Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Snopes final sentence in leade

I assume someone added that silly sentence and snopes source in the context of a political argument. Does everyone agree to remove it as POV and unbalanced?Asilah1981 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Also is snopes allowed as a source? I have never seen it used on wikipedia before.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is highly regarded as a fact-checking website when it comes to fake news, urban legends, and conspiracy theories, so yes, it's obviously valid here when dealing with fake news, urban legends, and conspiracy theories about the page subject. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove as POV. Definitely can do much better in the lede than that sentence.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to *justify* why you think it's POV. An assertion is not an argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok so is it listed somewhere as a reputable source? User:Iryna_Harpy is an expert on this topic, she would know. The sentence should go regardless IMO but if its an acceptable source we can still use the source (among others) in a newly formulated paragraph/sentence which has more nuance and is not so blatantly one-sided... Or preferably not cover the topic at all in the lede and leave it to the body.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• This phrase simply summarizes some content from "Controversies" part. There is no need to source anything in the lead. It must remain in the lead as one of issues this organization is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• "Which have been debunked by fact checking organizations while we see their members celebrating public executions with militants? I think not. The sentence should go. Also "debunked" is not an appropriate word for wikipedia. The sentence is inherently POV and sounds like its been written by an angry child.Asilah1981 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "inherently POV". And if sources say it it's not POV, inherently or otherwise. "Debunked" is a perfectly fine word. Here and elsewhere. Where are you getting all of this from anyway? Just making it up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Definite POV with that sentence with no counterargument. Is the consensus here to remove? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No the consensus is clearly not to remove. Four editors have commented, two with one view, two with the opposite. I also see no reason to remove it. It summarises in the lede something notable that is covered in the "controversies" section. Presumably you don't think the controversies section should go do you?

In case anyone has any doubts about the veracityBobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC) of the video (confirmed by the white helmets themselves) they can watch it here. https://www.davidicke.com/article/412537/white-helmets-blasphemous-whitewash-execution-black-recordAsilah1981 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone has any idea on whether Snopes can be used as a source? Its still in article and looks weird and infantile.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason Snopes is not a reliable source, but I certainly don't think David Icke's webpage is even vaguely reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not clear what the objection is, as the two users who are objecting to it have failed to articulate what they think is wrong with this sentence - the source is reliable, the sentence provides context for the rest of the article, it summarizes info from the main text and is a proper introductory sentence about the topic. Calling it "silly" "infantile" "POV" doesn't do much good unless you explain specifically WHY that is so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't comment on how RS is Snopes, because I simply don't know. What I do know, however, is that the sentence itself doesn't belong in the lead. Have it in the article if you would like and think Snopes is RS, but per WP:LEDE, it shouldn't be in the lead. It is completely POV.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If that was your opinion, why did you make change in a completely different section [1]? In addition, you probably do not understand WP:NPOV. If a majority of RS claim one specific position on the subject, as in this case (that is what you call "POV"), such position must be described as "majority view" in the body and the lead per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the thing - it's not just Snopes. The relevant section has almost a dozen sources to back this up. It's just that we try to be sparing in inline citations when it comes to the lede. So this is actually a very well sourced and pertinent info, which both introduces the subject properly and summarizes a key point of the article. I see no justification offered for removal here, except just repetition of "I JUST DONT LIKE IT!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are right; regardless of all guidelines, ultimately it's a judgment call whether something is sufficiently notable in an article to be included in the lede. My judgement, and at least 2 other editors, is that statement is too strong and POV for the lead. The very word "smear" only occurs in the intro, for example. So my argument is as follows: relative to other pieces of information in the article, that particular snippet is being disproportionately emphasized in the lede. I say we do dispute resolution or RfC and see what people who are not as invested in this article as all of us have been comment on whether it be included?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you suggest to replace "smear" by another word? "Disinformation"? "Defamation"? Something else? This campaign is notable because this is the only reason I have ever heard about this organization and came to edit this page. I guess the same can be said about some others? My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Aua: If you like, you can open an RfC. Please see the guidelines for opening an RfC here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? Perhaps we can agree to rephrase it? My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversies section

Have restructured to make more NPOV and added sources. Comments welcome.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have good faith reverted the edit. Please do not use David Icke as any sort of reliable source. Globalresearch.ca is iffy as well. There are other sources which do criticize the White Helmets, but it requires care and not haphazard Googling. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

David Icke??? Seriously??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian Thanks. You can substitute the source though. Main thing is don´t remove Asad´s statement about the video which is in Washington Times. Can edit more selectively rather than block revert - helps build consensus.Asilah1981 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a mistake of mine, the idea was having a link to the video, which is certainly pertinent. David Icke is certainly not a good choice, since you are right he does appear to be somewhat of a loony - I had never heard of him before. If we have no choice, we should use RT, though even I tend to avoid it as a source. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Replacing one bad source (David Icke) by another bad source (RT (TV network)) because "we have no choice"? Why do we have no choice? Because we must tell something negative about the organization? No, what we must do is to comply with WP:RS. This is not an appropriate source for this page because it was described in numerous sources as a propaganda outlet in general and because it was engaged in a propaganda campaign specifically about WH. My very best wishes (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS allows RT to be used as source for interview given by Assad to RT. We can take it to RfC if you like. Or just ask any admin...Asilah1981 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This source has been debated already on WP:RSNB numerous times, for example here, with an overall views that the source is either unreliable on political subjects that involve Russia (it is a participant of Syria war) or must be debated on the case to case basis. But OK, I am not entirely opposed to including this source. One should simply do it properly. What you are trying to do on the page is not including this source, but rewriting this page in a certain way. What I am talking about? The controversies section now includes this ref, which is about as "reliable" as RT. But this is proper use of the source. We could also add RT there, but this is already sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishesTASS is reliable regarding official statements of the Russian Government or Russian government employees. This is not an issue. Surely you know this?Asilah1981 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please check WP:RS. It tells: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. No, this source, just like RT, has a very poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, speaking politely. Therefore, I would never mind if anyone wanted to remove TASS or RT just because this is TASS or RT. But it is you who insist on using such generally unreliable sources. OK, just to make a compromise here, I would not mind using TASS or RT (just because you insist), but providing that the source was not used to promote fringe views on WP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: You restored the whole thing, including David Icke and Globalresearch.ca. Please do not do it again. Your phrasing of the Washington Times source is also not good; the source does not say that the White Helmets were celebrating with terrorists, rather that Assad claimed they were. Therefore, it cannot be phrased in Wikipedia's voice. I have reverted half of what you wrote and rephrased the rest. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, Washington Times is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian Thanks!Asilah1981 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone agrees now with structure and sourcing of section? I´m glad we have been able to fix it, it looked quite embarrassing.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Of course not. Look at this your edit. Not only Washington Times is unreliable source (this is not Washington Post), but this edit is a 1RR violation on the page [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who is not an edit warrior randomly trying to get me topic banned? A good faith editor, perhaps? Anyone who will back the claims that the Washington Times is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia Policy?Asilah1981 (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: In this area, everyone needs to follow the rules, whether they think they are right or wrong. One simple rule which helps defuse tensions is that people not do rapid-fire edits and break 1RR, and instead discuss first on the talkpage. I have some problems with your edit, but first please self-revert yourself. There is no deadline on Wikipedia: we can take a few hours or days to get it right.

There are two problems with your edit. First, as I said above, the Washington Times does not say that the White Helmets were celebrating with the killers; rather it quotes Assad as saying it. Therefore, it cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice, as you have phrased it. Secondly, the Asia Times source is an op-ed. Op-eds are not considered reliable for facts. They may, at the most, be used for attributed opinion. See WP:RSOPINION. Also, the Asia Times article itself says right at the top: Asia Times is not responsible for the opinions, facts or any media content presented by contributors.

As I said above, it's better that you self-revert and discuss first. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok Kingsindian I can change the source or self-revert although it seems a bit silly considering there is no doubt that Asad said this in his interview. Is RT not acceptable? Its just a non-controversial fact. Why the blackout? Asilah1981 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: It doesn't matter if you think it's silly. WP:1RR is a rule one has to follow whether you think you're right or wrong. Everyone thinks they're right; if everyone breaks 1RR, we cannot work in contentious areas like this at all. I do not know which RT source you're talking about, but there's no point in discussing it until the edit is self-reverted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Asilah, you should also realize that your rewrite of "Controversies" section [3] was made without WP:Consensus. Your edit was reverted per WP:BRD, and this is now your responsibility to convince others that such change is needed. But you edit war to reinsert your change made without consensus [4]. Do you understand it? My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My 2c: I'm a bit iffy on the Washington Times to be honest, but I think RT is reasonable.

With regards to the lead, I still firmly believe that sentence, which was is no longer in the lead, was too POV for intro. Just putting it out there.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Kingsindian Ok I self reverted. Although Im a bit lost at what point I broke the 1RR. It was just a lazy friendly revert asking you to do it differently, which you promptly did - no issues.Asilah1981 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop trying to rewrite this paragraph? Your attempts to do so obviously lack consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, this version of section existed for almost two months. One must have WP:Consensus to change it. Moreover, I do not see any real arguments to change it. Just the opposite - agree with comment by Kingsindian above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Any reasons not to include in controversies section execution cheering incident/WH confirmation of event/Asad reaction/Russia reaction/Media reaction?

