Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

RFC

The consensus is against including the sentence "A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists" in the lede.

Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the sentence that it is "A Senior State Department Official said that they never said that the MEK was involved in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists" be included in the lede? Saff V. (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No: first, which Senior State Department Official made this claim? Second, one of sources is the Washington times which is not reliable enough for supporting the claim, (see here), Third, as Admin said, "the quote gives virtually no information. All it's doing is denying the state department said something. It has virtually no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the MEK".Saff V. (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• No I have asked before, who is the senior official? It could be John Bolton an Iranian hawkish. This doesn't fit in the body of the article or the lead section. I also the one who have opened the RSN about Washington times which is a partisan newspaper. Iran is one of U.S. politics (democrats vs republicans) where Washington times is not reliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following themes should be adopted by the lead of the article for including the sentences on the MEK being described as a cult group? Mhhossein ^talk 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A:

"Various scholarly works, media outlets has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult."

B:

"Critics, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and many experts have described the group as "resembling" a "cult"."

C:

"Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult"."

Note:This suggestion had never been a part of the previous disputes so it is meaningless to discuss it and should be removed from the table (it was added by Stefka Bulgaria). --Mhhossein ^talk 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

And I have restored the proposal. You really ought not to strike options in an RfC, Mhhossein. There's no requirements for the options in an RfC having been previously discussed; indeed, RfCs that rigidly restrict themselves to very specific outcomes are rarely helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC "is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system" and/or is "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes." Suggestion C had never been a mater of dispute. Anyway, the act of manipulating an RFC started by others, without saying a word to them, does not convey a good impression to others.--Mhhossein ^talk 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Mhhossein ^talk 16:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• A: This well-sourced suggestion, in contrast to suggestion B, is covering the various views with regard to MEK being described as Cult. The text is well-attributed and is supported by multiple reliable sources. MEK is described by some as a Cult and suggestion B is falsely attributing this viewpoint only to Critics. Needless to say that A is in accordance with the longstanding version of the article and was changed without consensus being built. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Long-standing version" is not a magic word; you need sources backing up claims; and the vast majority points refer to these claims as coming from "Critics"(). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• A those are not critics or biased sources, those are neutral scholars, saying critics or any attempt to poison the well is POV-pushing and misleading.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not going to opine on specific options, obviously, but if you're trying to write a helpful article, rather than something that sounds like a soapboxy piece even if it isn't, you ought not to overuse scare quotes, and ought not to overuse within-sentence citations. What do the citations after the word "critics" achieve? Are they only supporting the fact that those authors are critics, and not the rest of the sentence? Also; what does the phrase ""resembling" a "cult"" even mean? How is it different from saying "resembling a cult"? Those words are plain english; I don't see any copyright concerns with omitting quotes in that case. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Further comment; An RfC determines fresh consensus. As such, arguments about how long something has been in the article carry exactly zero weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• C None (first choice) or C (second choice) : Changing my vote to None as first choice based on Adoring nanny's vote. I actually had made this argument a while back saying that:

"there is a recent trend in some media publications to accuse Donald Trump (and the Republican Party) of being "unpopular" and having a "Cult personality" and a "propaganda machine" (which are carbon-copy allegations against the MEK: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc). Yet, we don't include those allegations in relevant Wiki articles (even less in the lede sections).

