Talk:Europe External Programme with Africa

Sources needed

@HH1978: We currently have very few tertiary sources giving in-depth profiles about EEPA/Advisors and EEPA/Africa. The higher quality the sources, the better the article will be. Unsourced information such as "Moreover, van Reisen has resigned from the Board" cannot be used. Boud (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have an Idea, why doesn't someone just contact the EEPA after all they have a contact page. If you have any questions about where they get their information you can probably just ask them there.--Garmin21 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that as Wikipedians, our private contacts with an organisation like EEPA can only gives clues, they don't count as external, reliable sources. If you are in good contact with a Wikipedia-notable investigative journalism group or academic group or a Wikipedia-notable academic who studies the Horn of Africa region, and you can convince them to contact EEPA, then that might lead to a good third-party source. But even if EEPA replies to emails, it's not enough to just believe the replies: the third-party source would have to do further fact-checking, based on having in-depth knowledge, asking for details, such as which/what/when/where/how/why/who and doing lots of cross-checks.

You're welcome to email EEPA if you wish, and briefly summarise responses you get here, but that would only count as a "Wikipedians' credibility check". It wouldn't be usable in the article. (For comparison, Somali Guardian has a web interface contact box, but any email replies received from Durjogbiyocirdhul or the Somali Guardian would not count as reliable sources.) Boud (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I get they can just make stuff up ,but contacting the EEPA is better then just speculating about the EEPA, right?--Garmin21 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether, for Wikipedia purposes, contacting the EEPA is better than speculating about the EEPA. Neither of these are directly usable in the article.

I definitely agree that any journalist who wishes to publish a profile on EEPA should contact EEPA, at least for giving EEPA a right of reply. Contacting EEPA would also be useful at the beginning of preparing a profile: EEPA would provide some answers to questions, with checkable details, and the journalist would check those details, as well as independent sources of info. Given that EEPA is one of the main sources reporting on this conflict, this would be a very useful contribution by that journalist. Boud (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the EEPA reliability issue. I have been wondering how an international organization be so biased. It appears EEPA is not international at all. I have been reading this timeline and found it too biased towards TPLF, and all those biased information in almost all of the cases come from EEPA. I checked their website and found that they started writing situation report on November 17 2020, few days before the war in Tigray broke. They then stopped writing situation report in August 2021. This the time when TPLF forces entered neighboring regions of Amara and Afar. I read the content of the situation reports, I would say I know when I see one, I can tell you guys these reports are coming out directly from TPLF or TPLF supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.18.35 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.18.111 (talk)

Reliability as a source: one case

EEPA has at least one case of a misleading use of online sources: see Maryam Ts'iyon massacre#Regina Lynch is not a fourth source. Of course, uncontroversially "reliable sources" are known for misleading reports too. Boud (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is any source "uncontroversially reliable" after it has made misleading reports? KZebegna (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In practical terms in Wikipedia, more or less yes, although I agree that the word "uncontroversially" is not quite right. Better would be, "generally accepted as an RS for en.Wikipedia purposes". See BBC News, The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, The Daily Telegraph, look for criticism sections or search for cases where they have published misleading reports. See propaganda model in particular. See Criticism of Amnesty International and Criticism of Human Rights Watch, for two of the most solid, well-reputed major international human rights organisations - but you'll have to look through the editing histories and talk pages, since these are probably eternal battleground articles. If we remove all the sources that are sometimes wrong or misleading, then we'll end up with no sources for recent world events at all.

A source being reliable is a relative, not absolute, community judgment. Boud (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

For anyone to declare a source that has already misled, "reliable", sounds like a matter of "prestige" more than "relativity". KZebegna (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed at WP:ETH

This subject is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia § Reliable sources or not? eritreahub.org, martinplaut.com, eepa.be. Platonk (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)