Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::::::: Thea idea is that the corporate media, especially those for whom concerns of systematic bias have been raised also come from countries that have been hostile to Iran such as US. When this systematic bias is ignored, and then an entire ban is imposed on all Iranian media outlets, we are only exacerbating these forms of systematic bias not alleviating them. Your comparison with USSR during the 1970s equally applies to the US today that have been in a state of cold-war with Iran via proxies for some time now. --] (]) 10:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Thea idea is that the corporate media, especially those for whom concerns of systematic bias have been raised also come from countries that have been hostile to Iran such as US. When this systematic bias is ignored, and then an entire ban is imposed on all Iranian media outlets, we are only exacerbating these forms of systematic bias not alleviating them. Your comparison with USSR during the 1970s equally applies to the US today that have been in a state of cold-war with Iran via proxies for some time now. --] (]) 10:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: The problem with the Soviet Union was not conflict with the US, but rather the complete and utter control by the party (quite secular - unless you consider communism a religion) see - ], ], and ]. My own personal opinion is that some pieces in pre-1991 ] were unique works of art in terms of use of euphemisms and the party line (Truly a lingo in its own right) - the ability to portray apparent reversals versus the imperialists as a show of fortitude and enduring victory by the workers - was truly art. However - free and independent it was not, and use of Soviet media for anything beyond the position of the regime is quite difficult (in some cases - there is a subtext or use of irony that conveys to the astute reader (but passes over the head of 99% of the readers) that allows one to understand not all is as it seems, however this requires ] to discern).] (]) 10:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: The problem with the Soviet Union was not conflict with the US, but rather the complete and utter control by the party (quite secular - unless you consider communism a religion) see - ], ], and ]. My own personal opinion is that some pieces in pre-1991 ] were unique works of art in terms of use of euphemisms and the party line (Truly a lingo in its own right) - the ability to portray apparent reversals versus the imperialists as a show of fortitude and enduring victory by the workers - was truly art. However - free and independent it was not, and use of Soviet media for anything beyond the position of the regime is quite difficult (in some cases - there is a subtext or use of irony that conveys to the astute reader (but passes over the head of 99% of the readers) that allows one to understand not all is as it seems, however this requires ] to discern).] (]) 10:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: You did have the phenomenon of ] in the same period. And there's no academic freedom in US when it comes to challenging the narrative of powerful interests there. Example ] an skilled academic who got fire for challenging the dominant Zionist narrative in US. And attempts at smear and blackmailing of critiques by the dominant interests manifest explicitly every now and then. Example: ]. --] (]) 11:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
Iran has one of the oldest histories in the world, extending more than 5000 years, and throughout history, Iran has been of geostrategic importance because of its central location in Eurasia and Western Asia. Iran is a founding member of the UN, NAM, OIC, OPEC, and ECO. Iran as a major regional power occupies an important position in the world economy due to its substantial reserves of petroleum and natural gas, and has considerable regional influence in Western Asia. The name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and literally means "Land of the Aryans." (Full article...)
Image 1 The 1930 Salmas earthquake occurred on 7 May at 01:34:26 IRST in West Azerbaijan province, Iran. The earthquake, which was among Iran's largest, measured 7.1 on the moment magnitude scale and had a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent). A damaging foreshock occurred fifteen hours prior to the main event and served as a warning to the people that felt it strongly. Reports from seismologists and seismological organizations indicate that up to 3,000 fatalities may have occurred in northwest Iran and southeast Turkey.
Sixty villages (including the large settlement of Dilman, which was relocated and rebuilt as Salmas) were destroyed in the Salmas Plain and in the surrounding mountainous regions. A destructive aftershock sequence affected many villages, and in some cases, damage was inflicted on some that had escaped devastation during the mainshock. An inspection of the region was undertaken, but not until decades later, at which time substantial surface faulting and other ground effects were documented. (Full article...)
Image 3 Gonu near peak intensity on June 4 Super Cyclonic Storm Gonu was an extremely powerful tropical cyclone that became the strongest cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea. The second named tropical cyclone of the 2007 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, Gonu developed from a persistent area of convection in the eastern Arabian Sea on June 1, 2007. With a favorable upper-level environment and warm sea surface temperatures, it rapidly intensified to attain peak winds of 240 km/h (150 mph) on June 4, according to the India Meteorological Department. Gonu weakened after encountering dry air and cooler waters, and early on June 6, it made landfall on the easternmost tip of Oman, becoming the strongest tropical cyclone to hit the Arabian Peninsula. It then turned northward into the Gulf of Oman, and dissipated on June 7, after making landfall in southern Iran, the first landfall in the country since 1898.
Intense tropical cyclones like Gonu are extremely rare in the Arabian Sea, and most storms in this area tend to be small and dissipate quickly. The cyclone caused 50 deaths and about $4.2 billion in damage (2007 USD) in Oman, where the cyclone was considered the nation's worst natural disaster. Gonu dropped heavy rainfall near the eastern coastline, reaching up to 610 mm (24 inches), which caused flooding and heavy damage. In Iran, the cyclone caused 28 deaths and $216 million in damage (2007 USD). (Full article...)
Image 4 Illustration of Vazeh in Tausend und ein Tag im Orient by Friedrich von Bodenstedt (1850) Mirza Shafi Vazeh (Azerbaijani: Mirzə Şəfi Vazeh; میرزا شفیع واضح; died 16 November 1852) was an Azerbaijani poet and teacher. Under the pseudonym "Vazeh", which means "expressive, clear", he wrote in both Azerbaijani and Persian, developing the traditions of poetry in both languages. He compiled the first anthology of Azerbaijani poetry and a Tatar-Russian dictionary for the Tiflisgymnasium with Russian teacher Ivan Grigoriev.
He wrote multiple ghazals, mukhammases,mathnawis and rubais. His poems are mostly intimate, lyrical and satirical. The main theme of Vazeh's works is the glorification of romantic love and the joy of life, but in some of his poems, he denounces the vices of feudal society and opposes slavery and religious fanaticism. (Full article...)