If we go with option "C", this is my reasoning why: We only have 2 RSs outright describing the MEK as a cult, while the rest of the reliable sources (approx 10) clearly describe the "cult" allegations as something that is either coming from critics, or something that refers to the group's "Cult of personality" (which is very different than outright saying the MEK is a "cult"). The A option (what is currently in the article) is WP:UNDUE and a gross misrepresentation of the majority scholarship about this (the sources speak for themselves). To the closing admin: closing this as "no consensus" leaves the current "A" option in place, so I'd ask that you please read the sources carefully and base the final outcome on that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yet another comment; I have yet to see any substantive analysis of the sources here. It's not enough to link three or four sources supporting one or the other version; to determine due weight, we need to look at the totality of source material. We need to ask questions like; of all the scholarly works on this subject, how many describe the MEK as a cult? Of the scholarly sources focusing substantively on the MEK, how many do so? Of the human rights groups discussing this topic, how many do so? Due weight isn't determined by the how many sources support something; it's determined by how prevalent a certain view is within the totality of source material. And from that perspective many of the arguments presented here are very weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• None (first choice) or C (second choice) per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Obviously "cult" is a controversial label and therefore I think the best option is to exclude it. But if we must include, ascribing it to "critics" is less bad than going on at length. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• None (first choice) or C (second choice) per Adoring nanny. I also think "cult" label is controversial and should not be in the lead. If it needs to be kept, "Critics" is more accurate, so either leave it out or keep the "critics" version. Ypatch (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Response to Vanamonde93s request about the substantive analysis of the sources:

A: Analysis of sources of option "A" (why I think that saying that sources outright refer to the MEK as a "cult" is WP:UNDUE):

"Various scholarly works, media outlets has described it as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, with HRW and many experts, describing the group as "resembling" a cult."

1) Could not find that quote in the cited book, but found it in this report by RAND (Think tank), which describes the MEK as a "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group". What is concerning about that report by RAND about the MEK is that the word "Cult" is mentioned over 50 times, which is unusual for what it's supposed to be an unbiased report.

2) Book published by Routledge that says "given the cult personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi". This does not support the statement it's being used for ("Cult of personality" is not equal to calling the group a "cult").

3) Book by Ervand Abrahamian that says "These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult...", which also does not support the statement that the MEK is outright a "cult".

4) Article by Elizabeth Rubin that says "The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult"

5) Article by Michael Rubin (Elizabeth's husband) that says "Yes, Mujahedin al-Khalq Is a Dishonest Cult". As Ypatch said in an earlier TP discussion, both these articles by the Rubins are a one-side criticism of the MEK.

6) The same RAND source used again to say that "Human Rights Watch" also described the MEK as a cult. This is what the source actually says: "The cult characteristics in this appendix have been widely reported by former MEK members and by Human Rights Watch". However there isn't a source found by HRW saying the MEK is a cult, and even this re-used RAND source also doesn't say that HRW outright says the MEK is a "cult", but rather that HRW has reported on the groups "cult characteristics".

7) Article by the New Yorker that says "has been characterized by many experts as resembling a cult" (which is not equivalent to outright calling the MEK a "cult").

8) Article by The Guardian that says "has been described as having cult-like attributes" (which is not equivalent to outright calling the MEK a "cult").

C: Analysis of sources of option "C" (why I think that saying that "critics" refer to the MEK as having "cult-like attributes" or "resembling a cult" is WP:DUE):

"Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult".

9) Book published by Routledge that says "But critics question that commitment given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rjavi."

10) Article by Middle Eastern Eye that says "Described by critics as 'a cult', Iranian opposition group is now lauded by top US officials as alternative to Iran's government."

11) CBC article that says "Critics call the exiled Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) 'cult-like'"

12) Article by The Guardian that says "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes"

13) The Daily Beast article that says "often described by critics as a cult"

14) New Yorker article that says "characterized by many experts as resembling a cult

15) Book by Ervand Abrahamian that says "These dissidents accused Rajavi not only of creating the personality cult...".

16 Article by Elizabeth Rubin that says "The coup de grâce that metamorphosed the party into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult" (I think it's worth keeping one of the Rubin sources that are critical of the MEK, which refers to the MEK as "something more like" a "cult").

