omitting reliably sourced other names. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323: 3 substantiated arguments have been given on this matter. Also please see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Start a RFC if you continue to think that this should be in the article. I know I have mentioned this before, but please be aware that WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") and the article's restrictions including Consensus required, WP:ARBIRP, and WP:GS/IRANPOL. Ypatch (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I've addressed the three points that you have directed me towards and you haven't responded in kind. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit further, because if you are not open to talk page discussion, how exactly do you expect the type of consensus you are looking for to emerge? RE: WP:ONUS, three editors in favour of including something is quite compelling consensus when set alongside one editor strongly objecting to inclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already answered you here, here, and here. You think the argument of the 3 editors that want to add more names to the article is compelling. I think the argument of the 3 editors opposing adding more names to the article is compelling. For this reason I have suggested you start a RFC if you want a concrete consensus. Ypatch (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I have responded to all three points, explaining why they are not good arguments. Now I am giving you the opportunity to defend them. Just because three editors have made some sort of point at some point does says nothing about the quality of the points made. Wikipedia is based on quality not quantity of arguments.

1) Hogo made no point, apart from saying that these names are not usually used - which we can all agree on: none of them are currently the group's WP:COMMONNAME (both are primarily historic and linked to usage by Western governments) - hence no one is arguing to have them at the top of the article.

2) I am not 100% clear what Dream Boat's point was (for what their opinion is worth, as a banned editor), so perhaps you could explain it. All I see is a list of sources justifying the inclusion of these names. However, I would note that even Dream Boat said that if there are other translations we can make that distinction in the article.

3) You say adding more names will be confusing. How so? The principle names are BOLDED at the top of the article. The other names are in a dedicated section entitled 'other names'. Seems pretty obvious and self-explanatory. Torn between reliable sources and your sense of confusion, I'm going to go with reliable sources.

As I see it, we are left with basically one, fairly suspect argument from yourself about it potentially being confusing despite the use of these names in multiple reliable sources and the proposed placement of them in a section which specifically disambiguates these alternative names from the principle names currently in active usage.

Hence, perhaps you could expand on this: why should we raise an RFC over disagreement from a single editor? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Selective quoting of NYT article

The article currently says, based on this NYT article, that "Former military officers who had aided in guarding the MEK camp in Iraq said "its members had been free to leave since American military began protecting it in 2003." The officers said they had not found any prison or torture facilities". But this is selective quoting of the NYT article. The NYT points out that these particular officers had been suggested to NYT by MEK itself. And that when NYT contacted Capt. Matthew Woodside who oversaw the MEK camp (and who "was not one of those whom the M.E.K. suggested I contact"), he gave a different account. According to Woodside "American troops did not have regular access to camp buildings or to group members whose relatives said they were held by force", that American troops were allowed access to MEK members "only after a delay of several days", and that it was difficult for women to escape.

This text should be rewritten to give a more accurate representation of NYT.VR _talk 16:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I see Ypatch made that edit, so I hope they can explain.VR _talk 05:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

