Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)/Archive 2

RFC - Funding from US/European governments in the lead
Should the following statement be added to the lead?

The White Helmets receives funding mainly from the United States and European governments.

Source: their official website.

A secondary source: WaPo Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey
Support as nominator. Per WP:LEAD: The lead should be summarizing the contents of the article in a concise way. There's large sections dedicated to the funding of this organization in this article. Besides, funding is important to keep this organization afloat. According to their website, these funds go to "training, equipment and support we need to achieve our mission." And the funding by the United States government has been the most. With a budget of $26 million, the US government provided $23 million dollars of funds to this organization. That's not conspiracy talk, that information comes straight from the State Department. The significance of that cannot be questioned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I would be delighted to second this nomination. The info obviously belongs in the lead as you argue. I would suggest that this Al-Jazeera video  is also included in the external links to better inform the reader where this money is going. The video shows these alleged volunteers talking about going on strike action if they don't get their wages soon. Ian Adams (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No - does not appear to be significant portion of the article and not WP:DUE much mention as there just isn't a lot of press mention for this -- the only supporting cite shown is the organizations own here and the external mentions I saw about funding were appeals for public donations. Markbassett (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No - simply referring to it as a humanitarian NGO would be a sufficient summation of that section. The sources of the funding aren't important or noteworthy enough to warrant being included in the lead.  Dbrote (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No - The fact that the nominator of this question has to dig so deep to supposedly - and incorrectly - identify the US government as the largest funder says it all. In actual fact the page makes clear that, "USAID have contributed at least $23 million from 2013 to March 2016" (i.e. over three years) while, "the British government had provided £15 million of funding between 2012 and November 2015, increased to £32 million by October 2016" (i.e. over four years) £32 million is equivalent to around $46 million (exchange rate at time) - substantially more than USAID's $23 million. I suspect that the purported $26 million budget is the annual one. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Echo Dbrote. Also there are several countries funding this organization, to single out US in the lede is undue and serves to no purpose as far as I can see, according to our article Brits are paying more. Darwinian Ape talk 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It makes sense to add the funding to the lead as it pertains to the very existence of the organisation. The line that is being proposed is also concise, and can easily be added to an already short lead. I can imagine a readers finding this bit of information helpful. Amin (Talk) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. "Very existence" of every NGO depends on funding. However, we usually do not include anything except total expenditures in the lead - see Human Rights Watch. I am not sure though if even total expenditures should be included, but this is a separate question. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is curious that a "NGO" (not-for-profit organization that is independent from states and international governmental organizations) receives million dollars in donations from Western governments. At least, Amnesty International "says that it does not accept donations from governments or governmental organisations" and Human Rights Watch "reports that it does not accept any direct or indirect funding from governments" (quoted from their articles). Should White Helmets be called a NGO (specially in the article)? I don't think so. It is an organization funded by the very NATO members interested in a regime change in Syria. That's why who fund them it is relevant info for the lead. emijrp (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the edit under discussion is to tilt the lead towards POV of Assad government and supporters: Assad and his supporters have attacked the group's ties to Western governments, suggesting that the White Helmets are really terrorists in disguise - as the source by ED tells. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many NGO are at least partially funded by various governmental agencies. This is a matter of concern, but it does not make them not NGO. It is important that specific government or another organization does not control them according to RS. If multiple RS tell otherwise (e.g. "NGO" X was in fact a front organization of something), that can be included, but I do not see such multiple RS claiming it in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This RFC isn't discussing to call White Helmets a front organization. It just proposes to add referenced and relevant information to the lead (WH funded by Western governments). Information, that as you stated, it is a matter of concern. emijrp (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, according to the source at the top of the RfC, this is not a matter of concern, but a matter of propaganda by Assad government and supporters. But a phrase about it was already included in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. There is an entire section about funding. It must be summarized in the lead. emijrp (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. As others indicated it doesn't seem this needs to be in the the lead in general, and it's a weak summary. It awkwardly singles out the US when it's not the main contributor, and almost any collection of developed nations could be described as "mainly US and Europe" even though it includes Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and possibly others. The information in the article seems to strongly suggest that more than half of funding came from US/UK, at least for 2015. However there was clearly very substantial funding from other countries and non-governmental sources as well, and their budget for other years is unclear. I'm concerned that it might venture into OR/SYN to say "mainly" unless we can source it. Alsee (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Disposing a body
