Jump to content

Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62

Summarizing the article

@MarioGom and Iskandar323: I am trying to summarize the article but need your help. I have started with the first sub-section, "Early years (1965–1971)", which I think could include some of the information of the next subsection "Schism (1971–1978)", except that we should change the titles to something like "Early years (1965–1975)" and "Schism (1975–1978". What do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the period of the Marxist schism is well differentiated. Keeping them separate probably makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Agree. I did not merged the sections. Just summarized.Ghazaalch (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
In what manner? Doesn't the Schism component start with By 1973, the members of the Marxist–Leninist MEK launched an "internal ideological struggle"? The internal ideological struggle is part of the Schism. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
ParadaJulio: Fair. The title could be changed from 1971 to 1973. My point is that it's a series of events that mark an important period of the MEK history and there's enough content for a subsection. Do you think it should be merged? MarioGom (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @MarioGom and Ghazaalch: Why was "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killings of Americans, and later was executed" taken out of the article? Alex-h (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    Alex-h: I didn't do that change, so I don't know. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
    Ghazaalch: a substantial amount of vital information was removed by you, for example "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killings of Americans, and later was executed.[1][2][3] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK.[4] Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK.[5][6][7] In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assassinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued in April 2006 stated: "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution".[8]" Please explain your changes. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Tho whole purpose of Vahid Afrakhteh's confess is to say that not all the assassination is carried out by Islamist branch of MEK, which is diffyed by other sayings from other sources. That is why I summarized it to These assassinations were carried out either by the Marxist[116][117][118][119] or Islamist branch of the MEK.[106][107][112]. What is wrong with it? why you reverted it? Ghazaalch (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
What is the main topic? Vahid Afarakhte, who is considered a member of Peykar rather than a member of MEK or assassination of U.S. military personnel and civilians working in Iran? It is important that, according to some sources, the assassination of Americans was carried out by MEK. Now, those who are accused other than MEK, have no place in this article.GharaDash (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@ParadaJulio: are you going to self revert, or I should do that? Ghazaalch (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ghazaalch: Your summar' fails to mention that there were people who confessed and were executed for the killings. ParadaJulio (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Extended content

References

  1. ^ Shirali, Mahnaz (28 July 2017). The Mystery of Contemporary Iran. ISBN 978-1-351-47913-4. The most notable actions of the Marxist Mojahedin were assassinations of Savak general, of two American military advisers, and a failed attempt against an American diplomat, all in 1975
  2. ^ Camp Ashraf: Iraqi Obligations and State Department Accountability: Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, December 7, 2011. 2011. ISBN 978-0-16-090501-8. Referred to in the Iranian press as the "Iranian People's Strugglers", and later known as Peykar, this group led by Tagui Shahram, Vahid Arakhteh and Bahram Aram was one o several underground groups waging a covert war against the Shah's secret police, SAVAK. Afrakhteh, who later confessed to the killings of Americans, was executed
  3. ^ Iran Almanac and Book of Facts, Volumen 15. 1976. Ten terrorists were sentenced to death... The condemned terrorists were Vahid Afrakhteh... The terroirsts were charged with the murders of Brigadier-general Reza Zandipur, United States Colonels Hawkins, Paul Shaffer and ack Turner, the U.S. Embassy's translator Hassan Hossnan
  4. ^ Reisinezhad, Arash (2018). The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 8. ASIN B07FBB6L8Y.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference state.gov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Infobase Publishing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference crt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ "Chapter 8 -- Foreign Terrorist Organizations". U.S. Department of State.

Note about coordinated editing and socking

Some watchers will have a pleasant, or unpleasant, time looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stefka Bulgaria. I've laid out a detail of strategies used by Pro-MEK accounts across Wikipedia, also on this very discussion page. But just because that side has faced harsh sanctions, it does not give "the other sides" license to whitewash in the other direction and push their POV. Regardless of what side editors here fall on, there has been far too much coordinated editing, socking, disruptive editing, and nonsense in this area for far too long. If there is a whiff of further coordinated editing, socking, disruptive editing, and nonsense-- especially if it falls under what I outline at that SPI-- there will be harsher sanctions and topic bans. Regardless of what "side" you are on. Thanks! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Well thanks for clearing house! This is hands down the single most frustrating/exhausting page to try to whip into reasonable, NPOV shape because of all the disruption - NPOV being the "side", rather than any other "sides", that I would hope that all editors involved in working on the page would aspire to be on. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Workshop for RFC on claim about MEK being largest/main opposition

Note: This is NOT an RFC. It is a preparation workshop. No !voting needed here.

RFC, 15 December 2022 was a RFC proposing some wording changes in the lede about how sources describe MEK size or support (largest/main opposition, largest armed group, fringe group, etc). I would like to create a new RFC on this topic that better captures the possible options. My current draft looks as follows

The lede currently states It is also Iran's largest and most active political opposition group.[1][2][3], and it recently stated It is Iran's largest and most active armed dissident group.[4][1]. What should be done with this statement?
  • Option A (current): Keep the current text: largest and most active political opposition group
  • Option B (previous): Keep the previous text: largest and most active armed dissident group
  • Option C (remove): Remove this claim from the lede.

Do you think these options are appropriate? Is there any other option you would like to see listed in the RFC?

As supporting material, I also prepared a list of independent, secondary sources that are related to the topic, sorted chronologically and including relevant quotes.

