How to read sources

In this conflict, information is a weapon on every side. These cards help you check a claim before you pass it on — whoever it comes from.

Start with the questions that matter most: who is speaking and with what authority, where a number really comes from, whether several sources are really one, what is being counted, and which territory a claim is about.

◆ The authority endpointThe UN has said so. / Read the OHCHR report. / The IDF has confirmed it.Which body exactly? With what mandate — court, political body, appointed experts, advocacy group, government? What method — witnesses, satellite data, statistics, compiled media reports? Which sources do its footnotes lead to, and do those sources cite each other (one cluster, not many)? Has any court ruled?◆ Citation loopEvery major organisation agrees. / It's been confirmed by multiple sources.Where does this number or finding originate — who counted, how, verified by whom? Do the sources cite each other, or share their data? How many independent clusters are there, not how many sources? Does the original source say what the downstream ones say it says?◆ Reading an incident storyLook what they did — it's all over the news.What happened just before? Who was injured, by whom — settlers, soldiers, residents, or both sides of a clash? What exactly is being counted, and how was it verified? What's the denominator, and what's the comparison — per capita, per year, against which other place? Do the other side's authorities confirm or dispute it?◆ Proxy presented as outcomeIt's been confirmed. / The numbers prove it.Is this measured, estimated, modelled or projected? What would the outcome look like if it were true — and did it happen? What does the source's own fine print say?◆ Identity as authorityAs a Palestinian… / As a Jew… / That's hasbara. / That's taqiyya.Is this testimony about an experience, or a claim about a checkable fact? Would the claim be true if someone else said it? Is there evidence this specific account is inauthentic, or only a presumption from what it says?◆ Which territory?Israel does X. / Palestine is occupied.Which of the four territories does this fact describe? Which one does the conclusion target? Would the claim still hold if the territory were named?◆ Motte and bailey[A bold claim] — when challenged: 'All I said was [a modest one].'Which exact claim are we discussing — can we write it down? If I grant the modest version, do you still hold the bold one — on what evidence? What would the slogan look like if it said only the modest thing?◆ "They all…"They all… / That's what they're like.How many — and how do we know? Can I name someone in the group who doesn't fit? Is this a doctrine of an organisation, or the view of its supporters?◆ The exception as proofHere's the proof: [one artefact, one quote, one incident]How typical is this item — what do the other sources from the same years show? Would the conclusion survive if this one item disappeared? Is there an equally striking item pointing the other way, and why wasn't it chosen? What exactly does the item show (that something existed) and what is it being used to show (that it was the rule)?◆ Where does the story start?They started it — look at what they just didWhat happened in the days before this? Is this act a response — and is the thing it responded to mentioned? Would the story still read the same if it started one step earlier? Am I giving context to both sides, or only to mine?◆ DARVO: deny, attack, reverseYou're the real aggressor here.Was the specific claim addressed, or only its messenger? Can both be true — the accuser has an agenda AND the wrong happened? Who is being cast as victim, and does the evidence support that role?

What the marks mean