• Note: I have not analysed option "B" since it includes all the same sources as options "A" and "C". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Quick response to the analysis of the sources (NO where, the lead is "outright calling the MEK a cult") :

Stefka Bulgrai needs to answer why he is trying to pretend that the lead is currently "outright calling the MEK a cult"? No where in the current version of the lead, the group is being called cult in an "outright" manner, rather the article adopts an descriptive tone when it comes to Cultish nature of the MEK. You have repeatedly failed, on this TP, to explain why "cult of personality", the description used by Abrahamian, does not equate to saying the cult is being built around its leaders. Also:

• In his book, Abrahamian writes "Rajavi's personality cult, had two far reaching consequences". This sentence is a clear description by the author's voice. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Rubin's work, which is a piece by 'Media', is calling the group a "cult".
• The RAND report is indeed an scholarly work. The RAND is a "research and analysis" institution and the report is a well researched work supported by a vast number of sources. The report clearly describes the group as "an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War." Also it adds: "The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MeK members and by Human Rights Watch.4 They have also been substantiated, at least in part, by interviews with JIATF-Ashraf officers and by information volunteered by former MeK members at the ARC."
• CFR is not used as a direct source here but it make a general statement: "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis." So, it says "many analysts", "including Rubin", say MEK is a cult.
• In this source, "the cult of personality" is used un-attributed and is used in the author's voice. Otherwise we would expect something like "But critics question that commitment, "given [what they consider to be] the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi."

--Mhhossein ^talk 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• A or C. The lead is dominated by the summary of the group's activities. So this information provides an insight regarding the structure or the nature of the organization and its leadership. It helps in giving the article dimension as well as an opening for the body to discuss its organizational structure and its leadership. There are sources that mention it. I would recommend that the content should clearly indicate that some regard it as a cult while some say it is cult-like. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• None (first choice) or C (second choice) also per WP:LABEL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Adding "Cult" in the lead section of an article about a political party automatically discredits it (its history, its ideologies, etc.). Avoid stating opinions as facts in the lead is needed if we aim to keep this controversial article a bit more neutral. Alex-h (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And NO where in the lead opinions are stated as facts! So, your argument is not applied here. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Describing the MEK as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" is opinion, not fact. Option "A" is simply shoehorning every last bit of "cult" criticism into one sentence with an apparent aim to discredit the MEK. Also, Mhhossein please stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND of discrediting other editor's votes. Alex-h (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you show me which part of option A is stating "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" as a fact?? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• None (first choice) or C (second choice) per the many sources in the article that dispute the "cult" criticism:

>"retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?".

>"Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a ″cult nature”; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was “ashamed” by this statement.

>"Despite these, Rudy Guiliani, president Trump's personal lawyer, addressed a meeting of the MEK at their Tirana compound, saying: "And if you think that's a cult, then there is something wrong with you".

>"An investigation by the European Parliament and the U.S. military concluded that the accusations of it being a cult were unfounded: "the European Parliament’s report uncovered falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence". According to Raymond Tanter, "Tehran uses allegations that the MEK is a 'cult' as propaganda to target liberal democracies, attempting to persuade them to refrain from providing support to the MEK", not addressing claims of being a cult by various journalists."

Nika2020 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• None (first choice) or C (second choice) due to labeling and brevity. Option A also has a few grammatical errors (missing "and" for instance) and is repetitive.--Eostrix (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A: Enough attribution is done and the article avoids stating it as a fact. Sources are reliable and diverse. Can anyone see I found now? It can be helpful[6]. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Ali Ahwazi. I used the source. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why option C is not a good choice: Simply it is not covering views by academic scholars. Option C heavily relies on news-outlets, which is very detrimental to the accuracy of the lead. Option A, on the other hand, is featured with multiple high quality academic sources which need to be considered as a criteria for decision. Options B and C are aimed at ignoring the viewpoints of scholarly works so lead to an UNDUE narration regarding the status of the group. The only academic source used in Option C is this one, which is mis-used here. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• None - (first choice) or C (second choice) also due to labeling and the analysis of the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• A - Scholars view should be preferred over the other sources. Option "A" covers diverse views, from the scholars to critics and adheres to NPOV. Labeling is not applied in this case given the reliable sources using the term. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@D4iNa4, which reliable sources actually "described it [MEK] as a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi"?, vs how many sources refer to this name-calling as coming from "Critics"? That's what we're discussing here. If there was a "majority scholarly view" that outright describe the MEK as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi" then we wouldn't even be having this RfC; but that's not the case. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