Source list
  • Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. [...] And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations. As the main foe of the Islamic Republic [...]
  • Mackey, Sandra (1998). The Iranians. p. 372. While the Mujahedin remains the most widely feared opposition group because of period raids across the Shatt al-Arab, it is also the most discredited among the Iranian people who have not forgotten the Mujahedin's support of Iraq in the war against Iran.
  • Katzman, Kenneth (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Benliot, Albert V. (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9. [...] Iran's most active opposition group [...] (TBD: quote not verified)
  • Kazemzadeh, Masoud (2002). Islamic Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran Under Khomeini. University Press of America. p. 58. From 1985, Rajavi transformed the PMOI from a mass movement into a cult with himself as its guru. [...] From 1985, however, under the terrible leadership of Rajavi, the PMOI had been reduced to a strange cult.
  • Alaedini, Pooya; Namazi, Siamak; Potter, Lawrence G. (2006). "Iran". In Schlager, Neil; Weisblatt, Jayne (eds.). World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties (4 ed.). Facts on File. p. 626. ISBN 978-0-8160-5953-9. [...] Mojahedin has become the most cohesive Iranian opposition group in exile [...] The Mojahedin was a respected organization in Iran because of its long guerrilla struggle against the shah. Its ideology, emphasizing Shiite Islam, socialism, and Iranian nationalism, proved to have strong appeal to the lower classes, who carried out the revolution. However, this appeal has been seriously compromised because of disillusionment with the group's leaders who have built personality cults around themselves, its violent tactics that kill civilians, its ties with Iraq, and the apparent lack of a viable platform.
  • Dyer, Clare (18 February 2008). "Government fights to keep ban on main Iranian opposition group". The Guardian. [...] the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), the main Iranian opposition organisation [...]
  • Rozenberg, Joshua (23 October 2008). "Ban on Iran opposition should be lifted, says EU court". The Telegraph. Iran's main opposition group [...]
  • Cimment, James (2011). World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, 2nd Edition. Routledge. pp. 276, 859. doi:10.4324/9781315697994. ISBN 978-0765682840. The strength of the movement inside Iran is uncertain [...] MEK is the largest and most active Iranian dissident group; its membership includes several thousand well-armed and highly disciplined fighters.
  • Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 173–174. ISBN 978-1-84519-270-9. The Mojahedin organization was the largest opposition movement that the Islamic Republic had to cope with even when it was still operating in Iran [...] ince 1981 until the mid 1980s, the organization lost its social hold in Iran. It was no longer considered a political alternative.
  • Rubin, Elizabeth (13 August 2011). "An Iranian Cult and Its American Friends". The New York Times. Mrs. Clinton should ignore their P.R. campaign. Mujahedeen Khalq is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran's democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.
  • Ramsey, Jasmin (30 August 2011). "Facts vs. Fiction and the MEK's PR Campaign". [...] More recently, the MEK's attempts to paint itself as Iran's "main opposition" [...]
  • Shane, Scott (26 November 2011). "For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S." New York Times. [...] a fringe Iranian opposition group, long an ally of Saddam Hussein, that is designated as a terrorist organization under United States law and described by State Department officials as a repressive cult despised by most Iranians and Iraqis. [...] The M.E.K. advocacy campaign has included full-page newspaper advertisements identifying the group as "Iran's Main Opposition" — an absurd distortion in the view of most Iran specialists; leaders of Iran's broad opposition, known as the Green Movement, have denounced the group. The M.E.K. has hired high-priced lobbyists like the Washington firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Its lawyers in Europe won a long fight to persuade the European Union to drop its own listing of the M.E.K. as a terrorist group in 2009.
  • McGreal, Chris (28 September 2012). "MEK supporters push for recognition by US as official Iranian opposition". The Guardian. A Texas congressman, Bob Filner, who has been among the most vigorous proponents of delisting the MEK, has described it as "Iran's main opposition" and a US "ally" against the Tehran government. Filner was the author of a pro-MEK resolution in Congress in favour of unbanning the organisation.
  • Cordesman, Anthony H.; Gold, Bryan; Coughlin-Schulte, Chloe (2014). Iran: Sanctions, Energy, Arms Control, and Regime Change. Rowman & Littlefield / Center for Strategic and International Studies. p. 145. When [MEK] lost, it became the tool of Saddam Hussein until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is now little more than a Rajavi cult with little influence in Iran and even less popularity.
  • Rezai, Hamid (2014). "Mujāhidīn-i Khalq". In Shahin, Emad (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press. The group has strong support in the European Parliament and US Congress, which both played key roles in removing the MEK from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations both in the European Union and, most recently, in the US. Although it is still the largest well-organized group in exile among the opposition to the Islamic Republic, the organization has not been able to launch noteworthy activities in the country due to the strict measures of the regime.
  • Dehghan, Saeed Kamali (22 April 2014). "Iranian prisoners allegedly forced to run gauntlet of armed guards". The Guardian. The MEK, which is based in Paris, remains unpopular in Iran because of its support for the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.
  • Torbati, Yeganeh (16 January 2017). "Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group". Reuters. The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.
  • Bozorgmehr, Najmeh; Manson, Katrina (2 April 2018). "John Bolton support for Iranian opposition spooks Tehran". Financial Times. Analysts say it has little support inside Iran today, where it is regarded as a terrorist organisation and has been accused of assassinating senior politicians and targeting civilians.
  • Erlich, Reese (2018). The Iran Agenda Today: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy. p. 85. MEK developed a significant base of support in Iran immediately after the revolution, but [...] [its] alliance with the hated Saddam Hussein embitered most Iranians and largely eliminated whatever respect the MEK may have won from its earlier resistance.
  • Merat, Arron (9 November 2018). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". The Guardian. [...] the MEK lost nearly all the support it had retained inside Iran. Members were now widely regarded as traitors.
  • Jannessari, Sohail; Loucaides, Darren (27 April 2019). "Spain's Vox Party Hates Muslims—Except the Ones Who Fund It". Foreign Policy. Since that moment, the group has been widely seen as a pariah among the Iranian public.
  • Rezaian, Jason (11 June 2019). "Opinion | Why does the U.S. need trolls to make its Iran case?". The Washington Post. That didn't stop Forbes, the Hill, Daily Caller and even the Voice of America from amplifying Alavi's platform as a voice on Iran policy. [Note: Forbes and Voice of America have since removed "Alavi's" pieces from their websites.] All of these outlets, and several more, have published articles by Alavi that claimed the MEK is the main opposition to the current Iranian regime.
  • Broder, Jonathan (27 August 2019). "Iran's Opposition Groups are Preparing for the Regime's Collapse. Is Anyone Ready?". Newsweek. [...] The MEK, whose name means the "People's Holy Warriors," is the oldest, best organized and best known of several Iranian opposition movements waiting in the wings. But there are others. [...] The MEK has been the leading opposition voice against the Islamic Republic for years. [...]
  • Hudson, John (23 September 2019). "Trump, Iran's Rouhani descend on same corner of New York but remain far apart". The Washington Post. Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution said in a statement to The Washington Post that she "would never knowingly engage with the Mujahideen-e Khalq, a cultlike terrorist organization that is despised by many Iranians."
  • Ainsley, Julia; Lehren, Andrew W.; Schapiro, Rich (17 October 2019). "Giuliani's work for Iranian group with bloody past could lead to more legal woes". NBC News. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the organization as a fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country. "Their population in Iran hovers between negligible and nill," Sadjadpour said.
  • Pressly, Linda; Kasapi, Albana (11 November 2019). "The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex". BBC. [...] one of Iran's main opposition groups, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK. [...]
  • Lansford, Tom (2020). "Iran". Political Handbook of the World 2020-2021. Vol. 1. CQ Press. p. 775. ISBN 978-1-5443-8471-9. The largest guerrilla group—which at one time claimed some 100,000 members but is now considered to have much less support— is the Mujaheddin-e Khalq
  • Friedman, Matt (10 June 2020). "Patrick Kennedy's ties to Iranian exile group becomes campaign issue in South Jersey". Politico. [...] a controversial group that opposes the current regime in Iran but was considered a terrorist organization by the United States until 2012 [...]
  • Campbell, Matthew (22 August 2021). "People's Mujahidin Seeking Regime Change in Tehran". The Times. [...] Mujahidin-e-Khalq — the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group [...]
  • "Iran's 1988 Mass Executions". Human Rights Watch. 8 June 2022. On July 18, 1988, the Iranian government accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, calling for a cease-fire in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq. On July 25, the largest Iranian armed opposition group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO or MEK), based in Iraq since 1986, launched an incursion named "Eternal Light" into Iran in an attempt to topple the government.