Duke William IV of Bavaria commissioned The Battle of Alexander at Issus in 1528 as part of a set of historical pieces that was to hang in his Munich residence. Modern commentators suggest that the painting, through its abundant use of anachronism, was intended to liken Alexander's heroic victory at Issus to the contemporary European conflict with the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the defeat of Suleiman the Magnificent at the siege of Vienna may have been an inspiration for Altdorfer. A religious undercurrent is detectable, especially in the extraordinary sky; this was probably inspired by the prophecies of Daniel and contemporary concern within the Church about an impending apocalypse. The Battle of Alexander at Issus and four others that were part of William's initial set are in the Alte Pinakothek art museum in Munich. (Full article...)
Image 6 Maurice (L), and angel (R) engraved on object The Battle of Solachon was fought in 586 CE in northern Mesopotamia between the East Roman (Byzantine) forces, led by Philippicus, and the Sasanian Persians under Kardarigan. The engagement was part of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 572–591. The Battle of Solachon ended in a major Byzantine victory which improved the Byzantine position in Mesopotamia, but it was not in the end decisive. The war dragged on until 591, when it ended with a negotiated settlement between Maurice and the Persian shahKhosrau II (r. 590–628).
In the days before the battle, Philippicus, newly assigned to the Persian front, moved to intercept an anticipated Persian invasion. He chose to deploy his army at Solachon, controlling the various routes of the Mesopotamian plain, and especially access to the main local watering source, the Arzamon River. Kardarigan, confident of victory, advanced against the Byzantines, but they had been warned and were deployed in battle order when Kardarigan reached Solachon. The Persians deployed as well and attacked, gaining the upper hand in the centre, but the Byzantine right wing broke through the Persian left flank. The successful Byzantine wing was thrown into disarray as its men headed off to loot the Persian camp, but Philippicus was able to restore order. Then, while the Byzantine centre was forced to form a shield wall to withstand the Persian pressure, the Byzantine left flank also managed to turn the Persians' right. Under threat of a double envelopment, the Persian army collapsed and fled, with many dying in the desert of thirst or from water poisoning. Kardarigan himself survived and, with a part of his army, held out against Byzantine attacks on a hillock for several days before the Byzantines withdrew. (Full article...)
Image 7 Combat between a Persian soldier (left) and a Greek hoplite (right), depicted on a kylix at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens The Greco-Persian Wars (also often called the Persian Wars) were a series of conflicts between the Achaemenid Empire and Greek city-states that started in 499 BC and lasted until 449 BC. The collision between the fractious political world of the Greeks and the enormous empire of the Persians began when Cyrus the Great conquered the Greek-inhabited region of Ionia in 547 BC. Struggling to control the independent-minded cities of Ionia, the Persians appointed tyrants to rule each of them. This would prove to be the source of much trouble for the Greeks and Persians alike.
In 499 BC, the tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, embarked on an expedition to conquer the island of Naxos, with Persian support; however, the expedition was a debacle and, preempting his dismissal, Aristagoras incited all of Hellenic Asia Minor into rebellion against the Persians. This was the beginning of the Ionian Revolt, which would last until 493 BC, progressively drawing more regions of Asia Minor into the conflict. Aristagoras secured military support from Athens and Eretria, and in 498 BC these forces helped to capture and burn the Persian regional capital of Sardis. The Persian king Darius the Great vowed to have revenge on Athens and Eretria for this act. The revolt continued, with the two sides effectively stalemated throughout 497–495 BC. In 494 BC, the Persians regrouped and attacked the epicenter of the revolt in Miletus. At the Battle of Lade, the Ionians suffered a decisive defeat, and the rebellion collapsed, with the final embers being stamped out the following year. (Full article...)
After having been captured in battle during the Arab-Muslim conquest of Persia, Abu Lu'lu'a was brought to Medina, the then-capital of the Rashidun Caliphate, which was normally off-limits to non-Arab captives. However, as a highly skilled craftsman, Abu Lu'lu'a was exceptionally allowed entrance into the city in order to work for the caliph. His motive for killing the caliph is not entirely clear, but medieval sources generally attribute it to a tax dispute. At one point, Abu Lu'lu'a is said to have asked the caliph to lift a tax imposed upon him by his Arab master, al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba. When Umar refused to lift the tax, Abu Lu'lu'a attacked him while he was leading the congregational prayer in the mosque, stabbing him with a double-bladed dagger and leaving him mortally wounded. (Full article...)
Image 9 Drachma of Bahram I Bahram I (also spelled Wahram I or Warahran I; Middle Persian: 𐭥𐭫𐭧𐭫𐭠𐭭) was the fourth SasanianKing of Kings of Iran from 271 to 274. He was the eldest son of Shapur I (r. 240–270) and succeeded his brother Hormizd I (r. 270–271), who had reigned for a year.
Bahram I's reign marked the end of the Sasanian tolerance towards Manichaeism, and in 274, with the support of the influential Zoroastrian priest Kartir, he had Mani imprisoned and executed. Bahram I's reign was brief and largely uneventful. He was succeeded by his son Bahram II. (Full article...)
Image 10 A 15th-century miniature depicting Riccoldo da Monte di Croce in the audience before Yahballaha III Yahballaha III (c. 1245–13 November 1317), known in earlier years as Rabban Marcos (or Markos) was Patriarch of the East from 1281 to 1317. As patriarch, Yahballaha headed the Church of the East during the severe persecutions under the reign of khans Ghazan and his successor Öljaitü. He acknowledged the primacy of the Pope and tried to form a church union, which was rejected by the traditionalist bishops of the Church of the East.