Would be good for them to be provided here and discussed, instead of edit warring.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Which "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" tell about this claim by Assad as something notable? Please link them here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You claim these executions in which White Helmets members are cheering for are not "notable events" because few sources cover them though there are heads of states bringing them up. So do you have the same reasoning behind another such scandal at the Al-Masdar News at the Criticism section over its former member Paul being part of a neo-Nazi forum? After all, there's only one source to that incident and it's a rather obscure one too (i.e. The Australian). Looks like there's no other source covering that over at Google news. Yet, in both incidents we have just one RS source and a primary BOD statement. So what makes Al-Masdar's scandal so notable but this scandal not so? One can't help but deduce that there's some WP:POVPUSHING going on here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I claim nothing. I only asked Asilah to provide links to RS he would like to use in this thread. Nothing was provided so far. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this not enough? http://syriacivildefense.org/sites/syriacivildefense.org/files/18%20May%202017%20-%20.pdf Its a statement from the White Helmets which was covered by RT here https://www.rt.com/news/388960-white-helmets-execution-footage/ and Asad's interview specifically describing the event is covered in video here https://www.rt.com/news/381542-white-helmets-al-qaeda-members/. I am sure you are aware of these sources. Why not have this in the article, assuming good faith?Asilah1981 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is that all you have? The first one is primary, and it does not tell that WH "cheered" anything. Two RT sources are possibly sufficient to summarize the opinion of Assad (White Helmets are part of Al-Qaeda - from the last publication), however this page already tells that Russia and Syria have accused the organization of taking sides and supporting terrorists. Do you want to add an additional RT reference to support this already included statement? OK, I do not mind, but some other contributors might have objections (see discussion above). Do you want to include an additional phrase, specifically about the video on the internet? That would be undue. Do you want to include something else? Please clarify. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Its getting hard to assume good faith now. The "primary source" confirms that they acted improperly and violated the code of conduct (i.e. yes they cheered at the execution as we all saw in the video). You are now fillubustering My very best wishes, this is against policy. You must desist from this behavior, please, no matter how strongly you feel about the topic! Asilah1981 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand are you claiming a fact for which we have a video on vimeo and other media, a statement confirming that it happened by the White Helmets, a declaration on the subject by two governments (one a permanent member in the security council), another an interview by a head of state and coverage in global media is not enough? I'm not saying that White Helmets are part of Al Qaeda or a propaganda tool (in response to User:Drmies' question), I mean that this specific event and the repercussions need to be covered in the article. What is the problem?Asilah1981 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, things might as well not have happened until they are reported in reliable, secondary sources; in this case, what does Assad's "opinion" matter? We should deal with realities. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Erm yes his opinions matter, he is the head of state of the country within which the White Helmets operate so his opinion is notable. As does the statement on the matter by the White Helmets, as does the coverage on the matter by a global media network, which we happen to both dislike, but is still notable.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Drmies honestly, your logic doesn´t make sense to me. You say that we should deal with "realities". The reality that it happened and was confirmed by the WH themselves, is being argued as non notable and original research. The fact that there was an international reaction to the fact is deemed unreliable. This is bending wikipedia rules to censor information. Surely you can see this? I am no Assad supporter but I want these articles to be more or less NPOV. I know its hard since they are emotional issues for a number of editors who are locked into edit conflicts here, but we have to draw a line somewhere. We just can´t censor this information.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of things happen in Syria which Assad presumably has a reported opinion on, without that opinion being notable enough to be included in an article. Lots of organisations issue statements about some minor aspect of their organisation (e.g. staff being disciplined) without that minor aspect being included in the organisation's article. You need to establish why this incident is notable, which would require, as already repeated, multiple reliable secondary sources, as per the policy of Wikipedia. If you want to argue Wikipedia should changes its policies, this article's talk page is not the place to do it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of primary sources, such as vimeo videos, is primary research. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to do primary research, but to provide authoritative summaries of what is known, based on criteria of notability and reliable secondary sources. Please go read WP:PRIMARY and maybe WP:NOT and then make a case about why this factoid should be in this article. Re the Assad interview, there is no reason to believe he is referring to the same incident, or indeed to any real incident; his interview is not a reliable source for the incident, or even for his views on this specific incident as he is speaking in general term. The other RT article is very dodgy, as its main source is clearly the White Helmets' own statement, but it grossly misrepresents it (it says "several" WH were suspended - not true - and that it was a "rebel execution" - not really true, as it was a tribal council execution) and its other source is an AMN article which also simply reports the existence of the video and then editorialises about it ("revolting footage"), again inaccurately ("rebel militants", "summary execution" - claims not warranted by the video or the WH press release). BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the opinion by Assad was already included ("Russia and Syria have accused the organization of taking sides and supporting terrorists.") My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

1)Im not using the video (just pointing to it in case anyone denies it happened), 2) tribal council execution? What the hell does that mean? Since when do tribal councils have authority to execute people in Syria? They are peaceful "tribal councils" implementing their traditional laws?? Who is editorializing, and spinning? Yes it does say that they "have accused" but we shouldn't be so desperate to censor the basis of these accusations lest they spoil our "systematic campaign" thing you want included in the LEDE. Enough POV pushing please.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Tribal council is what the WH statement says. If you don't think it's true, it's odd you should see it as a reliable source. (In rural areas, tribal councils are de facto government.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No they are not BobFromBrockley, have you ever been to the Near East? Its not the Belgian Congo in the 19th century. Only armed insurgents violating Syrian law have the "right" to execute people. Not even in Federally Administered tribal areas of Pakistan does it work that way, let alone in Syria which is a modern state with a French-derived civil code. Man, you really should not edit about stuff you know nothing about. It is borderline racist to think there are Mediterranean countries with tribal councils executing people as something "normal". Hilarious thing is that you consider WHs spin on the whole incident and ridiculous excuses as "reliable". There statement is enough to confirm that the event happened and they considered it notable enough to issue a press release. The details of their spin is irrelevant. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that I also consider details Assad´s and other sources partisan exaggeration of the event as undue. I don´t consider his statements at face value neither nor do I think it means WH are part of Al Qaeda. WP should present facts neutrally, without pushing the discourse from either side of this conflict. All that is needed here is X happened and that it was controversial. I am not interested in the details of implications or moral judgements on WH. It is not our job make judgements on parties to a civil war. All sides are bad, but we cannot censor facts which are notable out of sympathy for Al Qaeda or the Syrian regime. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You tell: we cannot censor facts which are notable out of sympathy for Al Qaeda or the Syrian regime.. What and who you are talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Asilah1981, I did not use the words "normal" and "right" which you attribute to me in quote marks. I used the phrase "de facto". Regardless of whether the Ba'athist state counts as "a modern state with a French-derived code" or not, it does not have de facto power in Jasim, and has not since the area fell to the FSA some years ago (I think in 2014[5]. Rebel territories (such as Jasim) are ruled by autonomous local councils, including tribal councils in some areas. To say that does not imply judgement on the legitimacy of the Ba'athist state or the morality of the death penalty but states the facts as they are; nor is it "borderline racist", which is quite a strong accusation to use against a fellow Wikipedia editor. It is you (not me) who has argued that the WH statement on the incident is a sufficiently reliable source to be used here, and that source clearly says the execution was at the command of the tribal council, with the agreement of both the victim's and perpetrator's family. I would also be grateful if you would retract your allegation that I am somehow sympathetic to Al Qaeda, which is quite a strong accusation. (In fact, are al-Qaeda even in Jasim? I don't think they are, although I might be wrong.) Finally, whether or not I've "ever been to the Near East" (as it happens, I have) is also irrelevant to this discussion, not just because "the Near East" isn't a homogeneous entity, but because Wikipedia is not a portal for editors' original research but a summary of the best sources available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the paragraph on Russia and Syria

Guys, please stop trying to sneakily rewrite the paragraph which currently begins with "According to investigative journalists and analysts...". THAT is the key point of the quoted sources. The fact that Russia and Syria made some accusations is included in proper context. Disjointing the two aspects destroys this proper context and creates an obvious POV problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek. Negating an accusation prior to explaining the accusation is just POV editing. The proper structure is "X says A, Y says B". Not "Y says X is full of shit and oh by the way X says A." That is simply not proper editing on wikipedia as per NPOV.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the NPOV to treat it is the way the sources are treating it. You're committing SYNTH to push a particular point of view. Also, can YOU PLEASE STOP edit warring. Your edits have no consensus so please stop making them. You say you want to "discuss on talk" but then you obstruct the discussion and repeat the same WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively you refer us to David Icke (!!!) or other ... very, unreliable sources. Seriously, anyone that thinks we should be using Icke as a source, shouldn't be editing this or any other article on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You also DID in fact restore edits made by an anonymous IP - in particular this. I'm getting really really sick and tired of how whenever there is a dispute on a 1RR restricted article all these anon IPs all of sudden start popping up to enable circumventing it by some editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I am explaining to you why your editing is POV and frankly ridiculous, as are other editors here. I can't believe you guys have been at this since 2008...Asilah1981 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That should be "at it, and getting away with it, since 2008". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Added POV tag, extremely partisan edits by Volunteer Marek, deliberately preventing presentation of other point of view by immediately discrediting it at the very top of the article, ridiculous accusations presented as undeniable fact. This must end. GroundlessAir (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@GroundlessAir: Reliable sources state that the White Helmets have been targeted by a smear campaign, so we have to state it. If you find a reliable source (not Russia Today or whatever) which refutes this claim, then by all means add it. Stikkyy t/c 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Stikkyy: Stating that you simply dont agree and reverting a legitimate NPOV dispute isn't a way to resolve a conflict, as far as I've seen the only source there is Snopes.com, while you mentioned "reliable sources" by which you probably mean multiple top-quality sources and not a single hardline pro-regime-change "fact-checking" site. It does not belong at the very top of the article, I am not against such info staying, but it should be explictly stated WHO makes such claims and that they are claims, not undeniable facts, a single dubious source cannot be considered an undisputable fact and tossed up peoples faces at the top of the article to present a single hardline view glorifying a controversial organization, odd is the fact that for example HTS article on Wikipedia is presented in entirely different light.. without any glorification for some reason? Even though HTS Emir himself awarded "White Helmets" on multiple occasions and praised them for winning an oscar for his political entity. GroundlessAir (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Here is paragraph in question. It is currently sourced to nine RS, not to a "single hardline site". I even removed a couple of less reliable sources that do not directly support the statement, just in case. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you completely incapable of understanding what npov writing should consist of? The proper and neutral order is to first detail the allegations, and then give the responses to those allegations. It is not to fail to mention anything at all (!) about the allegations making the controversy, but instead heap criticism on those supposedly making the unspecified allegations, The section is not titled "criticism about controversies". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources do not describe this as a "controversy", but as a disinformation campaign. Perhaps we should use a different sub-title, i.e. "disinformation campaign", but the current description is a proper description. The currenttext explains what exactly has been dismissed. However, starting from a detailed description of allegations that have been completely dismissed in RS should not be done per WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