Do you think these sources are comprehensive? Is there any other that should be included? Is there any that should be removed (e.g. clearly not reliable)? Are the quotes relevant enough?

I have also a draft for a summary table:

Summary table
Ref. Main/largest? Main/largest past?
Abrahamian 1989 harvnb error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help) — "main foe"
Mackey 1998 No —
Katzman 2001 most active
Kazemzadeh 2002 "reduced to a strange cult" "mass movement"
Alaedini, Namazi & Potter 2006 No "most cohesive [...] opposition group in exile"
Dyer 2008 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFDyer2008 (help) Yes —
Rozenberg 2008 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRozenberg2008 (help) Yes —
Cohen 2009 No "largest opposition movement"
Cimment 2011 harvnb error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFCimment2011 (help) largest and most active [...] dissident group —
Rubin 2011 irrelevant —
Ramsey 2011 No —
Shane 2011 "fringe" —
McGreal 2012 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMcGreal2012 (help) Partial —
Cordesman, Gold & Coughlin-Schulte 2014 No —
Rezai 2014 Partial —
Dehghan 2014 No —
Bozorgmehr & Manson 2018 No —
Torbati 2017 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFTorbati2017 (help) Partial —
Erlich 2018 No "significant base of support"
Merat 2018 No —
Jannessari & Loucaides 2019 No —
Rezaian 2019 Partial no —
Broder 2019 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBroder2019 (help) Yes —
Hudson 2019 No —
Ainsley, Lehren & Schapiro 2019 "fringe" —
Pressly & Kasapi 2019 "one of" —
Lansford 2020 Partial "largest guerrilla group"
Friedman 2020 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFFriedman2020 (help) — —
Campbell 2021 Yes —
HRW 2022 largest [...] armed opposition group —

Is the summary fair?