It is defined by having long been ruled by the dynasties of various Iranian empires, under whom the local populaces gradually incorporated some degree of Iranian influence into their cultural and/or linguistic traditions; or alternatively as where a considerable number of Iranians settled to still maintain communities who patronize their respective cultures, geographically corresponding to the areas surrounding the Iranian plateau. It is referred to as the "Iranian Cultural Continent" by Encyclopædia Iranica. (Full article...)
Image 2 Relations between Iran and Israel can be divided into four major phases: the ambivalent period from 1947 to 1953, the friendly period during the era of the Pahlavi dynasty from 1953 to 1979, the worsening period following the Iranian Revolution from 1979 to 1990, and the ongoing period of open hostility and proxy conflict since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. In 1947, Iran was among 13 countries that voted against the United Nations Partition Plan for the British Mandate of Palestine. Two years later, Iran also voted against Israel's admission to the United Nations.
Image 3Parthian artwork found in Dura-Europos. According to the principle of "Parthian frontality", all figures, human or divine, face directly forward, with eyes fixed on the spectator. Parthian art was Iranian art made during the Parthian Empire from 247 BC to 224 AD, based in the Near East. It has a mixture of Persian and Hellenistic influences. For some time after the period of the Parthian Empire, art in its styles continued for some time. A typical feature of Parthian art is the frontality of the people shown. Even in narrative representations, the actors do not look at the object of their action, but at the viewer. These are features that anticipate the art of medieval Europe and Byzantium.
Parthian sites are often overlooked in excavations, thus the state of research knowledge in Parthian art is not complete. The excavations at Dura-Europos in the 20th century provided many new discoveries. The classical archaeologist and director of the excavations, Michael Rostovtzeff, realized that the art of the first centuries AD from Palmyra, Dura Europos, and also in Iran as far as the Greco-Buddhist art of north India followed the same principles. He called this art style Parthian art. (Full article...)
The governing dynasty initially blamed "Islamic Marxists" for the fire and later reported that Islamic militants started the fire, while anti-Pahlavi protesters falsely blamed SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, for setting the fire. Even though Islamic extremists were responsible for the attack, the Islamic opposition benefited greatly from the disaster in terms of propaganda because of the general atmosphere of mistrust and wrath. Many Iranians accepted the disinformation, which fueled growing anti-Shah fervor. (Full article...)
Image 8 The cinema of Iran (Persian: سینمای ایران), or of Persia, refers to the film industry in Iran. In particular, Iranian art films have garnered international recognition. Iranian films are usually written and spoken in the Persian language.
Iran has been lauded as one of the best exporters of cinema in the 1990s. Some critics now rank Iran as the world's most important national cinema, artistically, with a significance that invites comparison to Italian neorealism and similar movements in past decades. A range of international film festivals have honoured Iranian cinema in the last twenty years. Many film critics from around the world have praised Iranian cinema as one of the world's most important artistic cinemas. (Full article...)
Image 9 The COVID-19 pandemic in Iran has resulted in 7,627,863 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 146,837 deaths.
On 19 February 2020, Iran reported its first confirmed cases of infections in Qom. The virus may have been brought to the country by a merchant from Qom who had travelled to China. In response, the Government of Iran cancelled public events and Friday prayers; closed schools, universities, shopping centres, bazaars, and holy shrines; and banned festival celebrations. Economic measures were also announced to help families and businesses, and the pandemic is credited with compelling the government to make an unprecedented request for an emergency loan of five billion US dollars from the International Monetary Fund. The government initially rejected plans to quarantine entire cities and areas, and heavy traffic between cities continued ahead of Nowruz, despite the government's intention to limit travel. The government later announced a ban on travel between cities following an increase in the number of new cases. Government restrictions were gradually eased starting in April. The number of new cases fell to a low on 2 May, but increased again in May as restrictions were eased, with a new peak of cases reported on 4 June, and new peaks in the number of deaths reported in July. Despite the increase, the Iranian government stated that it had no option but to keep the economy open; the economy of Iran was already affected by US sanctions, and its GDP fell by a further 15% due to the COVID-19 pandemic by June 2020. (Full article...)
He assembled eight art collections—the Khalili Collections—each considered among the most important in its field. These collections total 35,000 artworks and include the largest private collection of Islamic art and a collection of Japanese art rivalling that of the Japanese imperial family. He has spent tens of millions of pounds on conserving, researching, and documenting the collections, publishing more than seventy volumes of catalogues and research so far. Exhibitions drawn from the collections have appeared in institutions around the world. (Full article...)
... that after Jamal Valizadeh was tortured in Iran, hid for six months, and escaped, he qualified to compete in the Olympics as a member of the Refugee Olympic Team?
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk·contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject Iran}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Misplaced Pages articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Misplaced Pages, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
There have been discussions at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran about the use of Iranian newspaper, like Iran Daily, or historian Abdollah Shahbazi's site PSRI, both of which have some control by the government. The discussion has not resulted in a resolution, though.
Are there circumstances where it is ok to use these as sources? Or, should they never be used as sources?
