Talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

To the reviewer of this page
I volunteered to help Hrdap fix this article up since many of the references are in Swedish. I started by sorting out and fixing the references and notes, but in doing so I found that all of the reliable secondary sources available online only write about the persons belonging to the organization and their work, not the SWEDHR itself. The only sources where the organization is mentioned is at the SWEDHR's website (primary source) and social media (Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.) and those are not considered reliable sources. I have search online for more reliable refs about the organization, but no luck so far.

So, I leave it up to the reviewer to decide whether the organization as such is notable enough for an article. If the article is accepted, I will return to it and fix up the rest of the references. Best, w.carter -Talk  11:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, W.carter. You have done a terrific job improving the draft. I thank you sincerely. Even if I understand your point, I disagree on whether this organization would have questionable importance only because MOST secondary sources refers mainly to notability of achievements by the organization's participants – achievements which are precisely on THAT field (the specific unique field of this organization). I will see what can I do about the secondary sourcing of SWEDHR activities you raise. In the meantime I would like to ask that the article remain in draft-form until the issue is addressed. I also wonder, as I referred in my first message in Teahouse, how come that there is a number of HR-organizations with articles in Wikipedia whose notability criteria, as sustained by secondary sources, is not only unclear, but far beyond what is stated in the draft on the SWEDHR article (a sample of these organizations listed in "Three questions on a newly created article", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions). I had also contacted SWEDHR on the issue of the logo you took up before – no reply yet.
 * Please keep in touch.
 * Thanks again, and best wishes
 * PS. I added "MOST secondary sources", since for instance the organization WikiLeaks have specifically referred to SWEDHR in social media, and even publicized the organization's manifest. It is in References & Notes in the article's draft.
 * Hrdap (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is ok, but please keep in mind that we are only referring to reliable secondary sources, and "social media" is usually not that as per WP:NOTRELIABLE as I stated on your talk page. Please read that. I'll have to sign of for now, see ya' later, w.carter -Talk  12:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As said in the edit summary, new better secondary sources are apparently on their way. Best, w.carter -Talk  19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

To the reviewer of this article draft, from the article’s creator
This draft it is a completely new text with respect to the one original published. In waiting for the review of this draft, I will continue finding sources apart of the 32 that already are in the article, paying particularly attention on secondary sources mentioning the organization itself instead of its participants. The only criticism to the new article has been so far the valuable observations by w.Carter. Nevertheless, his criticism was not that the article lacks enough references (30 references have been added to the original list) neither that the article do not have secondary sources. His observations were that, in his view: a) secondary references in the article are related to the researchers participating in the organization and not to the research organization itself; and b) he disapproved as secondary source the using of an information about Swedhr published by the organization WikiLeaks through its channels in social media. Regarding the notability issue, w.Carter did not pass judgement himself on whether the article would meet such criteria. What he wrote was, "I leave it up to the reviewer to decide whether the organization as such is notable enough for an article." Further, w.Carter wrote in my Talk page: "I'm not questioning whether the organization is important or not, it's certainly doing a good job, but we need it verified in some way."

I will be happy to meet w.Carter’s criticism, and as I have already expressed to him, everybody has to win that Wikipedia has increased the requirements for new articles – as he informed me. The text in the new article has been proofread, sub-sectioned, issues of consistence addressed, and the layout improved by a senior editor, w.Carter, to whom I thank. Hrdap (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources updated
Posted in the article a new secondary source mentioning public activity of the organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. Hrdap (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Unknown to Swedish doctors
I am a Swedish GP, member of our two big medical organizations, also interested in and a member of several doctors' NGOs. Not until today I have heard about this organisation that seems to have been founded only in beginning of 2015 (twitter). It has never been presented in our medical paper. It is not affiliated to the Swedish Medical Organisation, neither to the Swedish Society of Medicine. I don't know how many members it has, and I have not seen the statutes. I doubt it is registered as an organization. Probably it is a network, not an organization. Most of the persons behind it are rather unknown, a few have been rather controversial, and one seems to be a journalist. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So Swedish Doctors for Human Rights did not exist before Ingrid Eckman discovered its existence? That nonsense-argument could hardly be a subject of a comment at an encyclopedia Talk page. For this is what in Logics is called "Fallacia argumentum ad Ignorantiam".


 * Second absurdity: Why should the organization SWEDHR need first to be presented in the journal that Ingrid Eckerman called "our medical paper" (Läkartidningen) in order to be acknowledged as existing? In the first place SWEDHR is not an organization of physicians, but formed by doctors (PhD's) of different disciplines and which also include medical doctors. This is clearly stated in the original version of the article before the clutter (The info. is sourced in the organization's Manifest found in the article's original Reference list). Besides, the journal Läkartidningen mentioned by user Ingrid Eckerman has indeed published articles authored my members of the organization SWEDHR (See reference list of the original article).


 * Further, and most important, according to the Swedish Authority dealing with "Ideella organisationer", Swedish Doctors for Human Rights fully meets the requirements as organization, and therefore what user Ingrid Eckerman writes on this item is not only misleading, but untruthful. The statement from the mentioned Swedish authority, made by officer Alexandra Stamenkovic, is found at . At the site is also given that Ingrid Eckerman has been clarified on these items after questions she sent to the vice-chairman of the organization, Karolinska Institute professor Anders Romelsjö.


 * Finally, user Ingrid Eckerman tries to discredit the organization SWEDHR by referring, untruthful again, "Most of the persons behind it are rather unknown, a few have been rather controversial, and one seems to be a journalist." Any one searching in Google scholar could find the prominent works of most of SWEDHR key persons listed in the article Infobox. Some of them have deserved bio articles in the Swedish Wikipedia. And Eckerman knows she is lying when she affirms "one seems to be a journalist". Why does not she name who is that "journalist", or what is her source, so Wikipedia editors or readers could check further? Why Eckerman does not specify what is the "controversial" about "persons behind SWEDHR"? What is in fact controversial are partly the human rights violations that this organization has dared to expose, including wrong-doings by some Swedish authorities of the past. Corollary, what has been controversial is that Swedish-based human rights organizations – full or partial financed or sponsored by Swedish governmental agencies or corporations, have remained silent towards those transgressions. Ingrid Eckerman is part of that establishment and it would be understandable that she is sensitive to the exposures done in the SWEDHR Manifest. But what it is unacceptable here in Wikipedia (and also at any Swedish court of justice), is that Ingrid Eckerman indulges in smear (förtal) and untruthful statements in trying to suppress a "competitive" organization viewed as a political "threat".


 * Hrdap (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Very new organization
It was founded in February-March 2015. I tried to make clear what was made before the organization/network existed, and what has been done in the name of SWEDHR. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong, the organization was built up in September 2014. And the notable should be not how young the organization would be, but the quality and amount of activities the organization has managed to implement in such relative short time!
 * Hrdap (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits by user Ingrid Eckerman reverted on the base of clutter and untruthful statements
Conflict of interests? Ingrid Eckerman holds a paid assignment as editor (redaktör) of a Swedish organization called “Swedish Doctors for the Environment”. This organization (in Sweden, Läkare för miljö) reports having a drastic decrease in membership, and it has had an average of only 13 members attending to their yearly conferences (årsmöte) during the past years. Their financing, of which according their yearly economic report goes in the main to expenses by the board meetings, travel and the redaktor's assignments, is done by collecting relatively high fees from members (in comparison with other HR organizations) and by seeking extra funding from governmental institutions. Symptomatically, a first text that Eckerman erased from the Wikipedia article on SWEDHR during her cluttering assignment was the Note: "While Swedish Doctors For Human Rights claims totally independence from government, (SWEDHR) has pointed out that human-rights NGOs established in Sweden are at least partially financed by the Swedish governmental institutions, or represent official Swedish foreign policies." In fact, the organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights has publicly disclaimed why they do not collect membership fees neither seek external funding:

"At difference with other organizations of this type in Sweden, SWEDHR a) do not administrate funds of any kind, b) it do not hold neither asks economic sponsoring from any governmental, corporative or private institution; c) it do not collect fees (meddlemsavgift) from its supporters; d) it do not campaign on economic-related issues associated with our HR endeavours. We also believe that abstaining from the aforementioned possibility of external contributions is one way of maintaining absolute independence and credibility regarding unbiased reporting of HR issues."

Not surprisingly, Ingrid Eckerman has publicly reacted in Sweden to the establishment of this government-independent NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights through a number of comments sent to blogs or to key persons relevant to that organization in Sweden. There, she has tried to question even whether SWEDHR is having legal organization status (issue already rebutted and clarified to her on the base of a statement by an officer of the Swedish authority in charge of the register of this kind of organizations, “Ideella föreningen”. See ''Reply by SWEDHR to items raised by Ingrid Eckerman'.

Also here in Wikipedia, as user Ingrid Eckerman, she has trying through malicious editing to make compatible the article on SWEDHR with her agenda, or personal opinion, that the article's subject would not be an organization (assertion that proved to be false). Hence, user Ingrid Eckerman simply suppressed the section headed “Organization” (originally created by user W.carter) and replaced it by “Background”. She also eliminated section “Controversies” (which highlighted a polemic of SWEDHR's leading professors with former Foreign minister Carl Bildt) to converted it in just a background's item. Ensuing, in subsequent edits she moved references with secondary sources citing SWEDHR as organization, for instance a publication in Dagens Medicin, a Swedish leading medical journal.

In further editing, user Ingrid Eckerman erased secondary sourced information that documented principal human-rights activities of SWEDHR beyond the one and only HR case that according to her (untruthfully again) the organization has been active with. With doing this, yet one secondary source was deleted from the Reference list and another item from Notes. The deleted secondary source referred the denouncing done by SWEDHR of the participation of Swedish officials in the extraordinary rendition of prisoners (during the former CIA program) from Swedish territory, eventually transported to interrogation/torture centres elsewhere.

It is demonstrative that such edit summarized by Ingrid Eckerman as "Erased a paragraph without content.", consisted in erasing a text containing nothing less than "exposures done by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights regarding rendition of prisoners by Sweden". This is exactly the kind of cover up that government-sponsored HR organizations in Sweden have been accused of indulging with, and at the same time one main reason for the "necessary" foundation of SWEDHR, according to their foundation manifest. In the document it is read: "The stances of these HR-organizations do not appear to differ in essence with the Swedish government, particularly the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

Eckerman also cluttered the introduction paragraph with misleading information about a non-pertinence of SWEDHR to certain professional associations (she inserted the extemporaneous statement, “SWEDHR is not affiliated with the Swedish Medical Association nor the Swedish Society of Medicine”), while in fact, SWEDHR (a research-academic and outmost HR-activist entity) has nothing to do with such professional unions, such as the Swedish professional association for physicians. She also added the tautology, “SWEDHR’s statements represent solely the members of this organization (SWEDHR)", which is self-evident.

These edits by user Ingrid Eckerman are not only misleading, but clutter and smearing too. They do not only produce a chaotic and contradicting information. For instance, the last commented edit gives the impression of “spuriousness” ascribed to an organization by hinting it has not been accepted or recognized by established associations of the same kind. The truth is that SWEDHR, a research organization, is neither claiming being a professional organization of physicians, or that its ranks are composed solely by physicians. Which is not the same that denying that contacts do exist with such institutions. In fact, it is documented at SWEDHR website (Media / Miscellaneous) that the journal of the Swedish Medical Association wrote the following in an email sent to SWEDHR: “SWEDHR is welcome to return with newly information on the case (Dr Fikru Maru case, formerly imprisoned 23 without trial in Ethiopia) or if (SWEDHR) would be engaging in yet another case of interest for Läkartidningen’s readers”.