Any feedback about the RFC question, the source list, or the summary table will be very appreciated. Since this might be a controversial RFC, and these tend to descend into chaos, I would like to start with a common ground where orderly discussion can happen. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@MarioGom: the experience from the previous RFCs tell us that when we have more than two options, the votes are divided between them and no consensus could be derived . In this RFC for example, pro-Mek votes would go to the option A. Anti-MEK votes would be divided between option B and C. So it is clear the again no consensus would aquire. But if we have a yes/no question (should the claim be removed? Yes or No?) It would be clear the current claim is contested by many sources and have no place in the lede. When it is removed, then we could start another RFC on adding a new text.Ghazaalch (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair. Reducing it to Yes/No might make sense, since they have been the fundamental positions defended before, and they might make parsing consensus easier. MarioGom (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I've got a simpler solution since this discussion appears to be going around in circles due to the A) the group's altered existence over time, and B) the false sense of prominence recently given to the group by Trump et al. To have a balanced statement we need to simply include all of the relevant information past and present to provide an overall summary of the group's relative size, significance and popularity, and to this end, I have already balanced the old text on the page with some much needed past and present context:
The MEK was at one point Iran's "largest and most active armed dissident group",[5][6] and some sources today still present it as a major political opposition group,[1][7][8] though it is known to be unpopular within Iran.[9][10]
This summarizes the group's past activity (a major militarized dissident group that aimed at the overthrow of the government through armed coup, later in league with Iraq), the claim presented in various media sources that it remains a significant opposition group + the subject-matter expert-backed statement that it is deeply unpopular in Iran. The behind-paywall Times and Telegraph sources for the middle statement are incidentally entirely needless for this and should be replaced with better options. There are plenty of open access sources for this sort of statement, including plenty of scholarly material options. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think your proposed text is a decent assessment. Most reliable sources that discuss MEK history in depth agree that, at its peak, the MEK was the largest guerrilla group and/or had significant support. Most of them also agree that their support rapidly declined with the main factor being their exile and alliance with Iraq. The phrase "the MEK, the main opposition of Iran" (when discussing the present) is mostly a MEK slogan, propagated primarily by the MEK itself, connected sources (e.g. paid lobbyists), and eventually caught up by some generalist press. Maybe your proposal could replace Option B. The reason I've been leaning towards deletion is that capturing the nuances about MEK's rise and fall is not trivial, and I would prefer the defer to the body of the article to discuss it in depth rather than having a bad summary. But if the text in the lede is something along the lines of your proposal, I think it would be a good outcome. MarioGom (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Iskandar323, I agree that your proposal is fair enough, but would they accept it? Could we reason with them and reach consensus? I believe No. If they revert you again, I think we should remove the claim via RFC and then add a fair replacement like yours, again via RFC. Our experience from previous RFCs shows that we cannot do it at once.Ghazaalch (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the main priority is that the options represent the choices that multiple editors will reasonably accept (not that everyone accepts the same). Also, RFCs are not strict !votes. So it is possible for someone to say something like "Prefer A, oppose C" or "Prefer C, oppose A". Hopefully the closer can parse the consensus appropriately after that. In my opinion, part of the chaos of the previous RFC can be prevented if we start with a shared list of sources, rather than bringing up new source lists in the middle of the discussion. It's ok that each of us post a different assessment of sources, but at least we should agree on which are the main we'll consider.
ParadaJulio, Alex-h: What are your thoughts on the RFC options and the sources? MarioGom (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll get to this as soon as I can, but thanks for the ping! ParadaJulio (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  • We all apparently agree that the MEK was the Islamic Republic's main rival during the 1980s. Even after the Iran-Iraq War Abrahamian was still referring to the MEK "as the main foe of the Islamic Republic".[11] Posing a question to those who argue that this is no longer true: When did the MEK cease to be the main foe of the Islamic Republic, and according to which source? Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Very simple. When they got the beat down during the 2003 Iraq invasion and their main fighting force was disarmed and imprisoned for six years, at which point the organization as a whole went a bit loony. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Alex-h: A few of the listed sources describe a decline in support and size. Kazemzadeh (2002) mentions 1985 as a tipping point, Cohen (2009) mentions 1981 to "mid 1980s" as the decline, Cordesman (2003) is less specific, but mentions 2003 as another point of decline, Dehghan (2014), Torbati (2017) and quite a few others mention the alliance with Saddam Hussein as the primary factor of declining support which, while it's not an explicitly stated year, represents a well-known historical period, etc.
    Different sources might have different weight. But the point of this thread is preparing a common ground for discussion: 1) do you think the options discussed so far would be appropriate for an RFC? and 2) if there is an RFC, do you think the above list of sources includes every source that should be assessed during an RFC? Best, MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    It's also sitting there on the page in sentences such as "In the operation, the U.S. reportedly captured 6,000 MEK soldiers and over 2,000 pieces of military equipment, including 19 British-made Chieftain tanks. By most accounts, that was essentially the MEK's entire fighting force. Everything after that was clandestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    MarioGom: Kazemzadeh (2002) doesn't mention a "tipping point" in relation to the MEK being the the Islamic Republic's main foe/rival/opposition, he critiques Rajavi for (according to him) transforming/reducing the MEK into a cult. Torbati (2017) gives brief comment about supporters and analysts. Dehghan (The Guardian) mentions that the MEK lost popularity in Iran because of its support for Saddam Hussein, and Cordesman (2014) also mentions something similar, but the MEK's cult of personality or its alleged popularity as a banned organization in Iran does not determine whether or not the MEK ceased to be the Islamic Republic's main foe/rival/opposition after the Iran-Iraq war. For instance, you cite Cohen (2009) mentioning that the MEK had lost its social hold in Iran, but then you take out of the article "that this is hard to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran" (you only needed to Google the quote to see that it was written by Cohen). Or consider James Cimment (2011) full quote that "The strength of the movement inside Iran is uncertain: hundreds of MEK supporters have been executed and many more tortured and jailed."[12] Or consider the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners when many were executed just for pledging support for the MEK, all things to consider when assessing MEK support inside Iran, but we're instead assessing if the MEK is still being considered the Islamic Republic's main foe after the Iran-Iraq war. I've prepared a list of sources including relevant quotes.
Source list
  • I think some of the options discussed so far would be appropriate for an RFC, although "Option B" has little weight with relation to the US disarmament. Alex-h (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Alex-h: Thanks. I'll consolidate these in the sources list. I see some of the ones you listed were already included, others were not, and others could use a longer quote. Best, MarioGom (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Iskandar323: I listed sources and commentary here that challenge your changes and constitute significant explanation. Please attend to them before blindly restoring your edits. Also your other recent modifications -- "Iraqi officials", "have touted it as fighting for", "militant". The previous version had more weight. Alex-h (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
No, the previous version was a flimsy and transparent piece of POV that provided zero context; this discussion is about correcting that, and providing some actual context and clarity. What about the combined version that I have presented is problematic, and what sources actually contradict it? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The sources from Alex indicating that the MEK is still being recognized as the main opposition contradict it. But the key concern with your proposal is that it addresses a different issue than the one being debated here and you're not acknowledging that distinction. If you want to explore the MEK's popularity only within Iran (and the full scope of that implication), that merits its own dedicated discussion. The focal point of this discussion revolves around whether the MEK remains recognized as the largest/main opposition (beyond just Iran), and there exists a multitude of sources that still maintain that perspective. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is mostly prepared, but I will not open it at the moment. There is a chance that the wording proposed by Iskandar323 sticks. MarioGom (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@MarioGom: It's been removed as of now, by way of sock, so it's not sticking anywhere for now, but obviously it could quite readily be restored. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I would opt for restoring it. It is well sourced and balanced. I think it does not fully capture the nuances of sources that consider the group a pariah nowadays, or the sources that state that MEK was NOT the largest guerrilla group in the 1970s, but it is a good compromise for the lede. If it gets contested again, my eventual proposal will be to completely remove this aspect from the lede. MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Katzman 2001, p. 97.
  2. ^ "Ban on Iran opposition should be lifted, says EU court". Telegraph. Iran's main opposition group
  3. ^ "The People's Mujahidin: the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change in Tehran". The Times. the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group
  4. ^ Martin, Gus, ed. (2011). Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization (2nd ed.). Sage. ISBN 9781412980166. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Martin, Gus, ed. (2011). Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization (2nd ed.). Sage. ISBN 9781412980166. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Cimment, James (2011). World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, 2nd Edition. Routledge. pp. 276, 859. doi:10.4324/9781315697994. ISBN 978-0765682840. The strength of the movement inside Iran is uncertain [...] MEK is the largest and most active Iranian dissident group; its membership includes several thousand well-armed and highly disciplined fighters.
  7. ^ "Ban on Iran opposition should be lifted, says EU court". Telegraph. Iran's main opposition group
  8. ^ "The People's Mujahidin: the Iranian dissidents seeking regime change in Tehran". The Times. the biggest and most resilient Iranian opposition group
  9. ^ Saeed Kamali Dehghan (22 April 2014), "Iranian prisoners allegedly forced to run gauntlet of armed guards", The Guardian, retrieved 15 June 2018, The MEK, which is based in Paris, remains unpopular in Iran because of its support for the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq war.
  10. ^ Torbati, Yeganeh (16 January 2017), "Former U.S. officials urge Trump to talk with Iranian MEK group", Reuters, Reuters, retrieved 20 July 2017, The MEK's supporters present the group as a viable alternative to Iran's theocracy, though analysts say it is unpopular among Iranians for its past alignment with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and attacks on Iranian soldiers and civilians.
  11. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. [...] And many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations. As the main foe of the Islamic Republic [...]
  12. ^ Cimment, James (2011). World Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence from Ancient Times to the Post-9/11 Era, 2nd Edition. Routledge. pp. 276, 859. doi:10.4324/9781315697994. ISBN 978-0765682840.