My view is that Iranian sources, on politically charged subjects (for weather - might be different), are similar (and even worse) to the way we view RT (TV network) - reliable only for attributed statements or for the regime's position. Iran lacks freedom of speech and has a highly oppressive system in place to control political publications for topics that interest the regime.RSF, Freedom House, HRW, HRW, Vice, NYT, BBC.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The use of media sources should be reigned in, in general. This is true for Iranian press source, but also for other press sources. Regarding freedom of the press, most European countries have content-specific prior restraint. Even US media sources are imperfect, despite the fact that the US has probably the highest level of de jure press protections in the world. There has also been a tremendous amount of research published that points of serious flaws in US media reporting, not least of all racial stereotyping. As long as we are using media sources in general, I'm not able to justify excluding some of them based solely on platitudes. But I do think all media sources, including American sources or what have you, are prone to misuse and is probably one of the more significant sourcing issues the encyclopedia as a whole needs to contend with at present.Seraphim System16:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: - while I share your concern for overuse of media sources - there is a distinction between restrictions and biases in the US and Europe - and the situation in Iran where publishing (or even pre-publication if discovered) the "wrong" narrative will land you in prison, possibly tortured and killed - something that occurs with quite some frequency. Note that the prison/torture/killing issue also applies to non-media sources - also to private communication, social media, and works of scholarship as well.Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Waging war on God is a technical legal term in Islamic jurisprudence. Among the things that convicts you of waging war on God is murder. Those who were executed by Khomeini's fatwa had started a nationwide killing spree! By the time the execution fatwa came, they had murdered over 10 thousand Iranians. And when we are talking about MKO, we are talking about a terrorist group that recruited young volunteers who would go through regular ideological indoctrination sessions developing a deep sense of righteousness even become willing to embrace suicide to serve their cult leaders. It was only after 7 years of bloody armed insurrection and treason against their country in the height of the Iraq invasion, that the fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini was issued. Unless you are familiar with these cultural and political details you can't make a fair judgement about a complex topic as this. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Iran does not have a free press, and the repercussions for reporting against state policy or positions has deadly consequences. I also agree that even where there is a free press, it doesn't mean that there isn't bias.
All that said, what I am trying to get to is: are there any circumstances where sources published in Iran may be used? The answers, it would seem to me would be: 1) no, under no circumstances should sources published in Iran be used - or - 2) yes, under some circumstances (non-controversial, statements of regime position, etc.) they may be used.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Regime-controlled press should be used to reflect Regime views when discussing a conflicted topic such as political opposition group. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Support use of sources published in Iran where helpful and sparingly - backed up by other, reliable sources; for non-controversial content or statements of regime position, with attribution, seeking the sources more likely to be more objective.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Support without special qualifications. I think we have to stop short of a categorical ban on "Iranian sources". Rather the sources should be taken individually, Press TV is as reliable as any news outlet, but Tasnim is not great. Seraphim System17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I would have to look into it more. I was skeptical about Press TV at first, but their English language content seems pretty normal. Compare with . I don't know much about Iran Daily or PSRI. Seraphim System17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Only for regime positions - per lack of freedom of expression and grave peril of jail, torture, and death for any writings that do not condemn MEK strongly enough - MEK is considering heretical in Iran, and hearsay is punishable by death. Multiple organizations and RSes have covered this freedom of expression issue in Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Only for regime positions - considering bias issues with Western sources, these remain considerably different from issues (risk of imprisonment / execution) with current IRI-controlled sources, particularly with regards to the MEK. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
If French authorities start executing academics/journalists/publishers for publishing in favor of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, as it happens in Iran for publishing in favor of political opposition groups, I think French sources should also be questioned when dealing within that topic. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
In fact, if you look at Censorship by country. France has practically no filtering of its press, while Iran is on the opposite extreme with pervasive filtering of the press and is not considered a free press.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source: What France has is prior restraint. I have not read that article, but it looks to be unsourced. If it does say France does not restrict speech, our article is wrong. Seraphim System20:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Side conversation about alleged bias and censorship
Comment: I think positions by some editors here imposes an undue systematic bias against many useful sources in Iran. First I think when it comes to Human Rights organizations reporting, we have to take into account that towards an Islamic government, there will be naturally ideological biases. Iran has an Islamic constitution. This constitutions was endorsed by popular referendum after the 1979 revolution. Certain elements are sacred such as Islamic doctrines. This though doesn't restrict freedom of expression for most Iranians since most Iranians are Muslim and naturally respect the religious doctrines adopted by the government. I recommend reading the interesting result of this public opinions survey by Maryland university which shows popular support for some of the most controversial IRI positions in the West which is very interesting. Because it shows that what is controversial in the West and by Western values is often not controversial among the majority of Iranian public. The survey also belies to some extent this perception by Icewhiz that Iranians are oppressed by a reviled theocratic despotic regime. This can't be true when the majority support enforcement of Islamic law and do not think that their political system needs fundamental changes for example. I also think Icewhiz's pro-Israel biases influences his opinions towards this subject. Another point is that in Iranian academia there are many valuable contributions to historical, political and philosophical research. Unless the views espoused by these academics sharply clash with that of the government, they don't face restrictions. As for MKO in particular even Western sources say it is not popular inside Iran and even outside in the diaspora which is only natural considering that there's a consensus even among Western sources that MKO is a vile terrorist group. So complaining why Iranian government doesn't allow support for MKO in Iran is like asking why Western governments don't allow support for al-Qaeda in the West. I wanted to also make comments about specific sources named, but I thought I shall start with the above general points and see how they are received. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPA please. And, as a general observation, most regimes - even the most despotic regimes - rely on the support of most of populace - which the regime influences or directs in various ways.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. There is zero reason to make this personal. You may not agree with others' opinions, but that's no reason to characterize the nature of their comments. You make some interesting points - from the perspective of an essay - but in terms of the question about whether to use Iranian sources or not, much of this is tangental or ignores the consequences that people may face for publishing content that the state does not agree with. My vote is still to support some use of Iranian sources, but I understand their viewpoint.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding MKO, I expect that most people who actually live in Iran would not see violent overthrow of their government as an improvement and I strongly oppose censoring content about this from Iran. This is the same organization that first supported the Ayatollah Khomeini and then turned on him to push a "revolutionary Islam free of clerical influence". Not popular is probably an accurate description. I find the arguments here to impose restrictions on an entire category of sources irregular and unpersuasive.Seraphim System18:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Returning to content, WaPo coverage of the poll EoL cites says "Conducting opinion polls in authoritarian countries like Iran is difficult — the country has limitations on freedom of speech, and it is not always clear whether people feel free to voice their true opinions" towards the end of the article. WaPo notes IranPoll was accurate for the presidential elections, but I shall note that all the candidates for said election are pre-approved by the Supreme Leader and thus within accepted bounds of approved speech in Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Further, it is one of the top ten countries to censor journalists. In addition: "The government uses mass and arbitrary detention as a means of silencing dissent and forcing journalists into exile. Iran became the world's leading jailer of journalists in 2009 and has ranked among the world's worst jailers of the press every year since."–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
CaroleHenson. I have had conversations with Icewhiz in the past but while he has every right to have his opinion but you should realize the hostility between Iran and Israel do influence people's opinions on these topics especially given that MKO has had collaborations with Israeli Mossad in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. As for Icewhiz's comment, WoP is entitled to its own opinion that "Iran is authoritarian" and so forth but that remains an opinion. Iran's political system is a complex one. It can just as well be described as a guided democracy. And Maryland itself doesn't state any reservations about this survey and the range of opinions expressed in those polls are views that I also routinely hear in Iran from people who express them without fear. I don't think Icewhiz (Redacted) can view Iran as accurately and without bias that I do. Here in Iran we can hear all sides given that Western outlets are now accessible to us even in our own language via satellites while I don't think this is readily true from many outside Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
CaroleHenson. There have been many arrests in 2009 elections as the report says. But unless you are closely familiar with political developments in Iran from both sides, you can't have a fair assessment. Iran has been facing existential threat by powerful hostile governments since 1979 that are looking for opportunities to bring about regime change. In 2009 elections, Iranian intelligence said it identified MI6 and MKO operatives in streets of Tehran. There are strong arguments that show the fraud allegations in that elections were fraud themselves. Once reformists lost the elections, they wanted to win over the streets! So it is understandable that a government under the threat of regime change, may crackdown on journalists who were peddling around fraud allegations that instigated riots in Iran. Khatami who was the second most important reformist figure in that phase himself is said to have expressed regret for reformist leaders' positions that led to unrest and instability in the country. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I find it totally and utterly unacceptable to discuss whether or not Icewhiz has a right to express their opinion or not. I have seen them make their comments here in a reasonable, well-positioned way -- even if I don't entirely agree with their position. Your comments are also tangental points again. I hope that you consider reverting this edit or striking it out and come back with something more salient as to why you believe the Washington Post info is not accurate with your own sources, vs. what is essentially original research. An apology would be good, too. Everyone has a right to vote. You don't get to decide whose opinion is more important than anyone elses'.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Should we censor "US endorsement of terrorist organization" - No. Is the Iranian Press less reliable for this then Western Press are for random things that they say? Nope. Iran jailing journalists does not make other media sources more reliable. Textbook strawman-ing. The problems with media sources in general are well-attested to, in voluminous academic literature that goes back decades. The problems are different, but that doesn't make Western press sources any more reliable and the issue here is reliability. Sorry if this is unpopular to say, but the fact that what Iran does to journalists is worse for the journalists involved, which it is, doesn't let Western press sources off the hook. The same restrictions should be applied to all media sources at a policy-level.Seraphim System19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As noted above, I think Censorship by country stats and the current level of journalistic/academic repression in Iran, particularly within this topic, need to be identified in the discussed article as these are quite different from other issues is Western academic bias. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why should I apologize. I didn't make any disrespectful comments but if that's perceived to be necessary I do. I think the worst form of media bias is Corporate media bias which affects major media outlets in the West. My points were not at all tangential. They explain that how cases of repression were only when government felt existential threat or some of its foundational constitutional values have been violated by people who abused freedom of speech. Like I said, all Iranian officials are criticized on a daily basis in Iran and I find it preposterous that some editors want to depict Iran as a world prison of journalists when even the supreme leader can get respectfully criticized by students in his face. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
In the past couple of weeks someone was blocked indefinitely for saying something similar to what you said. I would be very careful about how you talk about other people and their nationality or ethnic background. In other words, don't talk about someone's nationality or background and how that affects their ability to comment or vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair advise. But I have nothing against nationality or ethnicity of the user in question. I was talking about political bias resulting from strong existential hostility between two countries. That's about it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion is not going to anywhere since reliability of the issues need to be addressed case by case. The final decision depends on the context, the material to be used and the source itself. I don't think we can ban Iranian sources for the bogus reasons provided by some users here. --Mhhossein19:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
More side converstations (versus voting)
Side conversation, misunderstanding that this is just about People's Mujahedin of Iran article and personal opinions
Well, we have a number of votes that say that it doesn't have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. That it should be only for regime positions.
