Talk:Political factions in Iran

Andishkadeh Yaghin

@Benyamin-ln: I am writing to inform you about reliability issue of the source mentioned, which I find WP:QUESTIONABLE. I suggest an assesment inquery in the RSN, if you consider it reliable. Pahlevun (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't reliable? Benyamin-ln (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with yourself per WP:BURDEN. However, I will explain. At first glance, it links to shekayatazrouhani.camp, which is a website to campaign against Rouhani's qualification for a PhD degree (and not a reliable source). The work is obviously not subject to scholarly peer review, that's why its literature is far from political science. The institute itself, does not have the reputation for being academic/scholarly nor is on the list of research institutes approved by the Iranian Ministry of Science. Moreover, its figurehead Hassan Abbasi is widely known for his controversial fringe theories which are not taken seriously by academics. Pahlevun (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: Thanks for your explains. The report which I used, is a unique research about Political engineering from political department of Andishkadeh Yaghin (according to itself). Controversies of Hassan Abbasi is not relevant to this research, because the research is about development of political parties after 1979, not about his theories. Iranian Think tanks is not under control of Ministry of Science. If the download link is inappropriate, I can remove the link until I find another download link. Regards Benyamin-ln (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Benyamin-ln (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You did not provide rationale for reliability, what I was asking for. Note that not every "think tank" has credibility to pass the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. (For example, Centre for Research on Globalization is a "think tank", but lacks reputation). Pahlevun (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that one of the online sources you used in this article calls it "slogan foundry of the fundamentalists and the 9th government". Pahlevun (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Does it causes any problem? see Wikipedia:BIASED.

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. But according to WP:SOURCES, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. This source isn't published yet, just released online. So I accept it isn't reliable. Benyamin-ln (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My point was not about political alignment at all, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Worst-case scenario, a biased but reliable source can be in-text attributed imo. Even those who make the Nazi salute have their own think tank. The question is reliability, which is affected by three factors: The piece of work itself, the writer and the publisher. Putting the work itself aside, when there are no authors mentioned, you refer to the publisher. My doubt is about it being scholarly at all, let the publishment status be. To prove reliability of a non-academic and non-mainstream publisher which is not peer-reviewed, rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy should be demonstrated within the institution. The quote that I mentioned above, has an emphasis on "slogan foundry" (not the "9th government"), which is absolutly not a place for scholars. Pahlevun (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)