Yet through another edit, user Ingrid Eckerman grossly mislead the reader by giving as SWEDHR's only activity the HR campaign around the case of Dr Fikru Maru (formerly in pre-trial detention during 23 months without trial). This is contradicted by the multiple individual and country cases denounced by SWEDHR for instance in their online publication Research & Report. This info could not be have ignored by Ingrid Eckerman, as she was using the same website in reference to other asseverations.

I will now proceed to report user Ingrid Eckerman to Wikipedia administrators. According to Wikipedia rules, a consistent and repeated clutter – aggravated if the cluttering would intend to fit with personal agenda or institutional conflict of interests. Repeated cluttering can cause blocking.

Hrdap (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
Since the AfD discussion's decision was to keep this article, I think we need to clean it up heavily to meet WP standards. As it stands, it reads like an advertisement drawing from self-referential sources, with an unnecessary amount of emphasis on the credentials of its founder, who has his own page. I will list the changes I make here. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Here are my recent edits.
 * From "debate and controversies", removed debates entered into by individual members while not representing the organization (a Twitter exchange with a Swedish politician, and a dissenting opinion to Swedish Amnesty's position on Julian Assange). diff
 * Rewrote the description of the organization's letter to DN on Swedish NATO membership to a more neutral language, more correctly reflecting the sides taken in the debate. Also rephrased the claim that the organization engaged in a debate with professor Agrell to a more neutral tone.diff
 * Cleaned up references relating to the Fikru Maru issue, removing links to the organization's web site and replacing extraneous claim that the open letter was cited with a simple refernce to the independent publication.diff Removed claim of correspondence with the Swedish government, which was only supported by the organization's own site.
 * Minor cleanup, article had been broken by earlier edit.diff
 * Cleaned up section describing the organization's condemnations of the MSF hospital bombings.diff 1diff 2diff 3
 * Rewrote section describing the organization's statements on the Valentina Lisitsa Toronto episode to more neutral language.diff 1diff 2
 * Added a sentence describing the organization's total lack of recognition from the Swedish medical and human rights establishments.diff
 * Ylleman (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected claim that the organization expressed humanitarian concerns; they in fact argued against the USA supporting the Ukraine against Russia. diff Removed "unreliable source", since on this occasion NewsVoice is reliable: it wasn't a story by NewsVoice but a published letter.diffYlleman (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I think you and others fixed it, and the tags about multiple problems can now be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Issues addressed?
With the recent edits by Gamesmaster G-9 and myself, I think the article is now in fairly good shape. Can we consider the multiple issues addressed? Ylleman (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ylleman. I did some additional changes. Can you plz help me with the templates? I don't understand why I don't success. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Ineck. I cleaned up the page a little. Let me know if I can help with any more formatting. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Something is missing. How many members are in this organization? Can it be the case of a "fake organization" that includes only five or six members? My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the number is nine but other than that I think you're right. The "About Us" section of their web site has no mention of the number of members. The organization has engaged in a very limited number of issues and the only people I can find issuing any sort of statements on behalf of it or identifying as members of it are three or four of the founders. In addition, I can't find an organization number (sw "organisationsnummer") for it, which indicates it isn't registered as a legal entity (which isn't a legal requirement for an organization to exist, but necessary for things like opening bank accounts, entering into contracts and holding assets like membership fees). Ylleman (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

SWEDHR reacts to Wikipedia edits
SWEDHR is not happy with our edits to the page, as you can see in this piece on The Indicter. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * .. something I totally understand. IMO, Wikipedia was into libel territory, the it called it "Propaganda organization", just for a start. Huldra (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Multiple RS currently used on this page describe it essentially as a propaganda organization. We tell what reliable sources tell. The name of organization and their own claims are not really relevant. It behaves as a front organization for RT (TV network) . My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternate opinion: the truth has a pro-Russia bias, and anyone not somehow controlled by the Western system will reach similar conclusions. Not to say they always do for the right reasons, etc. but ... visual analysis and best evidence usually leads to a similar position. That's from experience. It doesn't get reported in "reliable" (corporate-controlled western) media, but it seems to be real anyway, FWIW. So when someone offers a view that's similar to Russia's, I know that has more possible reasons than their being a deliberate front for Russian lies. If you others refuse to see that possibility and leap to agency theories, so be it. We all have our own opinions. --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, according to publications, such as that one (sorry, I prefer reading Russian), this is an "alternative" (to Amnesty International) organization that promotes "alternative truth" about human rights violation (it tells about itself "alternative NGO" here). The statements by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights were heavily misused by RT propaganda according to the same ref. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't read Russian, but I do read Swedish, and I am rather horrified that we use Dagens Nyheter as a RS here, in the lead, no less. FWIIW: it has a reputation for accuracy somewhat below that of Daily Mail. Huldra (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source I quoted (RFE/RL) tells something similar to this Swedish newspaper. The SDHR is a barely notable organization and therefore usually quoted and discussed only by something like RT and Sputnik. It's hard to find better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not usually have references in the lead. Now we have two, and at least one of those (I do not read Russian) has been countered by SWEDHR the next day,  here. So we allow the accuser to be quoted in the lead, but not the defence? This stinks. Either that lead has to be rewritten, or It will get a "biased"-tag, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Dagens Nyheter is a bad source? Did other sources describe it as a newspaper promoting misinformation? I do not see it. "The Insider" was described as publishing misinformation for political reasons, for example in the RFE/RL reference I included. Hence this is not an RS, especially about itself and about business of its parent organization. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dagens Nyheter is a Swedish tabloid, and the  RFE/RL I cannot read. And it is not "The Insider", but the indicter.  And please read WP:SELFSOURCE: what I suggested as a lead, was well within that. What you want, is to have two attack pieces in the lead. This really will not do, so I will   tag the article. Perhaps time for a RfC?   Huldra (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the line "SWEDHR and its members reportedly lodge claims outside their areas of expertise," is just from the writer in Dagens Nyheter; no  medical personnel is quoted as saying this. Again, this simply will not do. Huldra (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you can not provide any publications criticizing this newspaper as unreliable. OK, but there are other sources telling the same, such as that one and RFE/RL. In particular RFE/RL tells that the "Swedish Doctors" makes judgements outside their area of expertise, in addition to other criticism. This is not just per Dagens Nyheter. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, citing Arab News (it is owned by a son of the Saudi king...), hardly strengthen your cause. (Even Volunteer Marek agrees as much, see his 00:50, 27 April 2017 remark). And do that RFE/RL cite any medical personal for their claim? If so, please name them. Huldra (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, according to publication in RFE/RL, Marcello Ferrada de Noli is a specialist in the fields of social medicine, epidemiology and medical statistics. He never had a practice as a medical doctor, he is not a specialist in chemical weapons, and he never visited war zones. Hence he is not qualified here. He referred to an opinion of another person, but that person remained anonymous. Finally, there are factual errors made in publications by "Indicter" and in claims by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, for example, about chlorine and opiates, according to the publication. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If de Noli had stepped outside his "juristriction", so to speak, then why is it not possible to get some named expert in the area to say so? I am not impressed by anonymous slander, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These claims by "Indicter" and by Ferrada de Noli do not belong to science. If he was doing a scientific research and published his work about this incident in a peer reviewed journal, that would be a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ....but claims by anonymous persons are to be in the lead of this article? Seriously? Huldra (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a name of the author, but the author does not need to be a scientist, because he is not judging on scientific matters, but only summarizes something published by others. None of that was published in scientific journals. The "Indicter" is in essence self-publishing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it is self-published by a group of quite distinguish medical people, in addition to de Noli, you have people like Anders Romelsjö (professor emeritus  at Karolinska Institute)  and Marita Troye-Blomberg (professor, Wenner-Gren  Institute), and you want   claims against them, made by anonymous persons, or persons paid by the Saudi royal family to be in the lead? Again, seriously? Huldra (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. This is not anonymous in RFE/RL. A professor commenting outside his area of expertise does not deserve any more respect than a journalist. Maybe just the opposite. Three independent sources with different backgrounds tell the same, and all of them qualify as RS, or at least you did not provide any publications that disputed their RS status. Funding of a source does not matter. Only reputation does. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have said it before: if, say, Arab News is  WP:RS, then so is, say is  RT (TV network). At least at RT you are not publicly whipped if you write anything the authorities disapprove of. In Saudi Arabia you commonly are.  (See, say Raif Badawi). Seriously, do you really want to count the spokespeople of one of the most despotic and undemocratic countries in the world as  WP:RS??  Huldra (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let's assume for a minute that Arab news are as "reliable" as RT. But RT (TV network) is extensively used for sourcing in WP. Currently, several thousand WP pages are linked to it. But I do not think this is such a big problem. Using sources of "limited reliability" is actually fine, but only if they make a claim that turned out to be consistent with other, more reliable sources, such as let's say RFE/RL. That is exactly what happens here. Therefore, using Arab News is fine in this case and using the Swedish newspaper is also fine. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider the  Arab News and  RT (TV network) as  WP:RS, as to the Saudi and the Russian views, respectively. To think the the Saudis, who have spent millions, if not billions on the Syrian opposition to Assad, could produce anything remotely  WP:RS on anyone voicing criticism to the Syrian opposition, say, such as  SWEDHR....well, if you  believe that, then I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn  to sell you.  Interested? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just two things. 1. If you are telling that particular media express "the Saudi and the Russian views" (meaning views by their governments), they are biased/questionable sources. Good sources generally do not express views by "their" governments, even if some of them are funded through US Congress. They just provide information. 2. Something like modern Russian television (most of it) is not a news/journalism source, but a propaganda organization. The difference is the purpose: the purpose of the propaganda is not to provide information, but to brainwash the reader/listener, i.e. to disinform him on certain political subjects (other 90% subjects can be fine) and (which is most important!) to incite certain feelings, such as hatred, fear, proudness for the Leader or for the country, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I recall around 2003, or 2004, I read that 60-70% of the Egyptian people thought that Israel/US were being the 9/11! (I’m quoting from memory here)...but then, we don't think that Egypt has an especially free press, then, do we? However, at the very same time, pretty much the exact same number of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein were behind the 9/11! No, I’m not joking. So that free press in the West....has a, shall we say, less than stellar history when it comes to informing people about the Middle East. (Remember Libya? Remember how "everyone" was convinced that Muammar Gaddafi  was about to massacre his own people in 2011? Well, that turns out to be not  true, either.) Huldra (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This argument has gone on far too long, and has gone way past the point. Putting aside Huldra's personal opinions about the relative bias of different news sources, I see no reason to modify the lead. The fact that it is a propaganda website needs to be made clear up front.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By labelling them propaganda website you are getting  into slander-land. So far, in spite of all the billions which have been spent on anti-Assad information/propaganda, not a single named expert, AFAIK, have contradicted them. If that was so, they should of course be in the article. But anonymous sources/persons? Really? It is normal that NGOs are allowed to define themselves in the lead, apparently that courtesy is not extended to this group. Why? Huldra (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the specific Wikipedia policies that you are citing here.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You may start with WP:Lead, and continue with  WP:Attack. I am still waiting for some named experts to contradict them?   Huldra (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is completely consistent with the guidelines laid out in WP:Lead. The treatment here is no different from Natural News or WorldNetDaily, for example. I don't see a problem. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ...the difference is, of course that the above sites have been criticised by named experts. Natural News has e.g. been slaughtered  by people like  David Gorski and  Steven Novella, whose criticism is quoted in the article. Who are the experts who have criticised SDHR  the  the same manner? I don't know if they exist, but I do know that they for sure are not in the article... Listen, I don't know much about SDHR, until a few days ago I had never heard about them. But googling some of them, I find at least three of them to be quite distinguished  medical professors, at top Universities/Institutes in Sweden. Do you seriously think  they should be treated the same way as the persons behind Natural News or WorldNetDaily?  Huldra (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I think they should be treated the same way as the organizations I mentioned? Yes, absolutely, without a doubt. The board members are a motley crew of retired professors in fields as varied as epidemiology, dentistry, and molecular biology. Not one of them has any research experience in the field of human rights, and there is not a single serious work of research that they have cited for their rather outlandish opinions. In fact, we are being generous in referring to this as an "organization", when it is really just a blog run by one man - Marcello Ferrada de Noli - with occasional pieces by his friends. The man himself is a notorious self-promoter, who has been extolling his own achievements on Wikipedia for years now without being caught, until the recent publicity that he received because of his appearances on Russian TV, at which point a number of editors (including myself) started digging into his claims - all of which fall apart upon scrutiny. He had previously claimed to be a "founder" of the Chilean MIR, a participant at the Russell tribunal, and the first professor to have a blog(!) SWEDHR is just another one in a series of websites he has created, including numerous blogs, a page dedicated to an Italian explorer from whom he apparently has descended, the Indicter magazine (which spouts one crazy conspiracy theory after another). Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, de Noli is not "noteworthy", while, say  Bana al-Abed  and Ibrahim Qashoush are? Lol.  Wikipedia is really funny at times. The Saudis  have spent their money well, it seems. And I am still waiting for that medical specialist who points out any mistakes in the SWEDHR report. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (PS: As for MIR:  Back in the day, in the 1960, 70s and 80s,  personal names would NEVER, EVER occur on the MIR documents from that era, they were all hiding behind names like "The executive  committee", or something similar.)
 * That's a convenient excuse if I ever heard one.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to flog a dead horse here, but FWIW, referring to Dagens Nyheter as a tabloid strongly indicates some bias or agenda other than improvement of a Wikipedia article. DN and Svenska Dagbladet are Sweden's two nationwide "morning" daily papers, as opposed to the "evening" papers (Swedish term for tabloids) Aftonbladet and Expressen. The vast majority of Swedes consider DN (liberal) and SvD (conservative) serious mainstream publications, only ranking below the public service broadcasters in terms of credibility. DN/Ipsos "confidence in media 2016", Swedish Ylleman (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Khan Sheikhoun attack and related errors I just fixed
Last paragraph of the controversies section said: "In April 2017, after the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in Syria, SWEDHR claimed in their magazine The Indicter that the attack was staged by the Syrian volunteer civilian defense group, the White Helmets[8]." I didn't think they really said that, went to check the citation, and it's an article by me (Adam Larson), written just before the KS attack, run about the same time, regarding three years of alleged chlorine attacks, which I did not blamed on the White Helmets directly. Therefore, inaccurate characterization corrected. Does my humble article even deserve a citation here? Perhaps, I'd say, but ... it's just not the news it's presented as, so maybe not. If anyone thinks Indicter runs article with detailed refutation of chlorine gas allegations and evidence terrorists were behind all those, feel free, and cite my article. Is there anywhere they blames the KS attack on the WH? As soon as that's found, someone could re-add it with the correct citation.