irrelevant discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not working We are clearly facing two extremely militant editors, unwilling to compromise on anything, remnants of this group, no doubt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Improper_coordination I can't waste more time here but community action should be taken to avoid full ownership of this and related articles. Wikipedia articles should be built on reasonable discussion and consensus, not through take-over by militant mailing lists.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Please stop calling people names. Please stop making baseless personal attacks. In fact, you are in an edit war against five editors - myself, Kingsindian, Stikky, MVBW and Bobfrombrockley. You bringing up a completely irrelevant and unrelated ArbCom case from 8 years ago does nothing except put your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on display. You've already violated 1RR on this article explicitly once and were warned by User:Drmies. You were also warned by him about making personal attacks. Now you've basically WP:GAMEed the 1RR restriction by making your second revert only a bit outside the 24 window. You keep saying "I can't waste more time", "Leave my talk page" etc and pretending like you're not actively engaged in this article yet you continue to edit war and refuse to self revert. And if you got some evidence of some mailing list "taking over" this article then by all means present it. Otherwise, stop making stuff up and insulting other editors. In fact, you were explicitly warned about this as well ("Asilah: no more talk of old accounts. Is that clear? Thank you") Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC) @Asilah1981: When you reach an impasse, the best way is to follow WP:DR. After a certain point, there's little point in arguing back and forth. You can open an RfC to try to get consensus for your edits. If you find no consensus, just drop it and move on. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Asilah1981 - the existence of "drop it and move on" advice was the foundation of the EEML's methods - tireless low-scale coordinated pov editing intended to wear down all opposition and get them to give up and move on (or get them banned if they don't).

"Volunteers"

Is "volunteer" the right name for people who are paid (US$ 150) almost four times the average monthly salary in Syria (which is around US$ 41, according to this source)? Wakari07 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What's your source on what White Helmet volunteers get paid though? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Newsweek. It's in the article: number 29 as of today. "There are more than 2,800 White Helmets, including 80 women, all volunteers who work full time and get paid a $150 monthly stipend." Do they even pay taxes? Wakari07 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem very big on rhetorical questions. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about me. Wakari07 (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• If the article that you cite calls them volunteers, then I think you just answered your own question. The rest is SYNTH, OR, and hyperbole. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I trust my old dictionaries better than Wikipedia... Wakari07 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, you have a choice. Either you trust one part of your source and put the other in square quotes, or you trust the source. Volunteer--"a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task". "Freely" means "unforced"; it doesn't mean unpaid. Yes, Wakari, people do freely volunteer to do this dangerous and terrifying work. Perhaps the pilots dropping barrel bombs on civilian targets are also volunteers, even when they're also getting a paycheck. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see they're volunteers, not in a non-profit, but in a military context. Wakari07 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your agenda is also equally clear. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You may write ad hominems on my talk page. Wakari07 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Wakari07's question is perfectly reasonable. As the editor that added the stipend info, I pondered that question at that time, but decided as all the media was using "volunteers" we'd better stick to that until WP:RS started doing different. But IMO volunteer is the wrong word for people paid more than the average income in the area. I'm just waiting for WP:RS to come to the same view! Rwendland (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Language bias in article

I'm aware of the allegations of White Helmets collusion with terrorist groups in Syria. Yet I'm also aware of the intense bias that exists within mainstream news sources, who all propagate a very similar message of support for this organisation. This makes writing about the White Helmets particularly sensitive. I attempted to neutralise the language bias in this article and remove the accusations of a Russian and Syrian 'disinformation campaign' with a more neutral concern that the White Helmets are the 'subject of scrutiny'. This is more universally accurate, given the many journalists outside of the Russian and Syrian media sphere who have voiced concerns over the agency and tactics of White Helmets during the Syrian Civil War. Evidence on this page supports the highly charged and oppositional views of this organisation.

I also attempted to clarify the source of training, funding and equipment for the White Helmets, with the additional information of James Le Mesurier. The information I added is clear, cited and I did not attempt to distort any information that was previously written by other users. There were many grammatical errors which I clarified too.

My changes were revoked with the reason that "many of these edits are not constructive, with many at odds from the cited sources". Could you explain in which way neutralising politically charged language bias is not constructive, given that discourse and scrutiny of the White Helmets is valid and supported, and that my changes did not negate the information previously added.

In the meantime I have redone my changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altm1987 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Altm1987, you made a large number of changes in a single edit with a blanket explanation, some of which were excellent contributions of information or sources or re-wording for clarity, but some of which deleted sourced material, introduced new bias, or contradicted consensus reached in long discussions already in this talk page, which is probably why Neutrality reverted you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Altm1987, you make a claim about bias, but some of your edits are problematic: (a) in two reverts now you have added ISIS back into the article - but there is nothing in the article or its sources to suggest SCD works in ISIS areas, so your edit gives the impression it does. And I don't see why specific mention of Al-Nusra is better than the "other rebel" groups term, given that SCD works in areas controlled by a range of non-ISIS rebel groups; (b) you have deleted the presumably informative link to the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article, in favour of more long-winded wording that draws attention to Russia being there at Assad's invitation, which is completely irrelevant to the article. (c) Your re-wording of the disinfo campaign goes against the consensus reached above in this talk page. Can you defend those choices here rather than simply reverting edits? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, a) nothing in the article suggests SCD works in areas solely controlled by FSA, so that claim does not hold up to scrutiny. Al-Nusra was one of the major players within Syrian opposition forces. The historical context of the Syrian Civil War should be provided without redacting elements of the Syrian opposition that you do not personally like. This is why your edit is problematic. b) Please re-add in the so called informative link to Russian military intervention however, it is disingenuous to remove the historical context in which Russia was allowed to intervene in this conflict (even if their military presence caused debatably widespread destruction). c) The 'disinformation campaign' you promote focuses solely on Syria and Russia from a single politically motivated fact-checking organisation. I extended the criticism of White Helmets to allow for debate that extended beyond this narrow and biased scope because there are many independent investigative journalists who have written extensively on their skepticism of White Helmets and their agency within Syria. Altm1987

Altm1987: Please don't re-insert your changes unless you have consensus to do so. I've removed your recent edit because it goes against the long-established consensus on this talk page. It's also improper to use websites like CounterPunch as sources - these are not reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality: There is a long established criticism to the bias in this article and my edits neutralise these bias while expanding the critical discourse on the controversies of White Helmets. The nature of 'Controversies' is to critically report on the scepticisms and issues surrounding this article and in this instance CounterPunch is once such view on this controversy. Please don't re-add your biased opinion and narrow the debate unless you wish to be more careful with your language. Altm1987^talk 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of the changes are very problematic. Counterpunch is not a reliable source. This potentially is, but Altm1987 misrepresents the source which actually says the opposite ("White Helmets is not just fought with bombs and missiles. Russian and Syrian state outlets are circulating “information” meant to tarnish the volunteers") of what he's changing the text to ("The organisation has been subject to scrutiny"). This source doesn't look quite as reliable but it ALSO says the opposite of what Altm1987 claims.

Such a blatant misrepresentation of sources will get you a block pretty quick. Volunteer Marek  16:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer_Marek: Please explain to me in what ways my sources were misrepresented, other than your obvious dislike for representation of critical analysis of White Helmets. You counteract my argument with two articles you believe are reliable sources. Pulse Media is nothing more than a weblog so I will not consider this reliable. The conversation article adds to the debate, yes. And so does the CounterPunch article. With the obvious language bias removed this section and the addition of multiple views on the controversies of the White Helmets, we might start to have a healthy discourse on this page. As it stands, the political motivations of the editors here is quite apparent and the double standards of what is considered reliable information is worrying. Altm1987^talk 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I already did. The source says "The joint Russian-Assad regime campaign against the the White Helmets is not just fought with bombs and missiles. Russian and Syrian state outlets are circulating “information” meant to tarnish the volunteers". Yet, you're changing the text to say the opposite. Volunteer Marek  16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer_Marek: Also, your removal of two major players within the Syrian opposition, ISIS and Al-Nusra Front is dishonest and should be undone. It is well documented that White Helmets were operating within ISIS controlled territories of Idlib. This article even states that the White Helmets operate within 'rebel-controlled Syria' so please provide a citation that links this organisation specifically to territory controlled only by the Free Syrian Army. Otherwise this edit should be considered acceptable.Altm1987^talk 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think the whole sentence where the ISIS mention was is a little problematic, as it's not clear why this detail is relevant, so the arbitrary mention of ISIS and Al-Nusra is misleading. I think that needs looking at more carefully. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley: Then I propose to remove Free Syrian Army too and replace it with 'rebel-controlled territories' as this detail is also misleading and creates the assumptions that White Helmets were active only in areas controlled by FSA, which is not the case.Altm1987^talk 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I must've edited it more or less as you typed this comment, but I have removed mention of FSA, as what you say is correct. It might be that at a different point in the article it would be worth saying that SCD work in areas controlled by different rebel groups, with reliable sources, and, if it is true and can be reliably sourced, whether or not they work in ISIS controlled areas. But that would belong somewhere later in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have a view as to whether the article needs to mention (and link to a source saying) that Assad invited Russia to intervene? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is better. I am not sure it was Assad who invited Russia to intervene. He cheerfully agreed by such generous offer by Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is constructive to any debate other than exposing overt political bias Altm1987 (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

White Helmets restoring activities in Afrin

For some reason, some editors insist in deleting a piece of information. I've added two times, in different ways, the news that after Turkish campaign inside Syria, White Helmets finally could work there since PYD's ban is no longer enforced. Here is my first attempt, which was deleted because it used twitter as a source (including White Helmets' own twitter). It was deleted because it used as a source a tweet that involved a claim about third parties (Wikipedia:TWITTER). Then, following these guidelines, I made a new edition, now in the section of Controversies, since it's just a remark of the existence of an inner conflict between two existing organizations. This time, I cited articles and news about the subject. Then, it was deleted because it used as a source a conspirancy website, which I assume was Global Research. In all honesty, I didn't know that site was problematic, and I was just trying to find a third party talking about the subject.

