Talk:Palestine Children's Relief Fund

message: Does anyone have a login at Charity Navigator?  I don't want to bother to register, but the words "For the past three years" need to be changed to the specific years.   Besides, the current page only has them with three stars so I'd like to know when they got all four. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity Navigator 

message: Footnotes 8 and 9, supposedly supporting the assertion that PCRF's reputation has been "harmed" by their association with another charity, don't link to anything. This assertion should be removed until someone can provide support for it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.123.138.162 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Palestine Children's Relief Fund. 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/20060406150359/http://www.pcrf.net/who/who.html to http://www.pcrf.net/who/who.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712050157/http://www.pcrf.net/images/senate.jpg to http://www.pcrf.net/images/senate.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110005424/http://www.pcrf.net/first.html to http://www.pcrf.net/first.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820083356/http://www.pcrf.net/images/Value.pdf to http://www.pcrf.net/images/Value.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Among my additions to this article was information about the PCRF building a second cancer department in February 2019 in the Gaza Strip, and operating a mental health program in Gaza. I supported these statements with this YouTube interview with Steve Sosebee, the founder of the PCRF, timestamps included. In the video, Sosebee talks about both of the aforementioned items. Though Sosebee cannot visually be seen in the video, it's reasonable to confidently conclude that it is indeed him, considering that it's Sosebee's voice speaking, and that Sosebee retweeted a post by the video uploader that mentions the interview on Twitter, and replying to another. The use of this video as a citation was vetoed by Volteer1, who referred to it as "random youtube vids" that "are anything but RS". While I agree that, in the vast majority of cases, YouTube videos should not be treated as reliable sources, this is an interview with the PCRF's founder. I re-added the video as a citation, noting in the edit summary that it's not exactly "random youtube vids"—again, it's an interview with the PCRF's founder. Despite this, I decided to tag the statements about the PCRF's second cancer department and mental health program as needing additional citations, as I think it would be beneficial (and frankly preferable) to have a secondary source to support those statements. Today, Volteer1 reverted my re-addition of the video as a citation, claiming that "We have no way to verify who it is", and calling the uploader of the video, known online as Vaush, a "random sex pest with a youtube account". I invite Volteer1 and other users to discuss whether the video in question should be used as a source on this article. —Matthew - (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should need to do detective work to reason out and convince ourselves whether or not we should trust videos on social media from accounts we wouldn't otherwise have a reason to trust. Requiring a reliable source really isn't too much to ask here. Even ignoring the the WP:V issues, material that never finds its way to a reliable source is usually not a great candidate for inclusion into an article on Wikipedia. The material itself is probably true and isn't excessively objectionable so I don't have a problem leaving it up while a better source is found, but I don't think following core policy surrounding verifiability and reliable sourcing should really be that controversial. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll concede that you make a good point about the inclusion of "material that never finds its way to a reliable source". I hadn't really considered that angle. —Matthew - (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube interview with PCRF founder as a citation