See [7]. Multiple scholars have described them as a cult. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you keep on repeating "multiple scholars have described them as a cult", yet, I have done a thorough analysis of the sources and what they say, which show that this is indeed not the case. Even with the single source you've provided in your last post, it says "personality cult", which is invalid for "option A" ("personality cult" is different from "a cult built around its leaders). To the closing admin/editor, these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of all the bludgeoning with misleading claims. Please simply look at the sources and what they say (I have done a thorough analysis of them in "Response to Vanamonde93s request about the substantive analysis of the sources" just above). Also please note that bludgeoning has been occurring in the RfCs here for over a year, which lead no-consensus, which leaves material that isn't backed by the sources in the article. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, multiple scholars have described them as a cult (). The academic sources, mostly published by credible universities, which I provided are so clear that don't need your analysis. I think you are the one have so far have bludgeoned the talk discussions by mass-repeating the comments word by word. Here it is my response to your analysis. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The first source doesn't mention the word "cult"; the next two sources say "Personality cult", which is different from "a cult built around its leaders. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you tend to use {{od}} when it's not necessary! Anyway, "Personality cult" or "cult" are quite similar and this is not a critical issue to ignore the scholarly views. I have provided at least two sources saying the "a cult built around its leaders. Are these two your only issues? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• None - (first choice) or C (second choice) Adding "Cult" to describe a political party opposed to the Iranian regime in the lead is very controversial and something we do not do in other articles about political parties. If it must be included, then "C" is the better alternative for many reasons, but mainly because it is backed by more sources than the other options. Barca (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A: Scholarly views should make the core part of our decision making and should be given more weight in comparison with other sources. Option A says the group is "described it as a cult", so there is no concern as name calling or label considering the academic reliable sources. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I have added another source from an academic publisher describing the group as 'cult'. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

MEK ex member is not a good source for saying "scholars say the MEK is a cult" (may be good for saying MEK ex member say MEK is a cult, but that's different). Ypatch (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It does not change the fact that there are multiple other scholarly works describing them as cult. --

Mhhossein ^talk 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If there actually were "multiple other scholarly works describing them as cult", we wouldn't be having this RfC. To the closing editor, I emphasize please disregard bludgeoning and simply look at the source analysis in this RfC. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, multiple scholars have described them as a cult (). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this: "Personality cult" is not equivalent to "cult built around its leaders" (what's currently in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• None - (first choice) or C (second choice) Per WP:UNDUE. The majority sources do not support "A" (both scholarly or non-scholarly). Idealigic (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Peter Waldman's report:I came across another report by Peter Waldman from Wall Street Journal who describes the MEK as cult. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That source also refers to the MEK as having a "personality cult", which is different than outright saying the MEK is a "cult". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

In your viewpoint, probably. But the fact is that "personality cult" is a cult! --Mhhossein ^talk 02:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, that's where you're confused. A Cult is "a social group that is defined by its unusual... beliefs"; while a Personality Cult "arises when a country's regime uses the techniques of mass media... to create an idealized... image of a leader." They are two very different things. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

They are no longer different if you don't misquote the first sentence from the lead of Personality Cult which says: "A cult of personality, or cult of the leader, arises when a country's regime – or, more rarely, an individual – uses the techniques of mass media, propaganda...to create an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Also, this scholarly paper defines the "Personality cults" of political leaders as being "conceptualized in one of two different ways: as propaganda that portrays the leader positively, or as rituals of leader worship." Another author describes it as "a set of interaction rituals, linked in chains, focused on symbols that refer to a political leader, and saturating a significant part of the public space of a polity." Mandatory divorce of the married women and their marriages to Rajavi are one of the symbols of MEK's personality cult. Scholarly sources have fully explained these details. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References
References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for closing this RfC. Based on your closing remarks, would the following be an accurate compromise of sources? (as you've pointed out, "personality cult" seems more in line with sources than "resembling a cult"): "Critics have described the group as having a personality cult .[10][24][18][7]".

