Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 36

RfC about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article (2nd RfC)
This RfC takes into account the points made in the previous RfC "about copy-editing "cult" claims in the article".

Shall we summarize the following:

According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. 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.

A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that 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". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"According to Country Reports on Terrorism, in 1990 the second phase of the 'ideological revolution' was announced during which all married members were ordered to divorce and remain celibate, undertaking a vow of "eternal divorce", with the exception of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The wedding rings of women were replaced with pendants engraved with Massoud's face."

Allegations of cult-like characteristics in the MEK have been made by former members who have defected from the organization, including Massoud Khodabandeh and Masoud Banisadr among others, but also by journalists including Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin among others, who visited its military camps in Iraq.

In 2019, more defectors related their experiences. These included a ban on romantic relationships and marriages after a major military defeat. The leadership attributed that to the members being distracted by spouses and children. Members said they had to write in a notebook any sexual moments, such as 'today in the morning, I had an erection'. They had to write in the notebook feelings such as wishing to have a child after seeing children on TV. These notebooks had to be read aloud in front of the leaders and comrades. 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".

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish".

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".

Into this?:

The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish"." Various sources have also described the MEK as a “cult”, “cult-like",  or having a “cult of personality”,   while other sources have dismissed these claims. while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult". (I've ammended the text based on the feedback by VR and MA Javadi. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC))

Note: An alternative proposal is suggested by VR.-- M h hossein   talk 07:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this so-called amendement is in-line with VR's comment. @Vice Regent: Is it? -- M h hossein   talk 13:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. This RfC proposes a reduction of redundant text in the article. The given text is redundant because it all refers to the same thing: different entities calling the MEK "cult" or "cult-like" (a contentious label).


 * In the previous RfC, it was questioned whether such a reduction would leave "enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:UNDUE).


 * To help with this, I provided sources with a counter-viewpoint saying that there is a propaganda campaign against the MEK to, among other things, depict it as a "terrorist cult" in the West, but Mhhossein removed these from the article; here are some of the sources that were removed:


















 * Some of these sources don't refer specifically to the "cult" allegations, while others do. Comparing specifically the "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" allegations presented in this RfC, there is a majority viewpoint in favour of "pro-cult". As such, "pro-cult" allegations have been given prominence in the proposed summary of the text.


 * Although the final wording of the summary can be further tweaked, this RfC mainly proposes reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations; something that's been needlessly over-emphasized in the article (making it come across as an attack against a legitimate political group). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you had not consulted the most relevant reliable sources in this regard. Me and Pahlevun exlplained in details what crtical points you have missed. Your so-called summary does not give "enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". That's why it lacks some key-points regarding the subject in question. Moreover, despites being asked, you fail to specifically say which portions are redundant (which portions really?). That's another factor making your justification flawed and useless. -- M h hossein   talk 17:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Just looking at the material that is to be shortened, what one US colonel said is clearly WP:UNDUE, as is the bit about $80,000. These are clear signs that the material needs to be summarized. Furthermore, the summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria appears to summarize viewpoints in about the right proportions. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This RFC is as ridiculous as the previous one. Tag teaming or like won't work here. -- M h hossein   talk 18:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I am once again concerned that you may not be quoting sources properly. For example, you write "while other sources have dismissed these claims" and you cite this source. But the source seems to say (emphasis added),

It is a misrepresentation to call an MEK lobbyist as "other sources". More accurate would be to say something like "MEK denies the allegations". Nor does this source you cited dismisses the claim. It merely argues that Iran has tried countries to label MEK as a cult, not whether the allegation is false or not.VR talk 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @VR: here are three sources:


