Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)

Removal of criticism by anonymous user

At 22:11, 16 September 2016‎ user Nev1 removed the following line, due to some sources being considered not valid.

" /> Opponents have accused them of being linked to Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda and of receiving US government funding. "

References

Having checked the links, and the video in youtube, it is clear that there is a controversy about this organisation. As reported by the Huffington Post IN, they wonder if they are superheroes or propaganda:

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/kabir-taneja/syrian-superheroes-or-propaganda-pawns-netflixs-documentary/

We do not know which of the sides is right. But such controversy deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia and not removed because of non-reliability of sources (there are 2 cited by the user, plus the huffpost I found).The controversy exists.

Green beret1972 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Sep 19 2016

Neither AFPEurope nor Global Research are reliable sources. A reference to Huffington Post would be acceptable, however it does not support the statement that there are any links with Al-Nursa, or with Al-Qaeda, or any funding from the US. In fact HP is decidely supportive of the White Helmets, saying "even if one was to consider all the various narratives around the White Helmets, they seldom come off as anything but an inspiring group of men who are completely worthy of a Nobel nod." Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are they not reliable? I am new to Wikipedia, this makes no sense. Syria is a war, and there are 2 sides in a war. If you only put sources from the West, which are aligned with the opposition, there will be no way to have criticism. The criticism and controversy exists. I don't say that the criticism is correct, but that there are critic voices. Thus a Criticism section should be open.Green beret1972 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of a prominent Russian newspaper saying this NGO is dubious. I will open the Criticism section based on this:

https://sputniknews.com/politics/20150908/1026752193/ngo-rescue-civilians-western-propaganda.html#ixzz3lAx78S1D

Again, I don't know whose side is right, but it is worthy enough to be mentioned in a Criticism section. Green beret1972 (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section

A criticism section has to be created based on the following:

It is a fact there is Criticism for this NGO, and there is controversy going on. Hence this article shouldn't hide this anymore. This doesn't mean the criticism is right. It means that it exists and can be true.

LINKS. One American, one Russian, of importance:

1) Ron Paul Institute, US: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/august/27/syria-the-propaganda-ring/

2) Sputnik, Russia: https://sputniknews.com/politics/20150908/1026752193/ngo-rescue-civilians-western-propaganda.html#ixzz3lAx78S1D

3) Huffpost IN: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/kabir-taneja/syrian-superheroes-or-propaganda-pawns-netflixs-documentary/3

The last one only reports the existence of controversy, while 1 and 2 clearly say the NGO is suspect

Green beret1972 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We’re getting into the sometimes tricky area of neutrality. Wikipedia articles need to be neutral and reliably sourced. However, the fact that there are divergent views on a topic does not mean the views need to be given equal weight. To begin with, including a section devoted to criticism’ is rarely an effective way to bring balance, even when started with the best of intentions. It robs events of their context and encourages one-sided content in that particular section because of its title. Criticism should be included where it can be reliably sourced, but it should be integrated with the rest of the article. The way balance is established is to look at how reputable sources represent a topic.

We should use reliable sources to guide what goes into the article. With this in mind it is therefore important to examine whether APFEurope, Global Research, Sputnik News, and the Ron Paul Institute are reliable sources.

To begin with APFEurope, headlines on their front page read “Video shows that, while Western Europe surrenders to Islam, some nations are determined to live”, “Young Irish men tear Politically Correct ‘gender’ fantasies to pieces!”, and “Euro-Jihad Threat Grows – New ‘refugee’ flood underway through Bulgaria”. APF is a far-right group and their news coverage is decidedly not neutral as evidenced by their headlines.

Global Research incorporates articles pushing conspiracy theories. As such when writing an encyclopedia article we should be looking for better sources.

Sputnik is reporting what Vanesse Beeley says, while the Ron Paul Institute’s piece is written by Beeley herself. Beeley’s interpretation of the situation seems to be a minority one. Finally, the Huffington Post reduces any disagreement about the group to the level of YouTube comments. To be a bit reductive, a mixed reception of a Netflix documentary isn’t noteworthy. This article should reflect what the mainstream sources say. Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

These are just a few sources, and there are more online. Amnesty International, to name one example, has a criticism section and it is a much more neutral organisation than White Helmets. This NGO here is operating only in the rebel side in Syria and thus Criticism should be included. Green beret1972 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are mainstream sources they can be integrated into the article, but a criticism section would unbalance the article. Nev1 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Even more astonishing, US spokesman Mark Toner says the leader of White Helmets got the visa revoked to enter the US. This raised questions because of possible links to extremism: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-state-department-bans-leader-white-helmets-giving-group-23-million/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green beret1972 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasons the visa being declined were never established so any suggested reasons are speculation. Moreover, Tonner said "We’ve seen no action on the part of this group writ large that indicates in any way that they’re nothing but an impartial group that – like any humanitarian organization – works across lines of control and is in contact with a range of groups to facilitate their life-saving efforts". Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Green beret1972: You are correct about the jetzt.de story, it does say that opponents of SCD accuse them of being sympathisers of IS. However, criticism sections are not good practice because they are typically unbalanced. In addition, what have the responses been to these accusations? Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

More criticism

The criticism section should be expanded. In German media and news are some good articles, exposing the White Helmets http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/49/49562/1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

seconded. Half the world have seen the damming and exposing videos on these US-UK oaid charlatans. Please refrain from using Wikipedia for pure pro-US warmongering propaganda for "regime change" anywhere and everywhere they please. From Norway this loks like an attempt to pander to the most naive among the englishspeaking peoples and populations in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.235.205 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't even the real Syrian Civil Defense Organization

If you go to http://www.icdo.org/en/ which is the official page of the International Civil Defense Organization, and keeps track of member nations' civil defense organizations, you will see that Syria already has a civil defense organization which officially joined the international organization way back in 12/09/1972. The ICDO seems to have a wikipedia page in the german-language section, but not in English: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Defence_Organisation

At icdo.org, if you mouse-over Syria on the map, and select "Read More", it redirects to this url: http://mod.gov.sy/index.php?node=554&cat=3251 The evidence is compelling that this is the real official civil defense force, both by the nature that it is the one recognized by the ICDO, and also that it is hosted on a syrian government website. If the white helmets are not the official civil defense force, then what exactly are they?

The fact remains that the white helmets are not the official Syrian Civil Defense Organization, and attempts to pass it off as if it is seem very very strange to me. Rawb (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The article states "SCD is not affiliated to the International Civil Defence Organisation, nor is it connected to the Syrian Civil Defence Forces which have been a member of the ICDO since 1972." Nev1 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This is advanced Propaganda

This article reads like PURE advanced "soft" power propaganda.

The organization in question is being depicted and portrayed as if they were the official Syrian Civil Defense without qualifiers. They are obviously NOT. Syria HAS a LARGE and REAL civil defense force. This page should NOT be at the top of searches for the OFFICIAL and officially RECOGNIZED Syrian Civil Defense force. The REAL Syrian civil defense force was a cosignatory to the late 1940's creation of the international organisation for civil defense forces. I'm not donating a single dollar to wikipedia until some serious adult cleans up this obscene attempt at using wikipedia for propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.235.205 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Shameless propaganda

This article is a joke.

White Helmets are a set of props, including some expensive video equipment, donated to al Qaeda purely for the purposes of making anti-Syria propaganda . Have a look at their Omran video and then tell me that it is anything more than a promotional photoshoot. One of the photographers posted on his facebook page a selfie with the same people who chopped the head of 12 year old Abdullah Issa.