Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)

"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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ([1], [2], 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)

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 [3].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.