 * by DR. MAJID RAFIZADEH who is a world-renowned political scientist and recipient of numerous awards including from Oxford University, Annenberg, and University of California Santa Barbara).Arab News
 * by Ivan Sascha Sheehan who is is a PhD and associate professor at University of Baltimore. IntPolicyDigest
 * by Joseph Adam Ereli who is a U.S. Deputy Spokesman, Bureau of Public Affairs. National Interest
 * Feel free to propose a suitable summary, which we could then use as an option for the final wording. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment VR. That's why I say this RFC is as ridiculous as the previous and won't make an improvement to this page. Some sources are cherry picked to reach a desired inclusion. -- M h hossein   talk 12:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - per WP:NOTADVOCACY - we can report objectively without overstating or amplifying and the article does not need every quote from every person that ever called the MEK a cult - this summary is sufficient. About the final line, if we include Stefka's sources, then "The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media" could be a better representation of the sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the RfC as a whole, but the use of the word "dismissed" is not justified based on the sources provided here. Please either modify that or provide better sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind tweaking it to whatever others think is more accurate. If others think "The MEK has denied these allegations, and there are reports of a disinformation campaign to label the MEK as a "cult" in the media" represents sources more accurately, then I'll change it to that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a thing to be left to others, Stefka. I'm telling you your use of sources in text you wish to add isn't entirely appropriate, and needs to be changed. This isn't a due weight question, it's a basic verifiability question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've amended the text. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