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a compromise you could offer, sure, but that has slightly different meaning than Option C above, so that would require fresh discussion and, if there's no consensus in said discussion, a fresh RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Vanamonde: I am wondering which option included the narrative of "MEK is a cult"? Look at the article before the RFC closure, no where in the article they are called a Cult as factual statement, a point you have probably missed. Also, You said nothing regarding why the scholarly works should be considered the core part of our discussion? Are those authors critics of MEK? Who knows?--Mhhossein ^talk 06:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Mhhossein, you are doing precisely what I asked you not to, and relitigating the RfC by presenting arguments to me that you should have presented to the other editors. I read all the arguments. Yours did not gain consensus, because you focused on the existence of specific sources supporting your preferred version, and not the prevalence of that version of the narrative among the scholarly literature as a whole. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde: "All discussion closures are subject to review". Your closure comment pretends that there had been a dispute over calling MEK a cult as a factual statement, which is totally wrong (none of the options contained this or lack thereof). I raised the argument multiple times in this RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Really Mhhossein? In this other TP discussion aren't you arguing that the "MEK's designation as a cult is of the most significant aspects of the group's history"? (something that isn't backed by a single RS). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a patently absurd reading of my closure, Mhhossein, but if you want to have someone review my closure, I'm sure El C would be willing to give his opinion: if not, WP:AN is the place to go. If you do post to AN, I suspect all that you will achieve is a rap on the knuckles, but you always have that option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have read Vanamonde93's close, which I found no fault in, procedurally or otherwise. To challenge the close, however, please follow the steps outlined in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

However, I need the respond to this query; Vanamonde93's comment reads as such: "...it's fairly clear that the "critics describe it as a cult" narrative is far more prevalent among RS than the "MEK is a cult" narrative"." Where was the so-called "MEK is a cult" narrative"? Which of the options contained such a narrative? I think the question is clear enough. By the way, "a rap on the knuckles" is not the suitable language an admin is expected to have. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not, at any point, stated that the article contained an "MEK is a cult" narrative, nor have I stated that the RfC was recommending such. I made a point about what the sources presented here were saying. If you're not able to see that distinction, I am concerned as to whether you can maintain the perspective necessary to edit this article neutrally. That is the last I will say about this closure, unless you choose to bring it up an WP:AN. A "rap on the knuckles" is idiomatic English for criticism without formal punishment [8]; even if you were unaware of that, arguing that it represents unacceptable behavior for an admin is quite surprising. The place to raise such behavior would, again, be WP:AN. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The "MEK is a cult" narrative was not questioned here, rather the groups making the cult description was the question point. So, the true comparison would be between whether mainly critics are describing them as a cult or the description is also done by other groups such as scholars. Mentioning in closure something which was not even a matter of dispute, specially when the closer is "only assessing the arguments and the source material presented here" (which did not include a "MEK is a cult" narrative ), was what raised the question for me. Another point, after reviewing the closure comment once more, it has zero mention of scholarly works being compared to non-academic sources such as the news outlets (which I think would be a determining point specially when one is considering WP:DUE as the most applicable policy). Probably this is not that noteworthy. Anyway, the RFC is closed in favor of showing in the lead solely critics are describing them as a cult, a statement which I think is not in accordance to reliable sources I provided. That's an RFC! --Mhhossein ^talk 14:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this sentence "According to The Daily Beast,a few months after the executions, relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" be included in the article?Saff V. (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