I pretended to restore this edition but removing the problematic source, but before making a new edition I prefer to ask: Is it right to add this sentence in this form?

PYD closed a White Helmets centre and banned the organization in Afrin. This situation ended after the successful occupation of the city during the Operation Olive Branch.[96][97]

—

96. ^"Fractures within the Syrian opposition on Afrin: The White Helmets an…". 2018-04-07. Archived from the original on 2018-04-07.

97. ^"White Helmets resume operations in liberated Afrin". 2018-04-07. Archived from the original on 2018-04-07.

I would be glad to know if that's something permissible. Greetings. --200.28.103.127 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "successful occupation" an euphemism (propaganda) for an illegal action?

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018 The information on this page is politically biased and presents a false history of the subject.

79.71.192.240 (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Claim about non profit organization

It is not enough to claim for some organization to be non profit. Anybody could do that. That is not making them non profit.

Lets state some of requirements that White Helmets does not have and have no rights to claim they are non profit - some facts that are required by organization to fulfill in order to be called non profit :

• First it has to be registered under laws of country where operates as non profit.
• Second it must have bookkeeper that is doing account in accordance with law of country where is registration obtained and need to have yearly financial reports registered.
• Third it has to have verifiable tax returns and paid taxes required by laws and assigned legal tax state officers that can check is it operating within scope and limit of law for non profit organization

Considering that this and many others requirements are not fulfilled it is a fraud to call them non profit. Loesorion (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't the relevant requirements for us. The only requirement for us is whether or not reliable sources refer to them as non-profit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's reliable sources content guidelines: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot just say that something is not relevant and that's it. In order to have non-profit organization you must be first and foremast be subject of law. Where is money coming from is a question here. If we discuss further about money for example how can anyone publicly for sure know where is money or anything else some people in White Helmets receive going after it came? You can call yourself as you wish but that is not making you non profit organization in accordance of laws for such organizations. It is a fraudulent to claim to be non profit in such a case. All countries in world have laws for organizations and commercial subjects and if it is case non profit must be claimed only in accordance with law not someone wistful thinking Loesorion (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For further claiming non profit by wistful thinking read first False Claims Act and Accounting scandals. - Loesorion (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the relevance of either of those things? As noted by Volunteer Marek, if reliable sources describe them as "non-profit," then that's what they are. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So for you is not relevant if a entry on Wikipedia is something that is illegal and possible fraudulent (because someone could think it is a organization that operates under law that regulate non profits as others legal non profit organization)?

And in end how that source could be reliable if it calls some organization that is not registered legal entity under any laws a non profit, that source is clearly not reliable and breaks laws in their country by making fraudulent claims. I will remind you that this could have legal repercussion to Wikipedia in case someone donates money because he read here they are non profit and in reality they are not. Not knowing a law still make you liable under the law. Wikimedia Foundation that host Wikipedia is a non profit legal organization under 501(c)(3). White Helmets are not. Read Legal liability and Vicarious liability - Loesorion (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, look, if sources describe them as "nonprofit" so do we and this has nothing to do with legal liability. Having said that, we do need a source which calls them that which I don't presently see in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based in the United States, the White Helmets are not, so 501(c)(3) has absolutely no relevance. Trying to give credence on the fact that the White Helmets are not recognised as a non-profit in Syria is a crap argument, given the Syrian government's antipathy to the organisation. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is based in USA and is registered in accordance of US law and it is possible to find Wikipedia as non profit organization in a proper US state registry and it is one example how non profit functions and how it is registered. White helmets are not registered in any country, thus existing as self proclaimed organization, not having tax or vat number, not having a possibility to verify if they where registered in state registry body, not possible to verify are they using their incomes as non profit etc. - all of that and many other things makes fraudulent any claim that they are non profit. Crap in this case is to claim non profit for them. It is not my concern or anybody else concern their relationship with Syria government in context of registration under law, that is their problem. Only other state we have heard in Syria is Islamic state and that is not recognized state under UN charter. If you don't understand countries and international law that still does not relieves you of obligation under such laws. White Helmets must be registered in accordance of law of any countries in world to claim non profit and then and only then a reference could be made to a body who has given them such a registration - for non profit. Reference to registration body in internationally recognized state is only reliable source for claims about any companies or organization type -in this case for non profit. Do not mix up frogs and grandmothers Loesorion (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to see any registration as non-profit in any country. We follow what the sourcs call them so the only thing we need is sources calling them non-profit.Sjö (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Loesorion I'm the fourth editor indicating that your arguments are unhelpful. Instead of trying to debate law or wp:truth, it's far more effective to discuss sources. The claim of 'non profit' was unsourced, and appropriately removed for that reason. Simple, and resolved. Alsee (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that number of editors matters in discussion. I started discussion about sources and all I write is in order for editors to better understand use of claims and right sources in this case because this article contained in first place without source claim about non-profit for White Helmets. No one else noticed that prior my edit. If you will read my writing from beginning you will find that in order to prevent non reliable source and such claims to be used in future I added some legal information that could lead editors to reliable sources about organization type. I thought it is always laws and rules that matters and I mentioned them for better understanding what reliable source could be used ant what organization must fulfill in order to be called non profit.

Yeah, look, if sources describe them as "nonprofit" so do we and this has nothing to do with legal liability. Having said that, we do need a source which calls them that which I don't presently see in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk)

After this I gave further explanation why we can not use any source we find and why have to be source connected with legal framework that defines non profit.

User:Volunteer Marek changed later that statement to:

:Those aren't the relevant requirements for us. The only requirement for us is whether or not reliable sources refer to them as non-profit.

I have responded to his first statement not edited statement to be clear.

Then Editor Nick Cooper gave his statement

:if reliable sources describe them as "non-profit," then that's what they are.

Since there is no reliable source that describe them as "non-profit," I have again exclaimed my stance on reliable source that could be used for such organization type.

In end I started discussion because before my edit this article contained for long period of time without source claim about non-profit for White Helmets. No one before me noticed that and some editors that responds here to me edited this article more then a few times and haven noticed such obvious mistake in article.

When sources are connected with laws in order to exists as reliable and when some defamation information on Wikipedia might hurt readers it is with all due respect to all editor here, more broad and careful approach needed about sources. It must be prevented any harm that could be possible done in future by editors possible unintentional mistakes and possible neglect of rules of Wikipedia and laws that defines this maters and enables us in end to have reliable source. And we are all here because users, and some of them will be reading this article and if claim about non profit is made in article without source or without reliable source they could believe in such claim that White helmets are non profit and on basis of that make a donation and that my friends is not good.

So I discuss here possible use of false statements in this article with and without source and legal framework of using such claims and sources within article in accordance of Wikipedia rules and why it is important in past, now and in future to use reliable source for such claims. As we know there is a few criteria that defines reliable source. So I am here to talk first under Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in order to establish good practice of writing articles about non profits and possible rules, registries and laws that editors could use to find is a source reliable. Behavior when any source could be used for organization type could have implication on readers and on others non profit organizations and articles about them. If you have something about my writing and thoughts you don't understand I am open to question just please no use of numbers in order to enforce opinion.

I am glad that we all agree that there should be a source only thing left is reliability of source. Loesorion (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Come on guys

Can we at least agree that the White Helmets are not literally ISIS or Al-Qaeda? Stikkyy t/c 18:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
-- Of course not literally. White Helmets are al-Qaeda in the same sense al-Qaeda is (or is not) the CIA. 63.92.245.41 (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Asia Times ref

A ref to this Asia Times piece was recently removed, but not well explained. Asia Times is a mixed platform. Some pieces are actual Asia Times reporting, and some pieces are user generated contributions for which Asia Times explicitly disclaims responsibility or reliability. The cited piece is explicitly tagged: Asia Times is not responsible for the opinions, facts or any media content presented by contributors. In case of abuse, click here to report. Actual Asia Times reporting would generally be usable, but not any user-submitted pieces carrying that disclaimer. Alsee (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately it was added yet again by User:ApolloCarmb [6].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:@Alsee: The piece is by the Directer of the 'Centre for Transatlantic relations'. Considering this it seems fine to me.ApolloCarmb (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Denialism is not going to get us anywhere. More constructive comments would be appreciated.ApolloCarmb (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how I can write it any different - the author is NOT the Director of the 'Centre for Transatlantic relations'.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

First off, you did NOT say that above. Let's not backpeddle. You said "No, its not." not "No, she's not". Either way she is an expert whose opinion is notable. Her bio says "Dr. Christina Lin is a Nonresident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University specializing in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations, and a research consultant for Jane's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence Centre at IHS Markit."ApolloCarmb (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not back peddling anything. You made an assertion. I said it was false. It was false.