These sources calling the MEK a cult can be shortened, and Stefka has given a good proportion to the weight of the different viewpoints. I support shortening and if the final wording needs to be changed, then it can be changed, but this content needs shortening so it can be a more neutral article. Idealigic (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Deleting sources indicating a "highly organized misinformation campaign" against the MEK, and then adding all other sources that call the MEK a cult, is not neutral editing.
 * I neither agree with Stefka adding lots of redundant material on the misinformation campaign, nor with Mhhossein's blanket removal of it. I think some mention of that needs to be made in a neutral fashion.VR talk 00:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed. Unfortunately we keep getting stuck at what the final wording should be. That probably happens because of the "all or nothing" attitude - discussion hinges between getting rid of (almost) everything vs getting rid of nothing. So I made this incremental edit, it reduces the first paragraph from 115 words to 85 words and gets rids of all redundancies and long quotes that were previously in the first paragraph. Hopefully this is something everyone can agree with. If so, I can then trim the second paragraph and so on.VR talk 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * VR: My comment shows I support "case by case" investigation. But they are aiming to perform a mass removal of wells-sourced and DUE contents from the page. -- M h hossein   talk 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein mass removes the "anti-cult" arguments from the article, and then proposes that the "pro-cult" arguments be kept based on WP:DUE. Then Vice Regent agrees that both "anti-cult" and "pro-cult" arguments should be shortened, but then proposes that the majority of "pro-cult" arguments be kept. This comes across as saying one thing and doing another in order to keep the article filled with "MEK is a cult" quotes. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit is comprehensively explained. In fact, I saved the article against tons of dubious and repeated materials. There, I asked you to "see how high-quality-reliable-sources are used from neutral and independent authors to develop the content in the cult designation section." So, these two cases are never comparable. Just look at the sources. -- M h hossein   talk 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * this revert makes no sense. I tried reducing redundancy (again reduced 115 words to 85 words) but you restored the redundancy. Yet here you are complaining about redundancy in the section. Your revert doesn't even make sense in terms of paragraph structure: the section should not be starting with the sentence on children that you moved to the very top.VR talk 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * VR: for the sake of not WP:BLUDGEONING these RfCs further, I'll keep it brief: Place a vote here explaining why the article should include the amount of "cult" quotes you're wanting to include in it. A closing admin will then review consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The RFC is fundamentally against the previous closure: The previous closure asks for addressing "whether a significant reduction in the size of the section would leave enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source." However this new RFC is not doing that at all. Also, this new one is quite the same is the previous one which aimed to replace the 6 well-sourced paragraphs (almost 680 words) with one paragraph (37 words!!!). There's no sensible difference in the current suggestion containing 80 words. So, this RFC is actually suggesting to condensate the content by 88 percent without a case by case study of the alleged redundancies. Moreover, the current RFC does not take into account "proportion of content that should be devoted to "pro-cult" vs "anti-cult" viewpoints", as demanded here. -- M h hossein   talk 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was explained to you by the previous closing admin that: "the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision [...] in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support". As I said to VR, you can place a vote here explaining why the article should include the amount of "cult" quotes you're wanting to include in it and a closing admin will then review consensus. That's the last I'll say here too. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost nothing has changed from the your previous failed RFC and that's exactly why this new RFC is against that closure. The page is covered by General Sanctions and consensus required rules here. Despite this, you are repeatedly asking to condense a key longstanding text to be condensed by 88 percent without explaining what are those so called redundancies. -- M h hossein   talk 13:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No: As I explained here and here, the current RFC is not improved in light of previous closure. However, the response to this proposed change is NO. The main reason provided by the OP is that the title "cult" is a Contentious label. This is while, according to the guideline these titles can be used when they are "...widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," which is exactly the case here. I mean there are a vast number of secondary reliable sources widely and deeply covering the cultish nature of the group. "Designation as a cult" already contains multiple reliable sources, but I will try to provide a categorized list of some other sources (probably some are already used):