NO, Per WP:UNDUE, TDB isn't enough and more sources are needed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) No: The claim is not supported by other reliable sources so UNDUE would apply here. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes There is a vast amount of RSs confirming torture and executions of MEK members during the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners (see also 1988 execution of MEK prisoners) that's why WP:UNDUE does not apply here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is totally irrelevant. The RFC is asking for relatives being handed " plastic bags with their children's belongings" and your comment is not covering the RFC's requirement. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source saying "relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" with regards to an incident for which we have plenty of RSs confirming numerous torture and execution tactics of children, women, and men? Is this really so extraordinary to believe considering all that took place during these executions (all of which we have plenty of RSs for)? "Relatives being handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" is not an extraordinary claim considering all that took place during the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. Some editors here have been trying to remove details about these executions (see here, for example), and at the same time shoehorned every bit of criticism about a marriage/divorce into the article. That's damaging the article, not making it better. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is an extra ordinary claim for which a source far better than TDB is required. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Ayatollah Montazeri wrote to Ayatollah Khomeini saying "at least order to spare women who have children ... the execution of several thousand prisoners in a few days will not reflect positively and will not be mistake-free ... A large number of prisoners have been killed under torture by interrogators ... in some prisons of the Islamic Republic young girls are being raped ... As a result of unruly torture, many prisoners have become deaf or paralysed or afflicted with chronic decease." That is a major claim, and it's backed a major source. "Relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" is not a major claim. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Montazeri's letter has nothing to do with this RFC (please see the RFC content once again). I don't know why you are trying to put irrelevant comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Montazeri's letter is about the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners. "Relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" is also about the 1988 execution of MEK prisoners. See the connection? Montazeri's letter is a major claim about this incident; the "plastic bags" claim isn't (what this RfC is about). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikilawyering! Can you say why should this article include such a disputed detail of a tangentially related incident which is supported by a contentious source? The Daily Beast is not something to be used for this text. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• No Only one source and its not a strong reliable source. Seems undue and an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Daily Beast is ok source for this. Idealigic (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no clear consensus on using Daily Beast at RSN. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes also per Stefka. Ypatch (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• To the closure: Please weight arguments, not the amount of votes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't understand

Hi Mhhossein, why you reverted this edit? Barca (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Barcmac. The former RFC regarding this was closed with no consensus (you can find it in the archive). AFAIR, there was a matter of WP:DUE preventing inclusion of this. Moreover, why do you tend something into the lead which is not even supported by the source? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Can you please explain how that edit is supported by the source used? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a few sources open when I added this, and it seems I added the wrong source. I will update by adding new sources that properly support the edit. Thank you for bringing to my attention. Barca (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: Okay, thanks; but please be aware that in an area this contentious, repeatedly making such mistakes may be grounds for sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Before updating you need to gain consensus, specially since there had been previous discussions with no consensus on including this into the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde, thank you for letting me know, I will be more careful. Mhhossein, if I add something that is supported by sources and that hasnt been discussed in RfCs, then I should not need your permission to include this. Barca (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That whole section, Perception, is a big mess. I will work on copy-editing it. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Did some copy-editing... needs more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am going to restore the sections since I think it had turned into a worse mess. You have separated the POVs in a meaningful manner. Please try to build consensus and explain how Struan Stevenson and Karim Sadjadpour's comments should be separated, for instance. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, please substantiate whatever it is that you revert. You cannot revert based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made some changes for reaching a middle ground. I have sorted the materials so that all the insider views fall under one section, as opposed to your version. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cult" or "Cult of Personality / Personality cult"?

Based on Vanamonde's closing remarks in the RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead:

"a lot of the sources specifically use the terms "personality cult" or "cult of personality". Analyzing whether or not a personality cult is a true cult or not falls within the realm of original research... An option specifically discussing the "cult of personality" claims may have gained consensus, but such was not discussed, and a new discussion or RfC will be necessary to explore that."

As well as what the majority sources say in that RfC, I propose changing the lede from "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult". to:

Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality.