A "nonresident fellow" being published in "AsiaTimes" with a disclaimer does not make this notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally when human beings are talking about their fellow human beings they do not refer to them as "it" but rather "she", "he" or "they". I am puzzled as to why you would think a disclaimer saying they do not endorse or oppose any opinions expressed would matter considering the opinion is not only notable enough to be expressed through the Asia Times but also is by an individual involved in not one, but two academic organisations (see above).ApolloCarmb (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The subject of your sentence - "The piece is by the Directer of the 'Centre for Transatlantic relations'" - was "the piece", not "the Director". So "it" is the proper object pronoun. "A nonresident fellow" is basically like a post-doc. Not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you quote wikipedia policy to back up your assertions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApolloCarmb (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I said QUOTE. ApolloCarmb (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim "Christina Lin of the Asia Times" is false. As I indicated above, Asia times is a mixed platform. Some pieces are actual reporting by actual staff who are actually "of the Asia Times". Other pages are not. The cited page is not. Some pages of Asia Times are little more than WP:USERGENERATED blog pages, from people who are NOT connected to Asia Times. Those pages get an explicit disclaimer that it's NOT reliable: Asia Times is not responsible for the opinions, facts or any media content presented by contributors. In case of abuse, click here to report. Asia Times considers those pages so unreliable and dangerous that they have to put a "report abuse" link on them. We do not cite pages which are explicitly vulnerable to abuse. Alsee (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I would add that the article in question can be found under the "Opinions" section of the website [7], which itself actually provides readers with an option [8] to become an opinion writer. I will also quote directly from the "Become an Opinion writer" page; "Do you have something to say? The Asia Times is looking for the smartest, most original and most interesting voices to jump-start conversations around politics, economics and culture across Asia in our Insights section. The Asia Times Insights section is the premier English-language platform for opinion, analysis and blogging on pan-Asian issues, and features work from award-winning journalists, thought leaders, business people and engaged citizens alike." The obvious issue with this is that the phrase "features work from award-winning journalists, thought leaders, business people" does not mean that all contributors to the site can be described as such. In addition, the self-description of the "Opinions" section as a source for "opinion, analysis and blogging" means that each article has to be treated on an individual basis when judging it's veracity as a reliable source. From the comments above this one is clearly disputed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disinformation campaign statement in the lede

The Snopes article does not debunk any suggestion that the WH are more than what they appear to be--it merely closes with "Unproven"--and the body of the article highlights incidents where a member or members have indeed been implicated in various events (i.e. the controversies section), contra other supposed RS's that assert any/all reporting of White Helmets that doesn't fit a certain narrative is simply a "disinformation campaign". Of course there may be a disinformation campaign against them. There's also a disinformation campaign going on against Assad, against Putin, against Trump, against Hilary Clinton, against Bill Clinton, Justin Trudeau, etc., etc., etc. That does not mean we put a disclaimer for each of their articles saying, these are basically nice people but they are victims of a disinoformation campaign in the lede... That's not 'balance'. The way the lede is written is basically a drive-by shooting way of swatting aside the general reader coming to look for any genuine controversy with a blithe "oh, it's all a disinformation campaign, nothing to see here, move along, don't bother reading the rest of the article". I agree with statements above that this is not the way WP usually does things and the article lead should reflect the body, not this dismissive sentence. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the most rational comment I've heard on this page in weeks. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This phrase in the lead is merely a summary of the Controversies section. Making one-phrase summary of a large section is completely appropriate. If a page about politician X was relatively small (like that page) and included a large "controversy" section, then it also would be completely appropriate to summarize such section in the lead in a couple of phrases. So, all these examples are irrelevant. In other words, everything is decided by degree of coverage in RS per WP:NPOV. For example, I doubt one can find a significant coverage of the subject "disinformation campaign against P.". A "disinformation campaign by P."? Yes, one can certainly find a significant coverage like here. If so, please include such sourced info in appropriate pages - this should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire. Not sure I understood you correctly but I think I can see your point. But then during a recent conversation/debate with another editor, I came to realise just what RS is and what is considered "unreliable". It's purely down to consensus - so Press TV which is unreliable on English becomes used widely and legitimately on Persian Wiki. Reading more into what makes something RS, much seems to focus on "coverage in other reliable sources", but what deemed those "others" reliable? Recursive logic. So in the end we have the regular bundle of mainstream media outlets proving "RS" because they all speak nicely about each other and agree with each other, whilst independent sources opposed to the prevailing orthodoxy are perennially censured by the monolithic "RS" block. So the first source being reliable because other reliable sources laud it begs the question, whilst the next source being deemed unreliable because those same reliable sources criticise it is called poisoning the well. Besides, it is not our task as editors to accuse a news network of spreading disinformation when the network is live at the time of writing. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to try to suggest equivalence between the smear campaign by Russian and Syrian media against the White Helmets with supposed disinformation against Putin, Trump, Trudeau, etc., especially given that there is little equivalence between rest of them, either. Russia is trolling the West on an industrial scale, and Wikipedia is one conduit through which they attempt to spread their propaganda, with attempts to push the Moscow line on this article is but one example. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What Russian media has done is no smear campaign, it's called exposure of this band of lunatics hailed as the darlings of the same conflict which the west sponsors (that includes ISIS albeit indirectly). Russia's strong ties to Syria's government long predate 2011 so the only trolling I can see is the false claims of a chemical attack unless we are also to include the manner in which the west fucked up my country in 2014 (Ukraine). I follow Russian media rather than read its criticism and can see that every accusation levelled with it has been at some stage debunked by the network in question. As for Wikipedia serving Russia, not English Wikipedia, that I assure you for the reasons stated in my last post. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming your antipathy and bias. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Where I come from (by birth) and what we have experienced, I am well vindicated in being pro-Russian - and I am not an East Ukrainian, I'm from Lviv in the west. There currently it is dangerous to reveal any pro-Moscow sentiment. Anyhow, don't pretend that you are not pro-west. One look at your remarks and anyone can see that you are incapable of analysing a scenario unless viewed through the prism of the western narrative. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

"There is little equivalence between them." The Pentagon asserted full spectrum dominance over information warfare back in the 2000's, so the US is likely ahead in the disinformation department.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The West is not trolling Russia on an industrial scale. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on the part of Wikipedia editors. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

All right. Everyone is free to discuss whatever points on my talkpage if that is a reasonable gesture. Right now I was only commenting on the posts rather than criticising a certain edit by any user. I get the point. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

They are sure a target of a campaign of a sort; but calling this campaign a "disinformation campaign" in Wikipedia′s voice means us taking a side in this psychological warfare. It ought to be re-written.Axxxion (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We call it what reliable sources call it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, your post makes no sense: RS say all sorts of things such as citing various, often contradictory opinions. We are only allowed to say in Wikipedia′s voice what can be regarded as an established fact, which is an altogether different thing.Axxxion (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

When we have a large number of reliable sources saying the same thing - that they are a target of a disinformation campaign - it's unreasonable to list them all and it's not necessary either. My post makes perfect sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Of the number of refs supporting that statement I see only two that are normally regarded as RS: WP and The Guardian, of which WP uses the term "media attack". From the Syrian gov′s perspective all the groups that fight against the gov forces are terrorist (which is par for the course around the globe); as those forces are broadly supported by the U.S. and the Helmets are financed by the U.S. (as per the WP), it is but logical they branded "terrorist" by the Syrian gov and its allies. I do not see any particular "disinformation" here, just clashing positions.Axxxion (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposals Re the lede for voicing editors′ opinions

No RFC template, no good-faith poll can be conducted with the nominator topic banned and throwing accusations out like candy. Stikkyy t/c 16:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have carefully read the recent threads on this Talk page. Obvious, there is a well of discontent with what is viewed by many as a blatant bias in the lede. A closer look at the discussion makes it clear that there are two or three user accounts that have been active in effectively stonewalling any genuine discussion as well as addition of any content, often on a blatantly false pretext such as here (more on the suspicious nature of the Marek account, See here, same applies to the My very best wishes account). Therefore, I suggest we do not retread our discussion points, which are well-known from the threads above, and simply voice our Yes or No to two modest proposals concerning the lede: 1. We qualify the currently 2nd para ("The organisation has been the target of a disinformation campaign by supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Iran-sponsored Mehr News Agency and Russia-sponsored Russia Today (RT), with false claims of close ties with terrorist activities and other conspiracy theories") by saying "According to Western media commentators". Yes.Axxxion (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC) 2. We include in the lede the summary of the "Partnerships and funding" section, and at least indicate the source of the funding of this organization, such as was my edit here.Axxxion (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC) YesAxxxion (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Note that Axxxion has now been topic banned from this entire area. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of Bad Faith

User:Volunteer Marek Reverted my edit with a comment declaring the edit to be in bad faith. I take exception to that accusation.

The article already contains consensus material explaining that the source of the majority of WH funding is the UK and US governments. My edit was simply to insert a short remark top that effect into the lede, which currently contains an over-prominent remark about disinformation against the WH.

The article is currently far from NPOV. This has been noted by many commenters on this talk page. Restoring a little balance to the lede would obviously help a bit. I thought that adding a bit of balance was better than simply deleting the over-prominent remark about disinformation. But if my approach is unacceptable, then I propose that the disinformation remark should be removed entirely from the lede. MrDemeanour (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the edit was in bad faith. It was a pretty obvious attempt to POV the lede and poison the well. The sentence in the text is "Training, funding and support was provided from international partners, including donations from governments in Western Europe, the US and Japa". This is neither significant enough to include in the lede nor is it similar to the stuff you were trying to cram in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You know that you are expected to WP:AGF. I insist that my edit was made in good faith; I inserted into the lede a remark to balance the over-prominent statement about disinformation. You need to substantiate or withdraw your accusation of bad faith.