VR: the source supports the passage, but if you think that the passage can be written better, then propose a revision (rather than pinging me with "I hope they can explain"). Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ypatch, it is the responsibility of every editor (including myself) to "include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source." So if I ever err in not including qualifying information in the same source then please ping me and remind me of my mistake as well (esp if that information is in the very next sentence), and I will strive to correct it. Anyway, I have rewritten the passage. Feedback is welcome.VR _talk 05:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You've skipped proposing a revision and just edited the article, also removing some things that we didn't talk about (so I find you edit summary sort of misleading). I have partly restored that content and also kept some of what you added about Captain Woodside. I hope that resolves this. Ypatch (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ypatch: I don't see a functional difference in this edit (maybe I'm missing something), so I'm fine with your edit. And I generally prefer to follow the WP:BRD cycle (which means make a bold edit first, then discuss, but do not edit war).VR _talk 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Vice regent. Still I think the existing text is not a fair representative of the NYT. As you wrote above, the original text is saying that the two officers who gave a good view of MEK, had been suggested to NYT by MEK itself, while the one who NYT reporter, himself, chose, gave a different view, and this should be clarified in this article. The overall content of the NYT is against MEK hypocrisy, while the existing text in this article shows that most of officers had a good view of MEK. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Ghazaalch: feel free to suggest an alternative. But my bigger concern is that there is duplication of material and that the sources used earlier in the paragraph appear to be WP:SELFPUB. The book "The United Nations and Human Rights in Iraq" is published by a publisher which describes itself as "New Generation Publishing is the leading UK self-publishing service dedicated to helping more writers to sell more books". Likewise, "People's Mojahedin of Iran – Mission report" appears to be the self-published work of some politicians. And look carefully at the url, it links to "http://ncr-iran.org", which is the official website of the NCRI/MEK itself.VR _talk 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Sorry for the delay. I changed the text to a more accurate representation of NYT. About the self-published content, it is obvious that should be removed or replaced with a better source, so go ahead and do what you perceive better. Thanks for your good work.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: be WP:BOLD and do it yourself, and if someone objects, engage in post-edit discussion as per WP:BRD.VR _talk 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There are three former American military officers making one argument, and one former naval reservist making another argument, so I have made that clear in the article while retaining some edits by Ghazaalch. I have also made this a bit shorter since the article needs some summarization in general. Ypatch (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ypatch You didn't make it shorter and you didn't make it clearer. You wrote it in a way as if the three officers were independent. Why are you doing this? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ypatch, per this edit, you need to explain why the sources are reliable? They appear to be WP:SELFPUB to me. Self-published sources can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF but that requires the "it does not involve claims about third parties", but clearly the claims being made here are about third parties.VR _talk 20:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I did explain it in my edit summary. "This is attributed to "the MEK and four Members of the European Parliament" and is published by L'Harmattan". L'Harmattan seems a reliable publisher, and the information is attributed to the MEK and European Parliament members. Ypatch (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are all books by "L'Harmattan" reliable? I came across this article in Le Monde. Based on the google translation, L'Harmattan's model seems to be self-publishing. Further, one of the authors mentioned, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, has financial ties to the MEK. Hence this can't be regarded as an WP:INDEPENDENT source.VR _talk 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about image that was added recently

This image added by VR recently was uploaded by the same editor that uploaded the image removed at commons for copyright violation. I've been going through some of the user's other uploads, and they all seem to be relating to the MEK, some making outlandish allegations, like these ones "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd woman and her children in PMOI rally""African-American citizens with People's Mujahedin of Iran banners in demonstrations in front of headquarters of the United Nations, New York" "Statement of the People's Mujahedin of Iran about attempted assassination of an American diplomat via Bakhtar Emrooz". There are also many with questionable copyright claims (like the one that was previously deleted). I will take this up at Commons in detail. For now I'm replacing the image with an image from Operation Mersad (which is relevant to that section). Ypatch (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain the copyright issue with the image I uploaded? Just because an image was uploaded by someone who has made copyright mistakes in the past doesn't make it a copyright violation. If there's confusion then perhaps I can ask an admin who is an expert in copyright issues.VR _talk 05:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or wrong about the copyright, but VR added this image to the article [14], and it was then replaced for another image by Ypatch[15]. But Ghazaalch then restored Vice regent's edit, which is a violation of the "Consensus Is Required" restriction of this article.

Ghazaalch are you aware that the article is under Consensus is required restrictions? It's indicated on top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• The copyright claims should be discussed at Commons. Is there any other reason to oppose the inclusion of this image? MarioGom (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that nobody has brought up the issue at Commons, and so far there is no other objection to the image, I have restored it [16]. MarioGom (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ypatch's concern was not valid so my edit was not violating anything. Copyright concerns should be taken to Commons.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that we don't see eye to eye about this. According to WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Begin a RFC if you think your points are strong enough to have those names in the article. I know I mentioned this already but please familiarise yourself with the article's restrictions including WP:ARBIRP, WP:GS/IRANPOL and "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." Ypatch (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If you could simply remove material on the basis of a false premise, the DS in place would be extremely vulnerable to abuse. For material to be considered disputed assumes valid reasons for dispute. The copyright concerns raised here are not in evidence, and, if they were, the suitable venue for them would be the Commons, and the image would then be deleted automatically, no editors required. The other issue you raise is with the accuracy of the captions on the images, but this claim has not specifically been made here: are you suggesting that the image here is not of MEK leader Massoud Rajavi sitting with Saddam Hussain? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it is best for this to be decided at Commons. Ypatch (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Summarization

If there is any willingness here to summarize the article, I'd be willing to help summarize it to meet WP:ARTICLESIZE guidelines. My principle for first pass summarizing is as follows:

• reduce the character count as much as possible
• while preserving all significant information

These principles might seem contradictory but I think they can be maintained with some clever wordsmithing. The second principle is especially important because removing information can open a (POV) can of worms, so I won't do that. The reason I'm posting here is to ensure my efforts have consensus. If my hard work summarizing just gets reverted (as it did in the past), I'll probably just give up and go work on some other article.VR _talk 06:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

VR, I agree and I will give my assistance in this task. I notice that you added more text to the section "Fundraising", which is already a very long section. I will start with that section.