Based upon the lack of ability to at least see why the Iranian sources could be filtered or censored... and to discount other users or their votes is making me close to changing my vote to Only for regime positions, because I am beginning to question whether there would be appropriate analysis on a case-by-case basis. It would be safer, easier, and less prone to future disputes to make a clear delineation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem is we can't deprive Iranian sources for having their views and reporting on a topic that is most relevant to them. MKO is an Iranian organization and has been in conflict with Iranian government and parties. They have negatively affected the country and many people. It is unfair to say that Iranians have no right to have their views and stories on a topic that has most affected them. It's like saying American sources have no right to talk about 9/11 terrorism and al-Qaead. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
In principle, there are situations in which regime controlled Iranian sources are acceptable. Coverage of mundane weather, sports, or cultural events. Also coverage of some aspects of regime sanctioned elections (e.g. regime sanctioned candidate A vs. B. But not topics such as how content the populace is or the fairness/openness of the process). For a topic such as MEK, which is used as a scapegoat/bogeyman (they are mentioned often as suspects for negative events) as well as being an opposition to the regime, it is a clear no.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a discussion here can override WP:RS in any case - under that policy, a dispute about the reliability of sources should be discussed at RS/n on a case by case basis. I thought this was an informal request for feedback to help resolve an ongoing dispute. A WikiProject can not issue a blanket ban on sources from a particular country, or impose additional requirements beyond what is required by policy. That would have to be written into the actual policy. At most this would be a project guideline/essay. Seraphim System19:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
MKO has launched deadly attacks in Iran killing thousands. MKO has fabricated nuclear misinformation against Iran. MKO has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. MKO is bribing American war hawks who seek regime change in Iran. MKO has abused its members who have escaped to Iran. Yet, for some reasons it is still a bogyman in the eyes of Icewhiz! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I most definitely agree that Iranian media has written all those things about MEK.... And so much more. Some actions around 2017–18 Iranian protests were pinned on them as well as the 2018 Iranian water protests. If you read Iranian media, as I do on occasion, you see coverage of MEK being responsible for many different plots (as an "inner enemy", obviously some events are pinned on "external enemies").Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, over 90 percent of things MKO are accused of are widely confirmed by non-Iranians sources. And there are other cases when outside sources can't technically verify but that doesn't necessarily mean they are made up by Iran. If MKO's strong survival and espionage abilities are a measure along with their proven record of grave hostility against Iranian government, other accusations by Iranian government are not unlikely to be true. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion. Unless other people come to this page to vote, I am not seeing any new convincing points being made that are going to sway anyone's vote and I am sad to see the way the conversation has been devolving and has become personal. How about if we wait a couple of days and see if anyone else comes to vote. Then, I can ask an administrator or someone at WP:RSN to evaluate this. How does that sound in terms of approach?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
A lone administrator or "someone at WP:RSN" also can not unilaterally approve sweeping projectwide changes to sourcing requirements based on this discussion. That would basically give this the effect of a policy change - it's not allowed. I suggest the next step would be a broad community-wide at the Village Pump, otherwise to turn this into a project guideline or essay. This discussion isn't even on the article talk page, that's why I thought it was a project guideline. I don't think this is permissible or binding on any editors. Any change that would have to go through the "policy" making process.Seraphim System20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course, it's not my place to say whether you can comment or not... it's just that it seems like there's nothing new being said that is convincing anyone... and a really long discussion of circular conversations can discourage people from reading and voting. That's my only point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I remember we had three specific sources in mind. PSRI, Nejat and Habilian. I didn't see any cogent argument why these Iranians sources must not be used for their own views at least. The latter two are closely associated with MKO's defectors and victims. And the first of is an academic study of high quality. I think even Icewhiz can confirm that since he apparently knows Persian. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was talking most specifically about Iran (newspaper) and PSRI at the top of this section. We didn't discuss Nejat and Habilian. But, what I am understanding is the viewpoint is that journalists and people in general are censored in Iran. There were sources that were provided and statistics about that at Censorship by country. I am totally understanding that you do not see why sources for Iran should not be used for an article about MEK/MKO/PMOI, but others disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There have been journalist repression in Iran. I don't deny that but I also see outside pressures by hostile governments on Iran that play a role in domestic repression. I also see thousands of journalists that are working in Iran despite a dozen that have been arrested. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we're discussing "sweeping projectwide changes to sourcing" here. Rather, we're trying to determine if IRI-controlled sources would constitute WP:RS in this particular topic. Considering what has already been established above with regards to censorship and influence in current IRI-controlled media, and the IRI's stance with regards to the MEK (and political opposition groups in general), I don't see a counter-argument that establishes why IRI-controlled sources should not be identified as such within the MEK article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Your proposal is at odds with WP:NPOV and disregards Iran's close relevance and right of opinion to this topic. I am still yet to see why PSRI study, on its own merits, i.e. being an unique exhaustive academic work om MKO is unreliable. --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Side conversation regarding the article
There is a lot of discussion to mull over. For example, removing Munafiqin from the lede because it's a derogatory word and we shouldn't give UNDUE weight to "Iranian media/officials" - but, which officials discerning editors might be wondering? Well, it just so happens the Ayatollah Khomeini himself popularized it. Yes, the same Ayatollah setup the country's legal system. I don't think this restriction on sources will resolve the disputes on this article since the content wasn't per coverage in Iranian regime controlled sources or a "derogatory term used by IRI propaganda" - it was a label of historic significance that is verifiable in a Routledge source and multiple other sources given during the discussion. Seraphim System23:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that label was supported by multiple non-Iranians sources. And there were debates that regardless of its venerability whether it can be used in the lead or at least in the body. But the Iranian sources dispute started when CaroleHenson wanted to help us resolve disputes by listing them. I had attempted to cite info from the PSRI study which was disputed by Stefka and I also proposed use of two other sources which ultimately landed us here since we couldn't reach consensus on CaroleHenson's page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Are the last two comments off-topic? Should they be moved to the article talk page?
Right now we're just trying to vote on use of Iranian sources, right? We're not discussing Munafiqin or other article issues here, unless I am missing something. This seems like an attempt at deflection, rather than staying focused on the issue here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Not off-topic, right now there are multiple disputes on the page and many of the editors commenting here are involved in those disputes. They have also refused to accept sources like McGill and Routledge for something which seems to be of historical significance. I haven't been involved in any of those disputes until this discussion, but based on what I've seen I would agree to exclude the use of the PSRI source only. We don't usually prefer broad restrictions on sources based on country of origin. In fact, I've never seen it before. The reliability of the source and its use needs to be evaluated in context. This would exclude PressTV because of a dispute over PSRI. Seraphim System01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that this changes your vote above or qualifies it?
Yes, my vote is to exclude PSRI. I have not seen any discussion about North Korean news source, and I don't read Korean so I'm sure there is someone more knowledgeable then me about Korean media - generally, I think the most important issue is the content must be properly attributed. The content may still have encyclopedic value.Seraphim System01:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought discussions like this must no be based purely on vote, rather reasonable arguments. Again, I would be interested in an explanation why an academic work with contribution of an Iranian historian that is demonstrably richer in documentation and sources than the work of Ervand Abrahamian must not be used. I'm also interested whether policies like WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS are a matter of concern by editors here at all. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's my take, others may have another opinion:
I thought discussions like this must no be based purely on vote, rather reasonable arguments. - Yes, and so far, I have seen sources for information about why there are concerns about using Iranian sources. I have heard personal experience and opinion for the reasons to use the sources, but no sources to support your position. (I am not sure if there is an intention to deflect, but that's the way it appears to me.)