"The organization had previously accused the White Helmets of having ties to Al-Qaeda and the Al-Nusra Front." Changed a bit, forgot to add a citation and link, will next. In trade for the one I cut, by me. no citation, but accurate enough, as well as true. "These articles were heavily covered by Russian government-funded media, and Dr Ferrada de Noli was interviewed about his view that the attack was probably caused by the Syrian rebels and not the government[1]." Sounds fair, but I altered the wording a bit. Government-funded isn't universal to the Russian sources, and (alternative) non-Russians have also re-published the claims, with no known Russian Moolah involved. I also don't get paid by Russia or anyone but my employer at an unrelated menial job. FWIW. --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since when is a view of some became view of all - more facts and not more opinions
In article it was given a following sentence: Despite claiming to have independent views, the organization is viewed by mainstream organizations as a Russian propaganda site,[2][3][4] because the views presented by it are consistently in line with those of the Russian government, and are often cited by Russian pro-government media.[5][6]

I changed that to: Despite claiming to have independent views, the organization is viewed by some organizations as a Russian propaganda site,[2][3] including one based in New York founded by former BBC reporter that deals from US only with European and Eurasian stories of their preferences[4] because the views presented by it are consistently in line with those of the Russian government, and are often cited by Russian pro-government media.[5][6]

It is not viewed by all mainstream organizations as propaganda. That is a lie. And I have given background of one of sourced media used to confirm claims about propaganda in same sentence with some details about a source. Loesorion (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty clear example of editorializing. First, all mentions of SWEDHR in mainstream media refer to it as a Russian propaganda site, so changing the word to "some" implies that opinion is divided, which is not true. Secondly, the line about Coda is irrelevant to this article and was inserted purely as an attempt to discredit them by association. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Necessary edits
I saw that this article has not been updated, in the main, since May 20117, at the time the article’s subject (SWEDHR) had existed only about two years, or less than half of its current existence. As per 17 Feb 2020, the text (referred to below as “older version”) appears being up to 90 percent the same than in May 2017. However, the chief reason of my comments below, and of the new edits, is the detection I have made –and that any administrator may verify–  regarding the inaccuracies in the information given in the article, added improper use of the references cited for this information. The quoted texts from the previous version are in "cursive".

Leading section

(1) About “(Swedhr’s views) often directly contradict those of Human Rights Watch and other mainstream organizations.” Info not sourced. I found in Swedhr publications only one specific objection to a HRW report (on Sarmin). On the other side, I also found Swedhr sharing (full reproduction and/or links) other HRW reports. Regarding other mainstream organizations, I found plenty of criticism by Swedhr against the Swedish Section of Amnesty International regarding the Assange case.

The fact that Swedhr, since its foundation, has been more active in the Assange case than in any other, is not mentioned in the lead. I have found the following information, which I have verified by simply reviewing and counting the published issues:

“SWEDHR’s main output in its publications, statements, and participation in human rights campaigns 2015-2019 has focused in the extradition case against of Julian Assange. We consider that the legal case started with the issuing of the Swedish European Arrest Warrant in 2010. As per December 2019, our Research & Reports produced 42 articles and analyses during the early years, of which 50 percent are on the subject Julian Assange human rights case, and the other 50 percent distributed among a variety of other cases. After the Assange case, the second main subject was “Torture”, and the third was “war crimes”. In The Indicter Magazine, it is found 205 published articles, of which 88 are on the Assange human rights case, meaning this case alone represent 43 percent of all articles, all subjects considered.”

(2) “the organization is viewed by mainstream organizations as a Russian propaganda site,” – The statement is followed by references to Swedish media and other sources.

Regarding the Swedish media that it is cited, the description of SWEDHR as “a Russian propaganda site” does not exist in their texts. At the most, it is implied that Russian media or government persons have used materials (already published by SWEDHR), for their own interests. The same about the interviews that followed. A fair illustration is given by the headline of one cited Swedish media in the article (it is in the cited reference N° 5 in the old version): “Swedish group is used as propaganda by the Russian state” / “Svensk grupp används som propaganda av ryska staten”.

The same about the source “Coda Story”. I have controlled the cited article and neither there appears the claim of “Russian propaganda site” about SWEDHR. What Coda Story confirms is that in April 2017 the Russian Foreign Ministry and media used a two-tears old video (from arch 2015) that had been analyzed in March 2017 by doctors at Swedhr. Besides, the same findings were used in the UK, Danish, and Italian media. Summing up, one thing is to affirm that Russia used SWEDHR materials and statements, as they truly did! A completely other thing is to affirm that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”. In what I have so far understood of Wikipedia rules, for this claim not to be considered defamatory or libelous, besides unsourced, a proof should be indicated.

Besides, the same findings were used in the UK, Danish, and Italian media. Summing up, one thing is to affirm that Russia used SWEDHR materials and statements, as they truly did! A completely other thing is to affirm that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”. For this claim not to be considered defamatory or libelous, besides unsourced, a proof should be indicated.

(3) “…because the views presented by it are consistently in line with those of the Russian government, and are often cited by Russian pro-government media”

First, those views are not at all “consistently in line”. Take for instance SWEDHR public denunciation in October 2019 of the veto by the Russians in the Security Council, of a resolution presented by the UK, Germany (and others in the EU group) intended to stop Turkey’s military and pol. offensive against the Kurds. Or the public endorsement by Swedhr to the idea of a sovereign Rojava, at the time YPG occupied a northern region of Syria (government endorsed by Russia), etc.

Second, to asses “who is in line with whom”, the factor timing (sequence of the respective statements) is most important.

Instead, the factual sequence would be: The citations of SWEDHR made by Russian authorities or the media were done after that SWEDHR doctors published their original findings. In that case, it is the Russians that would be in line with what the doctors have found, not the other way around. Even the cited Coda Story article admits that “SWEDHR was noticed by Russia’s foreign ministry” after the publication of SWEDHR in March 2017.

Organization section

(4) Swedhr “was founded in 2015 by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, a retired Swedish professor emeritus,” It does not make sense on double reasons. A. Tautology: In Sweden, all retired professors are referred to as emeritus. B. Appropriateness: In Sweden, not all retired professors receive the academic certification “Professor Emeritus” on the base of specific academic services. Which is the case De Noli (reference given in the Wikipedia article “Marcello Ferrada de Noli”). In sum, it should read only Swedish professor emeritus.

...“who was involved with the MIR in his youth in Chile”. “Involved” in which way? If that stays in the text, the kind of involvement should be specified.

(5) “In spite of its name, not all of its members (of Swedhr) are medical doctors”.

More accurate: The majority of the organization’s members are medical doctors, the rest are professors and doctors of diverse medical-related disciplines.

[6] “One of its founding members, Dr. Leif Elinder, had previously attracted controversy for his personal attacks against the eminent child psychiatrist Christopher Gillberg” A) The information given (it is sourced in one opinion article) is totally incorrect. B) It is not relevant to Swedhr (neither is this discussion, I’d say. But I post it here for the sake of clarity). A. Facts: By 1977 child psychiatrist Gillberg’s research results on ADHD/DAMP  were doubted by several doctors in that area, which asked access to his research material (customary in Swe clinical research). The request was dismissed at university level. The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled that both Gillberg and he university Gothenburg University violated the Freedom of Information Act “and thus Kärfve's and Elinder's civil right to access to records belonging to the state” (See Wikipedia article). Elinder and Kärfve filed in court a and won the case. Gillberg appealed and lost again. Then Gillberg took his case again to the European Court, and lost again (source here:  . The Law requested Gillberg to release the research material to Elinder, to which Gillberg reacted by burning all the files. B. The Elinder/Gillberg episode refer to an incident around 1977, nearly two decades prior to the existence of SWEDHR.

