Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran/Archive 6
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Sources
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?
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please also see this posting at WP:RSN, where the summary seems to me to be:
- Generally it is best to use English sources for verifiability
- Where Iranian sources are used, there should be attribution and the content should not be challenging
- There are some Iranian sources that are more objective than others
- It is best to back up the Iranian sources with other sources
- Is that a good approach?
- –CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging @Icewhiz, Eperoton, Mhhossein, and Seraphim System: from the initial discussion at WP:RSN and people from Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran @Expectant of Light, Pahlevun, and Stefka Bulgaria:.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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 System (talk) 16:30, 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)
- 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 System (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Pinging @Icewhiz, Eperoton, Mhhossein, and Seraphim System: from the initial discussion at WP:RSN and people from Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran @Expectant of Light, Pahlevun, and Stefka Bulgaria:.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Considering the subject at hand, sources without an IRI affiliation would be preferred. This is because (since 1981 until the present day), declaring any support for the MEK in Iran will result in imprisonment or execution on the basis that they are "waging war on God and are condemned to execution." A threat of this nature would naturally create a bias where all broadcasting from Iranian soil is controlled by the state and reflects official ideology. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:47, 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)
- Considering the subject at hand, sources without an IRI affiliation would be preferred. This is because (since 1981 until the present day), declaring any support for the MEK in Iran will result in imprisonment or execution on the basis that they are "waging war on God and are condemned to execution." A threat of this nature would naturally create a bias where all broadcasting from Iranian soil is controlled by the state and reflects official ideology. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:47, 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)
- Iranian sources are OK for the stated regime position in Iran - little else.Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 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)
- Iranian sources are OK for the stated regime position in Iran - little else.Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Votes
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)
- Only for regime positions. Changing my vote, as I described below under Mhhossein's Comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 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 System (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Seraphim System. What do you think of Iran Daily or historian Abdollah Shahbazi's site PSRI?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 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 [1] with [2]. I don't know much about Iran Daily or PSRI. Seraphim System (talk) 17:25, 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)
- It should be checked case by case: Surprisingly, prohibition of using any Iranian media is in line with those who want to censor media and against Wikipedia's basic idea. With few exception, almost every book can be published in Iran even atheistic works such as Karl Marx's German Ideology and Richard Dawkins's The Blind watchmaker. There are newspapers and authors with different views in Iran and it is unfair to prohibit using their works and ideas because of the Iran's Media Law and the Government's regulations. It is strange if we can not use the idea of any Iranian internal opposition in Wikipedia just because he/she lives and works in Iran such as Davoud Hermidas-Bavand. On the other hand, it is against WP:NPOV to prohibit usage of the Iranian's state media. Either, it is the viewpoint of a considerable block of society or at least significant minority. This idea is similar to prohibition of using France's Media and authors due to Gayssot Act or BBC because it is operates under a Royal Charter.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support for sources that meet the WP:V criterion of "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sorry, I haven't read all the exchanges in this section, but I'm surprised that we aren't referring to this basic criterion of reliability in the conversations I've seen so far. There's no blanket admission or barring of sources from any part of the world. Iran is a big and complex country. The press includes government outlets and opposition newspapers. Universities employ academics of international reputation and politicized hacks. For example, Brill, which is a leading international publisher of academic reference works is putting its own reputation on the line by publishing a translation of a new Iranian encyclopedia as Encyclopaedia Islamica. If the reputation is there, so is reliability. In all cases, an editor who wishes to use a source whose reliability is disputed has the burden to demonstrate that the source meets this criterion, based on the publisher or the author. Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is a very helpful comment and vote, Eperoton. Just so that I am sure that I am understanding, do you think what you say applies to coverage of the People's Mujahedin of Iran? And, how to we verify if a source has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I especially like that you provided a potential source. I am slightly familiar with it, but I am sure that others will have a clearer impression of Encyclopaedia Islamica. Thanks much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Usually we establish the reputation based on the publisher, either directly (e.g., book published by Brill or article published by the New York Times) or indirectly (e.g., the author has work in the field published by reputed publishers). This is of course much harder for Iranian sources, especially for those who don't speak Persian and aren't familiar with the Iranian cultural landscape. I was making two main points: 1) we should examine the sources on a case-by-case basis; 2) the onus to demonstrate reliability is on editor(s) wishing to use the source. I don't expect that Encyclopedia Islamica would have material relevant to the topic; I just used it as an example to caution against blanket generalizations. Eperoton (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Usually we establish the reputation based on the publisher, either