Here is an explanation of what I will do:

Merge all of the Terrornomic interviews with Nejat Society in one paragraph

Separate information by IBTimes and the Guardian source.

Remove "In December 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation discovered what a 2004 report calls "a complex fraud scheme involving children and social benefits", involving the sister of Maryam Rajavi" because this is about Rajavi's sister and not the MEK.

Also remove "Initially, The Greens supported these organizations while it was unaware of their purpose." because it is unrelated to "Fundraising".

Also remove "In 1999, after a 2 1⁄2-year investigation, Federal authorities arrested 29 individuals in Operation Eastern Approach,[12] of whom 15 were held on charges of helping MEK members illegally enter the United States.[13] The ringleader was pleaded guilty to providing phony documents to MEK members and violation of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[14][15]" because it is unrelated to "Fundraising"

I think the section will be turned to about the right size for something like "Fundraising", also keeping all the sources. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat I specifically said "while preserving all significant information" yet you seem to have removed significant information in your edit. Also you need to stop making edits (eg this) that make it hard to follow what exactly you are doing. So some of your summarizing in that edit might be good, but it is lumped with removal of significant information which I don't agree with. So I suggest you self-revert, then make changes one paragraph at a time, and I suggest sticking to summarizing without removing significant information.VR _talk 15:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat: Remove "In December 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation discovered what a 2004 report calls "a complex fraud scheme involving children and social benefits", involving the sister of Maryam Rajavi" because this is about Rajavi's sister and not the MEK. No. The cited report is a criminal investigation of MEK. It was investigated and reported in the context of MEK. It could use better sourcing (or check what Goulka 2009 says about this), but I don't think the claim that this is unrelated to MEK has much merit. MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom ok, I missed that this was in the context of an investigation about MEK, so i will put it back in the article. I suggest this summary:

"In 2001, a joint FBI-Cologne police operation discovered what a fraud scheme involving social benefits and children in relation to Maryam Rajavi's sister."

Let me know if you agree.

Vice regent can you explain which part you think should be restored to the article and why? also please don't bring discussions from other articles into this talk page, that makes everything more confusing. Thank you. TheDreamBoat (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have summarized the section into 273 words, down from 507 words that it was before (including moving an unrelated sentence out of the section).[17] I believe my summary retains all significant information but expresses it in about half the words. For reference, TheDreamBoat's summary was 206 words. I have also replaced an unreliable source (WP:IBTIMES) with more reliable sources. Hope that is satisfactory for all.VR _talk 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to help with this too. The lead is far too too detailed and much of the article reads the same way. Pious Brother (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• There are sources repeated in that section that don’t need to be repeated. For example, RAND and Clark sources were repeated multiple times in the section. That is unnecessary, so I have tried to merge them. Tried also to find a middle-ground between VR's edit and what was there before. By the way, I could not find the source for “Cohen, 2013”. About the material supported by Cohen 2009, this seems to be in context of the 1980s, so I added this to the article. Ypatch (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ypatch: Multiple footnotes to the same source, even within the same section, are often required to maintain text-source integrity. Also, given how controversial this page is, supporting a statement with multiple reliable sources is important, and they should generally not be dropped if they support the statements. MarioGom (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom: I don't think that repeatingly quoting the same sources is helpful, especially when we are trying to summarize the section. Can you explain what crucial information is missing in that section that isn't there at the moment? Ypatch (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch: I haven't been able to check the sources, so I don't know if any is missing. But per WP:INTEGRITY, if one of the footnotes was meant to support the immediately preceding content, it should stay. A footnote in a different place is not implied to support that content. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioGom: Can you explain where I have placed a footnote in a different place where is not implied to support that content"? Ypatch (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: you are confusing "repeatingly quoting the same sources" with "repeating the same content". The former is absolutely fine, and given some sources are more comprehensive than others, we will certainly be quoting some sources very often.VR _talk 05:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of your edit. Your edit creates several issues and its not clear what exactly were you trying to fix? Here are some of the issues with your edit:

• You have qualified well-known facts with "according to". For example, MEK's funding by Iraq is a well known fact attested to by multiple reliable sources. Are there any sources that deny this? If not, why did you qualify this with "according to". It waters down a fact into an opinion.
• You changed:

A UK-based charity, "Iran Aid", claimed to raise funds for poor Iranians, but the money instead went to MEK militants in Iraq. It collected approximately £5 million annually, until it was closed in 2001 by the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

to:

Through a charity called Iran Aid, MEK also raised around £5m per year in Britain, which was closed in 2001.