MEK ideology in the lede (WP:RFCBEFORE)

Is "Its revolutionary interpretation of Islam contrasts with the conservative Islam of the traditional clergy as well as the populist version developed by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970s."[1] something for the lede? Ghazaalch (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As discussed above by Iskandar323, it is a cherry-picked material with no context. It should go to the body of the article to be discussed thoroughly.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's far from being a fair summary of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran § Ideology. MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This is gone now, so case closed? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 1. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)

Continue "More additions to the lead"

The previous discussion has become too long and I opened a new one. First of all, I need to mention the consensus built by users after proposal by admin on the definition of what is longstanding material. "longstanding text would be about a month". So Alex_h has literally removed a longstanding without building consensus. He applied just his own opinion on the article then explained it on TP. He didn't wait for positive or negative comments from other users when removing a longstanding text. This is not "bulding the consensus". Please review "WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS" on top of TP. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ali Ahwazi: Regarding the link you shared Defining longstanding text for this article, that was from 2019 and the editors who participated don't seem active here anymore. I have also noticed that User:Kazemita1 and User:Saff V. were blocked for sockpuppetry. The admin who made that proposal was El_C, tagging him here to see if he has any thoughts on that. If a controversial edit is being called into question in a talk page discussion, you need to respond appropriately. Many of the edits that are being objected to were made within a month or much less, so if you have any thoughts about any particular edit, share your thoughts in the appropriate thread. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Ali Ahwazi: All reverts by Alex-h and ParadaJulio were done in bad faith and evading previous sanctions. WP:REVERTBAN applies, so feel free to restore content reverted by them if you think that improves the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks MrioGom. Depending on the recent changes, I have to review the content again and discuss it on this page if needed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Article in reasonable shape now

The page has a fairly reasonable and sensical structure now, and the readable prose count is down to nearing 80kB, making it a much more digestible affair. There's more work to be done on sourcing, and probably on trimming and summarizing the history section, but I would say, overall, that the article is in reasonable shape now. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Iskandar323, I try to summarize the history section. Feel free to modify my changes.Ghazaalch (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

stength = strength 2603:8000:D300:3650:D06B:E3DD:D32F:7B4 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization-BRD

I added In the War for Narratives Iran’s Regime Takes to Wikipedia by National Council of Resistance of Iran to this talkpage-template, and was reverted on that, "this is not a media organization, but a self-published post by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (an organization with at least one member banned by WMF T&S"

Reasonable people can disagree on what counts as "media organization" in this context, I thought it was close enough, though I tend to be a bit inclusionist on these things. I think of a political org's official website as a media org, in general. Not that it comes up in this context very often, most of it will be some kind of "news". Fwiw, the website has "News". If you have an opinion, please share. However, "an organization with at least one member banned by WMF T&S" doesn't matter in this context, but it's interesting info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's fair. MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: As you note, it's a political party's blog. While it might contain media, that does not make it a "media site" by any standard definition of the term. WP:PRESS and the press template are strictly for press sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs is the place for blog mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The site has a blog-section, but afaict, the article in question is not there. Some political parties used to publish their own newspapers and magazines (maybe some still do), I don't consider this very different. But that's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Characterization as a cult