We have last paragraph sourced to that. Well, this is a primary source. If we do not have at least a couple of really good secondary RS about this, it means the incident was not notable and therefore undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Incident is not notable. Imagine if e.g. the page on the LAPD had an extra paragraph every time one of its employees was disciplined for some minor offense. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But I'm sure it's pretty difficult for the West to report this matter since Western governments provide tens of millions of dollars in cash to this organization while the Hollywood elite have given them Oscars and such. And it's not like it's the first time they've done this. There's at least one other incident [WARNING: explicit violent content] . Also, you might also want to read this article which gives a different take on this organization. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. Did you really just link to "zerohedge"? The fake-news/conspiracy-theory/far-right website??? Again with these type of sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're in a middle of a discussion here. And are you backing off from saying: "do not see a reason to include any negative factoid"? That's the initial reason why you removed the material. And yes, this is pretty big news. Even though the White Helmets BOD suspended them for only three months (sounds more like a summer vacation to me), this organization has a history of doing this. Above all, they are cheering and celebrating. I added a source by Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton that confirms that too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "every", not "any". Yes, I was wrong: this is not "factoid". After looking at the claims in primary and other questionable/self-published sources we do not really know what had actually happen. If that was reported in a couple of reputable secondary sources, we could include it with appropriate attribution. But we do not have such RS. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not buying it. You said: "do not see a reason to include any negative factoid" and by changing it to every negative factoid won't make much of a difference either. And besides, what do you mean by "negative"? That's a highly subjective word. Who's to say what's negative or positive other than your personal POV? So to say that we shouldn't include any or every "negative factoid" would mean nothing less than WP:POVPUSHING just because of WP:JDLI. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said that my edit summary was incorrect, and explained the actual reason for my edit on this talk page. So, why do you bring this again? My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, your rationale for it being incorrect doesn't make much sense to me. By changing any to every doesn't change the gist of your edit-summary. And you still haven't elaborated on what "negative" means to you, do you think we're adding "negative factoids" to this article? Cause that's highly subjective and indicative of WP:POV editing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you said that my edit summary was wrong. I responded: "yes, my edit summary was wrong". You responded again: "but your edit summary was wrong". That reminds me comic writings by Mikhail Zhvanetsky. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, your rationale as to why you believe your edit-summary is wrong is what's concerning. Changing the word any to every doesn't make any difference. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the word "any" and the word "every" mean different things, of course it makes a difference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no. It doesn't. If anything, using the word "every" makes it worse. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "I'm sure it's pretty difficult for the West to report this matter since Western governments provide tens of millions of dollars in cash to this organization while the Hollywood elite have given them Oscars and such"' <--- yeah.... no. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, please do not reinsert this material. Website of the organization is a primary source. Not having at least a couple of really good secondary RS makes this thing: (a) poorly sourced, and (b) not notable and undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Salon recently republished that material from Alternet so it appears that this is gaining a lot of attention. And by "poorly sourced" are you saying that the sources don't jive with the facts or something? Because these people got booted for 3 months so even the sources you consider "poor" did some accurate reporting. And just because Western sources failed to report this doesn't mean it never happened. That's obvious to me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how in the world you get that Salon republishing an Alternet story means that "the story is gaining a lot of attention". IF IT IS "getting a lot of attention" you should have no trouble finding actual reliable sources. I mean, with all this attention that this story is getting, you should be able to find dozens, hundreds, thousands even..... or maybe not... even ... one.... Please stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk)
 * So... this prove that this is "getting a lot of attention"... waiting... Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A single publication (republishing) in newspaper does not make anything notable, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither would a single comment like the one you're making. We decide what's WP:DUE through consensus. At this point, if you feel that this sourced material doesn't belong on this article, perhaps opening up an RFC will be better. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's reported by a reliable source, then what issue do you take with it? El_C 18:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AlterNet is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean? The videos are lies? Them being booted from the White Helmets is a lie as well? And what about Salon? It's used throughout this project. Like I said, if you have a problem with it, perhaps an RFC is the best way to go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters the part about "celebrating with the crowd" may very well be a lie.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That proves nothing. Many questionable sources are used widely in the project. There are 2000+ links to RT (TV network) if you check. Per WP:RS, the source is not only the internet newspaper. One must also check who was the author, where it came from, if the the claim contentious or something highly unusual, etc. Was it something reprinted from another source without any editorial oversight, for example? My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. And not only that. I just said above that a single republishing on the internet does not make anything notable and deserving inclusion. And it does not matter if we are talking about this incident or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Salon is a reliable source, so what issue is there with mentioning this? El_C 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you call the edit "crap"? That's not appropriate. Please exercise moderation with your language. Now, please explain why you removed that piece. Calmly. El_C 18:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Salon is actually borderline. But this isn't Salon this is Alternet being rehosted by Salon. So not reliable (and there's nothing wrong with calling a source "crap").Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Who do you ask and what "crap" are you talking about? I have already provided twice an explanation above, and it remains essentially the same (even though it was not me who removed this text with additional reference to Salon). There are two reasons: (1) even if you consider "Salon" a reliable source, publication in a single RS does not make it something notable and deserving inclusion, (2) I personally have no idea if Salon is a reliable source for this claim, however the publication seem to be republished from a source which is not reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is criticism and scepticism about the White Helmets, some of that is legitimate, and some of it wild conspiracy. The legitimate and well referenced stuff should be on Wikipedia, and if it keeps getting deleted, I think our best bet is to get invite more Wikipedians into this discussion. I am surprised that this scepticism is pointed towards a legitimate article authored by Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton that got published in both AlterNet and Salon.
 * You comfortably skip over arguments, and paint AlterNet as "not reliable a reliable source" as if the discussion should end there. If AlterNet is not a reliable source, where do you draw a line? If Wikipedia exclusively relied on Reuters and AP sources, it would reflect a fraction of the world's reality.
 * I have read all your replies in this discussion but I don't think you have enough foundation to keep excluding this bit of information. It is both relevant, and referenced sufficiently to be included.
 * I suggest we include the bit, and refrain from edit-warring it away. But if you have any good counter-arguments I am glad to learn of them. Amin (Talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can take it to WP:RSN if you want to, but generally it's not considered a reliable source. More. For controversial info you need MULTIPLE reliable sources, per WP:REDFLAG. I suggest we leave this crap out until somebody finds actual reliable sources and refrain from edit-warring over it. How does that sound? You need consensus for inclusion, not exclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, WP:REDFLAG would only be considered if the claim was contentious, challenged, or conspiracy. But it's not any of those. Not only is this incident not being contested by the White Helmets, these members were subsequently suspended by them. That's something we're not making up. It's straight from the White Helmets BOD. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim is freakin' contentious! It is being challanged! For kangaroo's sake what are you talking about??? Of course WP:REDFLAG applies. REDFLAG applies if:
 * "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" - this is obviously an "important claim". So show me these multiple mainstream sources. You can't cause they don't exist. So stop monkeying up the waters with these nonsensical claims that REDFLAG doesn't apply because this isn't "controversial". That's ridiculous. This is just like when you ran around claiming that the existence of a crematorium used to burn the corpses of murdered people was "non-controversial" (and then made a bigoted remark about Germans, but nm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Contested by who exactly? Certainly not the White Helmets who booted these guys over this incident. Just because you say it's contentious, Marek, doesn't mean it actually is. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that these guys participated and "celebrated" this execution is obviously controversial. Please stop trying to bullshit me. Again. It's easy. If this story is correct and non-controversial you should have no problems finding other sources about it. But you can't. On the other hand we have SEVERAL reliable sources which accurately state that the White Helmets have been the target of a smear campaign. So yeah, it's freakin' controversial. REDFLAG buddy. REDFLAG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Please stop trying to bullshit me."? You know you've been warned several times by for WP:INCIVIL and in addition to that, this remark of yours reeks of WP:BADFAITH. You're not helping create a welcoming environment for users here in order to sustain consensus building. It's really hard to establish any such dialogue under such circumstances. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As you well know since you've tried to string me up for it unsuccesfully several times, which led to you getting effectively banned from filing reports against me, there's no prohibition on Wikipedia against the use of words such as "bullshit". Please stop with this fake "welcoming environment" stuff. And the "consensus building". Sure, great things. Why don't you try'em. You can start by not making utterly ridiculous claims that participation of the White Helmets in an execution is "non-controversial". You know what makes it hard to "establish a dialogue"? When one party in a conversation shows up and makes prima facie false claims, expects to be taken seriously, and then turns around and accuses the other of "not acting in good faith". Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making the bad faith remarks, curses, and incivil comments. For as long as you've known me, I've probably never made a personal attack towards you, nor have I with any other user. Yet, in a talk page you state my intentions here is to "bullshit". How delightful. And now it looks like you still stand by it. So if you continue to have a problem with it, take it to ANI. That's where such discussions over user conduct should take place. But not over a content issue. With that said, you violated the 1RR here, or at least you're WP:GAMING the 1RR. You can't just add material the same exact material over and over again in different parts of the article. Technically, that's a partial revert under WP:3RR. But coupled with GAMING, it just might be disruptive. Didn't warn you about this already? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know, I think claiming that the White Helmets participating in an execution is "not controversial" most definitely qualifies as a bad faith remark. Oh, and so does claiming that "scholarly sources" say something and then refusing to provide them. Oh and then when pressed for these "scholarly sources" linking to anti-semitic websites and conspiracy theory websites. Or claiming that the burning of murdered bodies is "not controversial". All of these I think fall under "bad faithed" remarks. And yeah, you don't do personal attacks you just report editors for nonsense until you ... well, until you get sanctioned for it. As far as "curses" etc. goes, see WP:CPUSH.