(7) “...and (Elinder’s) later dismissal from his position at the Swedish Social Insurance Agency for his hard line against applications for sick leave.”

Facts: Dr. Elinder was not “later dismissed” from his work at the Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Instead, according to newspaper Uppsalatidningen, it was he who resigned to the position. Other sections

In the section “Accusations of Russian Propaganda”, the leading paragraph was “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to Amnesty International, the Swedish Medical Association, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and the Swedish affiliate of Human Rights Watch“ contains erroneous information, which result misleading.

The facts, instead, are the following:

(8) The Swedish Medical Association knew about SWEDHR already in 2015. The Swedish Medical Association published in its journal Läkartidningen already on October 2015, a few months after SWEDHR was founded (and long before the 'old version' of the article stated otherwise), a protest by SWEDHR to the aerial bombing of a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan. The journal reaches ALL members of the Swedish Medical Association, no exception. Here is the source: http://www.lakartidningen.se/Aktuellt/Nyheter/2015/10/Lakare-utan-granser-kraver-utredning-efter-sjukhusbombning/

(9) Secondly, Amnesty International Sweden did certainly (absolutely) know SWEDHR much before than “as to April 2017”. The facts: On 11 of March 2016, over one year before what it is claimed in this commented article, had Amnesty Sweden written an email referring to a published article by SWEDHR in March 2016. The details of this email correspondence have been exposed long time ago in a video uploaded by KILTR Channel (Scotland) in YouTube, as well as in a recent article by SWEDHR responding to the Huffington Post (reference here: https://theindicter.com/interference-by-journalists-on-sovereign-opinions-of-professors-academics-and-independent-researchers-comprise-infringements-to-art-19-of-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights/)

(10) As to the mention of the “Swedish Society of Medicine”, that is not relevant to the claim because that is instead an institution dealing solely with scientific issues in medicine and Swedish health care (as stated in its home page).

Furthermore:

(11) In the section “Positions taken by SWEDHR”, instead of ever mentioning the Julian Assange case as the organization’s main concern, the article said in that section:

''“The causes taken up by the organization have a strong pro-Russian bias. Aside from their opposition to cooperation between Sweden and NATO, they have compared the violent clashes in Odessa that led to the deaths of 46 pro-Russian activists to the Reichstag fire”.''

(12) The article also refers in this section a publish comment by SWEDHR against the Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist, wrongly affirming that “the minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. Let’s examine it:

Minister Hultqvist has never affirmed the above, which neither it is the official stance of his political party, the Social Democrats, neither of the Swedish government. What the minister said in DN on 31 August 2016 in his article (which SWEDHR debated on 3 September 2016) was totally different. Hultqvist wrote: “Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.” Which means, “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (source here: https://www.dn.se/debatt/sveriges-militara-samarbete-med-usa-maste-fordjupas/)

It surprised me that the such twisted declarations of a Swedish Defense Minister on the issue of NATO-membership (a theme which is most crucial for us Swedes) has stayed that long in this Wikipedia article.

And about the SWEDHR stance about “no favoring” NATO-membership that is remarked in the article, well, that represents the opinion of the majority of the Swedish people (percent of Swedish people that oppose affiliation to NATO is higher in comparison with those who favor affiliation of NATO). These figures are from the poll results published by newspaper DN about the time of the commented ‘Hultqvist/NATO’ entry in the article. The results were: ‘favoring affiliation’ = 31%, ‘opposing affiliation’ = 44%, “don’t know= 25%. (source here: https://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/nato-motstandarna-tror-pa-hjalp-fran-nato-om-sverige-hotas/)

(13) Regarding “they (SWEDHR) have compared the violent clashes in Odessa that led to the deaths of 46 pro-Russian activists to the Reichstag fire”, it is yet another blunt inaccuracy. Instead, the mention to ‘Odessa’ in conjunction with ‘Reichstag fire’ it referred to a tweet image originally published by The Professors’ Blog in 2014 (blog published by De Noli), before the existence of SWEDHR. The image caption mentions that in 1933 Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on “Russian gangsters”, while in 2014 Carl Bildt (then Foreign Minister of Sweden) also blamed the Odessa fire on “Russian gangsters”. Both statements (Hitler’s and Bildt’s) are factually true. (14) Finally, the article wrongly ascribed to SWEDHR the positions of the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson regarding the subject “White Helmets”. It doesn't mention the variety of clarifications that SWEDHR has done in reference to their own position on the White Helmets, which differs from both the Russian government and other organizations or activists participating in that debate. It is all in their publications and Twitter account. (15) Ad if the editors of this articles would pursue in maintaining the PERSONAL comment by Kenneth Roth (not done from the HRW official Twitter account) on Swedhr, then the article should also give space to Swedhr’s reply. This according to what I read in here about neutral point of view.

I have also used references published in other Wikipedia articles.

Toverster (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I will soon repost in the article the information (in the older article) about Swedhr's action regarding pianist Lisitsa, as well as about the Skripal statement. Checking now the sources. Toverster (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

More on necessary edits
Here below some additional arguments excerpted from my posts in the thread "Protection solicited after repeated disruptive editing from Gamesmasterg9"of the posts I have made in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents up to 29 Feb 2020, section "Protection solicited after repeated disruptive editing from Gamesmasterg9". All the posts, including by other users, can be seen here:

1) There is no “discussion” whatsoever going about the new edits in the Talk page. “Discussion” in Wikipedia can hardly mean an arbitrary decision by Gamesmasterg9 to block any edits without giving reasons attending to the factualness/verifiability of the information and references given in the new edits. In my humble opinion, discussion would mean instead to put forward arguments and counter-arguments about the content of the edits and its rationale. And this is supposed to be done in the Talk page. Instead, no entry has whatsoever been done in the Talk page commenting the arguments of my edits, before or after its erasing from the published article done by Gamesmasterg9.

--

What the new edits have contested? I give here only some examples:

a) In the lead, and in section “Positions taken by the organization”, as well as in the rest of the article, it is completely omitted a mention to the main activity (also statistically measured) implemented by SWEDHR from its start, which is the campaigning on behalf of freedom for Julian Assange.

b) The blunt tergiversation of the statements done by our Minister of Defense Peter Hulqvist (which are the Swedish government’s stances) regarding Sweden’s position towards NATO. The old version of the article ascribes to Minister Hulqvist positions he never said in the cited source (Swedish newspaper DN), namely, as it wrongly stands in the article, that “The minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. That was never been said by Hultqvist, neither is that what the referred source reported. He only talked about “collaboration” between Sweden and NATO, never about favoring membership or affiliation. This is a subject hyper sensitive in the Swedish public and government (that instead favors neutrality and non-alignment). Or a variety of falsehoods or incorrect information about, or ascribed to, SWEDHR, the very subject of the article.

c) The mainstream media cited in references in the old version have never referred to SWEDHR as “a Russian propaganda site”, as it is affirmed in the article. What they say is that findings in investigations done by SWEDHR have afterwards been used or misused for propaganda aims, even after the organization’s protests. One mainstream media source that I found recently sums up the false claim against SWEDHR as “irony”. It says in the article “Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre”: “This fake news has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it”. . (Anyone wishing to establish which organizations and publications in the views of mainstream media, are listed as "Russian propaganda sites", should instead check the list at PropOrNot, where neither SWEDHR nor its publication The Indicter are listed. ).

e) The false personal imputations regarding Dr. Leif Elinder, which the older version incurred. 3) In addition, regarding verifiability, the new edits are sourced in a total of 70 references. The old version (the one Gamesmasterg9 and you reverted to) contained only 22 references.

---

I searched articles referring to the SMA in Wikipedia. I found only three, one of them was the SWEDHR article. Reading it, the amount of disinformation appeared at first glance. Especially the absolute omission of the Assange case as a main endeavor of the organization, and for which, I would say, the organization is most known in Sweden. So it was for me.

To give you a freshest example, reading today, as I do every morning, Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet (according to Wikipedia “one of the largest daily newspapers in the Nordic countries” ) I saw one main article signed by the professors in the leadership of “Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR”. The article’s title (translated) is “Government: demand the freedom of Julian Assange” (“Regeringen, kräv att Julian Assange friges“). Last week, through an article in Sydsvenka Dagbladet, another Swedish mainstream newspaper, the reader was informed that SWEDHR doctors formed part of the signatories in an article published by The Lancet, also about the Julian Assange human rights theme. I dare say that The Lancet is world most known medical journal.

---

User Grandpallama echoed above Gammemaister9 false narrative of “well-sourced statements” for the smearing on SWEDHR as “propaganda arm of the Russian government”. How could any serious editor dare to repeat that, in view of THESE FACTS below, which any WP reader may verify?

The false statement (currently in the article) is said to be “supported” by a list of 7 references, numbered from 2 to Nr 8 in the Ref list. However, the same article in reference 6 (ETC) is deceivingly duplicated again as ref 8 in the list ! This results in 6 references left. But, ref 5 (f-Plus) contains only an excerpted text reproduced from the article in ref 7 (DN), and clearly acknowledges the DN article as its source. This left us with only four sources, of which only 3 are mainstream: One piece sourced in Le Figaro, two articles in Swedish newspaper DN, and one article from the US-based online site (Coda Story). Only two of the WP:RS have Wikipedia articles (DN an Le Figaro). Nevertheless, the most important is what they really said about Swedhr:

The headline in the only English source (Coda) said it all: "Russia Used a Two-Year-Old Video and an 'Alternative' Swedish Group to Discredit Reports of Syria Gas Attack”. Nowhere in the article it is said that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”.

Same thing in the Swedish newspaper DN’s headline: (translated) “Gas attacks denied with help from a Swedish doctors group”. Absolutely nowhere in the article it is affirmed that SWEDHR “is a Russian propaganda site”. At the contrary, the article comprises an interview with the SWDHR head, where, the newspaper reports, he declared,“SWEDHR is a total independent organization, that do not have connection at all with the Russian authorities”.

The other DN article is even more explicit, saying “Now a Swedish organisation is used to deny Russian participation…” ("Nu används en svensk organization för att förneka Ryslands inblandning…”).

Same thing with right-wing Le Figaro’s headline (translated): “In Russia, a curious thesis is repeated to excuse Asssad”. The article, the same as in Coda Story, refers to the repeated use of the SWEDHR investigations about a video showing medical rescue episodes that the organization concluded as being malpractice and counterproductive, health-wise. In no place the article affirms that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”.

Same thing with the headline in f-Fokus: “Swedish group used as propaganda by Russia”. Neither it said that it is a “Russian propaganda site”.

Conclusion: The seven “RS” references given by Gammemaister/Gandpallama currently listed in the article on behalf of the “well-sourced statements”, are a fake. Its numbers reduced to only two mainstream newspapers, plus an online site. But the utmost important in this discussion is:

Nowhere in those media it is claimed that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”.

And all of them explain that the SWEDHR investigations on the White Helmets videos were discovered by the Russian media after the publications in The Indicter.