Hogo-2020: You reverted [1] my change changing the title of the section "Cult of personality" to "Characterization as a cult". Your rationale was While some sources use this term for the MEK, others don't. It is irrelevant that some sources do not describe it as a cult. Some do, and in-text attribution is used to note it. The section is not about "cult of personality". The content and the backing sources are way more broad and discuss the extent to which the organization can (or cannot) be characterized as a cult. It is simply incorrect to name this section "cult of personality". It does not match the content. It does not match the sources. MarioGom (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh God, the topic's back. Yes, it's described as a cult, but not a cult of personality. It wasn't one of these things where everyone hung the pictures of the leaders on the walls. Characterization is a more usefully descriptive/functional subtitle. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. I reverted your edit (didn't change the title as you say) because it was a deeply biased change. It is not irrelevant that other sources use the term "Cult of Personality". All reliable sources need to be considered, and if that's what's missing in that section, then perhaps we should be discussing that instead. I take it from the above comment that this has been previously addressed. If you're adamant about this change, we should look at those discussions as well as sources and determine what new information would support such a change. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hogo-2020: Do you realize that the section is not about "cult of personality"? Neither the content or the sources are about that. It just does not make any sense. Which title would you propose for this section? MarioGom (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Also note that you are free to propose any other changes to the content, but trying to keep a title unrelated to the content is the kind of filibusterism that has plagued the 62 pages of archives already . MarioGom (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom, as already said, this looks like a deeply biased change because you're overlooking a major part of the literature. I will survey sources (also in the archives) and start a list here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how the title is biased at all. The title is not "Cult", "Cult characteristics", or "This is a cult". "Characterization as a cult" is a fairly neutral heading for a section that discusses the sources that describe it as a cult, a politico-religious sect, etc. Some of these sources are as reliable as they can get, such as Ervand Abrahamian. But in any case, the heading "Characterization as a cult" does not preclude adding reliable sources that try to refute the others or represent a different viewpoint on the topic. MarioGom (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you please say which sources use the title "Characterization as a cult" (or similar)? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a summary of the content. What would be your preferred title? MarioGom (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
How did you arrive at that summary? through which sources? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Please, just see the content of the section. These sources state that the organization has characteristics of a cult, with different aspects being discussed. How would you call a well-sourced section that discusses the extent to which an organization is a cult or displays some characteristics of a cult? The exact title does not need to be in the sources, just like "History" or "Controversies" do not need to explictly come from the sources, as long as the sources discuss history and controversies. So, again, what would be your preferred title for this section? MarioGom (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I got your overall point: you think my proposed title is "deeply biased" and it's unlikely I can persuade you. That's why I wonder what would be your proposal, or if you think the current title is just correct. Given the track record of this page, this would likely need an RFC, but it would be unfair if it did not represent all options. MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm as confused as Mario about what you think is "deeply biased" here. I can't see any bias, and you haven't explained any bias. I see one, arguably inaccurate descriptive subhead that has been exchanged for a related, but less specific and objectionable descriptive subhead. I don't see where bias comes into it at all. All labels of "cult" are characterisations, and there "Characterisations as a cult" is a perfectly reasonable subhead. Your objections, on the other hand, are as yet entirely unexplained. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom. This list of books use "Cult of personality".
  • Iran today : an encyclopedia of life in the Islamic Republic. Authors: Mehran Kamrava (Editor), Manochehr Dorraj (Editor). Publisher: Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 2008. Page 338.
  • Terrornomics. Authors: Sean S. Costigan, David GoldPublished March 16, 2016. Publisher: Routledge. Page 68.
  • Deadly connections states that sponsor terrorism. Authors: Daniel Byman. Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 Page 37.
  • Conflict in the modern Middle East : an encyclopedia of civil war, revolutions, and regime change. Author:Jonathan K. Zartman (Editor). Publisher: ABC-CLIO, 2020. Page 209.
  • The Iranian Mojahedin. Author: Ervand Abrahamian. Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. Page 255.
  • The Thousand and One Borders of Iran Travel and Identity. Author: Fariba Adelkhah. Publisher: Routledge, 2015. Page 270.
  • Iran Agenda The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis. Authors: Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer. Publisher: Routledge, 2016. Page 99.
  • Terrorist Argument. Author: Christopher C. Harmon. Publisher: Brookings Institution Press, 2018. Page 170.
My proposal is to have the section consider books like these. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
And the reason why I asked you where you got this title from is because I saw in the archives that it was proposed about 4 years ago by two editors that appear to be now banned from this topic, SharabSalam and Mhhossein. How did you arrive at the same verbatim biased title as they did? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Adding further sources, including discussion of "cult of personality" practices is still compatible with a title "characterization as a cult". On the other hand, a title "cult of personality" is not appropriate for a section that discusses broader "cult-like" practices, not limited to cult of personality. You are welcome to expand the section with further reliable sources, but expanding it with cult of personality practices does not really change my point about the title. In fact, some of the sources you bring up discuss cult practices beyond cult of personality, like Abrahamian. About your later question of previous discussions: yes, I have read many previous discussions over the years, and I'll never claim all my proposals are novel (as neither are yours), there's nothing wrong with that. MarioGom (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom. Your answer is rather compelling. I previously asked you how you had arrived at the title "Characterization as a cult", and you said you had not used sources but had read and summarized the content of the section: "It's a summary of the content", "just see the content of the section", "The exact title does not need to be in the sources". However the same verbatim title change proposal was made 4 years ago by two editors that are now banned and who used an unreliable source as the basis for the title change. Where things get compelling is that you never said you were reviving this proposal from 4 years ago, you said you had come up with this proposal by looking at the current content of the section. So how can both proposals (yours, and the one from 4 years ago by two banned editors using an unreliable source) be identical? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