 * And that is NOT a 1RR violation. Gimme a break and stop trying to WP:GAME. One edit added material to a section. Another edit summarized the article - it summarized the content that was already there! If this content hadn't been in the article ALREADY maybe you'd have a point. NEITHER of these edits is a revert nor is it "gaming". Pretending with a straight face that this is "gaming" is gaming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never received a sanction in this project. Ever. If I did so, prove it. Voluntarily abstention from the AE board is not a sanction, so let me save you some time in looking. Rehashing age old disputes over and over again doesn't help this discussion in any way either. And again, there is no controversy. The only person contending this incident as it is laid out by sources, both primary and secondary, is you. The White Helmets acknowledged that these members did not act with "neutrality and impartiality". Those quotation marks are there because I'm using their wording, not mine. So no, REDFLAG doesn't count here. Because there's nothing to debate here. And yes, that's gaming. Adding the same material twice in different parts of the article is precisely that. But we'll have the admins be the judge of that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "I've never received a sanction in this project. Ever." Not true. You are currently under a restriction from reporting me to WP:AE. Voluntary or not, it is a sanction. Especially since the "voluntary" part wasn't all that voluntary.
 * And please stop making this ridiculous claim that "there's no controversy". And no it's just not me. Here . Quote: "Very big claim made on basis of single non-reliable source". And here[. Quote: " unexplained addition of poorly sourced material". So another "not true". We'd get along much better if you just stopped saying things which are blatantly and verifiable false. Like, all the time. And then acting like you expect me to believe it. And on top of that we have a half a dozen sources which state that this group is subject of a smear campaign. Which this is probably a part of. There's plenty to debate here. Like how in the world do you or your, um, very very very very not so good, source can claim that these guys were "celebrating". Because that's not in the video. It's made up. It's interpretation by AlterNet (a quite quite quite quite quite not so reliable source). WP:REDFLAG always applies to articles like these actually since they're by their nature controversial. Your attempts to ... actually, your outright vocal refusal to follow Wikipedia policy here (and again, WP:REDFLAG is a policy) are just proof that. You. Can't. Find. Reliable. Sources. To back this stuff up.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek] (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Voluntarily abstention is not the same as restriction. And why are we discussing this? Why do you feel it so necessary to rehash my entire record over and over again on this talk page? Do I do it with you? No. And didn't you want to discuss content Marek, and not talk about behavior and such? So I'm ready when you are. But remarks such as "We'd get along much better if you just stopped saying things which are blatantly and verifiable false."? Again, but you are saying I've been lying and those are my intentions. This is so bad faith it's not funny. I've said nothing that sources haven't already said but you make it seem as if I'm making stuff up or straight up lying. How many times are you going to repeat that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Why do you feel it so necessary to rehash my entire record over and over again" - because just as you were making accusations against me you claimed that you had "not made bad faithed remarks". I am discussing content. If YOU wish to discuss it then please drop this ridiculous notion that this content is "non-controversial". THAT is the part where you're making stuff up. Dropping this line would show some good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek, where in this talk page have I said that I have "not made bad faithed remarks"? And yes, it's not controversial. Yet, just because when you say something is controversial doesn't make it so. There's nothing to debate here. They were celebrating. The sources back it up. In that regard, the White Helmets acknowledged that these members did not act with "neutrality and impartiality" and "improperly". It's all right there in the print. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "where in this talk page have I said that I have "not made bad faithed remarks"? " Uh, dude, it's like right there, couple comments up. Quote: "I'm not the one making the bad faith remarks".