Why did you remove that (1) the money was collected under false premises, and (2) it was diverted to military purposes? Goulka calls it "MeK sham charity", Cohen says "The money was supposed to be given...to poor Iranian families... [but instead] used to finance the Mojahedin’s armed fighters based in Iraq".

• You replaced ""Committee for Human Rights" was a charity used to supported MEK's military activities with ""Committee for Human Rights" was a charity used to support MEK's activities". You omitted "military" when the source specifically says "money was going in part to support the group's "terrorist activities""? Another source says that the charity's money was "used to buy rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons for fighting the Iranian government." Is there any RS that denies this?
• You removed "In Germany, the MEK operated a charity for Iranian orphans, using false pictures of children. At its height, the charity raised 600-700 DM/day, until it was closed in 1988 by police." Why?
• You removed "The MEK has also been linked to international money-laundering activities." Why?
• Your edit completely messed up the order. My 1st para summarized Iraqi and Saudi funding, my 2nd para summarized MEK funding by charities. But in your edit, you first mention Iraq and Saudi funding, then you mention charities in the US, Germany and Britain, then you come back to Iraq funding again, then you go back to charity in the UK. Why?
• You added "[the Dutch intelligence agency, AIVD's] allegations constituted "lies from the Iranian regime"". I did find this in this source. Saying that the Dutch allegations came from Iran is not the whole story. The 2002 AIVD report seems to attribute its intelligence to "Western intelligence and security services" as opposed to the Iranian government.VR _talk 05:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ypatch: I suggest you self-revert your problematic edit and discuss each of the above mentioned problems one by one before you implement them in the article.Ghazaalch (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I can either explain my edits, or we could revert to the long standing version and VR and I can propose a summary of this section through DR. Ypatch (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• You can revert to the longstanding version only when there is a convincing and substantiated objection. VR showed in detail that your edit has substantial problems. Therefore, it seems better for you to undo your edit, which contains several problems. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I did not change the content, only attributed it to the sources. About Iraq, this word is mentioned a lot in the article (over 150 times). I think we can find a way to summarize the MEK’s relation with Iraq.
• Regarding Iran Aid, Cohen says that "The MISS [Muslim Iranian Students Society] founded a capital-raising system called Iran Aid", and funds were used to finance Mojahedin armed fighters. Goulka says “In great britain , the organization "Iran Aid" was closed by the government for being an MEK front (author's conversations at the Nejat Society)”. Nejat Society is a strange organization not suited to be quoted at large in contentious material. Also it is not clear how MISS is related to the MEK, so I thought making it short and neutral would be a good way to keep this. If most editors support adding that the money was “used to finance the Mojahedin’s armed fighters in Iraq”, then I don’t oppose putting this in the article. However the matter about “Iraq” being repeated a lot in the article remains an issue, and if we revise this we could put all the Iraq content in the same paragraph.
• About “committee for Human Rights” the Guardian says the US attorney's office said "the money was going in part to support the group's terrorist activities". VR, you wrote “military activities”. The new source you presented does say “grenades and other weapons for fighting the Iranian government”, so if all agree, we can put that in the article.
• Then I summarized that the “MEK ran front fund raising organizations in Germany, U.S., and Great Britain” (because the point of these edits were to summarize).
• About the order, I agree that we could put things according to region. If everyone else also agrees, I will write this section again based on all the things mentioned here. Ypatch (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, you still haven't explained what was wrong with my summarization? I asked you this on Jan 15 but still you haven't substantiated your edit. If you don't substantiate your edit, I will revert it. Your above comments also don't address all of the problems I mentioned with your summarization. Can I assume that your lack of response to my objections above means you agree?

Regarding your points above:

• the MEK was located in Iraq for two decades, so yes that will be mentioned a lot in the article. What's wrong with that?
  • we could put all the Iraq content in the same paragraph. That's not necessarily good organization. We arrange content thematically. Can you specify your objections to my arrangement?
• My summary did not quote Nejat society, but rather quoted a scholarly book published by Ashgate Publishing (a scholarly publisher). Of course, authors and historians sometimes interview witnesses. There is no rule that a historian who interviews witnesses is an unreliable source on wikipedia.
• My phrase “military activities” is a good way of summarizing "terrorist activities" and "grenades and other weapons for fighting the Iranian government". What's your objection to that?