Your insulting revert-comment is driving me away from this article. I have neither the time nor the temperament for edit-warring, and I learned many years ago to avoid debates with pugnacious bullies. I have been editing Wikipedia for at least 12 years, and I have never before been accused of a bad-faith edit. I will now leave this POV propaganda piece to be fixed by others. If you apologise for your insulting (and repeated) accusation, then I will go away; otherwise I will seek remedies. You can't go around accusing people of bad faith without justification. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking about "funding" and this edit... Here is quoted source. It tells about funding as an argument used by "Enemies of the White Helmets" who "have launched a media attack against them", i.e. "Russia Today", RT, etc. Not a reason to include funding to the lead. It tells already about campaign to discredit the organization. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wishes, as is often the case with your posts, you are bold-facedly distort what the source you cite actually says: I here paste the whole relevant passage from the Washington Post (written in its own voice, not RT′s): "The group was founded by locals along with a former British army officer and United Arab Emirates-based consulting firm called Analysis Research and Knowledge. Its membership is overwhelmingly Syrian, though it has received training from ARK and a Turkish NGO. The White Helmets receive funding from U.S. and European governments, operating on a budget of about $26 million." (second para in the cited WP′s piece). Stop spreading BS around!Axxxion (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's why I did not remove your insertion of "$26 million" from the appropriate subsection of the page. It is fine to describe the funding in appropriate section, and it currently described (this is not just "US+Europe" though). I said it was not appropriate to include the phrase in the lead in the way you did. That is what RT Russia did (according to the source). We should not follow their example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Disinformation campaign"

"Disinformation campaign" means in other words "lies". So as Wikipedia should expose an impartial view, such a vocabulary can't be tolerated here. I am not standing with or against the WhiteHelmets, but you can't cite a source that says "they are liars" and so write it in a wikipedia article as "de facto" encyclopedic information.serhio ^talk 16:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've discussed this repeatedly and come to the same conclusion. If there weren't solid sources saying this, you'd have a point. But we have multiple reliable sources referenced in the article describing a systematic disinformation campaign. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm entirely independent and unbiased, only interested in truth, and have no knowledge of any disinformation campaigns. I watched the White Helmets movie that won an 'Oscar' on Netflix, and formed certain artistically critical opinions on it based on my experience of film making, editing, and a critical mind. I found it sloppily shot, and, despite a professional Netflix edit, the footage didn't bear up the hyperbole of the commentary. Much of the film was of a group of White Helmets on holiday in Lebanon, where they were 'trained' in fire fighting, despite never having the need to fight fires, and all footage of them 'at work' showed confusion and amateur histrionics, nothing like real first responders at all, amateur acting. If there was anyone on the stretchers they were rushing about with they were clinging on for dear life, one scene showed a child who almost fell off like a discarded prop. I decided to do some research, and eventually after some time, discovered an 'independent film maker' a woman, had made a film about them. This film showed they were actually the same people as Al Nusrah [aka Al Qua'da], identified by locals in the street she asked about them; 'They don't help us, they make videos' was a common quote. Then we were shown pictures of Al Nusrah terrorists, and another of White Helmets, the same faces were clear to see. One group photo showed a small boy, captured, covered in dust and being fondled by several of these terrorists as he sat frozen and clearly traumatised. They were later shown beheading him. One small boy appeared three times, wearing different clothes, being rescued from bombed buildings. He is either the unluckiest child in the world or a film extra used by these creatures for their own ends. Perhaps he's the unfortunate son of one of them. Remember the lad placed in the back of a van for the world's press to photograph as he sat there frozen in terror? That was them too. Still you along with the slack brained media still swallow this web of lies, and dismiss everything else as conspiracy theory, closed minds to anything but your perceived truth. Unfortunately it's starting to look as if things people say about Wikipedia are becoming true; unreliable and partisan, not a source to be trusted. This is now happening again. There they are in the recent scenes of the alleged Asad gasing, ruyshing about, hosing people down, many of the children merely looking confused. And some dead bodies which could have been shot anywhere and when. And on this basis we are about to go to war with Russia? The time when a ragtag gtang of deranged Islamist killers caused WW3 with a video camera! You couldn't make it up. PetePassword (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There is noting about reliability. You take sides. TheGuardian as is, is a "reliable" source, but it takes the UK(WhiteHelmets's main financial source)'s side, so this kind of allegation are not partial. What you have against "critics" vs "disinformation campaign"? Why Wikipedia should take side of the WhiteHelmets(Guardian), Damascus or Russia(RT) or anyone else ?! I don't see a reason to this discussion as it this calls into question the neutrality of Wikipedia articles. Give me some "reliable" sources of countries not involved in WhiteHelmet's activity, and I will agree with you, if not, I will continue to rollback that article to a neutral language. serhio ^talk 14:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is independent media and thus a reliable source compared to RT which is a state sponsored media. The Guardian does not fund the White Helmets and is not connected to the UK Government. It is not in any way involved in SCD activities. With all due respect, I suggest you carefully consider whether you may be biased towards these questions yourself. --GeCaHu (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

TheGuardian as is, is a "reliable" source, but it takes the UK - WhiteHelmets's main financial source side, so this kind of allegation are not partial

Typos aside (he clearly means "impartial") this is an excellent point. The Guardian's funding has mainly come from the US establishment's Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, run by the same people who shape foreign policy (if you doubt that, I'll be happy to show you the university scholarship showing these foundation's connections to imperialism). The Guardian is partnered with the state BBC and both parroted their government's lies in the lead up to Iraq regime change.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot deny that TheGuardian has a noticeable left-wing bias. (and besides, Jimmy Wales was formerly a member of the Guardian Media Group!) Theres a lot of things which define a reliable source. The thing that really differentiates NPR, NHK, BBC, and CBC-CA, all news organizations partly or fully funded from governmental entities from RT or Xinhua is fact-checking and willingness to withdraw incorrect reports. While the British government's display in the Iraq War can certainly be viewed as shameful, the majority of the reports broadcasted today are fact-checked, verified, and go through various other processes to ensure that they are legitimate. This goes similarly for the other news networks listed. In the same vein, I would consider FOX and CNN to both be reliable, given that even a modicum of fact-checking can go a long way. Both networks have experienced controversies (FOX and Seth Rich, CNN and well, geez, a little bit of everything), but they've corrected those in the long-term. (a single comedian cannot accurately represent FOX) This is what draws the line between more mainstream networks and "trash" like Breitbart and Mother Jones. Russia Today has published plenty of bullshit over the years, but what makes it unique is its refusal to retract these statements, and their connections with high-level Russian officials. I mean, when you're forced to register as a foreign agent, you know somethings gone terribly, terribly wrong in terms of your reliability. When you blame MH17 on America, you know somethings gone wrong. The only situation I feel in which its even remotely acceptable to cite RT is for statements from Russian officials. Ditto, to a lesser extent, with regards to Xinhua. (at least Xinhua doesn't poke its nose outside of China too much). Nonetheless, multiple other, reliable sources have been added, each pretty directly categorizing the White Helmets as a victim of a very well organised propaganda campaign orchestrated mainly by Assad and the Russians. The argument that TheGuardian isn't reliable doesn't have much effect when there are 4 other sources backing it up. My point still stands. Stikkyy t/c 20:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

According to award-winning journalist and former Guardian insider Glen Greenwald, The Guardian has engaged in "journalistic fraud" and never retracted it.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

None of this has to do with the White Helmets. If you want The Guardian to be labelled an unreliable source per Wikipedia consensus, then take this to WP:RSN where it belongs. Otherwise, this is all just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if you are trying to link this to the White Helmets. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And even if TheGuardian is unreliable, you still have to refute the other sources as well. Stikkyy t/c 06:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

First, assume good faith. Second, according to the Wikipedia content guidelines, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Wikipedia should not be treated as a mouthpiece for particular news organizations. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh on the Helmets. He is not a Russian agent.-

KK: In your article you state, “The White Helmets are known for its close association with Syrian opposition.” [White Helmets are the rebel-friendly civil defense teams that have been widely celebrated in the West and funded by the U.S. and UK governments, among others.] Could you elaborate on this group and what you know about them?

SH: The only thing I know about the White Helmets is they’re supported by our State Department and the UK...they are in rebel territory and they’re considered to be groups that work against Bashar Assad. That’s one reason we finance them. We’ve very mixed emotions on Assad. He’s the only game in town, but we don’t like that. He’s the only game in town, nobody else is going to win that place, nobody else is going to win that country. If America thinks they can grab a piece of Raqqa and use that as leverage against them, there’s going to be a war, we’re going to be in a war there.

I know by writing this piece I’m going to be called pro-Russia and pro-Syria and all that stuff. So be it. What can you do?

KK: You think the White Helmets serve a sort of propaganda function for the rebels?

SH: I don’t think there’s any question they do. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

SH: I don’t think there’s any question they do. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What are you arguing with this clause? That a well-respected figure has his own opinions regarding this organisation? This doesn't refute the point that there have been many, concerted campaigns to paint the White Helmets in a negative light, as evidenced by the sources. Stikkyy t/c 20:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: Stikkyy t/c 21:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is there needs to be some balance in this article that not every criticism of the Helmets for political partisanship, closely linked to their funding and founding, is mere "disinformation" coming from wingnut amateurs.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and add any well-sourced criticism of them to the "Controversies" section then. Agree with Stikkyy that this point doesn't refute that they are the target of a disinformation campaign, which is what we are discussing here. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It has been added several times. Like when the White Helmets were caught red handed as they were cheering for public executions (I remember adding that to the article), or when the funding stuff was added to the lead while using their own website as a source(!) (like here). Over and over again controversies seem to disappear from this article. Frankly, the only disinformation campaign I see is the one going on here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I should have emphasized well-sourced, as in criticism by reliable sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My bad. I replaced the diff. I remember Salon had republished an Alternet article written by Max Bumenthal and Ben Norton couple of days after the incident took place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well-sourced criticism such as this. Seymour Hersh's comments on the White Helmets can be added too imo since he is a notable figure. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Whilst describing it as a "disinformation campaign" may be a bit harsh, there isn't really any other way to describe the situation accurately. Stikkyy t/c 06:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to spin a conspiracy-theory against The Guardian, Snopes, Wired, and a pile of other Reliable Sources isn't going to work very well on Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Even Snopes says that its unproven. Do you even bother to read the sources you quoted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C000:995A:F566:ABFE:E388:6913 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Then why does Wikipedia have a long-standing article on Noam Chomsky's propaganda model, which is precisely the phenomenon I'm describing? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed previously rejected as WP:FRINGE. If not on this particular article then on the general subject of Russia and Syria on some other article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's on a different Talk page, I don't see the relevance, Marek. If it was on this Talk page, please supply a link.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Volunteer Marek, I notice you've reverted the Hersh quotations without responding to me. Does this mean that you've honestly neglected to supply a link to the previous discussion which you keep alluding to, or does it mean that you're lying through your teeth? I certainly hope it's not the latter.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If the different article is on the same subject then the same logic applies - it's WP:FRINGE. I'll look for it, but even without it, it's still fringe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not fringe. And you are stalling.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear what @GPRamirez5: is asking for here. The Hersh quote doesn't begin to refute the well-sourced fact that there is a disinfo campaign. Hersh is clearly not himself a good source on the WH, as the quote above explicitly says "The only thing I know about the White Helmets is---" - i.e. he admits to not knowing much about them. (His Pulitzer Prize was certainly not for his reporting on Syria.) So that quote is only relevant to show someone has briefly criticised them in an interview, but why his opinion, of all the opinions in the world, is particularly notable is hard to imagine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right that it isn't directly relevant to the disinformation allegation, especially if you consider "the terrorists" and "the opposition" to be two different things. It should probably be treated as a separate factor.