 * And of course it's controversial. Your refusal to acknowledge that evidences that you are not participating in this discussion in good faith. How do you know "they were celebrating"? The sources back it up? Oh really? Which ones? That ONE... "very very very very very low quality source" (note to observers - an involved administrator has objected to a more accurate characterization of that source, for some reason) that says so? It's "right there in the print"? Yeah, "right there in the print" in the "very very very very very low quality source" you got. So what? Where are the "multiple mainstream sources" as required by policy?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:REDFLAG, one more time: "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". So.... where are these, the multiple mainstream sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thought you said that I never made bad faithed remarks. At any rate, you have yet to prove Salon as an unreliable source. Saying that it is doesn't make it so. Strange how the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_200 speaks quite positively about it, to say the least. So if you'll excuse me, I'll take the RSNs word over yours. But you're still free to send it to the RSN if you keep on insisting. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whaa? Whatever. Anyway, it's actually not up to me to prove Salon is unreliable, it is up to you to prove that it is (and besides what I said is that it's "borderline"). But none of that matters, because the source is not Salon but Alternet. And, REDFLAG concerns "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" so you need these "multiple mainstream sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not according to the RSN. And there's no surprising claims made here. If Salon is accepted by the RSN as a reliable source, which by all accounts it is, then we use it. Hence, REDFLAG doesn't apply here. It's not like the White Helmets are denying it or anything. And this organization has a history of doing this by the way. The only difference is that this time they're cheering, celebrating, and raising their fists while doing it. Hence why it's not impartial, neutral, and improper, and which resulted in a suspension of 3 months. And I wonder what that says about this organization's credibility with these guys coming back on board by summer's end. Won't look good, and Wikipedia might have to adjust. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games. "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"
 * And are you seriously throwing up the twitter of the editor of al-Masdar News - the outlet that employed a neo-Nazi - to support your claims? One could possibly come to the conclusion that you are purposefully trying to provoke me, since we've talked about this before. multiple mainstream sources". That's policy. Abide.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least Al-Masdar fired him for good. The White Helmets, on the other hand, gave these two a summer vacation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I believe that linking to stuff like that can get you banned pretty quickly so I suggest you remove that link. Hey El_C, whatever happened to "grossly inappropriate material"? Linking to explicit videos of executions is ok but saying "crap" is not? EtienneDolet, next time you link to explicit content like that without an explicit warning we're taking a trip to the drama boards. Heck, if it wasn't late I'd do it right now. It's seriously messed up for you to put up a link like this and trick people into clicking on it, and watching something they can't unsee. This isn't freakin' 4chan buddy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it. I've placed warning next to that link. Please make sure you caution editors from explicit violent content, EtienneDolet—Yes, even for this article. El_C 10:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And come on man! In that RSN discussion you link to above the editors actually say that Salon may be fine BUT THAT REDFLAG APPLIES and that you need multiple mainstream sources. I mean, holy cow (wait... holy cow is ok, no?) these guys are saying pretty much what I'm saying here yet you link to it as if they supported your position!?!?! Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about your position, not mine. You claim Salon is borderline. I say it's reliable. RSN complies with my view, not yours. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, not REDFLAG. Since there's nothing surprising here. They got booted. REDFLAG concerns stuff about conspiracies and fringe theories. This is far from that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * False. Again. As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out REDFLAG concerns "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". Your continual refusal to either 1) provide such multiple mainstream sources or 2) acknowledge that this material is indeed controversial and subject REDFLAG is suggestive evidence that you are behaving in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, all this REDFLAG stuff will be in your favor if these people didn't get booted. But they did. So that's that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. That's not that's that. What's what is that you need, multiple mainstream sources. This is what policy says.