directly (e.g., book published by Brill or article published by the New York Times) or indirectly (e.g., the author has work in the field published by reputed publishers). This is of course much harder for Iranian sources, especially for those who don't speak Persian and aren't familiar with the Iranian cultural landscape. I was making two main points: 1) we should examine the sources on a case-by-case basis; 2) the onus to demonstrate reliability is on editor(s) wishing to use the source. I don't expect that Encyclopedia Islamica would have material relevant to the topic; I just used it as an example to caution against blanket generalizations. Eperoton (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is a very helpful comment and vote, Eperoton. Just so that I am sure that I am understanding, do you think what you say applies to coverage of the People's Mujahedin of Iran? And, how to we verify if a source has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I especially like that you provided a potential source. I am slightly familiar with it, but I am sure that others will have a clearer impression of Encyclopaedia Islamica. Thanks much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Side conversation about France
|
---|
|
Side conversation about alleged bias and censorship
|
---|
|
- Only for regime positions - Icewhiz and Stefka pretty much said it all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 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. --Mhhossein talk 19:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Only for regime positions - Per WP:BIASED, partisan sources are reliable only to describe opinions of individuals or governments, as long as they are attributed.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment For others who want to vote, I think the dispute was over this edit? [5] - this is attributed, but I agree with Carol's first point, English-language sources are preferred. For basic history like this it should be possible to find replacement sources and I would be glad to help with that. I already changed my vote to exclude this particular use of this source, but I think that even at RfCs votes for exclusion should be justified based on existing policies. Unfortunately, the majority of votes only for regime positions have not resolved the fundamental issue of whether we should include the content in this edit.Seraphim System (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the source [6], which has a list of newspapers and information about those papers. I am going to update List of newspapers in Iran based on the pages I can see.
- The book mentions "pro-reform". How would this be defined? Would these papers be more likely to be independent, fact-checkers regarding MEK?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Most of them are probably not accessible sources, I doubt much is known about them. The regime accused them of advancing western interests and shut many of them down. I don't think an Iranian source is needed here though - the PSRI source that was disputed on the talk page seems to have been used for basic content that can be sourced elsewhere. I'm not sure why a foreign language source was chosen for this, it could also be cited to this Routledge source [7] Seraphim System (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I won't work on the List of newspapers in Iran, then.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Most of them are probably not accessible sources, I doubt much is known about them. The regime accused them of advancing western interests and shut many of them down. I don't think an Iranian source is needed here though - the PSRI source that was disputed on the talk page seems to have been used for basic content that can be sourced elsewhere. I'm not sure why a foreign language source was chosen for this, it could also be cited to this Routledge source [7] Seraphim System (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The book mentions "pro-reform". How would this be defined? Would these papers be more likely to be independent, fact-checkers regarding MEK?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Only for regime positions and only when its WP:DUE Though the source is reliable for position of Iranian theocracy this postion is not always WP:DUE to include if major sources had not picked this up --Shrike (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Vote summary
- Support use of Iranian sources / case-by-case basis - 4
- Only for regime positions - 6
This seems pretty clear. Even if anything other than Only for regime positions are put into one category, it is 6 vs. 4 in favor of only use Iranian sources for regime positions.
Does anyone think we need to have an admin look at this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters if an admin looks at it. Case by case evaluation of sources is part of the WP:RS policy. Posting at the WikiProject talk page is not a substitute for a formal RfC - (for example, no editors were summoned by bot and it wasn't listed as an RfC). Notice of the RfC should be posted to the WikiProject page. A formal RfC can be opened on the article page if a formal consensus is needed, but I don't think it is - since EoL is no longer editing the content may no longer be disputed. Seraphim System (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- This called in people that weighed-in on this previously on RSN, is on the larger project page and was posted on the article talk page and my work page. It seems to me that we have given folks plenty of opportunity to vote.
- Even when we tried to find some sources to use, you said that most of the reform papers have probably been closed. So, it seems that the only sources that are remaining are the ones that support the government position. I don't think it's fair to everyone that has voted to say that now the votes won't be counted. I agree that the number of disputes may go down now, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this doesn't really address the issue. This informal RfC should not have been opened with a question about the use of sources based on their country of origin. Pinging editors previously involved at RSN means comments were only solicited from previously involved editors - the purpose of the RfC is to request comments from uninvolved editors as well as previously involved editors. That was an error to begin with, but I'm absolutely sure it was a good faith one. In the course of the discussion, EoL was indeff'd which should resolve the disruption for now, so the discussion has served its purpose. I'm not involved with editing the article, so this is not a threat, but in principle, I don't consider this a consensus. Consensus
incorporates all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
. Multiple editors have objected to it for reasons likeit is against WP:NPOV to prohibit usage of the Iranian's state media
andThere's no blanket admission or barring of sources from any part of the world.