If there are objections, please substantiate concisely and through RSs. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can you quote one reliable source saying "Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality."? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here you go Mhhossein:

• "But critics question that commitment, given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader, Maryam Rajavi"

Like it has already been established, "Critics" and "Personality cult" are the predominant terms used in RSs. If you want to debate against it, you need to provide RSs that argue against this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where's it established? As for this one, you're wrong. Since "given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader" is not necessarily what the critics say, as opposed to what you try to extract from the author's words. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: according to the author, why do "Critics" question the "MEK's commitment"?

I have a feeling you'll object regardless, so here's another one:

"One of the main criticisms of former members of the Mojahedin concerns the internal structure of the organisation... Even though most former members know that they have been in what has been described in the west as a personality cult, they lack the tools to describe what this means."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the author, "critics question that commitment"? What is that commitment? Also, I wonder what you are seeking by misquoting a questionable source. Let's read the whole paragraph:

"One of the main criticisms of former members of the Mojahedin concerns the internal structure of the organisation. It is described as operating an "iron discipline" over its members to the extent of practicing serious violations of human rights in attempts to force members to conform, or as they describe it "submit to Rajavi's leadership". But the description of "iron discipline" fails to adequately convey the behaviour of the Mojahedin towards its members. After all, armies depend upon an iron discipline in order to fight wars. But former members know that the control exerted over them is not the same as that of a classic army. Even though most former members know that they have been in what has been described in the west as a personality cult, they lack the tools to describe what this means."

So, does it support "Critics have described the group as having a cult of personality"? The author is saying the group is criticized for its "internal structure" since the group is said to be governed under a "iron discipline". The report (no the critics) then proceeds to say "iron discipline" is not a suitable description rather "what has been described in the west as a personality cult", as the former members know. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I quoted the author directly. In any case, in the recent RfC about the MEK's cult-like allegations, there was consensus that "critics" was what the majority sources supported. Shall we sort this out by seeing if the majority sources support "cult of personality" over "resembling a cult"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop using "{{od}}" template when it's not really needed? Does it embolden your comment? Anyway, according to the full quote, I told you that ""given the cult of personality built around MEK's leader" is not necessarily what the critics say, as opposed to what you try to extract from the author's words". Finally, you need sources saying "critics have described the group as having a cult of personality." --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We could easily just compile RSs from both sides of the argument, and weigh which term is more frequently used by the sources (as I suggested in my previous message here); but (hardly to my surprise) you're objecting this. The lede should resume the majority consensus of what RSs say, and you're suggesting that we should only include what your preferred sources say (as was the case in the recent RfC). No matter how many RSs are provided supporting "personality cult", you'll continue to object, so there's no point continuing this discussion. I'm done here too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• You're both rather off the mark here with respect to what the RfC showed. Very few of the sources describe the MEK as a cult outright or stated that experts/scholars/some other category of authorities described the MEK as a cult; the most frequent position was that critics describe it as a cult. The "cult of personality" claim, however, is more widespread within those same sources. This is unsurprising; the latter claim is (somewhat) less critical, and is (therefore) more widespread, and would likely require less qualification. What the article should do with this tradeoff is up to you. Also, for the record, since there's a lot of editors who don't seem to get this; I'm only looking at whether the claims here are supported by the sources presented in that RfC, which is part of the responsibility of an uninvolved closer; I have not evaluated the wider source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, taking on board Vanamonde's advice, what would be your proposed tradeoff here (taking into consideration what sources say)? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not looking at my "preferred" sources since I have no preferred source. Also its'a a great surprise for me to see the scholars' views are being persistently down weighted here. Stefka Bulgaria suggested something which I believe is not supported by reliable sources at the moment. The only thing I asked was for the sources supporting his suggestion. Other side of the coin needs to be looked at more accurately; "Called a Terror Cult by Many, MEK Wins Friends in U.S. Because It Opposes Tehran."The Wall Street Journal, MEK is "Widely regarded as a cult" long-read by the Guardian. I think "cult of personality" is a more specific term and when in doubt we would better go by the more general term, i.e. "cult". Why should we get so deep in the lead when there's not a strong ground for that? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, what would be your proposed tradeoff here? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein pinging you in case you have missed my last comments. Please explain what would be your proposed tradeoff here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had already given you a reply. Can you see my comment on specific/general term? The lead should avoid going into the details of whether the group is a cult of personality, though we can discuss it deeper in the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: So you're basically saying you don't propose a tradeoff and we should leave the lede as is? (I'm trying to work with you here, but saying that we should leave the lede as is, when we a substantial number of sources saying "Personality cult, is hardly a tradeoff). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What kind of tradeoff are you seeking for? I am also working with you but why do you tend to ignore the plenty of other sources which don't use that term? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein: "tradeoff" means some kind of compromise. As of yet, you haven't compromised at all; you've just said you want the text to remain as it is. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know what "tradeoff" means. I was in fact asking for clarification on your purpose of repeating that despite my explanations. I think the lead should not get into the depth of choosing "cult of personality". Given the sources I provided previously, using "cult of personality" would not be representative of the reliable sources:

