Talk:Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (from July 2012)
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (from July 2012) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Saudi Arabia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | A fact from Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (from July 2012) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 July 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
27 July
editPress TV is deprecated
editPress TV has lots of interesting coverage, making many claims!
Press TV is also a deprecated source, given to fabrication and propaganda. This means we literally can't trust a word from it. It fails WP:RS, which is required for the hard policy WP:V.
To restore the claims made by Press TV, we first need coverage from reliable sources for each claim - if such RSes exist. If they don't, that's even more reason to doubt the Press TV claims.
Context matters - but the overriding context here is that Press TV makes stuff up, and literally can't be trusted. Just saying "context matters" isn't really sufficient to override WP:V. Do we have RSes for each of the claims from Press TV? - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, the overriding context here is that Saudi Arabia is an absolute dictatorship, and that some news leaks out to countries like Iran, which is authoritarian, but does have some elements of democracy and political diversity, with frequent street protests, and also systematic, but not absolute, human rights violations (arrests, torture of protestors and other dissidents). Trust in sources for Wikipedia is
notrarely absolute "can/can't be trusted" for any source. So the context is not a simple yes/no situation. I propose this discussion be centralised at the current RfC on Press TV. Boud (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (modification: Some sources like Daily Mail are justified for absolute blacklisting, even though sometimes they make statements with elements of truth. Boud (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC))
The RFC on WP:RSN on this specific question has finished, and overwhelmingly concluded that Press TV is not a usable source for this issue, as it is not for any issue. The claim "context matters" was raised, but was not sufficient to sway the RFC consensus. As such, I've removed the usages again.
If you have particular claims that are supported in reliable sources, you should restore those points with the reliable sources supporting them - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
In general, we're using a lot of Press TV here, in addition to sources like random twitter accounts that appear to be suspended. We need to clean this page up quite a bit, and I've tagged the page accordingly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)