. That makes those 4 votes weigh heavily in my opinion. Seraphim System (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)- The two positions are not contradictory, nor does "only for regime positions" mean that we
"prohibit usage of the Iranian's state media"
- to the contrary Iranian state media is an excellent source for the Iranian regime's position. Sure, in principle, case by case applies in any case. For Iranian media - if you evaluate all the current major outlets - you end with up with only for regime positions. There might be an underground outfit, yet still with high quality editorial controls, that might be worth using - never say never - moon shots do happen on occasion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)- It's not even clear what "only for regime positions" is supposed to mean - I assume it means the sources can be used with attribution. That is already policy. EoL was a disruptive editor - disruptive editors should be prevented from editing the article. I think a template or note at the relevant article with a reminder to attribute state run news agencies would be sufficient, and this applies to all articles. State run agencies should always be attributed. This wouldn't have even needed an RfC to resolve, if EoL's editing pattern had not been extraordinarily disruptive to begin with.Seraphim System (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The two positions are not contradictory, nor does "only for regime positions" mean that we
- I'm sorry, but this doesn't really address the issue. This informal RfC should not have been opened with a question about the use of sources based on their country of origin. Pinging editors previously involved at RSN means comments were only solicited from previously involved editors - the purpose of the RfC is to request comments from uninvolved editors as well as previously involved editors. That was an error to begin with, but I'm absolutely sure it was a good faith one. In the course of the discussion, EoL was indeff'd which should resolve the disruption for now, so the discussion has served its purpose. I'm not involved with editing the article, so this is not a threat, but in principle, I don't consider this a consensus. Consensus
- Even when we tried to find some sources to use, you said that most of the reform papers have probably been closed. So, it seems that the only sources that are remaining are the ones that support the government position. I don't think it's fair to everyone that has voted to say that now the votes won't be counted. I agree that the number of disputes may go down now, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
More side converstations (versus voting)
Side conversation, misunderstanding that this is just about People's Mujahedin of Iran article and personal opinions
|
---|
|
- 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 System (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. This was to solve disputes at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran - as mentioned on the top of this section and on that talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 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 System (talk) 20:20, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
|
---|
|
- 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 System (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this changes your vote above or qualifies it?
- Have you looked as some of the discussion regarding sources for North Korean news sources, for instance?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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 System (talk) 01:26, 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.
- As an aside, I read postings at WP:RSN and the articles Censorship in Iran and Media in Iran, and with the Censorship by country statistics, I am more convinced that changing my vote was the right course of action.
- 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.[1][2]
There are critiques who believe that Corporate media are "an arm of the ruling class"[8] and deliberately introducing political bias [9] 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.
- 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:
- Btw, I removed the collapse tag for this part for others to notice my reply. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:14, 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. 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)
References
- ^ Quoted in Silverstein, Ken (May 8, 2007). "The Question of Balance: Revisiting the Missouri Election Scandal of 2004". Harper's Magazine. ISSN 0017-789X. Retrieved Aug 26, 2011.
- ^ 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. --Mhhossein talk 06:05, 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)
- RSN is where many uninvolved users may evaluate the reliability of a source. That's why I say you'd better act in other way. --Mhhossein talk 11:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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/a discussion on relative bias of Western sources
Expanded conversation with no specific Iranian news sources identified/a discussion on relative bias of Western sources
|
---|
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) See
work in progress, I will keep working on this and please add anything that you find.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It isn't helpful here to bring academic bias into the subject - we're talking about media sources. Censorship of media and academic freedom aren't interchangeable concepts. What we have are biased Western press sources and biased Iranian press sources - there is high quality sourcing available to back up claims that these sources are biased and require attribution. Policy permits the attributed use of biased sources. We can't permit one set of biased sources and ban the other one without raising serious concerns about NPOV. [11] [12] . Seraphim System (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
|
RfC on election/referendum naming format
An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this draft while reviewing the WP:AFC queue. I'm not sure if the subject is notable as sources in English appear to be limited. If there's an editor in this project who would be interested in having a look and either improving the article or confirming that the subject is not notable, that would be great. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if needed). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
An article with two links to DAB pages
List of places in Shahnameh links to the DAB pages Margh and Shir. Those have been marked as problems needing attention since February and March 2017. Can any expert here help solve these puzzles? They keep reappearing on my watchlist, and look insoluble by anyone who doesn't know the poem. Narky Blert (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Death and state funeral of Ruhollah Khomeini
Hello everyone. I just created Death and state funeral of Ruhollah Khomeini. It would be really appreciated if members of this WikiProject review the article, and add/remove something if they find it appropriate. --Sundostund (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
(Draft:Iran 2025 Horizon Vision)5.75.0.141 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Article on Bashkardi people?