 * REDFLAG concerns "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And just to preempt other WP:GAME, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT hijinks, that's a "or" not an "and" in that clause.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think 1RR was violated, file a report at AN3 or AE. El_C 06:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Better not be colluding here... Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How is: "If you think 1RR was violated, file a report at AN3 or AE" an attempt at collusion? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also surprised by that. El_C 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Was a joke. Thought it was obvious. Must not be calm enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * And this edit is pure WP:SYNTH. You are conflating Alex Jones conspiracy claims against the White Helmets with this incident when there's no conspiracy made. The White Helmets suspended these members. They've acknowledged that such an incident occurred and took appropriate action. No "smear campaign" here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the White Helmets are subject to a smear campaign establishes that this is controversial info and REDFLAG applies. So... where are these reliable sources? Please provide'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to take a time out from this article/talk page, Volunteer Marek, if you can't stay calm. El_C 05:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly calm. On the other hand you insist on discussing editors (me - by claiming that I'm not "calm") rather than content. Please read WP:NPA. Perhaps you should take a break until you can actually follow that policy and not insult other editors by saying they're "not calm". How would you feel if I said that you should take a break because "you appear hysterical"? Wouldn't like it would you? So why are you doing that to others?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Enough. Just write with moderation. El_C 05:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do not reinsert it again. This is a contentious material. One needs an WP:Consensus to include. This is so per WP:BRD, per WP:BLP, and per WP:Consensus restriction used on certain US-politics related pages. Make an RfC if you wish. BTW, do you know who was that person executed by militants on the video linked by EtienneDolet? This is certainly relevant to the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop saying "crap." Why do I need to ask twice? It's childish. It's an edit you disapprove of—we get it. You are subject to civility like everyone else. Stop creating a toxic atmosphere. *** Consensus clause does not apply to SCW restrictions. El_C 04:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to? And no, referring to a source as "crap" is not uncivil. It is accurate, in this case. And I'm sorry but I get to choose the descriptive adjectives I feel are appropriate and no, there's no policy or guideline or anything else that prohibits me from describing a source as I see fit. I can, if I so choose, find alternative words and synonyms if you'd like, just to make you happy, but I doubt you'll find those much better. Because when something's ... well, crap, any word that accurately describes it is going to reflect that in one way or another. And what's an "SCW restriction"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling an edit "crap" makes this a toxic atmosphere and you know it. Just stop it. *** WP:SCW: the restriction is 1RR. El_C 05:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is arguing with a straight face that "this is non-controversial" material. What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is pretending that usual policies about reliable sources and verifiability don't apply "just because". What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is reinserting contentious material into the article without consensus. What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is the same kind of disruptive behavior across a dozen articles related to this topic, all with the same kind of problems - removing reliable sources, insisting on text based on sketchy sources, obfuscating and obstructing in discussion, running to drama boards to "win" a content dispute (oh, I forgot, he's banned from doing that anymore). What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is ACTING in obviously bad faith and completely failing to compromise. What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is going on about how "Western governments" and media are propaganda (sic). What makes this a "toxic atmosphere" is this little tag-team of ED and Khirurg that goes from article to article and engages in advocacy. Seriously, calling a bad source what it is is the LEAST of the issues with the atmosphere here. But hey, you're always welcome to go to ANI or whatever and argue that we should ban users for saying "crap". Which, seriously, is not even profane. I mean, they have little kids saying it on TV and stuff. Please drop this faux outrage and focus on the content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'm still not clear on what your comment "Consensus clause does not apply to SCW restrictions" is suppose to mean. Can you clarify? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Compare Template:Editnotices/Page/Syrian civil war with Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump—must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article—See also ARBPIA3#consensus provision modified. Just use moderate language, please. El_C 05:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, that means that if somebody restores content that has been challenged you can't automatically block them (or go running to WP:AE). Sure. But it DOES NOT mean that the burden of consensus is on those who wish to exclude. The burden to get consensus is ALWAYS, discretionary sanctions or not, on those who wish to INCLUDE, especially when it's controversial material. Wikipedia policy is still policy even without discretionary sanctions. And WP:REDFLAG is policy, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) If Salon is considered reliable, then that's pretty much it. It doesn't matter where Salon got it from, if it's good enough for Salon, it's good enough for wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because it's just a rehosting of the AlterNet article. Seriously if this is true then you should have no trouble finding actually reliable sources to corroborate it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop referring to "your butt" to "crap" and to "bullshit," VM. I won't warn you again. El_C 05:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get the feeling that no matter what words I use, you're gonna find me cockapert and seek to bumfiddle me. Look, it's not your job as an admin to police other's words. Personal attacks, yes. Words, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I insist you treat other editors with respect. That also includes me. El_C 06:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right back at ya.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see a problem with including this highly contentious material because:
 * 1) This Salon publication does not comply with WP:RS. The publication gives big warning: "This article originally appeared on AlterNet." I followed their link to AlterNet, and it gave "404 Error". The AlerNet itself is hardly a reputable source with editorial oversight.
