# Talk:Bahrain Tamarod

Why are all references to the website removed, even when used as opinion of the writer? For instance here [1] the author is a well known expert in this field, in fact we still have a quote by him in the article, supported by another source, and the facts are properly attributed to him. Also the site features prominent in Google News, so I don't think it's unreliable for opinions such as these [2], [3]. I think some explanation is warranted about why the website is not reliable for these things. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Policymic was quite clearly dismissed as a reliable source here due to its lack of editorial oversight and crowdsourced nature.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going through it right now, but I think it still can be used as a self-published source, especially for the first case I pointed where the author is an expert in the field "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" including in this very same article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems the discussion at WP:RSN followed the same path, so let me make my case. Brian Dooley is an expert in Bahraini affairs, we even have an article about him (Brian J. Dooley). He has authored many articles, reports and opinion pieces about Bahrain, all published by reliable sources. Many of them are mentioned in his WP article, but here are some that I found after a simple Google search: Huff Post, Huff Post 2, Foreign Policy, Middle East Voices, The Atlantic, HRF report 1, HRF report 2 and RT (video). He is also quoted by a number of reliable sources. If you have any doubts hit Google yourself. I'll see if can say the same about other authors, if not I'll just drop it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yury Barmin and Lindsay Boyle are apparently not experts on Bahrain and have no articles on the subject other than those in PolicyMic. So, you were correct in all removals, except for one. Thanks for the heads up about the website; gladly I had only started using it on this article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the "expert" claim is that it cannot be verified.  Is there some independent verification of his claims, especially considering his partisanship on the matter?  If there is not, we need to remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
According to this source (Arabic), a number of Ministry of Health employees complained they were denied any holiday between 21 July and 18 August unless they proved they were leaving the country in this period. The source however does not relate this to protests, which is why I think using it alone could be WP:SYNTHESIS. The rest of seem to be either not problematic or an opinion that is correctly attributed to Dooley. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
As for Dooley's expert issue: "Brian Dooley, a specialist in the Gulf states for Human Rights First (HRF)"[4], "Brian Dooley, a Gulf expert at Human Rights First"[5], "Brian Dooley, a Human Rights First director who has spent much of the last two years focusing on Bahrain"[6] and "Brian Dooley is Director of Human Rights First's Human Rights Defender Program. He is the author of a series of reports on Bahrain and has been denied access to the kingdom since March 2012."[7] . Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this makes him an expert as much as an activist.  I make no distinctions whatsoever about whatever side he's on, and my knowledge of this specific case comes solely from the editing of the article, but I do not see where we can make an exception for Dooley, especially when we cannot verify his claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
One of the sources above clearly describes him as an expert, using the exact word. Anyway, I'm not insisting on the material this source supports, but I'm insisting the source is reliable. Shall we get outside opinions to clear this out? Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want, although I can't imagine what has changed about Policymic in the last month or so, or what makes him an "expert" in the neutral sense.  If you don't have an issue with the material being in the article, I'll remove it and my personal issues on the matter will be resolved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 The RSN closing mentioned the specific article in question was unreliable, not the whole website. In the discussion users mentioned that if a notable person (an expert such as Condoleezza Rice) had written the article, then it would have been accepted. You can remove it if you want. Do you want me to notify you about the RSN discussion? Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The closing mentioned it in the context of the site, where it was crowdsourced and lacked editorial review.  I don't see any indication that this person is an "expert" except ideologically, although I would have no qualms with third party quotes of him.  I'll keep an eye on RSN and chime in there if necessary, no need for notification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bahrain Tamarod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054413/http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE11/032/2013/en/6c8c52e8-b152-4293-b3bd-a8a9db0ac74f/mde110322013en.pdf to http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE11/032/2013/en/6c8c52e8-b152-4293-b3bd-a8a9db0ac74f/mde110322013en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)