• "A cult-like group of Marxist Islamic radicals behind scores of terror attacks ."[9]
• "After the summer of 1981, the Mojahedin have been forced into exile. Since then, they have turned into a cult."[10]
• "During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), coalition forces faced an unusual detainee issue centering on the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an exiled Iranian cult dissident group that Saddam Hussein had invited into Iraq to fight on his behalf during the Iran-Iraq War."[11]
• "Elaine Chao, confirmed this week as Trump’s transportation secretary, received $50,000 in 2015 for a five-minute speech to the political wing of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, previously called a “cult-like” terrorist group by the State Department."[12]
• "There has occurred a major transformation of the Mojahedin from a mass-based left party into what Abrahamian calls a "cult"..."[13].
• "It is at this point, say the critics, that the MEK assumed the trappings of a cult."[14]
• "As of 1985, the NRC has been for all practical purposes the Mojahedin organization, and to its many critics the its practices appear cult-like."
• "Even among voices opposing the Iranian regime, however, the group is controversial for its extremism, cult-like leadership and history of violence."[15]
• "One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away."[16]
• "As Human Rights Watch also concluded, I saw that the MEK is a cult."[17]
• "The MEK is a cult-like dissident group, based outside of Iran, primarily in Iraq and France for much of the past three decades."[18]
• "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis."[19]
• "Called a Terror Cult by Many, MEK Wins Friends in U.S. Because It Opposes Tehran."[20]
• "The Mujeheddin e-Khalq (MEK) is a cult-like dissident group from Iran."[21]

etc

Still more sources can be added to the above list. I just meant to say we need to stay on the safe side by using "cult, as opposed to "personality cult". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, some of the sources you've provided refer to the cult allegations as something that's coming from ex-members ("It has been described by several ex-members as a cult."), and others are repeated allegations from RAND corporation, and others refer to this as "Cult-like" (which is not the same as "cult"). You take those sources away, and you're left with an WP:UNDUE portion of sources saying the MEK is a "cult"; as opposed to "cult of personality" (which is supported by many more RS's, as we've seen in the recently-closed RfC). I could move those RSs here, but that would be an exercise in futility since you continue to refuse reaching some kind of compromise, even with the majority scholarship quoting "Cult of Personality". Like I said earlier, I'm done here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Besides the point that just few sources in my list are bringing up the voice of the former members, there's no ground to ignore them. Why are you trying to dismiss them? All of the former members who shares their experience of being a MEK member, is recruited by the Iranian government? Don't repeat that please. Some of the sources say "cult-like", I know and this is in line with the current wording of the lead which says the group resembles a cult! So, my list of sources are further supporting my position, the group is described as resembling a cult! (or alternatively you can say they're cult-like). As for the scholarly works; If you believed in the quality of these sources, you would not remove them from the lead! Is it a double standard? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References