As far as specific sources, I am understanding that there is a concern with any sources due to censorship and consequences of being jailed. There's no way that has zero effect on the people that are writing articles or books.
I believe that WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS are key factors for these arguments.
Lastly, I don't think that there's any more likelihood that you're going to change someone's vote, than others are likely to change your vote - because the viewpoints are based upon whether or not the censorship statistics and articles are believed. The only thing that might change things is if you can find sources that say that certain sources are reliable and aren't subject to censorship about political matters - MEK in this case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as specific sources, I am understanding that there is a concern with any sources due to censorship and consequences of being jailed. There's no way that has zero effect on the people that are writing articles or books. -- Two points:
First! Why does that even matter whether it has effect on the people writing stuff or not? Do you think these influences do not exist in other countries such as US and UK? Have a look at Media bias in the United States for a list of myriad of structural biases that can affect neutral coverage of reports as an example. Politically overt media control is in fact the least dangerous form since it is all out in the open for the world to see. The most virulent form of bias is those coming from peer pressures and editorial control influenced by business interests of a media company and enforced based on a myriad of excuses. See what Ken Silverstein has to say about an example of media control under euphemistic excuses: ..."balanced" coverage that plagues American journalism and which leads to utterly spineless reporting with no edge. The idea seems to be that journalists are allowed to go out to report, but when it comes time to write, we are expected to turn our brains off and repeat the spin from both sides. God forbid we should ... attempt to fairly assess what we see with our own eyes. "Balanced" is not fair, it's just an easy way of avoiding real reporting...and shirking our responsibility to inform readers. Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine, 2007. There are critiques who believe that Corporate media are "an arm of the ruling class" and deliberately introducing political bias to the discourse in line with dominant interests. You need to only explore this form bias to realize the depth of their impact.
Second: There are many ways that government restrictions don't actively influence people in the media and academia: 1) They broadly subscribe to the official ideology 2) Their findings or topics don't just conflict with the restrictions.
Silverstein, Ken, "Turkmeniscam: How Washington Lobbyists Fought to Flack for a Stalinist Dictatorship", 2008.
Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board. --Mhhossein06:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It is common practice to take issues that aren't getting resolved to a project talk page. And, people from the article have been pinged here... as well as people from a previous RSN discussion and posting the link to this discussion on the article talk page. I brought it here to open it up to more people that would have a vested interest in the topic.
It's very interesting to me that you have tried to discount people's opinions, the way that the vote was captured, etc. if the vote doesn't appear to be going your way. The lack of sourcing to support your arguments that Iranian sources should be used... and instead devolving to complaints, deflection, and personal attacks has been disappointing.
I don't think that you'd be happy unless the voting turned out differently. By the way, the article can still be a good article if it has to be reworked a bit for sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Trying to find sources that would be more likely to be independent
The two of you, Expectant of Light and Mhhossein are really good at deflecting and providing personal opinion and not addressing issues directly. I asked you to please find sources to support your points. We're not talking about media in France or the U.S., we're talking about media in Iran. Others and I have provided sources regarding censorship and the affect that has on the media and that Iran is among the countries most likely to jail its journalists.
Can you deal with that head-on and see if you have find sources to substantiate your claims that Iran sources should be used for political issues? You would do better to identify the most reliable and objective sources - and most likely to speak freely. I have seen for instance, that Press TV is considered a fairly reliable source, all things considered, but I don't know how that would work for political issues like MEK. This is a very hot topic, so it would be interesting to see what you could find. Sources like Freedom of the Press (report) or Press Freedom Index would be good places to start. I'll see if I can find more to help get you working in that direction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Press Freedom Index for Iran here. It says, "State control of news and information has been relentless in Iran for the past 39 years. The Islamic Revolution keeps a tight grip on most media outlets and never relents in its persecution of independent journalists, citizen-journalists, and media outlets, and uses intimidation, arbitrary arrest, and long jail sentences imposed by revolutionary courts at the end of unfair trials. The media that are still resisting increasingly lack the resources to report freely and independently."–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Council on Foreign Relations says here that there are some easing in censorship, including many people having access to foreign news sources via satellite, but there are also attempts to confiscate satellite dishes and jam signals. Journalists that are "promoting subjects which might damage the foundation of the Islamic Republic" or other "red lines" for journalistic coverage are subject to jail, fines, etc. This was written in 2009.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Advocacy Assembly has an interesting article about Media Consultants Bureau, specifically media in and outside of Iran. It doesn't mention a source for independent news, but outlines what needs to be done to make that happen and that things are opening up for social media.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
What we need here is a source that says Iranian media is less reliable than other media sources we consider reliable. Journalists face real danger and pressures in every country that effect the content of media sources, all of them, everywhere - we should not pretend that they do not, even if the forms of censorship differ (like denying journalists entry, or deporting them), or the violence is committed by private actors and not the government. Seraphim System22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
My third and fourth items came from googling "independent media Iran". Do you think that there is a better search query, Seraphim System? I'll do a couple more and then leave it to others to see what they can find.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is I think you are failing to see our point and see them as tangential opinion. You want to show how awful the situation of "press freedom" is in Iran by citing Western sources among them Us-government-funded institutions. That's fine. But regardless of how awful they say it is, it doesn't address my arguments on why that even matters, if we are using Iranians sources for stating the opinion of those specific sources only or when we have good quality academic sources from Iran. You just apparently suggested an exception for PressTV but without any concrete reason which seems arbitrary. Wouldn't PressTV be subject to the same regulations all media in Iran are? However given that media bias and control are more or less present in all parts of the world but simply go unchecked due to political and structural reasons, I don't see why Iran must be treated as an exceptional case. These press freedom reports have many shortcomings because among other reasons they only study positive and explicit forms of bias or control, like when a journalist is arrested or government regulations imposing restrictions. It doesn't or can't take into account forms of bias I referred to above. How do you identify editorial bias due to financial and political interests of a media company when the journalists just prefer to go along with it rather than lose their jobs? In Iran secularist journalist who don't feel attached to IRI official ideology or their country can seek asylum in countries hostile to Iran and then even receive grants, high pay and get to work in influential Persian language outlets such as BBC Persian. Where an American, French, or British journalist can escape if (s)he doesn't like working for a Western corporate outlet if he or she views it to be biased against Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuela or Russians for example? We're talking about the overwhelming impact of structural bias which goes totally unchecked in these liberal blacklists, therefore biasing the reports against countries that have the more explicit forms of media control many of them happen to be the international underdogs like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afqanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. Have a look at Reporters Without Borders#Criticism of RWB. This concern been stated in the past by leftist/third-worldist commentators. --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to use U.S. sources, I used the two main sources from Censorship by country and I googled based upon "independent media Iran". Press TV was mentioned in something I read on the internet and here. I am not supporting it, I just gave that as a potential example.