I apologise for the excessive use of bold-emphases. In fact, I just wished to make clear the qualitative difference between affirming "some investigations or statements of organisation X have been used by certain countries, for their own interests, after they were independently produced by X", and affirming "organisation X is a propaganda site of that country".

But after all, what else can one expect from some editors in the referred article, those having the nerve of even invent positions and declarations ascribed to our Defense Minister, which he had never said, about most serious matters of our national security. Toverster (talk)

---

Grandpallama:

...The article you have held up as current version states: ”(Sweden’s defense) minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. A plain invention! THIS is what the Swedish defence minister really said in the DN article referred in the current version:


 * “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (“Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.”).

Don’t you realize that the made-up misquote backed by Gamesmaster G-9 et al, that figures in the current version, putting up-side-down a central stance of the Swedish government, is a serious issue that should be prompt corrected?

You justify all these falsehoods (and there are plenty more in the version you protect) by saying that the current version is the “long-standing”, “stabile version”. Whereas is the opposite: the fact that those falsehoods have managed to subsist for so long is an extra imperative for correcting them ASAP under the criteria of neutral point of view and verifiability. Toverster (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

---

To Grandpallama:

Instead of asking things you already know, please comment on this instead, a statement that appears in the lead:

“the views presented by it (SWEDHR) are consistently in line with those of the Russian government.” (No WP:RS given in the article to support that statement).

The English dictionary says “consistently” is synonymous of “always”. So, just how truthful that fabricated statement results when confronted with what instead happens in reality?:

On October 13, 2019, SWEDHR publicly condemned the Russian government for the veto that Russia issued to block a resolution proposed by the UK and other EU countries in the UN Security Council. SWEDHR called it “deplorable”.

Now you will suspect-ask me, how did I find about that? Answer: Because the name and link to that publication is given in the Organization section of the current version of the Wikipedia article on SWEDHR which I (and hopefully you) are analyzing. In the report is reproduced the SWEDHR critical statement on Russia also published in Twitter. Toverster (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

To Gamesmaster G-9:

Regarding your “revelation” in this thread about a SWEDHR page with links to rebuttals to 4 right-wing media in a 5-years period: That info was already given, with further details and references, in the Section “The 2017 Controversies” of the article’s version   that you have been arbitrarily reverting since 19 Feb 2020. There it reads: “The domestic and international spreading by Russian governmental channels of SWEDHR's ‘alternative views’ on a variety of geopolitical issues, have also elicited critical comments in the European mainstream media. For instance Der Spiegel,[31] Le Figaro,[32], De Groene Amsterdammer, [33] and Dagens Nyheter. [34] SWEDHR has published its respective rebuttals to those media in The Indicter. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] In its replies, SWEDHR's has insisted that the criticism of those media does not address the arguments or the results of the doctors’ investigations. That, “apparently, for them,  it is not about what we say, but rather to whom we are saying it.” SWEDHR has repeatedly argued that the right to express opinions in any media “regardless of frontiers”, is guaranteed by Article 19 in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. [40]“ You should have also referred that in comparison with those 4 media reports in the 5-year period, there were many more media in the same period 2015-2020 reporting SWEDHR views in a non-critical way. Most recently in a full-page of Sweden’s largest mainstream newspaper Aftonbladet (Feb 26, 2020). Toverster (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Break; the lead
Toverster started asking some very pertinent questions here 18 February 2020‎. After 10(!) days none of the questions have been answered.

However two editors, User:Gamesmasterg9 and User:Grandpallama have repeatedly undone changes, without using the talk-page.

If someone doesn't start addressing the questions, I will revert in 24 hours, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Toverster initiated an ANI discussion; that moved the focus of discussion. I am not a content contributor to this page, but anyone knows a giant wall of text is difficult to respond to, as is a wall of text that's interspersed with series of allegations and declarations about personal knowledge. You specifically advised Toverster to introduce changes one at a time, and that was sage advice. Grandpallama (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps he initiated that ANI discussions because nobody responded here? As for personal knowledge: Scandinavian countries are tiny (each with the population of a US city): of course many/most in one profession will know about other "notables" in that profession. Also, it wasn't Toverster who started flinging allegation around, AFAIK, that was started with the first revert here. (But yeah: I agree: we should do without that.)
 * Anyway, I would suggest we start with the lead, the sentence
 * "Despite claiming to have independent views, the organization is viewed by mainstream organizations as a Russian propaganda site"
 * ...and the refs allegedly backing that up (2 to 8). Toverster countered that here
 * Any comments? Huldra (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, as exactly no-one has countered the above objections, I will change the lead (only) of the article. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Break; the "Organization" part
Presently, the "Organization" part has parts  that clearly does not belong there (Ie,  the things about Marcello Ferrada de Noli belong in the Marcello Ferrada de Noli article, and not here). And the stuff  about Dr. Leif Elinder does not belong here, at most we need a link to sv:Leif Elinder

Comments? Again, if there are no objection, I will remove/rewrite that section in a day or so, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Huldra (talk): Instead of removing the all section, I suggest the following uncontroversial text. The references cited are all WP:RS, with own articles in Wikipedia (English and Swedish).


 * Organization


 * Swedish Doctors for Human Rights was founded in 2015 by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, a Swedish professor emeritus, singled out by Swedish mainstream media as left liberal. [RS 1] [RS 2] Ferrada de Noli and two other members of the foundation board, Professor Anders Romelsjö [RS 3] and pediatrician doctor sv:Leif Elinder [RS 4] were active in the mainstream media debate of Sweden since before the foundation of SWEDHR.


 * The majority of the organization’s members are medical doctors, but in the organization also participate professors and doctors from diverse medical-related disciplines.


 * The organization publishes a magazine online called The Indicter. [link]


 * RS = Reliable sources


 * [RS 1] = Dagens Nyheter Dagens Nyheter. (“The professor has sailed in dangerous waters”). “Professorn har seglat i farliga farvatten”. 23 July 2008.


 * [RS 2] = Ystads Allehanda Ystads Allehanda. (“Prisoners camp to nice hall”). “Fångläger till finsal”. 25 July 2013.


 * [RS 3] = Dagens Nyheter Dagens Nyheter.


 * [RS 4] = Göteborgs-Posten Göteborgs-Posten.


 * [Link to The Indicter] = The Indicter.




 * Toverster (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about the above changes, except the sentence " singled out by Swedish mainstream media as left liberal" ...that belongs in the Marcello Ferrada de Noli article, not here,Huldra (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Break; the "Positions taken by SWEDHR"
This part really needs work (let's get rid of that NATO falsehood, shall we?), any suggestion as to what we should write there? Huldra (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I will address here the issue of the “pro-NATO membership” falsely attributed to the Swedish Minster of Defense. Suggestions ref. other Swedhr positions to be posted later. I promise briefer text in further suggestions for this section. I thought we need a context here, how all this happened about this issue?

Reviewing the edits-history and content, the SWEDHR article appears stabile from 2015 until 2017. That abruptly ended in late March that year, after SWEDHR published investigations exposing fake lifesaving and medical malpractices in the White Helmets propaganda videos  &, which had high impact in international news, especially in Sweden. Sweden had then given to the WH the “Right Livelihood Award”, much promoted by DN, a rightwing newspaper that strong supports a regime change in Syria by the jihadist “rebels”.

After the SWEDHR exposures, on 3 April 2017 a Swedish user, Ylleman, so far unknown in the article edits-history, proposed the deletion of the  SWEDHR article. Wikipedia decision was thou, “keep”, on 11 April. The attack failed.

However, on 21 April 2017, DN published the much cited article on SWEDHR, with some same arguments used by Ylleman in the delete-discussion. Ensuing, only hours after the DN publication on 21 April, user Ylleman inserted this edit here:


 * “SWEDHR argued in Sweden's main newspaper Dagens Nyheter against Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist's stance on the issue of Sweden's neutrality and non-alignment. [wrong DN reference] The minister argued that Swedish NATO membership was desirable due to Russia's military buildup, Russia's illegal annexation of the Crimea, the armed conflict in the Ukraine and the potential threat to the Baltic states.”

It was a blunt lie. And this article has propagated that falsehood to the Wikipedia readers for almost three years. The reference given went to another article, not Hultqvist’s.

What the defense minister had said in his article in DN on 31 August 2015 (which SWEDHR debated on 3 September 2016), it was totally different, actually the opposite of what the current version of the WP article says. Hultqvist instead wrote:


 * “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (“Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.”)

So, an appropriate entry about this issue, would be something like this:

The minister had stated that “bilateral cooperation with the US is important and it should deepens”, but made clear that “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO”. [Ref 1] SWEDHR argued “(Minister Hultqvist) had not shown that a deepening of the Sweden-USA cooperation would be better than to instead deepening our neutrality stance.” [Ref 2]'''

References:


 * [Ref 1] = Dagens Nyheter, 31 August 2015. Minister Hultqvist original statements 1) “Sveriges bilaterala samarbete med USA är viktigt och bör fördjupas”, 2) “Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato”.


 * [Ref 2] = Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015, SWEDHR original statement: “Försvarsminister Hultqvist menar på DN Debatt (31/8) att Sverige bör fördjupa försvarssamarbetet med USA. Men han har inte visat att en fördjupning av Sveriges samarbete med USA skulle vara bättre än att istället fördjupa vår neutralitetspolitik.”

Epilogue:

User Ylleman performed only 38 edits in Wikipedia during 2017. Of these, 33 edits on SWEDHR. In the deletion-discussion, Ylleman’s edits alone were over the half of the total 40 edits, followed by user Gammesmaster. All Ylleman’s edits remained untouched for almost 3 years by now. And there are more of that user's items to be revealed in further sections. “We prevailed”, recently boosted Gammesmaster.

Abraham Lincoln said (1858):


 * “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”


 * Toverster (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Toverster, thanks for this "wiki-archeology", alas, count me unsurprised..... The amount of info in the West about the White Helments (=WH) were quite overwhelming (and extremely professional) for a while. My problem was that the info the West was served about the WH, did not at all match what people I generally trust in/about the ME was saying. But yeah: anyone having any critical word about the WH in the West were met with a tsunami of criticism, so also for the SWEDHR. (There is a reason why I took this page off my "watch-list"!!)
 * What you have started above about the "positions taken" (and I have bolded...and stricken what I think is distracting detail) seems like a good start.
 * I have stricken "but made clear that “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO”. With the false info out of the article, that sentence isn't really needed, IMO. (I don't feel strongly about this: if you want it in, then in it goes. Or we could put that in the reference.) (I am just looking for as "tight" a language as possible. A journalist friend taught me: a good writer isn't known by all s/he  writes; it is all those words you cut out which are important.)
 * Alas, we also need SWEDHR's position about other issues, anything from Douma chemical attack, to Julian Assange. There is work for you! Huldra (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Huldra. This is my suggestion, backed by the WP:RS review and a list of main issues in SWEDHR reports and statements, which I am postings as Appendix, after this proposed text below:

Here below I have now (5 March 2020) shortened and cleaned the first version of my proposal. Thanks.