 * 1-Scholarly works
 * "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum", By RAND Corporation. This source provides a specialized review on the cultish nature of the group. More specifically, the report explains how the group could be handled by the U.S. military personnel given the MEK's cultish behavior. This source say despite the denials by MEK and it supporters, there are clues substantiating that MEK is a cult. Just see how the text says the "characteristics" are "substantiated" which means RAND knows them as a cult.
 * A work by The Intercept sheds lights on the RAND report as such: "You think only people inside of dictatorships are brainwashed? A 2009 report by the RAND Corporation noted how MEK rank-and-file had to swear “an oath of devotion to the Rajavis on the Koran” and highlighted the MEK’s “authoritarian, cultic practices” including ‘mandatory divorce and celibacy” for the group’s members (the Rajavis excepted, of course). “Love for the Rajavis was to replace love for spouses and family,” explained the RAND report."
 * Ervand Abrahamian, a professor emeritus of Iranian and Middle Eastern history and politics at Baruch College in New York:
 * Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, edited by Eileen Barker and published by Routledge.
 * So, the very fact that the ideological revolution was an important milestone for becoming a cult should be mentioned somewhere in the page. The source also quotes Abrahamian as such:
 * 2-Journalistic works
 * "The Cult of Rajavi", an infamous article by Elizabeth Rubin of The New York Times. In 2003, Rubin visited the MEK camp in Iraq and reported her observations in the New York Times. This worked coined the term "The cult of Rajavi" which was later echoed by many other reliable sources.
 * As I just said, many other works on MEK was later influenced by Rubin's piece. According to Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK), by Council on Foreign Relations, "Many analysts, including Rubin, have characterized the MEK as a cult, citing the group’s fealty to the Rajavis." Another instance is The Inercept which mentions the Rubin's 2003 work and adds the Rubin's 2011 work as a complementary note.
 * "Defectors Tell Of Torture And Forced Sterilization In Militant Iranian Cult", by The Intercept.
 * "Here’s Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group", by The Inercept.
 * "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long-read by the Guardian.
 * Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group.
 * "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult", by Trita Parsi.
 * The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex, by BBC.
 * The MEK in Albania
 * "Here’s Why Washington Hawks Love This Cultish Iranian Exile Group", by The Inercept.
 * "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK", a long-read by the Guardian.
 * Trump allies' visit throws light on secretive Iranian opposition group.
 * "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult", by Trita Parsi.
 * The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex, by BBC.
 * The MEK in Albania
 * "Why Trump’s Hawks Back the MEK Terrorist Cult", by Trita Parsi.
 * The Iranian opposition fighters who mustn't think about sex, by BBC.
 * The MEK in Albania
 * The MEK in Albania


 * 3-Official Reports
 * U.S. state department report published in 1994. According to the Intercept, the report writes that Massoud Rajavi "fostered a cult of personality around himself" which had "alienated most Iranian expatriates, who assert they do not want to replace one objectionable regime for another."
 * U.S. state department report published in 2008.
 * That said, given the fact that the the section contains even more sources, the proposed text in this RFC is paying far too little weight to the number and depth of coverage by the reliable sources. Moreover, the above list proved that MEK's cultish/cult-like descriptions don't solely stem from the MEK's separating of children from parents. Actually, the sources go through the details and portray a set of behaviors that indicate MEK is/resembles a cult. For instance, the RAND report lists the following items in APPENDIX B of the report to show that MEK is a cult, or has cult-like attributes:


