Talk:Feyziyeh School

Reliability of sources

@Bosstopher: va! There is no news! neither Iranian or non-Iranian!! Munifi3nt (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey sorry I've been a bit busy the past few days. Wont really be active on wikipedia until tuesday. Sorry I was wrong to say news source. But basically there's a bit of controversy around what iranian sources are allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Most people agree Iranian science sources can be used, but beyond that there's a bit of debate. Please read this conversation for more information. Usually when it comes to writing about Iranian political history, sources written in Iran are not considered reliable. Sources published outside of Iran are usually considered more reliable.Bosstopher (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher:  :-o

about Iranian political history, sources written in Iran are not considered reliable!

How about England? about British political history, sources written in England are not considered reliable too?

As I understand it is not the result of the conversation. In addition, obviously it leads to bias!

"In general they are sources to be treated with caution": in the article, which source for what reason are not reliable? Munifi3nt (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Munifi3nt:@Bosstopher: I don't think it is talking about iranian sources, and correct me here if i am wrong, But i think it is saying that STATE sources should not be used, in countries where media is CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. News sources belonging to the public (e.g.BBC) or well regarded private news agencies(e.g.Al Jazeera) ecetera ecetera are ok. I would ignore what Bosstopher is on about.

"In considering a country where the media is controlled by the state, the issue of the true independence of the sources will be doubt. That's where judgement is needed if this is specifically a case where there is a drive to promote the person (or any topic) with false notability, or simply that it happens to be a notable person/topic that is otherwise covered in a normal manner by sources where there's some doubt to their larger purpose."

@Rhumidian: sorry, I do not understand. where the media is controlled by the state! I think there is "law, rule, regulation, or something like" in every country about media, is not there? Who is enforcing the law?

By the way, here we should talk about the page. Please decide about the tag. Which source should be changed? why?

thanks for your attention. Munifi3nt (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Munifi3nt:It is all about press freedom, which can be objectively measured. Here is a link to iran from an independent global body.

@Rhumidian: It needs a lot talk. never mind. Please answer my question. let's improve the article. :) Munifi3nt (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Munifi3nt:To answer your question, all of them. BUT don't change any of them. Just try to find more sources to back up your claims and keep the ones that are already there.Rhumidian (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rhumidian: even for the section "Registration in the National Monument"? Munifi3nt (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Munifi3nt:Probably not for that source.Rhumidian (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah for non-controversial stuff like monument registry the sources should be fine. The things I'm more concerned about are the descriptions of the police crackdown, and the extent of the brutality (throwing students off roofs and stuff). For claims of this nature more sources and better sources would be required (although I see you've added a new one). You can always try The reliable sources noticeboard if you want more advice. Bosstopher (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)