The ironic thing is Western media is a known and documented biased source for the topic of Iran, which hasn't prevented its unattributed use in the article - Novinite.com probably isn't even an RS, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (which is known to have been CIA funded until 1972) is also used unattributed in the article. The problem here is WP:Recentism all around, and removing the Iranian sources without the rest of them is not likely to improve the situation. If we can agree to remove all these weak sources, I would fully support that. But not when there is a known bias problem with some of these sources.Seraphim System22:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am still not hearing any recommended news sources for independent coverage of political issues in Iran. It's a problem if there are recent changes that no one has been able to document or report upon the opening up of independent coverage. More time is needed, it seems.
If you can give me a list of what you call "weak" sources, including to Novinite.com I will look into them - after reviewing their use in the article. I'll put the them on the workpage and tackle them there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Not the only ones, there's an opinion article from the BalkanPost. globalsecurity.org isn't great either, but some editors like it. We're using TiranaTimes to cite that the Albanian headquarters moved to Durrës. I can't find any other sources for this, but I'm uncertain about removing it, and TiranaTimes seems basically reliable.Seraphim System23:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
All I said was rhetoric?! Right! But you did use many US sources above such CFR. As for Censorship by country] it cites Freedom House, a US-government-funded organization. And as for Reporters Without Borders, it is based in France, another government with often hostile attitude towards Iran, and I just refereed you to criticisms raised against RWB, too. --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, I was looking into if I could help get you started identifying independent sources. Now I see that you don't seem to be interested in doing that, it's much more fun to complain and point fingers rather than solve problems, right? Sorry it wasn't the order you would have liked. You're reading something into it that isn't there. I have no interest in further discussion with you unless you want to engage in moving the conversation forward... like identifying independent Iranian news sources, etc. If you're not going to do that, I have nothing more to say to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you are making this so much clearer for me! And, the outcome of this discussion very apparent. See starting with page 4.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't make it clear to you if you don't want to see the points raised. But maybe your realization that the conclusions of the above report you linked exactly confirm my testimony about the situation of journalists in Iran may be a step forward for you, even though that doesn't help us resolve the dispute over academic material published by Iran by the "non-independent sources". --Expectant of Light (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
More rhetoric, again off-point. We're not talking about working conditions of journalists. We're trying to identify if there are any sources that freely report on the political environment in Iran, specifically MEK. There wasn't a source listed in the report that I saw that addresses this specific issue. You are getting personal again, not nice.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm basically opposed to your proposed resolution. That's why we can't move forward. But you can go forward by like-minded editors instead of calling my points rhetoric. That's being personal! --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
CaroleHenson - there basically is no free and independent media in Iran (and while PressTV might do a decent piece or two on world news Iran doesn't care about (the same is true for Russia's RT - by the way) - so that people will watch them when they want to push something - this is a state owned propaganda outlet - far from independent - it is the government). Outside news sources covering inner-Iranian affairs (BBC Persian, VOA PNN (US), Radio Farda (US), Kol Yisrael Persian, as well as news outlets affiliated with opposition groups) - all push an agenda as well (though journalists in these outlets do not fear death or imprisonment (except should they visit Iran)). The regime framework inside Iran - which means law, law enforcement, judiciary, as well as extra-judicial enforcement simply does not allow such reporting to exist on political issues (on sports? Maybe) - particularly not on opposition groups considered terrorists and heretics by the regime. The situation here is similar to asking - "what independent news sources were usable in the Soviet Union during the 1970s?" or the more extreme question - "are there any independent sources within North Korea?" (In NK - not even sports). Deflecting the question to the deficiencies of corporate media (certainly, there are some such deficiencies) - does not address the lack of reliability and independence - or in fact - the lack of even a possibility for such independence given the nature of the regime - for sources within Iran on the topic.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thea idea is that the corporate media, especially those for whom concerns of systematic bias have been raised also come from countries that have been hostile to Iran such as US. When this systematic bias is ignored, and then an entire ban is imposed on all Iranian media outlets, we are only exacerbating these forms of systematic bias not alleviating them. Your comparison with USSR during the 1970s equally applies to the US today that have been in a state of cold-war with Iran via proxies for some time now. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the Soviet Union was not conflict with the US, but rather the complete and utter control by the party (quite secular - unless you consider communism a religion) see - Printed media in the Soviet Union, Television in the Soviet Union, and Censorship in the Soviet Union. My own personal opinion is that some pieces in pre-1991 Pravda were unique works of art in terms of use of euphemisms and the party line (Truly a lingo in its own right) - the ability to portray apparent reversals versus the imperialists as a show of fortitude and enduring victory by the workers - was truly art. However - free and independent it was not, and use of Soviet media for anything beyond the position of the regime is quite difficult (in some cases - there is a subtext or use of irony that conveys to the astute reader (but passes over the head of 99% of the readers) that allows one to understand not all is as it seems, however this requires WP:OR to discern).Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Foodlogo2.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Ghadir_logo.png){kind=link}