 * 1) "Authoritarian, Charismatic Leadership"
 * 2) "Intense Ideological Exploitation and Isolation"
 * 3) "Sexual Control"
 * 4) "Emotional Isolation"
 * 5) "Extreme, Degrading Peer Pressure"
 * 6) "Deceptive Recruitment"
 * 7) "Forced Labor and Sleep Deprivation"
 * 8) "Physical Abuse, Imprisonment, and Lack of Exit Options"
 * 9) "Patterns of Suicide"
 * Though RAND report provides a complete list of the items indicating MEK's cultish behavior, other sources have occasionally mentioned these items (see the above list. For instance, Rubin's piece in New York Times talks about a metamorphosis "into something more like a husband-and-wife-led cult".) That's why the current proposed text, which is a 80-words paragraph, is never a proper response to the above points and can't resemble the current section, which is a well-sourced-6-paragraphs-680-words text.

-- M h hossein   talk 03:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, your long vote doesn't take into account the RFC's core proposal of "reducing redundancy of general "cult" allegations; something that's been needlessly over-emphasized in the article (making it come across as an attack against a legitimate political group)". Idealigic (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a comment, not a vote! The so-called "RFC's core proposal" is never the determining point for the users. My comment shows how baseless the OP's proposed text is. Moreover, the OP has failed to say exactly which portions are redundant. -- M h hossein   talk 12:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Failing to address why/what the RFC proposes means your vote/comment here is the equivalent of a strawman argument. In the RFC header I've indicated the proposed text to be summarized and in my vote I've indicated why it should be summarized. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have indeed addressed the RFC. What's wrong with using concrete evidences to show that your proposal is against multiple guidelines, among them DUE? -- M h hossein   talk 12:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To the closing admin/editor: these are difficult RfCs mainly on account of the overwhelming bludgeoning with confusing claims, to which an easy solution often ends up being closing with "no-consensus" (something that has been happening with most of these RfCs for the past year or so). It will take some time to weight votes/consensus carefully and weed out the bludgeoning, but that's the only way to close this RfC effectively. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Had you been careful about what you propose, they would lead into success. Now, you insist on mass removing of well sourced contents and I showed your proposal goes against WP:DUE among other things. Also, I would like tell the closing admin that previous admin's closure is well emphasizing the importance of addressing the "proportion of content" by presenting reliable sources. My comment is aimed at showing how deep and wide the reliable sources have covered the cultish nature/behavior/attributes of MEK. -- M h hossein   talk 12:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

*No per VR. Stefka Bulgari's version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to proportions. I agree with VR that the material needs to be shortened and redundancies removed, but the final wording should be different. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes changing my vote because of Idealigic's explanation about WP:FALSEBALANCE. Still I agree with VR that the material needs to be shortened. Bahar1397 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you are partly to be blamed for the "overwhelming bludgeoning". I twice proposed to remove redundancy, yet you either ignored my proposal (Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 34) or outright reverted it, even when I tried to fix some basic issues. Of course, redundancy needs to be lessened but your goal seems to be completely remove many views that are widely reported in WP:RS. This is contrary to WP:NPOV. I agree with the need of redundancy and that will need user cooperation and compromise to get an acceptable version. Yet you even refuse to discuss by repeated saying "That's the last I'll say" in the middle of a discussion (not a helpful comment to make).VR talk 13:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current version has a lot of WP:UNDUE text. Condensing that content and leaving just the main points would make the article easier and better to read. Like Adoring nanny says, the summary proposed by Stefka summarizes viewpoints in the right proportions. Nika2020 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "proportion" argument came up in the last RfC. Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views, whereas one view is way more prevalent in reliable sources. The conclusion of an RfC can never go against wikipedia policies, no matter how many "votes" one side has. So instead of simply "voting", I suggest finding ways to amend Stefka's proposal to meet WP:NPOV. I'll propose something myself soon.VR talk 23:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE is not a relevant policy here primarily because Mhhossein has been wholesale removing reliable sources with information that the Tehran government is trying to designate the MEK as a cult in the press . In other words, some users here are removing sources and then claiming their cherry picked sources should be the ones to establish the balance. Also it was determined by an admin that "the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision" and that "in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support". Idealigic (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your comment. Please don't get misled by the Idealigic's comments. Those removals by me are already explained by details. Please check out my comment. This shows that the proposed text is by Stefka Bulgaria is not covering the whole issue. Your "yes" goes against the Vice Regent's comment saying the the OP's suggestion is not proportional to the reliable sources. @Idealigic: Stop misleading the users by making irrelevant comments to this RFC. -- M h hossein   talk 05:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mhhossein, thank you for your message, i have read through the details and your comments, but i don't believe i have been misled by idealigic. Bahar1397 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No; I agree with the explanation of Mhhossein. The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE. The proposed text which has been presented by Stefka Bulgaria, is removing very of the content with appropriate sources. Meanwhile, it is not removal of redundancy. It is a wholesale removal. I presume, there are many appropriate things in the mentioned section which ought not be removed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes; This RFC has improved in light of the previous closure because it leaves enough room to give each position recognition in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint and removes repeated redundant quotes.


