Talk:Palestinian Return Centre

A [user account] associated with the Palestinian Return Centre itself has removed large amounts of information critical of the PRC (see [[1]]). This seems to be problematic. I was using this page to look up the places where PRC are banned and the background to the incident but I need to pull it from the history.

Having so much of the page written by PRC itself is a NPOV problem Ariehkovler (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I removed a paragraph in the introduction that claimed a report cleared PRC of terror links and said it was being 'smeared'. The report in question was funded and commissioned by PRC itself. https://prc.org.uk/upload/posts/pdf_files/how_israel_attempts_to_mislead_the_united_nations.pdf

If someone chooses to re-add it, it should be appropriately caveated with this relevant information Ariehkovler (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross: deletion of text cited to Electronic Intifada.

Philip Cross deleted text cited to an Electronic Intifada article which detailed the granting of observer status to the Palestinian Return Centre by the United Nations. The reason supplied in the edit summary was: "rm passage cited to deprecated source, see WP:RSPSOURCES: 'There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction.'"

The Electronic Intifada has been discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard multiple times, mostly, it would appear, without a consensus being reached. The summary given on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page is: "There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed."

In his summary, Cross stated that the Electronic Intifada is a "deprecated source". That is untrue. The difference between deprecation and a finding of general unreliablilty has been pointed out to Cross, by me, previously.

In his summary, Cross omitted the last sentence of the summary: "Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed." The upshot of that is that the EI may be used, though statements attributed to it should be attributed.

The main reason for providing citations is so that justification for statements which may be questioned is provided. A statement that the Palestinian Return Centre was granted UN observer status, should be uncontroversial however; a little simple Googling (for instance using the search terms "Palestinian Return Centre" and "observer status") quickly establishes its factuality. By opening the UN's own UNISPAL page listing accredited civil society partners which have been granted observer status and scrolling down to the United Kingdom section, an entry for the PRC can be found. The deletion of an uncontroversial, easily verified statement of fact about an important aspect of the article subject on the false grounds that the cited source should not be used was lazy and legalistic. That is especially true as a statement to the same effect, using two other sources, appears in the Introduction.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Didn't you see the stop sign on the entry? Surely better to find a superior source which will never be challenged, if one exists. See WP:GUNREL which explains the stop sign: "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate." Philip Cross (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Derprecated sources for what a "stop sign" actually looks like. Read what it says at the top of the WP:GUNREL page: "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."     ←   ZScarpia   16:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)