 * 2) A publication in the AlterNet does not make anything notable and deserving inclusion.
 * 3) There was indeed a smear disinformation campaign against this organization, as described in multiple RS. Therefore, one must be especially careful to include only something that was reliably sourced to multiple RS and something undoubtedly "due" on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand why it is at all notable. White Helmets consist of some 3000 volunteers in over 100 units, operating in a pretty decentralised way in conditions of war and fragmented governance, and in one single rural area a couple of volunteers cheered while carrying out their duties and were reprimanded. That is not in the least notable is it? Those who want it included need to have some way of showing notability, e.g. multiple reports in reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed it per WP:REDFLAG, per the fact it's controversial, per the lack of reliable sources and per the fact that consensus is required for inclusion not exclusion and the comments right above clearly indicate that such consensus does not exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that EtienneDolet suggested above that an RfC would be desirable, and MVBW also agreed. The discussion seems to be interminable and bad-tempered, so I opened the RfC myself. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If you guys think theres nothing wrong with that video, you should nominate it for the oscars — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItchWash (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
I call attention to this edit by Volunteer Marek. Yet, there is a virtually identical sentence at the start of the section: According to investigative journalists and analysts, SCD became a target of a systematic information warfare campaign by the Russian government, the Syrian government, and their supporters. Repeating the same info at the end, right after the allegations of White Helmets participating in an execution, is as clear cut an example of an attempt at poisoning the well as possible. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right, it shouldn't be in that paragraph twice. Good edit. Of course the Alternet bilge should still be removed. And this info should be summarized in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, good edit. But what Khirurg reverted wasn't just a removal of repeating the same information. Marek's edit was WP:SYNTH and muddied the waters. Combining two sources to discredit or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is disruptive. 06:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just agreed. I meant to put the text at the end of the section, where it appeared to belong. It was a mistake since the same info was already at the beginning. So good for Khirurg for removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point I'm making it. Combining that source after that sentence is SYNTH. To reiterate: Combining two sources to discredit or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is disruptive. It appears that just because you didn't like that material, you tried to discredit it when neither sourced claims concerned one another in their respective sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, will ya? I already said, that it was proper to remove it. Not because it was "SYNTH" but because it was erroneously placed into the article. You're trying to make it out something it's not which really smacks of more WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What? How's that gaming? I'm just telling you that that edit you made was WP:SYNTH. You are combining two statements about two different things into one statement. If that's not textbook SYNTH, I don't know what is. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an erroneous edit as I've already said several times. It should've been at the end of the section with a space in between and it shouldn't have been in there because it was already at the beginning. The "gaming" part is that you are trying to milk a simple error and make it seem like something it wasn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what this is all about. This summary in the lead seem to be just fine, at least in the current version. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Disposing a body
Should the following be added to the "Controversies" section?

On 16th May 2017, two members of a local Civil Defence team in Jasim, Daraa Governorate, attended an execution of a murderer at the request of a local tribal council, to humanely dispose of the body. The members, however, were seen celebrating along with the crowd. SCD Management issued a statement saying the local team should have checked with the organisation before agreeing to the request, removing the local team leader for not doing so, and reprimanding the two members for not upholding the "strict principals of neutrality and impartiality" and suspended them for three months.

Indicate Yes or No with reasons. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Comment: I am simply opening an RfC in response to the discussion. I have no preference either way. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can see the following problems with suggested text:
 * 1) The source does not tell " members [plural], however, were seen about ...". This is not in the source.
 * 2) The text (mis)represents the events as a fact. We can not tell, for example, "the members were seen ...". We should say "the members were seen..., according to a publication in AlterNet ". Does it sound good for inclusion? We do not really know what was true, and what was not, especially given the existence of organized smear campaign against the organization.
 * 3) I think this Salon publication does not comply with WP:RS. The publication gives big warning: "This article originally appeared on AlterNet." AlerNet is not a reputable source with editorial oversight.