 * We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult in the article.


 * The RFC reduces redundancy on both sides, and since Mhhossein has already reduced a lot of the text about MOIS paying to get Western media to say the MEK is a cult, now we also need to reduce all the repeated cult quotes in the article (which are redundant because all they do is repeat that the MEK is cult-like or repeat what’s already in the article).


 * For example, the Human rights record section already contains a lot of detail about the same human right abuses that some editors here keep repeating should be in the article:














 * The OP’s version explains that sources have called the MEK a “cult” or “cult-like”, and why. That’s all we need in the article with regards to this. Also the OP's proposed reduction gives more emphasis to pro-cult per the proportion of content devoted to that viewpoint, so this RFC has addressed the issues with the last RFC. Alex-h (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of accuracy issues with the version written by OP. First it says "The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf ... a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being cultish." The no children rule is not the only or even the main reason for MEK being widely regarded as a cult. There are many reasons and OP's version removes all of them. Second the version only names the Iranian government as the source of the "cult" allegation even though many sources have reached this conclusion independent of Iran. This gives the impression that the main source of these allegations is Iran, which is false.VR talk 13:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are top experts who describe the MEK as cult: There are dozens of other academics omitted here, let alone tons of reliable WP:NEWSORG sources like The New York Times, Reuters, etc. or think-tanks. Those who are in favor of such a proposal, should provide academic sources of quality akin to those above, instead of using vague words backed up by poor sources like Arab News, IntPolicyDigest or a blog post on National Interest. Pahlevun (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The cultish nature of this organization is one its core characteristics, this is a matter that has been researched and long held by scholars, giving it a mainstream view status. The proposed version is reducing this widely-held academic view to a diverging opinion of political nature, so I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS (using low-quality sources) and WP:WEASEL (by using the term "other sources"). These are a few examples of researches published by scholarly sources:
 * 1) Alexandra Stein, a social psychologist with expertise on cults, in several pages of her book Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems (2016, Taylor & Francis) discusses how MEK qualifies as a cult. This book was used in previous versions of this article to back up material, but is absent from the current article. Was there a consensus to remove this reliable source?
 * 2) RAND Corporation's 2009 policy report dedicates a whole section to this subject, titled "Application of Cult Theory to the MEK".
 * 3) A whole chapter named "The Metamorphosis of MEK" is dedicated to this on the book Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements (2016, Routledge). This reliable book was previously used in this article to back up much more content than now, but they are removed. Why?
 * 4) Manochehr Dorraj has conducted a case study on this subject (see ), and concluded that the MEK was a cult even before 1979.
 * Nikki Keddie (: "Mujahedeen-e Khalq, the violent cult that fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War")
 * Olivier Roy and Valentine Moghadam (: "The Mujāhidīn has increasingly become an inward-looking sect. It has surrounded its leader with an intense personality cult, proclaiming that “Rajavī is Iran, and Iran is Rajavī.”")
 * Ervand Abrahamian (Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, p. 260: "By mid-1987, the Mojahedin Organization had all the main attributes of a cult.")
 * Michael Axworthy (Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran, p. 272: "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")
 * Ronen Cohen (The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997, p. 174: "The fact that organizational discipline was taken to the extreme, and its members were isolated from the world outside the organization, turned it into a cult that worshipped its leader".)
 * Masoud Kazemzadeh (Islamic Fundamentalism, Feminism, and Gender Inequality in Iran Under Khomeini, p. 63: "By 1985–86, Masoud Rajavi, the already absolute leader of the PMOI, turned the organization into a cult, where he was praised and regarded to be the equivalent of Prophets Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, Shia Imam Ali, and Shia Imam Hussein combined.)
 * Wilfried Buchta (Who Rules Iran?, p. 114: "Rajavi alone controls the MEK, which he has organized into a Stalinist-type personality cult centered on himself.")
 * Yes: Also per WP:NOTADVOCACY. I agree with MA Javadi that overstating that the MEK is a cult is just good old fashioned POV pushing. The summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria sums up the reliable sources well without turning the article into an account of quotes calling the MEK a cult. Unlike what Pahlevun claims, this RFC does not contradict WP:RS since it summarizes the main sources, and like what Alex said, the section "Human Rights Record" also already has material that this. Several editors have suggested the article is too long, here is one good opportunity to start to sum up a whole bunch of unnecessary POV pushing. Ypatch (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing something irrelevant does not make the closing admin go wrong. WP:NOTADVOCACY has nothing to do with this RFC and please stop making original research. The so-called summary proposed by Stefka Bulgaria 'wapes out' the reliable sources regarding MEK. Me and Vice Regent already proved this RFC does not address all aspects of MEK's cultish nature. -- M h hossein   talk 07:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, please read WP:NOTADVOCACY, which indicates that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for advocacy or propaganda, and a topic should be described from a neutral point of view." Summarising information from reliable sources (what this RFC is proposing) is a good way to sort out some of the POv pushing in the article. Making whole POV sections like "designation as a cult" and filling it with cult claims is POV pushing and advocacy (the far-from-neutral kind). Ypatch (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How can it be that reporting the cult claims neutrally - which are supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources - can be considered "POV pushing"? WP:NPOV requires as to cover all major viewpoints.VR talk 16:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. I agree with Alex-h and Stefka. The material to be reduced is "redundant" becase it repeats over and over that the MEK is a cult, doesn't add nothing more than that. It needs to be reduced, and since human right abuses are also already in other parts of the article, then explaining what the majority sources say about this topic helps make the article more neutral and is compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE. The majority of voters here agree this needs to be reduced, so lets do that. Barca (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No I think VR and Mhhossein has found enough sources to show this RFC is not acceptable per DUE. The coverage should be proportionate to the reliable sources and this proposal is saying far less than the DUE level. For instance, that they are labeled cult is not only because of their abandoning of the children. As I understand any RFC should not violate the basic policies of wikipedia.- Seyyed(t-c) 05:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin: Not only the former failed RFC should be taken account, the comments by one of the admins with the most experience with the page regarding another also failed RFC, i.e. &, has some key points to note. Best. --  M h hossein   talk 17:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
The current version of the cult section contains redundancies and is poorly written. My last attempt to fix these were reverted by Stefka. Here is a proposed version that reduces the redundancies and states the allegations concisely. I have only kept allegations against the MEK that are cited in multiple high-quality WP:Reliable sources - it is a violation of WP:NPOV to remove all mention of such allegations. I'm also open to feedback and modifications. Proposal:

VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes: I agree with VR's proposal. It's truly saying the main points. As a suggestion, Reese Erlich, Robert Scheer, and Elizabeth Rubin are infamous journalists who visited MEK's camp and then reported their observations. I think it would be beneficial to add the journalists' experience.-- M h hossein   talk 07:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No - This proposal goes back to the same problem that there is in the article at the moment - overstating that governments, journalists, academics, reports, think tanks, and what have you, are calling the MEK a cult. These are just reliable sources calling the MEK a cult, that's all, and a mention that reliable sources have called the MEK a cult is all that we need in the article, along with the other reliable sources saying the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign against the MEK a "cult" (which Mhhossein inconveniently removed from the article). - MA Javadi (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * how is it "overstating" when reliable sources indicate that various governments and academic sources indeed consider MEK to be a cult? And if we mention the Iranian government by name as one of the accusers, then we should also mention other countries making the same accusation. Otherwise we give the false impression that only Iran is accusing MEK of being a cult.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * please also indicate if you think the above version is at least better than the current version.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No; this is still POV pushing. We should summarise reliable sources in a neutral point of view, not add "journalists' experiences", or POV from MEK members, or content already covered in the section "Human Rights Record". Ypatch (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate what in the above text is "POV"? Every single sentence is based on facts that reliably sourced and written in a neutral fashion.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No per NPOV. In the (politically-opposing) articles Ali Khamenei or Ruhollah Khomeini we don't have a (misleading and unsupported) POV section called "Designation as a cult"; even though there enough are RSs saying the subjects have a cult of personality. Similarly on controversial political article's such as Donald Trump, we have numerous scholars, journalists, "experts", etc... writing that he has a cult of personality (The Cult of Trump, by "One of America’s leading experts in cults", A CULT EXPERT FINDS FAMILIAR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR IN TRUMP'S GOP, Expert: Trump’s GOP Behaves Like A Religious Cult, Inside the CULT of Trump: President supporters 'like brainwashed sect members'... "an expert has sensationally claimed.",, , , , etc...) but we also don't have this in Trump's article. Here, in the MEK article, the same NPOV measures have not been applied, where there are whole fork sections about how "unpopular", "cult", "abusive", etc... the biggest and most popular democratic alternative to the Iranian regime supposedly is. "The length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision", and per NPOV, a short paragraph is all we need to summarize this content. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No original research please. How did you conclude "per NPOV, a short paragraph is all we need to summarize this content"? It's clearly showing you're just ignoring WP:DUE. Per DUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That's the most important criteria here (which you all tend to ignore). Now, take another look at mine and Pahelvun's comments. Having proposed such a detailed and well discussed comment, which is based on research into the reliable sources, the comments by YOU all will not be weighed that much. --  M h hossein   talk 08:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * IF academic sources agree that Trump supporters are a cult, then that merits inclusion in the related article as well. Your comparison tries to diminish the mainstream academic view –held by scholars such as Nikki Keddie, Olivier Roy, Valentine Moghadam, Ervand Abrahamian and Michael Axworthy among others– to a politically-charged accusation by tabloids. Pahlevun (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes in general, but I believe that citations in the proposed text should be checked before and possibly modified. I have shown above, that cultish nature of the MEK is not just a POV, it is the mainstream academic view. I want to put my idea forward with an example: You don't give an undue weight to the fringe views of flat Earth societies in the article Earth, that's the academic view that matters. The same applies to this article. Users in favor of removing the content on this topic have not provided counter-arguments from academic sources. Pahlevun (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The sentence Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult" in the lead is also problematic. Scholars are not critics, and scare quotes ("resembling a cult") are used. Pahlevun (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No VR's text looks like it's wikivoicing things not found in the sources (like "the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule"), does not present opposing views accurately or in due weight, and uses sources like ex MEK member Masoud Banisadr (a source that user:Pahlevun put in the article as "According to Eileen Barker"). Things about MEK "marriages" and "divorces" are already mentioned about 12 times in the article! Stefka's proposal is more neutral. Alex-h (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, I have fixed my error regarding "the Rajavi's are exempt from this rule". Is there anything else in the version that is not found in the sources?