The problem is that, as Étienne Dolet pointed out, some editors conflate the unproven terrorism charges with the very well documented NATO-backed relationship and anti-Assad position. Hersh is relevant to the latter-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about, but that was discussed already, and the lead is just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the point about disinformation in the lead is so biased as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. I think those editors who are responsible for it being there should be closely scrutinised. I would suggest that it will be seen by many readers as so blatantly biased and will undermine public confidence in the reliability of Wikipedia. This would actually be a very good thing, so if editors are in the employ of governments they would do well to ask if what they are doing is counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.107.162 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. The introductory paragraph clearly indicates to the reader that this section in no way maintains a Neutral Point of View (per Wikipedia standards). I need to think about this, but it seems clear to me that a POV warning is needed on this section.Csdidier (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The information is a summary of a multitude of independent reliable sources, both cited in the article and not included, from numerous countries across the globe. Blogs, youtube, conspiracy-theory cites, and self-published sources, and the like, are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. According to the Press Freedom Index, Russian press ranks 148 out of 180 countries, among the worst on the planet. In a multitude of discussions at Reliable Source Noticeboard, consensus is well established that Russia Today and similar sources under the Russian government are considered reliable for quoting the position of the Russian government, but generally not considered reliable for disputed factual claims on Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This article clearly includes biased opinion. The article currently says, "The organisation has been the target of a disinformation campaign by supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Iran-sponsored Mehr News Agency and Russia-sponsored Russia Today (RT), with false claims of close ties with terrorist activities and other conspiracy theories." If Syria, the Russians and RT are employing a disinformation campaign regarding the White Helmets, the article should only say that these organizations have been "accused" of doing so. The article should NOT say that RT reports are "false", no matter how many sources claim it. Alsio, the use of the term "conspiracy theories" seems to me to be emotive language, crafted to provoke an emotional response. Let's not forget, claims from Western news sources can be disinformation too - as was shown in the claims made about WMDs in the Iraq War. Wikipedia needs to be better than this. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, if sources say, then so should we. "Conspiracy theories" is not emotive, it's simply descriptive. And again, it's the phrasing used by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a very troubling statement in the article lead, considering the highly politicized nature of this group and their connection to the US State Department via USAID and British intelligence, and their role in the high controversial and unverified claims of gas attacks. Selectively accepting only those sources which support the Regime Change narrative makes this article highly biased. It's unacceptable to dismiss the controversies by what are clearly political actors, as "disinformation". It's downright sinister. 99.224.23.65 (talk)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No Fly Zone

These two sentences are currently in the "Partnerships and funding" section: In May 2015 the head of SCD, Raed Saleh, and the head of Mayday Rescue Foundation, James Le Mesurier, met with some United Nations Security Council and European Union diplomats to argue for the enforcement of a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. The case for a no-fly zone was also made at a United Nations General Assembly side meeting in September 2015. I think there are a few problems. First, the claim made in the first sentence is not supported in the refence, which is an op ed by Saleh that does not mention a diplomatic event or Mayday or Le Mesurier. So if it stays here it needs a new (reliable) source. Second, do these relate to "Partnerships and funding"? The first sentence, assuming we can find a source, relates to someone from SCD doing something with someone from Mayday - but is that really "Partnerships and funding". The second sentence seems even less so, although possibly the event was a Human Rights Watch event, or at least Saleh spoke along with someone from HRW. Third, is this really notable? It's one opinion expressed by one key SCD figure, but does that make it notable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It clearly doesn't belong on the 'Partnerships and funding' section, and it's unclear if a not-implemented no fly zone warrants inclusion at all. I'll remove the sentences. Alsee (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

References

2018-05-04 US State Department stops funding the White Helmets

• https://www.rt.com/news/425810-white-helmets-us-funding-freeze/
• http://tass.com/politics/1002908 Russian diplomat grills US State Department on White Helmets abrupt aid cutoff
• https://www.heise.de/tp/features/US-Aussenministerium-hat-Zahlungen-fuer-die-Weissen-Helme-eingestellt-4042539.html

77.179.61.171 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the description of Snopes.com as an organisation is misleading in this context

The article contains this sentence, which I think is incorrect and needs to be worded differently:

"According to the fact-checking organisation Snopes.com..."

Snopes.com is not an organisation in a sense that it is somehow official source of information, on this particular subject, the very least. As far as I know, Snopes.com is non-governmental and its information is not verified or peer-reviewed by third party with any kind of authority on this matter. They are not a primary source of information so Snopes.com provides just collection of opinions or analyses about few handpicked articles they provide as sources. I don't find it convincing that they draw their conclusions from a mere 5 news articles, and not using a single primary source of information.

In current form, this description of the source as an "organisation" tries to give it more credibility than it deserves (to justify its usage as a source in the first place, perhaps?). It's just a website that started as "mythbuster" of rumours and urban legends. The fact that some articles have been cited by researchers or news sites does not mean that every article they publish are credible. As it is not officially NGO nor GO, I don't think Snopes.com should be described as organisation in context where the rest of the organisations mentioned are more official/credible, and thus the information they provide has more weight in them.

Overall, I disagree with the usage of this source altogether because it's not primary, or even secondhand, source. But that's a different matter, since I'm just random anonymous person who happened to read the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.115.20.232 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed "organisation" to "website", as you suggest. That is the description given in the Snopes.com article. I'm not sure I understand what you are insinuating in some of your other comments. Very few sources of information, including many sources that are generally considered reliable, are governmental or are peer-reviewed by third parties, and being a governmental source does not make a source reliable. There is nothing wrong in general with using non-primary and even non-secondary sources. What leads you to think they only reviewed 5 news articles? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Article biased towards White Helmets and its supporters

Shortly, this article has been written in a POV style, showing the WH as the "good cause NGO" and the other as liars. I can't see here any references at all about its detractors and the accusations against this organization about "the forces who drive it from behind". There are several web sources about this side of the issue. The article as is today is highly biased, something that's violating NPOV policy. I suggest to pick other sources not affiliated with US/Western/WH side and explain the position to balance the article. --Zerabat (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Pleas check WP:NPOV. Yes,according to majority of publications in independent and reputable media, this is generally a "good cause NGO", but sources like Sputnik and RT are indeed liars when it comes to a state-ordered campaign against whoever was officially declared an "enemy of the state". And it is described accordingly on this page. Hence this page was written exactly as WP:NPOV requires. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim of RT and Sputnik being "liars" is argument from repetition. This appraisal is common among sources favourable to western regimes or their beneficiaries such as the "moderate fanatics" in Syria. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It was you who started talking about "liars". This page tells "disinformation campaign". Please provide your sources, as requested by Neutrality below. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Zerabat, do you have any specific, actionable suggestions? A vague complaint about "Western" sources and a mention of "several web sources about this side of the issue" simply is not enough. (I am skeptical, to say the least, about "several web sources" - you've given us no cites or other information that would allow us to asset the reliability of those "web sources"). Neutrality^talk 18:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If one is looking for sources to make this article a bit more "balanced" and "accurate" there are a number of "western" sources that are listed here, good luck. Endercase (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I quickly checked and did not find anything. This is just an opinion by one man (no one knows about) posted on the internet. In his blog he posted numerous links to YouTube (copyright violations), so what? My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked thoroughly. It was a complete WASTE OF TIME. Wordpress and other blogs are not reliable sources. They are absolutely worthless on Wikipedia. The same goes for Youtube. We're not going to re-write the article on the Moon Landing because someone offers links to blogs and Youtube videos claiming it was a hoax. The one Reliable Source that was there merely duplicated what we already have in the article. Alsee (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@My very Best Wishes. Disinformation=Lies. It cannot mean truth. You cannot accuse an organisation of "lying" and corroborate this with the assertion that the claim is "unproven" as your revision aspires to do. First of all, Russian media says a lot of things about the White Helmets, not just one or two. With regards the funds they receive from western regimes, this has been demonstrated by RT by passages from the horse's mouth. With regards exaggerated speculation, this is different. But note that "unproven" does not mean the same thing as "proven spurious". If it were the latter, the Russian-Syrian news would not be able to carry on with that same assertion. But then, they don't exactly depend on everything they say about the Helmets to be true in order for their argument to be more sensible than the US/UK position. Furthermore, the Russian position on the White Helmets is shared by high profile people away from the Kremlin such as Jeremy Corbyn and more recently Roger Waters of Pink Floyd. One more thing. Some people here on the site like to play the "Russian media is not RS" card. Yet the source is often good enough to edit the details as "Russia spreads disinformation", and then try to have this trumped by western media (so-called "reliable") who deny the Russian position. The fact is that RT (if not Sputnik) watches over western media like a hawk, and every time RT is mentioned in the western press, the subject gets covered and corrected. It would probably be very easy to look back on YouTube or RT's website and find responses to their detractors, along with further assurances that their original assessment had been accurate. So let's have less of this "oh it was disinformation because rival sources say it hasn't been proven". You've got a point to make - so report it correctly. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do you think this is an adequate answer to the question asked by user Neutrality? I do not think so. Yes, "high profile people" may have a lot of personal views on a lot of subjects. Do their personal views belong to a page about subject X? Yes, maybe, if the celebrity happened to be an expert on the subject X. This is not the case here. Place it on the page about the celebrity, if this is something notable. But I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality's question is addressed to Zerabat and asks for specific suggestions. This leaves me little to really respond since I have been endeavouring to fix this problem. Firstly your point on high profile celebrities is ignoratio elenchi because the passage you are lauding confines the Syrian government evaluation to Iranian-Syrian-Russian press (I will use "Russian" by itself hereinafter) and to sources close to these networks. My point is that this is not so. Then we have to take into account what you are trying to expound. First, "Russia spreads disinformation but the claim is unproven". The bold words do not go hand in hand. Russian media says many things and there is every chance parts of it are false. What particular is disinformative? When we have established this, we next need to explore why it is disinformative. The best I am getting is because "reliable media claims ABC" and "unreliable Russian media claims XYZ" therefore ABC is true and XYZ is false. In reality this is a double-fallacy. Claiming that something amounts to disinformation and supporting this claim with the premise that it cannot be verified means that Russian media has made an unfounded allegation. To claim that the "unproven" assessment deems the Russian claim as "disinformative" simply because "hey you can't prove me wrong" is called argument from ignorance. Also, to bow to the judgements of opposition media is a classic case of begging the question. In truth, reports on the Helmets' conflict with one another and this is what needs to be reflected in the article. It is a severe breach of NPOV to try to make one superior to the other, and in frankness, the vast feedback on the Helmets which stretches from Russian media at one extreme to independent bloggers, publishers and celebrities at the other end demonstrates that the Syrian government standpoint is a far cry from FRINGE. Also, given Snopes is not quite as innocent as Snow White like some like to claim, even their judgement is a case of argumentum ad verecundiam. So it's argument from ignorance + one of the two other fallacies. Altogether, nobody has demonstrated disinformation and therefore the word should not be part of the article. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The texts about disinformation/propaganda campaign by Russia and other Assad "supporters" are already well sourced in the body of the page and in the lead (see this, for example). Perhaps one should add more content due to recent developments, but the newer sources ([9], [10], etc.) tell exactly the same and more. Or consider something like that: "Both allegations have been part of the pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign for a long time, and in February Russia Today and Sputnik already spread false information about a “provocation prepared by the White Helmets”.". Yes, it tells exactly: " disinformation campaign". My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack, you said The best I am getting is because "reliable media claims ABC" and "unreliable Russian media claims XYZ" therefore ABC is true and XYZ is false. You're close, except you're making the error of thinking "true" and "false".