If you think I'm not acting in good faith, please, report this to an appropriate venue. Otherwise, would you engage assuming good faith in this discussion? I made the case for this proposal at great length here, and asked you some questions to try to build consensus (whether you think the current title is ok or not, whether you have another proposal, or what would you think would be appropriate options for an RFC), but you did not answer any so far. I'm not going to engage in de-railing this thread with a long exchange on this innuendo about whatever some other editor said 4 years ago. MarioGom (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom, I'm also interested in the content (I did answer about your proposal using sources, and I'm currently gathering additional sources that I will provide here soon). I'm also not interested in escalating this, but could you just please clear this up? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I answered already [2]. I'm not going to write a longer essay here about this. It's not relevant for this discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
If you really want to go deeper on this meta discussion on my behaviour, my talk page is open. I think this thread should continue with the substance, and avoid shifting to meta-discussions that do not serve consensus building. MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom, I have looked at sources in the article, archives, and Google Books. Here is the draft list I've put together so far. I'm looking for additional sources, do you have any? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hogo-2020: I have been compiling some sources in a sandbox. It is quite early work. I am also drafting a rewrite of the section, although I expect my title proposal to stand both with the current content or my proposed content.
To ensure our efforts are directed towards some possible resolution, would you mind clarifying if the current title ("Cult of personality") is your preferred choice based on your current understanding of the sources? Otherwise, do you have any other option in mind? MarioGom (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That being said, I think there's a misconception in your draft. "Cult" and "cult of personality" are not mutually exclusive. Some discuss "cult of personality" without labeling as "cult", while others discuss "cult of personality" as part of an explicit labeling as a cult. This is the case of Ervand Abrahamian, who you classify as "absolutely cult of personality", but he is the scholar describing the MEK most unambiguously as a cult (and yes, also discussing the cult of personality aspects). This can be seen in the following passages:
  • Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 255. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3. In short, the Mojahedin had metamorphized from a mass movement into an inward-looking sect in many ways similar to religious cults found the world over.
  • Abrahamian, Ervand (2013). Cronin, Stephanie (ed.). Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. Routledge. p. 274. ISBN 978-1-134-32890-1. The Sazman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq [...] declared that the revolution had been betrayed, took up arms against the Islamic Republic, and, setting up bases outside the country, turned into a cult resembling medieval Shi'i sects. Its leader elevated himself into an infallible imam with the power to determine policy and reinterpret thirteen centuries of Islam.
As well as other works, including the following interview:
where he stated they stopped being a mass movement with Marxist roots and became basically a cult MarioGom (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom. My list evaluates which terminology aligns with WP:DUE, which would determine if a potential title change is necessary. I will add your quotes to the list, but are you also able to find sources with other perspectives? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
As I said, there's a conceptual problem with that. "Cult of personality" is one aspect. Some sources discuss it as part of broader cult-like behavior. "Cult of personality" as a section title is not broad enough to convey that the section discusses what different sources claim about cult-like behavior, not limited to cult of personality. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Analysis or synthesis about how certain authors discuss cult-behavior within the broader concept of "cult of personality" is a patent Wikipedia:No original research breach. My list displays quotes from reliable sources to determine what terminology and content aligns with WP:DUE, also including the sources you mention that discuss both "Cult of personality" and "Characterization as a cult" aspects. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the most relevant sources, and I think you have done so too. I think the discussion is stuck because it is not a matter of reading the sources again, but an essential disagreement on how to interpret them, and how to conceptualize the different aspects. I'll start workshopping a possible RFC. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a few observations on the discussion so far. First, yes, the concept of "cult" in general is broader than just "cult of personality", so the latter does not adequately encompass the former. Secondly, in Hogo's source analysis, the "allegations" column is largely not allegations, but reliable and/or notable opinions. A good example is HRW, which is a reliable source in its own right. If they characterise it as a cult, that's a reliable characterisation. Finally, if it is purely a phrasing question, other formulations could be things like "cult-like attributes", "labelling as a cult", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand people will have personal observations, but my list only displays quotes from reliable sources without any personal analysis or editorializing. If a source attributes claims as coming from critics, governments, or certain analysts, then that's how I have also listed them. For example the AP article has two contrasting opinions, one is by a critic and the other by someone rejecting that criticism. These are two contrasting opinions coming from the same source, and I've quoted them accordingly without any further appraisals. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course those are opinions. Those are just statements by politicians. Those aren't the examples I gave. The voices of subject-matter experts, research organisations and independent bodies are not just opinions however - these are reliable, expert statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The source quotes them as opinions, and I'm doing the same. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but random opinions in random news pieces are not very relevant. This sort of stuff carries little to no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
My source analysis prioritizes content from books. Let me know if you have any other book you'd like me to consider. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Workshop: RFC on section title