 * Regarding "sources like ex MEK member", I used two sources and both appear to be published in peer-reviewed journals: Asian Politics & Policy and Cultic Studies Review. But the second source has been subject to criticism so I've struck it out. Are there any other issues you see with the version?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 04:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the former MEK member sources for now and posted about it at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No per Stefka and Ypatch. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this one is much more better narrating the story. This proposal is acceptable per DUE.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I had not seen this alternative suggestion. For the same reasons I said no to the original proposal, I support the suggestion by User:Vice Regent. It is presenting a version which is per WP:DUE. The length of the section seems suitable given the presented reliable sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Alex shows here that there is intent to make a non neutral narrative, trying to turn the article into a mess of MEK members divorces and marriages and other non-verified POV redundancies from former members. I agree that Stefka Bulgaria's narrative is much more WP:NPOV. Idealigic (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly in my proposed version is "non-verified"? Name me one thing and I will remove it from my proposed version.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes to VR's version. MEK are well known as a cult, and that part is pretty well substantiated in the sources. This version cleans things up a bit too and makes the article more readable. The OP who started the RFC removed too much information. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Vice regent asked me in my talk page if I would look at this alternative proposal. I have read through the RFC, the Alternative proposal, and all the votes, and I am more persuaded by the votes asking for a shorter version. There are several points for this conclusion including the disinformation campaign against the MEK, the unsupported section title "designation as a cult", and Mhhossein clogging the RFC with personal opinions makes me think that this is more a personal matter for some than an impartial attempt to make the article better. I'm in support of keeping it neutral and short. Bahar1397 (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look a this proposal. My first question is that do you think my proposal is better than what's currently on the article? Second, I understand some other people are making this a personal matter - but what does that have to do with my proposal? Do you have specific criticism against my proposal? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * your proposal consists of a directory of the different sources calling the MEK a cult. That is unnecessary, especially when we are talking about a questionable label. Another editor wrote here that this has not been done in other articles even though there are enough sources available for that. I seriously doubt that creating a section such as "Khomeini's designation as a cult" and putting a directory of all the sources referring to him as a 'cult' figure would be tolerated, especially by some editors here. A short description is enough to relay what is in the sources. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * but the cult label is not questionable and no reliable sources have rebutted allegations that MEK has characteristics of a cult. And even if it is disputed, does it not make sense to tell the reader who is making the label and who is disputing it? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 00:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * there are sources posted here by other editors that say the press have been paid to print that the MEK is a cult. That makes the cult label questionable (at least to some degree). I agree that we should say that some sources have called the MEK a cult, and that some sources have disputed these allegations, which is why I agree more with Stefka Bulgaria's proposal, because your proposal inflates something that could be said in just a few words (see this comment by Vanamonde). Bahar1397 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * just because some people might be paid to call MEK a cult, doesn't mean everyone is being paid to do so. Do you have evidence the US government is being paid by Iran to call MEK a cult? Do you think have evidence that all the academics and journalists are being paid by Iran to call MEK a cult? Also, MOS:WEASEL tells us to be specific and not vague. So saying "X, Y, Z say MEK is a cult" is better than saying "some say MEK is a cult".
 * Additionally, don't you agree that we should briefly explain why they have been called a cult? (2nd paragraph of my proposal)
 * And, since Bahar1397 brought up, I would like to ask Vanamonde93 if you feel the above proposal is either unreadable or overburdening? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 02:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice regent, I didn't say everyone was being paid to do so, I just said that the disinformation campaign to make the MEK come across as a cult makes this label questionable. I did not read through all the sources but from the ones I read there are US officials that have called the MEK a cult and other US officials that disagree with this. The same with French government officials. Your proposal just adds a directory of the sources calling the MEK a cult. Stefka bulgaria's proposal briefly explains "why" they have been called a cult and trims the POV, which makes a more neutral proposal. Bahar1397 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take a position on a specific proposal unless there's evidence of source misrepresentation, sorry. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bahar1397: Your comment is clearly missing a cruicial point, i.e. WP:DUE. Per DUE, "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." -- M h hossein   talk 13:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bahar's is saying we should include a summary of the sources without bloating the article with POV details, so his comments are not missing WP:DUE. Idealigic (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support to VR. Allegations of multiple, reliable, and high-quality sources should remain on the page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)