“Positions taken by SWEDHR”

The organization’s main concern in 2015-2019 has been the Julian Assange case. [Ref 1]. SWEDHR participated in appeals to the Swedish authorities and other governments [Ref 2] [Ref 3] [Ref 4] and to international organizations, [Ref 5] addressing human rights and health issues [Ref 6] in the case. In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange infringed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [Ref 7] matter later established by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. [Ref 8] In 2016 it advocated for asylum to Edward Snowden in the EU. [Ref 9]

It also reported on human rights situations in Chile [Ref 10], on the situation of Palestinians, [Ref 11] on the issue of torture accountability, [Ref 12] and regarding civil casualties of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Yemen. [Ref 13] SWEDHR has criticised Sweden’s arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition in the war on Yemen.

The organisation has intervened in the debate on allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and it has questioned official OPCW reports on the issue. In March 2017 SWEDHR published the results of an investigation of videos published by the White Helmets in 2015 showing medical rescue interventions after an alleged gas attack in Sarmin. SWEDHR deemed the procedures as “anti-medical and not-saving”, [Ref 14] and presented the findings at a conference of the Club Suisse de la Presse [Ref 15]. A debate followed in the international media. [Ref 16] (See section Controversies, below).

In November 2017, the organisation published a critical assessment on the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism report on the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, concluding that the report “proven inaccurate, politically biased”. The SWEDHR assessment was annexed as official document of the Security Council after proposal by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya. [Ref 17] In November 2019, SWEDHR signed the appeal to the permanent representatives of States parties at the OPCW, on concerns about allegations of transparency and misreporting in the OPCW investigation of the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria (April 2018), raised by a Courage Foundation panel of experts. [Ref 18]

During 2015-2018, SWEDHR advocated against alleged human rights abuses on Swedish cardiologist doctor Fikru Maru, held in custody in Ethiopia and liberated 2018. [Ref 19] The organisation also denounced aerial attacks against hospitals run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Afghanistan. [Ref 20]

In 2019, it opposed the Swedish government’s decision of not signing the UN convention on a prohibition of nuclear arms. Earlier that year SWEDHR endorsed “Letter in Defence of World Peace”, a document protesting announcements by the US to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty INFT. [Ref 21] In 2015, SWEDHR commented on opinions made by the Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist. The minister had stated that “bilateral cooperation with the US is important and it should deepen”, [Ref 22] SWEDHR argued “(Minister Hultqvist) had not shown that a deepening of the Sweden-USA cooperation would be better than to instead deepening our neutrality stance.” [Ref 23]

“References”

[Ref 1] = (id. Reference on “Julian Assange international case”, after last line in the article’s lead)

[Ref 2] = Aftonbladet, 26 February 2020. 

[Ref 3] = Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DIEM 25), 3 June 2016.

[Ref 4] = World Socialist Web Site, 17 Dec 2019. Doctors issue open letter to the Australian government: Julian Assange at risk of death in prison. 

[Ref 5] = Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “Joint Submission for the United Kingdom's Universal Periodic Review in 2017”, Doc. A/HRC/7/4/Add.1 at 40 (2007). Republished by Courage Foundation:

[Ref 6] = The Lancet, 12 February 2020. “End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”,

[Ref 7] = NewsVoice, 5 April 2016: According to the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Assange’s detention should be ended. 

[Ref 8] = United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), 4 December 2015. 

[Ref 9] = Västerbottens-Kuriren, 14 October 2015. 

[Ref 10] = Truthout, 13 Nov 2019: “The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights has compiled 80 videos of serious human rights abuses by Chilean security forces since the protests started in October (2019)”. 

[Ref 11] = The Indicter Channel, 31 March 2018. 

[Ref 12] = NewsVoice, 25 May 2015. 

[Ref 13] = NewsVoice, 25 April 2015. “An updated estimation of civil casualties killed by drone strikes – An injury-epidemiology & human rights report”. 

[Ref 14] = Dagbladet Arbejderen, 26 April 2017. 

[Ref 15] =. Club Suisse de la Presse (Geneva Press Club), 28 November 2017. 

[Ref 16] = Tribune de Genève, 28 November 2017. (“Disident voices at the Geneva Press Club”) “Des voix dissidentes s'expriment au Club suisse de la presse”. 

[Ref 17] = United Nations Security Council, 15 February 2018. Document A/72/652–S/2017/1010,

[Ref 18] = Courage Foundation, 8 November 2019. "Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties.”.

[Ref 19] = Dagens Medicine,  13 March 2014 (Open doctors' support to Fikru Maru). 

[Ref 20] = Dagens Medicine,  , 6 October 2015

[Ref 21] = Kaosenlared, 17 Feb 2019. 

[Ref 22] = Dagens Nyheter, 31 August 2015. 

[Ref 23] = Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015. 

(talk) 14:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk) 14:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Toverster (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

________

APPENDIX (which, because of its extension, I will remove after a decision is achieved on “Positions taken by SWEDHR”. Thanks).

Here below only the WP:RS listed by Google News. There are others WP:RS referring Swedhr found in other Google searches (not reported here).

''1. In Google News search “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights”, only WP:RS with WP articles. It is found (“sorted by relevance” option) :''

1.1.	World Socialist Web Site, 17 Dec 2019: Swedhr as signatory in urgent petition to Australian government to obtain Julian Assange’s treatment in appropriate Australian hospital “before it is too late”. 

1.2.	 MintPress News, 12 April 2017, “SWEDHR Accuses White Helmets Of PR Stunt To Trigger War In Syria“ 

1.3.	Coda, 2 May 2017: “(Swedhr) questioned authenticity of the (White Helmets) two-year-old video, making several claims: the video shows “life-threatening” or “simply fake” medical procedures; the cause of the children’s death more likely could be from opiate drug overdose than from a chemical attack; the White Helmets made a propaganda video with already dead children;”

1.4.	 Dagens Nyheter, Interview with Swedhr chairman, 22 Apr 2017: Swedhr chairman declared in the interview “he does not believe that (Syrian) president Bashar al-Assad did it (used chemical weapons April 2017), “It would be politically illogical. The Syrian government is now winning the war. Chemical weapons benefit only the opposition”. (– Jag tror inte att president Bashar al-Assad gör det. Det skulle vara politiskt ologiskt. Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. Kemvapen tjänar bara oppositionen.)

1.5.	RT (TV network), 16 Feb 2019, ““Dr Leif Elinder: “after examination of the (White Helmets) video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children.” This video, produced and presented by the White Helmets and their colleagues at the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), was shown during a UN Security Council “closed door” session to promote a no-fly zone which translates to protection for the US coalition-backed terrorist forces on the ground in Syria.”

1.6.	Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DIEM 25), 3 June 2016, “Urging Sweden and the UK to free Julian Assange”, Swedhr signatory in document delivered before the 31st United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva 2 Jun 2016. 

1.7.	 Truthout, 13 Nov 2019: “The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (link to ) has compiled 80 videos of serious human rights (link to  abuses by Chilean security forces since the protests started in October (2019).

1.8.	Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. Interview with Swedhr chairman three weeks after the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal: “Not clear evidence has been released that its Russia who is behind. History has several examples of likely events. Such as when Great Britain wrongly stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went to war, despite it knew it better.”  (– Det har inte lagts fram några tydliga bevis för att det är Ryssland som ligger bakom, säger han, och fortsätter: – Historien har flera exempel på liknande händelser. Som när Storbritannien felaktigt påstod att Irak hade massförstörelsevapen och gick till krig, trots att man visste bättre.)

1.9.	Arab News, 17 April 2017: Propaganda, lies and videos: “The news (“children killed by the civil defense volunteers known as the White Helmets “) was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors. The irony is that this fake news that has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it. In a published statement confirming that it analyzed some videos published the White Helmets, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights did not accuse them of killing children. 

1.10.	 The Globe and Mail, 8 April 2015: “the NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights posted an appeal on (Valentina Lititsa’s) behalf, saying she was the victim of "an illegitimate repression, including a last event in Canada where she was denied her right to perform." 

1.11.	Al-Masdar News, 4 April 2017: “This 10th of march the Swedish Doctors For Human Rights provided evidence (swedhr) confirming “fake live saving and malpractizes on children after analyzing the White Helmet video facilitated to the UN Security Consul deciding later on a No Flight zone in Syria.”

1.12.	 Kaosenlared, 17 Feb 2019: SWEDHR only ONG signatory of “Letter in Defense of World Peace”, a document protesting US threat to abandon the the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty INFT, a treaty that “lead to the elimination  more than 2600 ballistic and cruise missiles from both world powers in 1991.”

1.13.	 Dagbladet Arbejderen, 21 March 2017: SWEDHR denounced as falsehood a video used as information in the United Nations Security Council in 2015. (Swedish Doctors for Human Rights har også afsløret en video, brugt som information i FNs sikkerhedsråd i 2015, som oplagt falsk). 

1.14.	 Der Spiegel, 21 Dec 207: States that “SWEDHR doctors explained that the White Helmet kill children”. It also adds that the organization “have never made its appearance in Sweden” before April 2017. []

1.15.	De Groene Amsterdammer, 1 August 2018: “The NGO Swedish Doctors for Human Rights also states in a study that the Syrian rescue workers simulate medical treatment and even endanger children.”

1.16.	Gazeta Wyborcza,  Publishes reference that reproduces  SWEDHR statement explaining its position about false conclusions attributed to the organization by the fake new site VT, regarding SWEDHR investigations on White Helmets videos of Sarmin 2015. "This interpretation is completely untrue and does not represent our true position on this matter, neither what SWEDHR is as an independent human rights NGO, nor the conclusions drawn by doctors examining the White Helmets video ... (Translated from Polish: “Ten preparat jest całkowicie nieprawdziwe i nie reprezentują nasze prawdziwe stanowisko w tej sprawie, ani co SWEDHR jest jako niezależna organizacja pozarządowa praw człowieka, ani wnioski wyciągnięte przez lekarzy badających filmy Białe kaski.... ")

1.17.	Libération, 3 May 2018: “SWEDHR president had been interviewed by the Russian media in April 2017 to attribute the Khan Cheikhoun chemical attack to the Syrian rebels.” (“avait été interviewé par les médias russes en avril 2017 pour attribuer l’attaque chimique de Khan Cheikhoun aux rebelles syriens”).

''2.	In Google News search “SWEDHR”, only WP:RS with WP articles. Using the “sorted by relevance” option, and leaving out repeated articles referred above:''

2.1 Sputnik (news agency), 20 April 2017: “SWEDHR stressed that it has never accused the White Helmets of "murdering children," nor has it directed similar accusations against the personnel showed in the video published by White Helmets.”

2.2. Pressenza, 24 Feb 2019: SWEDHR signatory of document demanding the US of “immediately cease all hostile actions against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — lift all sanctions, stop backing a coup”. 

2.3. Diario de Cuyo, 19 April 2017: “Swedish ONG for human rights accused the Whte Helmets of falsifying videos”. (“La ONG Médicos Suecos para los Derechos Humanos acusó a los Cascos Blancos de falsificar videos.)

2.4.   Sputnik (Nachrichtenportal), 19 April, 2017. The article “Syrien-Fakes der “Weißhelme“ nachgewiesen – schwedische NGO” reproduces statements by SWEDHR emphasizing that they never accused the White Helmets" of "murdering children".