VR _talk 20:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You haven't explained what is wrong with my summarisation. That the MEK was located in Iraq for two decades can be summarised in a few lines, so there is no need to have it repeated over 150 times. Nejat society is who the author quotes as source, and that is not a good source as you probably know? I did offer some compromises with your edits in my summarisation, but you insist in only having your version of the summary. Ypatch (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I gave a very detailed explanation of what is wrong with your summarisation above on Jan 15. It seems your only objection to my summarization is that I quote a source that cites the author's conversations at Nejat society as one of its sources? Do you have other objections to my summary besides that? VR _talk 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch, its been 12 days since my last response, and nearly month since your last response. Thus I have reverted your edits to that section. I'm happy to engage constructively in improving the current text. VR _talk 02:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent:, I understand that you prefer your version over mine, but you should have at least pinged me before edit warring your version back into the article. In restoring your version without reaching consensus (after it had been reverted) you've violated the article's restriction that say consensus is required: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit." I will restore the longstanding version to the article, and we can have others vote about whether my version or your version is more suitable. Please stop disregarding the article's restrictions, weren't you warned not to do this already? Ypatch (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ypatch: My version had never been reverted until now, so I don't see the CRP violation. You on the other hand just committed a CRP violation (perhaps accidentally?). The version you restored was written by TheDreamBoat on Dec 31 and reverted by myself on Jan 6. But you re-reverted to TDB's version.VR _talk 11:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: This is the version you added on January 6 (with your edits [18][19][20]). That content was then modified by other editors, and then you restored that content again to the article on January 25([21]) Do you see it now?

I was trying to revert the version before the different versions were added. Is this it? If it is not, please restore to the correct version that was in the article before this mess. Ypatch (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That the MEK was located in Iraq was 20 years of intense activity of MEK history and this article is about MeK. So it is not strange if we have to repeat it while writing about MeK. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
References

• How is the Summarization coming along? The lead too long tag has been on the page since June 2021. Perhaps we can start by defining its scope and which details are due? Pious Brother (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• FYI, I have topic-banned Ypatch from post-1978 Iranian politics, including this page. Since this has been a problem before, I want to clarify that his previous comments remain as valid as those of any editor, but he cannot contribute to discussions until he successfully appeals his ban. Any previous consensus he participated in establishing is not invalidated, but his previous opinions cannot contribute to future discussions either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:consensus required restriction

@Vanamonde93: and @El C: Some editors have been restoring edits in this article after they were reverted. Is this page still under WP:consensus required restriction? Ypatch (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a re-reminder: please don't ping me to this page. I'll let everyone know if and/or when I wanna change that. Since WP:ARBIRP has concluded, potential violations can be summitted to WP:AE now instead of the more chaotic usual places. El_C 10:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Saddam and Rajavi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2022

People's Mujahedin of Iran → People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran – I think this page should be aligned with the name used by this group, for itself, in English. Wikipedia would not normally ignore the official name of an organization like a company, and I don't think it should be handled differently here. There is already plenty of discussion on the various different names of the group within the article. In terms of spelling, all of the various names of the PMOI /MEK /MKO have been variously transliterated using either 'mujahedin' or 'mojahedin'. However, while it is a bit of a toss up in the sources, 'mojahedin' is the spelling quite clearly used by the organization itself, and I don't see any compelling reason to ignore the organization's own spelling. I also think the article should pick and stick to one or the other spelling, preferably 'mojahedin' for each of the names wherever there are multiple spellings. This would be best for consistency. Otherwise, without a firm consensus-backed decision on the matter, there is nothing to stop these spellings endlessly bouncing backwards and forwards, and, as demonstrated in a recent edit, the lead is liable to find itself intermittently filled up with two, perhaps three versions of the same name. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I was struggling to find this article quickly because this alternative spelling 'mujahedin' is coming up instead of the official spelling 'mojahedin'. I understand the importance of alternative spelling(s) when a language (like Farsi) has transliteration issues, therefore I would also support having 'mujahedin' listed as an "also known as". PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that the most common spelling is "People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". Fad Ariff (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, not because it is an official name, but because it is the WP:COMMONNAME, at least in google books. This ngram shows that the spelling proposed by Iskandar and the addition of "Organization" yields the highest results. And here is how the ngrams compare when we use variants of "Mojahedin-e-Khalq".VR _talk 05:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with Iskandar323 on this one. Ypatch (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, seems more common as VR said above. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated history

It seems like there is some significant duplication in the history section, with what reads a bit like a summary at the start of the section. It begins with the founding and goes the subsequent decades ... before the subsections start, beginning again back at the founding. This false lead needs either moving or editing out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)