• When "reliable sources say ABC", Wikipedia summarizes that reliable sources say ABC.
• When "unreliable sources say XYZ", Wikipedia does not cite or summarize unreliable sources. In effect, those unreliable sources don't exist.
• When "an editor tries to debate whether ABC / XYZ is true", we ignore them. We do not debate truth, we do not debate the underlying issue. We don't debate whether the moon landing happened or not. We don't debate whether evolution is valid or impossible. We don't debate whether global warming is real or a hoax. We won't debate what is or isn't disinformation. We won't debate whether abortion should be legal or whether it's murder. Don't waste your time trying to argue any of those things. Those arguments do not work here. We ignore them. Wikipedia's goal, Wikipedia's rule, is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say.

In most cases "summarizing reliable sources" is a very good approximation to "truth". However there will always be rare instances where reliable sources are wrong. We are not going to waste time on endless debates whether reliable sources are right or wrong on any given issue. We accurately inform the reader what reliable sources say. Alsee (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's as may be, but there is nothing more reliable about the favoured sources than there is "unreliable" about Russian media except opinion. Period. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"We don't debate whether the moon landing happened or not. We don't debate whether evolution is valid or impossible."

I missed the articles where Max Blumenthal and Stephen Kinzer said evolution and the moon landing didn't happen. Can you link to them? -GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pink Floyd don't need no thought control

Please can I get a firm consensus that Roger Waters Barcelona speech should be added to the controversy section.

"On Friday 13th April Roger Waters, former frontman of Pink Floyd got up on stage in Barcelona and denounced the White Helmets as a "fake organization" that provides propaganda for “jihadists and terrorists.” His attack was loudly cheered and applauded by approving crowds."[11]

I think it's quite controversial that most Pink Floyd fans think the White Helmets are terrorist auxilliaries. Failure to do so is concealing public opinion. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Stop wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Stop supporting terrorism. AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, folks, enough personal stuff. But I agree it's not even worth considering an ageing rock star's views on the White Helmets. There's no reason to include random celebrities' opinions on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NO. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. We cite the personal views of random celebrities. We especially do not cherrypick a celebrity to push a fringe POV. If for some reason we were to cite random celebrity commentary, we would be required to give precedence to the predominant celebrity position. So no, we're not going to spam the article with dozens of celebrity endorsements of the White Helmets.
Furthermore I want to draw attention to the insinuation that Wikipedia is part of some thought-control/concealing conspiracy, and what appears to be a pattern of across a number of articles of trying to subvert mainstream Reliable Source coverage. If an editor believes mainstream reliable source coverage is wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to try to fix or expose it. Alsee (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Haaretz article rebuts the claim that Waters is "a random celebrity":

"The ex-Pink Floyd singer became a political personality, using his fame and status to fight Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, and speaking on behalf of the BDS movement as well as Black Lives Matter."

Such is his activist standing that he was solicited by the White Helmets-affiliated Syria Campaign to endorse the group, and that is how his interest in the situation began.

This is not "cherry-picking", this is acknowledging a controversy involving a world-famous musician-activist which has been covered in one of the most respected publications on the planet. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

He is no more notable on this than huge numbers of celebrities, who may also be "political personalities", who have said positive or negative things about the WHs. George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Aziz Ansari, Daniel Craig, Zoe Saldana and Justin Timberlake are among those who have endorsed them (Clooney and Affleck are certainly "political personalities" too). Obviously many actual politicians have. If we included all of this stuff, there'd be no end to the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The support of White Helmets by Hollywood is self-evident from the Oscar voting, but if you want to list those names I have no objection (the article isn't that long). The fact that Waters dissents from other artist-activists is part of why this belongs in the "Controversy" section.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Funding has been frozen

Widely reported by many sources [12] - absolutely no reason to remove. Khirurg (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of sources covering it. The timeline here is quite interesting as well. I think it should also be noted that the funding was cut after the Douma incident. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Didn't you guys like once file an ArbCom case request together alleging tag-teaming by other editors? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? That has nothing to do with the content. It’s not like anyone here is bringing up the WP:EEML or anything either. Stick to the content. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What's this? An ad hominem? When the arguments run out, the ad hominems start. Khirurg (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you should know. You guys are hilarious. Tag-teaming? Who, us? Wait, wait, wait! I know the next step in this song and dance. Now, ummm, what was it now, "Khirurg", is it? Yeah, Khirurg will say "I'm not tag teaming, this article is on my watchlist! I even edited it before". Yes, Khirurg, you sure did! Twice even! Let's see, one of those times was... to revert me in support of Etienne Dolet, and then the second time was... holy crap! Can you guess??? To revert me in support of Etienne Dolet!. Mannnnnn, what a coinkidink! Only two previous edits to this article and by some cosmic confluence of fate, both of them ... reverting me to support Etienne Dolet in an edit war. But hey! Pointing out the obvious tag teaming, WP:GAMEing, and bad faithed editing is "ad hominem" or something.

And of course the fact that both of youse happened to edit over 80 of the same obscure articles, about 40 of which with the edits from one of you occurring less than an hour after the other one of you (see, that's how you can tell that this isn't just ye ol' vanilla tag teaming, where you just share a watch list - way too coordinated, so it's got to be off-wiki messaging. Yeah?). That's just a random coincidence as well! Cuz you know, Etienne Dolet and this Khirurg guy would NEVER tag-team or communicate off wiki. No! They only file malicious and spurious ArbCom case requests against OTHER editors, accusing THEM of tag-teaming. They would never do that themselves!

Like, please. Can you at least TRY to be a little less obvious about it? The way you do it, without any pretense is just sort of... I don't know, crass. If you're going to game Wikipedia rules, please at least exercise a bit of finesse, otherwise you'll make it hard for the admins and the busybodies to keep up those "Assume Good Faith" masks of hypocrisy on.

Anyway, you know very well what the argument is - this is WP:RECENT, as your own sources make clear. Ahem. "which effectively put a halt on $200 million in funding across the board." See? This was part of just a "across a board" halt in funding, but you're trying to pretend that the White Helmets were specifically targeted. Hmmm, what else do these multiple sources say. Ah yes. ""We are actively reviewing our current Syria assistance programs at the President's request, " and "The US jointly supports the White Helmets with other donors and we expect their operations to continue as a result of additional multilateral donations,"". And there's more "Saleh said the group does not receive direct funding from the United States, but rather, "from organizations and associations."" and " Saleh said he'd received promises from friendly governments -- including the United States -- to continue providing critical funding." Somehow that didn't make it into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENT? Nah, seems more like WP:JDL. The article doesn't say that the WH were "specifically targeted" or any such bs. Quit making stuff up. It just says, neutrally, that the State Department has halted funding to them, which is 100% true. Now, if you want to add the stuff you have italicized, I would be more than happy to work with you on that. But somehow I just have a feeling that adding that text wouldn't be to your liking either. Just a hunch. Khirurg (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

VM, I actually agree with everything you say (except for the first three paragraphs). We should add more details about the American government's funding of the White Helmets, whether that be the continuation of it or the lack thereof. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You want to at least reword it so that it accurately reflects the source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate which source and where says that "State Department announced" that they would freeze funding. The only thing that sources say about State Department is that they are "reviewing". Trump was the one that froze the funding. And it has nothing to do with the WHs themselves, but a general freeze in funding. And it's because Trump wants other countries to pay (surprise!). So yeah, it's still undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What it is, is it's reliably sourced and widely covered. I can see why some people would like to not draw attention to the fact the the White Helmets were funded by the US State Department, but that's the reality. Now if the problem is the "announced", we can just say "the State Department halted funding". The "not in citation given" tag is misleading and dishonest. Khirurg (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate which source and where says that "State Department announced" that they would freeze funding. THEN you can talk about "misleading and dishonest".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, if the problem is the word "announced", that can be easily solved. See above. Khirurg (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Then solve it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)