hi all, i have received a question on my talkpage; Caddyspoked has asked why WP has an article on Bashkardi language but not one on Bashkardi people? a quick look on google doesnt really bring up much (as a non-academic/librarian that is my go to research tool), maybe someone here can help? i have also left the same question at Wikipedia:Teahouse. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
These are two "Queens of Persia" recorded only in the Hebrew Bible. There is currently a discussion about this on Talk:Vashti#Infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, all. The notability of this writer has been questioned. However, all the references are in Arabic and Google Translate is not adequate to enable me to assess. The bits I have managed to understand suggest that he is Iranian. Would someone please have a look at it? Deb (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of Al Bawaba and The Globe Post on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of Al Bawaba and The Globe Post on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Request. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Pages related to "Culture of Iran"
As an Iranian and a member of Wikiproject Iran, I am disgusted and ashamed at how underwhelming, poorly written and horrible the page and related articles on Culture of Iran is. Is there anyone active on this Wikiproject that can work with me and fix these pages? Everytime I post something, I end up doing it myself. One of the top priorities of this Wikiproject is to "Get Iran featured", before that we have to clear up the massacres that are the pages about our country. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are candidates for good papers not reviewed?
Hello, seven good article candidates await review One of these articles is awaiting review from March 31st. Please check one of these articles. Thanks.Amirhosein Izadi (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Iranian artists
Please help improve these articles (Especially lead section):
Iranian actors
- Danial Hakimi
- Javad Hashemi
- Pejman Jamshidi
- Babak Karimi
- Vassilis Koukalani
- Hassan Mehmani
- Ahmad Mehranfar
- Iraj Tahmasb
- Iraj Rad
- Tony Zarrindast
- Genghis Vossoughi
- Hooman Barghnavard
- Omid Ahangar
Iranian pop singers
Quick help
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
POV on Persian Gulf naming dispute articles
There are high levels of non-encyclopedic POV-pushing on articles related to the Persian Gulf naming dispute and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Recently, categories such as [[Category:Arab states of the Persian Gulf]] & all related categories have been deleted and articles such as Gulf Cup of Nations are constantly being vandalized with POV descriptions (Note: there is a difference between the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula). Maybe a possible solution is to create a Persian Gulf task force or WikiProject. --Bijanii (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Bagh Saba Synagogue for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bagh Saba Synagogue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagh Saba Synagogue until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theprussian (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there an article on Grand Mosalla mosque?
This appears to be a very important mosque in Tehran. The Supreme Leader just lead Friday prayers there, and it was global news. Yet, it doesn't seem we have an article on it. (Either that, or we do but I can't find it because it is under a different name.) SJK (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on a paragraph on Qasem Soleimani page
This message is intended to notify any interested user that a discussion is ongoing on Qasem Soleimani talk page under "Iranian propaganda Heading". Any contribution is well appreciated. Ms96 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Help needed
Hello. I came across the article Lonely Night Man (song) because it was tagged for deletion as a hoax. Most of the references are in Persian. Going by a machine translated version, they look like they verify the content, however the user who created the article has been blocked for creating hoax articles both here and on fa-wiki. I also have no idea if any of the sources are reliable or not. Would someone with a better understanding of the language and sources please take a look? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Kuhsorkh District is now a county?
User:M.k.m2003 has been adding red links to Category:Kuhsorkh County and Category:Populated places in Kuhsorkh County on the basis that Kuhsorkh District has been converted into a county. This may well be the case, but I can't find an English-language source for it happening. Can someone find a WP:RELIABLE source for whether the county has been created or not, as per WP:REDNOT you aren't allowed red links to categories - the rules are different for categories compared to articles. Either the categories should be created or the red links removed. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi This is the most authoritative source available [13] (Cabinet of Iran). M.k.m2003 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Deluge: The article must be moved. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine - I wasn't doubting you, it's just we need to know that a big change like that is "real" in order to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you add that reference to the main Kuhsorkh County article - a reference in English would be better, but the one you give has authority. Le Deluge (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Deluge: This article needs a template, Can you create it? Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine - I wasn't doubting you, it's just we need to know that a big change like that is "real" in order to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you add that reference to the main Kuhsorkh County article - a reference in English would be better, but the one you give has authority. Le Deluge (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Deluge: The article must be moved. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Iranian Revolution "supported by the United States"
Hi WP Iran. Page watchers may be interested in Talk:Iranian Revolution#RfC: Iranian Revolution "supported by the United States". Cheers, Levivich 07:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I created this stub but it could use some expansion.
In particular, the infobox needs to be filled in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Iranian alternative rock
Some help cleaning up Iranian alternative rock would be appreciated. This was created by a serial hoaxer as an attempt to legitimize their many hoaxes in the realm of Iranian music. While I do imagine that Iranian alt rock exists, I am suspicious of the sources, as they are similar or the same as the sources used to create the other hoax articles. Alas, my knowledge of Iran is low, and my ability to speak Farsi non-existent. Having a second look from y'all would be top. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- 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 Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
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 Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Noam Chomsky (2002). ""The Fate of an Honest Intellectual"". Understanding Power. The New Press. pp. 244–248.
{{cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)