Talk:Iran Focus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] POV
It seems not neutral at all, seeing as it is based around the fact that it is a MKO "web outlet", is there even a source for that? --Rayis 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the first thing to do is add their self-description. The Behnam 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the items are from Nema's report. I actually prodded this article very early in my Wikipedia experience because it was an opposite POV article, and I figured that the process of working this article would be very difficult. But alas, it exists. Now, how to prevent whitewashing it in the effort to be neutral. Quite a challenge. The Behnam 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- i agree. changed.--Gerash77 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, everyone keep looking for real treatment of this website. I can't stand how Iranians seem to do everything through blogs and unreliable special interest websites! The most I've seen was a CSPAN, on some random link page, where they basically copied Iran Focus' self-description for the link. Not exactly an analytical treatment of the site. The Behnam 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- i agree. changed.--Gerash77 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the items are from Nema's report. I actually prodded this article very early in my Wikipedia experience because it was an opposite POV article, and I figured that the process of working this article would be very difficult. But alas, it exists. Now, how to prevent whitewashing it in the effort to be neutral. Quite a challenge. The Behnam 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, everyone keep looking for real treatment of this website. I can't stand how Iranians seem to do everything through blogs and unreliable special interest websites! The most I've seen was a CSPAN, on some random link page, where they basically copied Iran Focus' self-description for the link. Not exactly an analytical treatment of the site. The Behnam 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't really think one article posted on Iranian.com can really be used against them in this way. These accusations are posted by a blogger student at the end of the day. Not saying I agree or disagree with him, but we simply don't know and we can't have this article centred on this only report alone, basically a no no --Rayis 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. We should stick to the one from his original blog. Normally I would discount the blog immediately but perhaps his claimed credentials [1] should be confirmed before writing him off completely. If he is real, then it would be somewhat like quoting Juan Cole or another academic. I think that we should, for now, change the article to ascribe the analysis to him, instead of 'some say', etc The Behnam 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. A blog is a blog.. unless it has been used as a source by a third party source, maybe then --Rayis 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is one place outside of blogworld where he is mentioned [2] as executive director. Based on the other aspects of that ISJ website it seems genuine though I will continue to investigate. The Behnam 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also let's look for the criticism of the photo release if that is indeed the case. The Behnam 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not discrediting him at all by the way, I am just not sure if a blog post is generally a notable enough source for an accusation --Rayis 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't see much more to add than simply their self-description and this academic's criticism that is worth noting. Have you found anything about Iran Focus outside of itself & Nema? The Behnam 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can just expand its self-description by cropping some more words onto the page. It will make the official v. criticism seem more balanced. The Behnam 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't see much more to add than simply their self-description and this academic's criticism that is worth noting. Have you found anything about Iran Focus outside of itself & Nema? The Behnam 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I propose naming that 'photograph' section "Criticism" and starting it with, "Nema _____, executive director of ______, has accused Iran Focus of being a _____ of the MKO, a terrorist organization. He remarks ..." The Behnam 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like that source is counted as a "self-published source" and "self-published material is largely not acceptable"..."When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications"... to be frank, I don't care if there is no other source on the matter. The accusation is very serious and IMO should not be included unless we get another source (a more reliable one) that confirms it --Rayis 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Payvand News was willing to publish it [3]. The Behnam 02:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really think one article posted on Iranian.com can really be used against them in this way. These accusations are posted by a blogger student at the end of the day. Not saying I agree or disagree with him, but we simply don't know and we can't have this article centred on this only report alone, basically a no no --Rayis 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
better?--Gerash77 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that is much stronger sourcing. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