2.5.  Dagbladet Arbejderen, 26 April 2017. The article reports how SWEDHR got concerned with the White Helmets videos, after analyzing a report from Human Rights Watch on the White Helmets allegations of a gas attack in Sarmin 2015, where those footage was presented as the evidence. (“Han henviser blandt andet til artikler fra den amerikanske organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) om et formodet gasangreb i Sarmin i Idlib-provinsen i marts 2015. HRW citerede to anonyme vidner, som ikke havde været til stede. Et af dem var officer i De Hvide Hjelme. Chockvideo.”)

Added SWEDHR debate articles in Swedish mainstream media and medical journals, and own media, all resulted in the following list:

3.	List of issues mainly in SWEDHR reports statements :

3.1.	Julian Assange case. (issue addressed in over 50 % of the Swedhr publications) 3.2.	Human rights violations in the Syria war (with focus on war crimes by jihadist forces, which HRW and Amnesty Sweden neglect to report) 3.3.	Medical analyses of allegations of gas attacks in Syria. 3.4.	Examining of the OPCW reports with focus on medical issues. 3.5.	Human rights violations in the Afghanistan war. 3.6.	Anti-war activism (with focus on arms-sales and nuclear-weapons issues). 3.7.	Torture and mistreatment of prisoners (with focus on cases neglected by Amnesty Sweden). 3.8.	Swedish Neutrality and non-alignment. 3.9.	Human rights violations in Chile and in occupied Gaza. 3.10.	Added the terminated cases: human rights concerns about imprisoned Swedish doctor Fikru Maru (ended 2018), and civil rights concerns about pianist Valentina Lititsa (closed 2015), and  of anti-war activist Victoria Shilova, also closed in 2015.

Please note that “main positions held by Swedhr” is not to be confounded with “issues reported in main stream media about Swedhr”. For instance, while the Swedhr investigation ref. the “White Helmets video” was an issue occasioning a high reporting in the media in April 2017, it has relatively minor space in Swedhr publications. A second aspect is what a review of videos about Swedhr (there are 189 videos about Swedhr reported by Google), added Swedhr own media, may tell us about what Swedhr consider it self as main positions. For instance, in “The Indicter Channel” in YouTube a prominent issue is the Palestinians resistance in Gaza, or human rights violations around the rebellion in Chile 2019, the Yellow Vests protests in France, etc. Toverster (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Positions taken by SWEDHR", subsection 1
Regarding: The organization’s main concern in 2015-2019 has been the Julian Assange case. [Ref 1]. SWEDHR participated in appeals to the Swedish authorities and other governments [Ref 2] [Ref 3] [Ref 4] and to international organizations, [Ref 5] addressing human rights and health issues [Ref 6] in the case. In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange infringed the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [Ref 7] matter later established by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. [Ref 8] In 2016 it advocated for asylum to Edward Snowden in the EU. [Ref 9]


 * OK, we really cannot write "In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange...". In 2015, Assange was not under arrest, but under voluntarily "exile" in the embassy. And the sources say there was an "arrest warrant" out for him....which is different fro saying that he was under arrest. Huldra (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To Huldra : Bottom line of this comment is that you are right about the incorrect using of "arrest" in that paragraph. In spite that MSM had used it, for example in these RS reports below:


 * BBC reported: “December 2010 - Mr Assange is arrested in London”. This was following Sweden’s European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued in Nov 2010, and when Assange on 8 December 2010 went himself to a British police station to be notified of the EAW. Then he was taken to Wandsworth Prison, according to The New York Times.  Detained for 10 days in isolation, until he was granted bail by the High Court on 16 December, under orders of “wearing an electronic tag, reporting to police every day, observing a curfew…” . “Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days”, according to the UNGWAD report published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.


 * Under his time at the embassy Assange was considered by UK authorities of still being detained under the restrictions imposed by the Hight Court on 16 Dec 2010, which Assange breached when he entered into the Ecuador’s embassy to avoid being sent to Sweden, “fearing” to be extradited from there to the US. On the base of that breach Assange’s arrest was implemented anew on 11 April 2019, when British police removed him from the Ecuador’s embassy. But based on the then arrived US request for his extradition, a new arrest cause was added and Assange was taken to prison in Belmarsh.


 * But you are in any case right, that in quoting the SWEDHR position in this matter, we should not write "In 2015, it argued that the prolonged arrest of Assange…”, because, in closer examine, partly the cited article does not refer to “arrest”, but instead to “detention” (which is the same characterization later used by UNWAD). And, principally, because the violation to art 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights argued by SWEDHR refers to the excessive time (nine years, ultimately) taken by the Swedish prosecutor to decide whether to take the case to court, while not withdrawing the EAW on Assange.


 * Perhaps we could write instead:


 * "In 2015, it argued that the prolonged use by Sweden of the European Arrest Warrant on Assange issued in 2010, without a decision of taking the case to court in a reasonable time, would infringe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." [Ref 7]


 * P.S. From "United Nations, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, into force since 23 March 1976: PART III, Article 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release."


 * Toverster (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the above bolded part sounds good, to me. In general: when MSM report something false, we should not report it as if it is true. When British police removed Assange from the embassy, then he was under arrest, not before. (Sorry I have little time to look into the issue....some time-consuming stuff in the IP area...) Huldra (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Positions taken by SWEDHR", moving to article
Over one week has passed since I posted a suggestion for “Positions taken by SWEDHR” (version further shortened below). Five new WP:RS added, the YouTube reference put away. Huldra has posted his opinion. If no other user oppose it (in that case post your comment here), this version of “Positions taken by SWEDHR” (including Huldra’s corrections) will be moved to the article. Please note that the below text only lists SWEDHR positions reported in the sources referred. Statements controverting those (or others) positions have of course to be treated in a new section: “Controversies”.

Suggested text:

The organization’s main concern in 2015-2019 has been the Julian Assange case, [Ref 1] which Swedish Dagens Nyheter named first among SWEDHR issues. [Ref 2] It participated in appeals to the Swedish authorities and other governments [Ref 3] [Ref 4] [Ref 5] and to international organizations, [Ref 6] addressing human rights and health issues. [Ref 7] In 2015, it argued that the prolonged use by Sweden of the European Arrest Warrant on Assange issued in 2010, without a decision of taking the case to court in a reasonable time, would infringe the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [Ref 8] matter later established by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. [Ref 9] In 2016 it advocated for asylum to Edward Snowden in the EU. [Ref 10]

It also reported on human rights situations in Chile [Ref 11], issues of torture accountability, [Ref 12] and investigated civilian casualties of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Yemen. [Ref 13] In March 2017, SWEDHR published results of an investigation of two videos the organization Syrian Civil Defense uploaded 2015, showing medical rescue interventions during the Sarmin chemical attack. SWEDHR deemed the procedures as “anti-medical and not-saving”, [Ref 14] and presented the findings at a conference of the Club Suisse de la Presse. [Ref 15] [Ref 16]. The Syrian ambassador to the UN made use of the SWEDHR allegations at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in April 2017. [Ref 17] [Ref 18] Later that year, SWEDHR questioned the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism report on the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, claiming that the report “proven inaccurate, politically biased”. The SWEDHR assessment was annexed as official document of the UNSC after proposal by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya. [Ref 19] [Ref 20] In 2019, SWEDHR endorsed a complain to the permanent representatives of States parties at the OPCW, on alleged misreporting in the OPCW investigation of the alleged gas attack in Douma, Syria, 2018. [Ref 21]

During 2015-2018, SWEDHR advocated against alleged human rights abuses on Swedish cardiologist doctor Fikru Maru, held in custody in Ethiopia until 2018. [Ref 22] It also denounced aerial attacks against hospitals run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Afghanistan. [Ref 23] The organization has criticized Sweden’s arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition in the Yemeni Civil War. [Ref 24] In 2019, it opposed the Swedish government’s decision of not signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and endorsed “Letter in Defence of World Peace”, protesting US notices of abandoning the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty INFT. [Ref 25] In 2015, SWEDHR commented on opinions made by the Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist. The minister had stated that “bilateral cooperation with the US is important and it should deepen”, [Ref 26] SWEDHR argued “(Minister Hultqvist) had not shown that a deepening of the Sweden-USA cooperation would be better than to instead deepening our neutrality stance.” [Ref 27]

References

[Ref 1] = (id. Reference on “Julian Assange international case”, after last line in the article’s lead) [Ref 2] = Dagens Nyheter, 22 April 2017.  [Ref 3] = Aftonbladet, 26 February 2020. 

[Ref 4] = Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DIEM 25), 3 June 2016.

[Ref 5] = World Socialist Web Site, 17 Dec 2019. Doctors issue open letter to the Australian government: Julian Assange at risk of death in prison. 

[Ref 6] = Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “Joint Submission for the United Kingdom's Universal Periodic Review in 2017”, Doc. A/HRC/7/4/Add.1 at 40 (2007). Republished by Courage Foundation:

[Ref 7] = The Lancet, 12 February 2020. “End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”,

[Ref 8] = NewsVoice, 5 April 2016: According to the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, Assange’s detention should be ended. 

[Ref 9] = United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD), 4 December 2015. 

[Ref 10] = Västerbottens-Kuriren, 14 October 2015. 

[Ref 11] = Truthout, 13 Nov 2019: “The organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights has compiled 80 videos of serious human rights abuses by Chilean security forces since the protests started in October (2019)”. 

[Ref 12] = NewsVoice, 25 April 2015. “An updated estimation of civil casualties killed by drone strikes – An injury-epidemiology & human rights report”. 

[Ref 13] = NewsVoice, 25 May 2015. 

[Ref 14] = Dagbladet Arbejderen, 26 April 2017. 

[Ref 15] =. Club Suisse de la Presse (Geneva Press Club), 28 November 2017. 

[Ref 16] = Tribune de Genève, 28 November 2017. (“Disident voices at the Geneva Press Club”) “Des voix dissidentes s'expriment au Club suisse de la presse”. 

[Ref 17] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. “Their statements have been used by Syria at UNSC” (“deras påståenden har använts av Syrien i FN:s säkerhetsråd”.

[Ref 18] = United Nations UNSC 7922nd meeting, Wednesday, 12 April 2017. 

[Ref 19] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. 

[Ref 20] = United Nations Security Council, 15 February 2018. Document A/72/652–S/2017/1010,

[Ref 21] = Courage Foundation, 8 November 2019. "Open Letter to Permanent Representatives of States Parties.”.

[Ref 22] = Dagens Medicine,  13 March 2014 (Open doctors' support to Fikru Maru). 

[Ref 23] = Dagens Medicine,  , 6 October 2015

[Ref 24] = The Local] ([[Sweden), 26 February 2018.

[Ref 25] = Kaosenlared, 17 Feb 2019. 

[Ref 26] = Dagens Nyheter, 31 August 2015. 

[Ref 27] = Dagens Nyheter, 3 September 2015. 