I intend to open an RFC to resolve the above discussion. It could be as follows:

== RFC: Section title for the current "Cult of personality" section ==

What should be title title of the section currently titled "Cult of personality" (permalink)?

  • Option 1: "Cult of personality" (statu quo)
  • Option 2: "Characterization as a cult"

Alternatively, if it turns out there are no further options, I can turn it into a yes/no question, along the following lines:

== RFC: Section rename to "Characterization as a cult" ==

Should the section currently titled "Cult of personality" (permalink) be renamed to "Characterization as a cult"?

What do you think? Are these the two options that we would consider? Is there any other? cc participants in the above discussion (Hogo-2020, Iskandar323). MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Hogo can respond to my final comment above first. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom. Before starting a RFC about the title, there are unresolved questions about the content of the section. For example the sentence:

  • The MEK has been described as a "cult" by governments and officials in Iran, the United States,[1] France,[2] and Iraq.[3]

My list shows how Owen Bennett Jones in The BBC and the AP article provide contrasting opinions, yet the sentence selectively represents only one point of view. That is one of several WP:NEUTRAL problems in the section. Would you like to help me clean it up? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the section needs to be rewritten, but at least for my proposal, I do not think it would change the title choice. So I don't think we need to wait for or hold back content changes. That can continue its own editing cycle. For what it's worth, I'm drafting new content, which would open with the following paragraph (still work in progress): Whether the MEK can be characterized as a cult or not is a frequent discussion among scholars. Some of them, including Ervand Abrahamian and Michael Axworthy, consider that, after the Iranian Revolution, the organization became a cult.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Others, including Ronen A. Cohen and Eli Clifton, consider that the organization has some characteristics of a cult.[10][11] However, Cohen notes that these characteristics are common across military organizations in times of war, and that the MEK cannot be considered a cult.[10] I think the sentence you quote should be replaced as part of a rewrite, since I think it gives undue weight to declarations by some individual government officials, and scholar sources should have more weight.
Hogo-2020: I'm sorry for being repetitive, but back to the point: do you think all reasonable options for the title are represented? Or do you expect to support any other? Do you think the formulation of the RFC, as presented, would be neutral? MarioGom (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hogo-2020: We are all volunteers and obviously you have no obligation to answer any question, but I have asked this many many times in this thread, without receiving any answer. I intend to keep answering your questions and concerns, but it would be really great if you had the courtesy of answering the most basic question I made (repeatedly): Do you think all reasonable options for the title are represented? Or do you expect to support any other? Do you think the formulation of the RFC, as presented, would be neutral? MarioGom (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello MarioGom: I have already addressed this. But if it's still unclear, the title should align with WP:DUE terminology. So far most sources (particularly books) use "Cult of personality". If it can be established that "Characterization as a cult" (or any other terminology) is more frequently used in sources, then I would support whatever terminology is WP:DUE. I have been analyzing the sources in that section and found that often the content selectively represents only one point of view, so I cannot tell you yet if your title choice is reasonable until we address this. Now would you please address the WP:NEUTRAL problems in that section that I asked about? Why delete from the page that RAND also describes the group as a cult of personality and that this claim is being denied by supporters, and only keep RAND's list of cult characteristics? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
You seem to have done quite a lot of review of sources, so I thought by now you would have a rough idea of the possible choices. I'm not asking for you to commit to anything, none of this is binding for a future RFC, but ok.
I did not delete, I reverted, which is not the same. I objected to your changes and explained why. Your edit removed or replaced the following passages:
  • [According to a RAND Corporation report for the US government, the MEK had] "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options."
  • According to RAND, members were lured in through "false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries" and then prevented from leaving.[12]
and I have not seen any justification other than Merging RAND [3], which is definitely not an explanation for such a change, in an area that is already proven contentious. MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have indeed done a good review of some of the sources, and the main problem with that section is its selective misrepresentation of a single point of view. This was the rationale for merging RAND in a manner that includes the various perspectives the source presents. If representing all significant views is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, then why not include the various perspectives the source presents here? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Your edit removed key points of the RAND report, the ones I quoted. I have no problem expanding, and in fact, I already mentioned I think the section needs expansion. MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that section should be better written to represent the different points of views rather than expanded, but ok, I will add the missing views and then we can open a new topic about rewriting certain passages. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it will eventually need a rewrite to better represent what reliable sources say, with attention to due weight. Adding more info on cult of personality contributes to that. Removing well sourced mentions to cult beyond cult of personality does not. MarioGom (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
In terms of due weight, RAND is cited to a large percentage of the entire section. There are dozens of sources available in this topic, so one source should not carry that much weight. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
These are not useful sources. The BBC piece is half opinion piece itself, is not focused on the issue and merely recollects the uninformed opinions of anonymous soldiers. The AP piece just trots out a few opinions from politicians. There are much more serious, secondary, analytical voices to be referenced here. We don't need trivial, unfocused news clippings and opinions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello MarioGom: What is the reason for removing from the article the 13 sources that match the section title "Cult of personality"? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, see the edit summary: Several issues: 1) removes well-sourced content (e.g. cult characteristics), 2) misrepresents the RAND report, which describes cult characteristics (not just cult of personality), 3) completely unreasonable refbomb in the body. By refbomb, I mean an indiscriminate list of inline references, where some seem tangential, and there seems to be even duplicates. Although format-wise, it can be improved by using a citation bundle (many examples in this article). Also, please, use proper citation templates. Although my main objection is that the change misrepresents the RAND report, where you changed the quote, seemingly implying that the source discusses only cult of personality, when it goes way way beyond that. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have partially restored your edits. The one for the initial sentence. Reference selection and style can be refined later. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jones, Owen Bennett (15 April 2012). "An Iranian mystery: Just who are the MEK?". BBC. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
  2. ^ "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group". AP NEWS. 27 June 2014.
  3. ^ Rogin, Josh (25 August 2011), "MEK rally planned for Friday at State Department", Foreign Policy, retrieved 25 March 2018
  4. ^ Abrahamian 1989, pp. 255. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
  5. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (2013). Cronin, Stephanie (ed.). Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. Routledge. p. 274. ISBN 978-1-134-32890-1. The Sazman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq [...] declared that the revolution had been betrayed, took up arms against the Islamic Republic, and, setting up bases outside the country, turned into a cult resembling medieval Shi'i sects. Its leader elevated himself into an infallible imam with the power to determine policy and reinterpret thirteen centuries of Islam.
  6. ^ Vick, Karl (21 June 2003). "Iranian Dissident Group Labeled a Terrorist Cult". The Washington Post.
  7. ^ Axworthy 2008. "From exile, at first in Paris and later in Iraq, the MKO kept up its opposition and its violent attacks, but dwindled over time to take on the character of a paramilitary cult, largely subordinated to the interests of the Baathist regime in Iraq."
  8. ^ Moghissi, Haideh; Rahnema, Saeed (2013). Cronin, Stephanie (ed.). Reformers and Revolutionaries in Modern Iran: New Perspectives on the Iranian Left. Routledge. p. 300. ISBN 978-1-134-32890-1. After the revolution, they followed their eclectic ideology, mingling some socialist ideas with their interpretation of Islam, were brutally suppressed by the clerical regime and were reduced to a religious cult based in Iraq but with a large following in other countries outside Iran.
  9. ^ Goulka et al. 2009, p. 60. "In 1985, Rajavi announced that he had appointed Maryam Azodanlu, the wife of his close associate Mehdi Abrishamchi, as co-leader of the MeK. She would soon divorce her husband and marry Rajavi. Together, they would launch a new “ideological revolution” that would, over time, transform the MeK into a cult group."
  10. ^ a b Cohen 2009, pp. 44–46.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Saeed Kamali was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Goulka et al. 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran/Archive_62&oldid=1265556278"