Talk:Public executions in Iran

False claims

False claims about decapitation has no basis either in Iranian law or Shia hudud. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, there's official website of Parliament of Iran with every single law passed in past 100 years, and if searching for "decapitation" (Persian: "سربُریدن" or "گردن‌زدن") there's absolutely nothing in criminal law. Claims about alleged "beheading in Iran" may fits fine inside heads of Iranophobic warmongers, but unfortunately for them it's only a fantasy. Luckily, we're on encyclopedia. --MehrdadFR (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That is original research, not allowed here. The materiel is sourced to reliable sources, stop removing it. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It does nothing to do with WP:OR, mr. Blocked. --MehrdadFR (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

MehrdadFR, the text about stonings and beheadings is well-sourced and is pertinent to this article. Rather than engage in an edit-war can you not find a compromise? I would suggest we quote the AI source a bit further and include their note that the stonings and beheadings took place in only "a few cases". Regardless of any official laws regarding executions in Iran, AI says they occurred, therefore, barring sources proving AI to be wrong, we need to include these executions in this article. Sepsis II (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2] Some sources that I found with a quick search. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no any official document or photographic evidence about such punishment, it's mere propaganda. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources: [3][4]. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Self publish sources are not reliable, see WP:SELFPUB. You need secondary sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see self-published sources? First one is scholarly article, second one is media statement from Ministry. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits

I've made a series of edits largely aimed at clarity. The description of the process of 'crane hanging' was fairly needlessly unclear. The phrase ' returned to prevalence', used twice, is not so much wrong, as unclear/clunky. Veering on the cautious, I replaced this with 'became commonplace', though the intended meaning may be 'became the norm again', or similar phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, can you explain whats "disputed" in your recent reverting undeniable content which I provided? --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

MehrdadFR, it was not your additions which are disputed, it is disingenuous to pretend they are. It is the material which you removed. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, please note few objections above, there are some disputed claims by original author, defended by permanently banned user. Nonetheless, if disputed claims are included, then two links which I provided (official statement and scholarly article) should also be included. There are further problems: two links are dead and can not be find on Wayback. --MehrdadFR (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)