Toverster (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Toverster I have wikilinked the section, I think it is "good to go" into the section about "Positions taken by SWEDHR", Huldra (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Huldra Thanks. Moving now the new shortened text "Positions taken by SWEDHR" (above)

Toverster (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Does this organisation exist?
Does this "organisation" even exist? Browsing through the material, it seems like it is just a name Ferrada de Noli and a few pals of his have given themselves. Nothing about where it is registered, number of members, economic activity. If I and a guy I met at the pub yesterday send a "press release" to a bunch of newspapers and call ourselves "Organised customers of The Drunken Duck," do we deserve a wikipedia page? --Mlewan (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, if the "Organised customers of The Drunken Duck" got 21,400 google results (as SWEDHR does), then maybe... ;) Huldra (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism
We need to rewrite the "Criticism" section. Any suggestions? Huldra (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Subsection 1: Inaccuracies and misrepresentations in current version:
On 4 May 2017, Gamesmasterg9 created the WP:ED section “Accusations of pro-Russian propaganda” in the article on SWDHR, whose inaccurate content is still up after almost 3 years. None of these extensive disrupted edits were previously presented/discussed in the Talk page. Gamesmaterg9 edits in cursive:

1. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to the Swedish Medical Association.” Which was not true. Instead, the Swedish Medical Association journal Läkartidningen had already in 2015 reported on SWEDHR stances   and even published a link to the organization’s homepage.

2. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to Amnesty International”. That’s neither true. Instead, on 11 of March 2016, Amnesty International Swedish section’s officer Amy Hedenborg emailed KILTR journalist Erik Sandberg, addressing the content of a Swedhr article published in The Indicter. The even was broadcasted by [KILTR] 17 March 2016. The email’s full text given also in The Indicter. 

4. For his edit “The causes taken up by the organization have a strong pro-Russian bias”, Gamesmasterg9 didn’t provide any WP:RS. Because there is no MSM source containing such straight accusation, let alone the adjectivity created by Gamesmasterg9.

5. Gamesmasterg9’s edit “(Swdhr) have compared the violent clashes in Odessa that led to the deaths of 46 pro-Russian activists to the Reichstag fire” is a blunt lie! That is not a statement by Swedhr. The facts: A tweet image titled “what history shall remember”, originally published in The Professors’ Blog in June 2014 before the existence of SWEDHR), mentions that in 1933 Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on Russian Comintern “communist agitators” (WP article “Reichstag fire” ), while in 2014, Carl Bildt, then Foreign Minister of Sweden, blamed the Odessa fire on “Russian thugs”.

6. Gamesmasterg9’s edit of same date, “Their sister publication The Indicter has previously claimed that Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian army, and not by pro-Russian rebels”, instead of giving a reference/link leading to The Indicter, he posted a reference to the WP article  in which neither Swedhr nor The Indicter are mentioned. Whereas what instead it is said in The Indicter op-ed article (author not member of Swedhr) reads: “This Dutch commission stresses, with other words, that while it was able to conclude that flight MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made missile, the commission would or could not determine who pulled the trigger.”

7. Gamesmasterg9’s edit: “Dr. Ferrada de Noli was interviewed by Russian media about his view that the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack of April 4, 2017 was possibly caused by the opposition groups and not the Syrian government”. But the DN article given by Gamesmasterg9 as source does not say that Ferrada de Noli referred to the Khan Shaykhun incident, but instead about the general possibility that oppositional forces have access to chemical weapons (in the Russian media interview he cited MSM reports and the UN investigator Carla del Ponte which concluded the possession of chem weapons by the rebels). The DN article quoted the reasons given by the interviewed doctor as follows: “- I don't think President Bashar al-Assad does. It would be politically illogical. The Syrian government is winning the war now. Nuclear weapons only serve the opposition.” (– Jag tror inte att president Bashar al-Assad gör det. Det skulle vara politiskt ologiskt. Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. Kemvapen tjänar bara oppositionen.)

8. Referring to the White Helmets video investigated by Swedhr, Gamesmasterg9 posted in the Wikipedia article: “An examination of the video cited in the article as evidence revealed that it was actually a video of a chemical attack in Sarmin from March 2015.” The edit suggests that Swedhr has given another date for the videos. That is complete deceiving. SWEDHR had clearly stated in the publications  that the videos are from 2o15, and that Swedhr discovered those videos only in March 2017 thanks a HRW retrospective report.

9. “A group of medical specialists in the US and UK examined the (White Helmets) video and stated that it was impossible to conclude that it was staged, as claimed by SWEDHR”. Gamesmasterg9’s source is an article in the anti-Russian site Coda Story, an online publication partner with “Eurasianet, which Wikipedia describes as “formerly run by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Foundations, same financer of Human Rights Watch  (see comment on Kenneth Roth below). Nevertheless, the “group of medical specialists in the US and UK” turns being only one identified doctor by name, four others “voices” without any identification whatsoever. The ironic being that the conclusions of the group of mainly anonymous doctors do not challenge the main in the Swedhr conclusions, according to the analysis (author not Swedhr-related) “On Coda Story's Attempt to Discredit SWEDHR”:

10. Gamesmasterg9 again: “Reacting to these media appearances, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth described SWEDHR's actions as "propaganda". It refers to a tweet done by Kennet Roth in his personal account (not HRW’s), and in which Roth, to base his opinion, links to the above mentioned Coda Story article, associated to the  Open Society Foundations, which had given a challenge grant of $100 million over 10 years to Human Rights Watch.

11. Gamesmasterg9: “SWEDHR carried out a similar campaign in April 2018, after the Douma chemical attack, which caused the left-wing Swedish magazine ETC to compare it to InfoWars.“ Another plain misrepresentation! What ETC actually wrote was : “the Russian and Syrians are brought help by conspiration theorists like Inforwars, journalists and bloggers critical to US imperialism.” ETC does not mention SWEDHR in comparison or association with Infowars. The mention to SWEDHR in the ETC article was instead a quote from an image posted on Twitter by De Noli’s personal account. The texts based in an article authored by De Noli on 1 February 2018, two months before the Douma attack! 

Instead, this is the actual position taken by SWEDHR after the reported incident in Douma: Swedhr issued on 13 April 2018 a statement in support of the US-based organization Physicians for Human Rights, requesting an investigation that “should include collection of environmental & biological samples.” To which Swedhr added “independent medical assessment of treated patients & hospital records”. 

12. Finally, Gamesmasterg9’s edits collection says: “SWEDHR also tried to cast doubt on the Russian government's responsibility for the 2018 poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal” For which he gives two sources. An examine of his sources reveal what was really said by The Indicter editor: In source fPlus.se it reads as his only statement: “It seems absurd that Russia would have sent a death squad to England to risk a big international incident“ (Det verkar absurt att Ryssland skulle ha skickat en dödspatrull till England och riskera en stor internationell incident). It refers to the big international incident represented by the expulsion of dozens Russians diplomats. It does not said that Russia would not have “responsibility”. Only that it is absurd to do such a thing in view of the big international repercussion.  In source DN, this is only what the newspaper reported on the interview in reference to the Skripal item: "- No clear evidence has been provided that Russia is behind it," he says, and continues: - History has several examples of similar events. Like when Britain wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went to war, despite knowing better.” (“– Det har inte lagts fram några tydliga bevis för att det är Ryssland som ligger bakom, säger han, och fortsätter: – Historien har flera exempel på liknande händelser. Som när Storbritannien felaktigt påstod att Irak hade massförstörelsevapen och gick till krig, trots att man visste bättre”). 

Toverster (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Subsection 2: Proposed text for section “Criticism”
(NOTES: 1. Please observe the MSM cited was not “criticizing” or “questioning” the fact of Swedhr being interviewed in Russian media, partly because that would infringe Sweden’s and EU’s legislation on Freedom of Expression. Partly, because article 19 in the [UN] [Universal Declarations of Human Rights”]] : “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 2. Please observe that, at difference with current version edited by Gamesmasterg9, this text gives also references linking to Swedhrd replies)

The suggested text:

Criticism

In 2017-2018, several European mainstream media pointed out the frequency Swedhr was interviewed in Russian media, and also criticised the use that Russian authorities and media made of SWEDHR investigations and statements. [Ref 1] [Ref 2] [Ref 3] [Ref 4] [Ref 5] SWEDHR published its respective rebuttals in The Indicter. [Ref 6] [Ref 7] [Ref 8] [Ref 9] arguing the MSM criticism did not address the arguments or results of their investigations, but focused in the issue of the several interviews in Russian media in the period. In a statement in the journal of the Swedish Medical Association, Swedhr declared the organization is “absolutely independent” and “we retain the right to freely express opinions on war crimes, violations of human rights and governmental intervention in private life and civil liberties”. [Ref 10] In an interview by Swedish newspaper DN 2 April 2018, the Swedhr chairman replied "I stand for what I've said to those channels. These are the same things I would have said to Dagens Nyheter or Svenska Dagbladet". [Ref 12]

In April 2017, the results of the Swedhr investigation on the 2015 White Helmets rescuing videos in Sarmin [Ref 11] were broadly reported. Some accounts said Swedhr had accused White Helmets of “killing children for fake videos”. Which was immediately denied by the organization. [Ref 13]. Arab News reported 17 April 2017: “The news was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors. The irony is that this fake news that has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it. In a published statement confirming that it analyzed some videos published the White Helmets, SWEDHR did not accuse them of killing children.” [Ref 14].

The online publication Coda Story contested the Swedhr investigation on the White Helmets video, and said that a group of doctors “agreed that the individuals in the (White Helmets) video did not appear to be carrying out a resuscitation attempt according to accepted guidelines. All of them however, said it would be impossible to conclude from the brief video that the scene was staged.” [Ref 15] In its rebuttal, Swedhr pointed out that only one of the doctors in the group of five referred in the Coda Story article was identified. It also challenged Coda Story to organize an open international panel of medical experts to assess the Swedhr conclusions. [Ref 16]

References

[Ref 1] = Der Spiegel, 21 December 2017. Russlands perfider Feldzug gegen die Wahrheit

[Ref 2] = Le Figaro. Paris, 13 April 2017. En Russie, une curieuse thèse reprise pour exonérer Damas (“In Russia, a curious thesis arises to exculpate Damascus”).

[Ref 3] = Dagens Nyheter, 21 April 2017. Gasattacker förnekas med hjälp från svensk läkargrupp

[Ref 4] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018 Svensk grupp i rysk propaganda om giftattacken på spion

[Ref 5] = Libération, 3 May 2018. Russia Today, Sputnik… un mois d’intox passé au crible

[Ref 6] = The Indicter, 15 April 2017. "Mainstream journalists angered by SWEDHR denounce of unethical war propaganda. Reply to Le Figaro"

[Ref 7] = The Indicter, 22 December 2017. "Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) respond to Der Spiegel"

[Ref 8] = The Indicter, 22 April 2017. "Reply to Dagens Nyheter assault on Swedish Doctors for Human Rights"

[Ref 9] = The Indicter, 7 February 2020. "Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Ref 10] = Läkartidningen, 9 June 2017. SWEDHR är en oberoende organisation

[Ref 11] = SWEDHR, 6 and 17 March 2017. "SWEDHR analysis of the White Helmets video of Sarmin 2015"

[Ref 12] = Dagens Nyheter, 2 April 2018. Svensk grupp i rysk propaganda om giftattacken på spion

[Ref 13] = The Indicter, 8 April 2017. Statement by Swedish Professors & Doctors for Human Rights on misrepresentations referred in Veterans Today article on White Helmets

[Ref 14] = Arab News, 18 April 2017. Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre

[Ref 15] = Coda Story, 2 May 2017 "Russia Used a Two-Year-Old Video and an 'Alternative' Swedish Group to Discredit Reports of Syria Gas Attack"

[Ref 16] Id. as in Ref 9.

Toverster (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) Toverster (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)