 * 4) A publication in the AlterNet does not make anything notable and deserving inclusion. My very best wishes (talk)
 * Note My very best wishes stated in an edit-summary that he doesn't want anything "negative" be placed in this article: "do not see a reason to include any negative factoid." When asked to clarify, he said he should have changed the word any to every which essentially means the same thing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "We do not really know what was true, and what was not, especially given the existence of organized smear campaign against the organization." - No, not a smear campaign. A smear campaign would mean making baseless claims against this organization. In this case, however, the White Helmets are not denying any of it. They were caught and they admitted it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note EtienneDolet is making stuff up, blatantly misrepresenting other users and attacking them. As has been explained REPEATEDLY, MVBW said that not every negative thing needs to go in here. That does not mean the same as "any" and ANYone who thinks these two words mean the same thing is either being purposefully disingenious or is incompetent to a point of not being qualified to edit an encyclopedia. Stop attacking other users. Stop lying about what they said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support As I've aforementioned, there's no debate over the veracity of this video. These two members were suspended for 3 months for this conduct. And that's not conspiracy, surprising, or speculative information. Indeed, if we were to base all our knowledge about this incident by looking at just one video, it would be. But in this case, the misconduct in the video is affirmed by secondary sources and more importantly, by the White Helmets themselves. They've acknowledged that such an incident occurred and took appropriate action. Also, Salon is RS until proven otherwise. The RSN speaks quite positively about it as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is debate about 1) what's in the video, 2) whether this video is notable. Also, the claim that this "is affirmed by secondary sources" is completely false. It is affirmed by a single non-reliable source. That's it. Quit making stuff up. The source is NOT Salon as you are pretending it is AlterNet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes In my opinion, not to mention the horrific, inhumane executions this group are involved in and other facts about them would lead Wikipedia off into the ideological land of Al Qaeda. It is an affront to Western morals and everyone should see it. Whatever form is fine with me. You can see clearly on the video two out of the three White Helmet members were waving their hands in the air, shouting "Allahu Akbar". Who cares what the text says. We're not blind. SCD got caught with their pants down and admitted it. Ian Adams (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The silliness expressed in this opinion about "would lead Wikipedia off into the ideological land of Al Qaeda" should mean that this !vote can be safely discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Strong Support This is a credible bit of information referenced by 1) The White Helmets via an official press release 2) AlterNet by two reputable journalists 3) Republished in Salon. This serves as more than enough basis to include the bit in the article. Amin (Talk) 10:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What "press release"? Self-publishing something on website of an organization is not press release. How a single publication in AlterNet and republishing in Salon makes anything notable? My very best wishes (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as has repeatedly been pointed out 1) the relevant source isn't Salon, it's AlterNet which is not reliable (stop pretending otherwise) 2) This is controversial info which means WP:REDFLAG applies. EtienneDolet has been repeatedly asked to provide multiple mainstream sources and has utterly failed to do so. Instead he has tried to make the ridiculous assertion that this is "non-controversial material". Which is bad faithed, tendentious and disruptive. WP:REDFLAG is policy and NPOV is one of the 5 pillars. You actually CAN'T hold an RfC to override Wikipedia policy and pillars locally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're judgement about reliable sources is so silly, it's beyond a joke. You'd rather include bizarre POV Snopes sourcing from Benthania Palma Markus than Max Blumentthal. Jog on. RT and Al-Masdar ran this story, multiple, mainstream and reliable. You just don't like them and don't want to hear that. Ian Adams (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, support - Sourced and deserves mention. EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you say why it deserves mention? Why is it notable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When an organisation, that is highly regarded by some, does something really controversial, which they themselves thought it necessary to confirm and confront, then it is our job to include it in their history. Its not our job to intentionally embarrass anyone (as you said in the following discussion with Huldra), but its also not our job to censor information when they factually do something controversial (as Huldra said). EkoGraf (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I *love* this. We need to include it because it's controversial hence notable, but we don't need to observe WP:REDFLAG and provide actually reliable sources because this is non-controversial! You can't make this stuff up. Yes, I know this is two different editors (who none the less tend to support each other) but the fact that you can come up with these two diametrically opposed rationales without bothering to acknowledge the contradiction illustrates just how silly this proposal is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, if it is controversial then |WP:REDFLAG applies - needs multiple reliable secondary sources. If it is notable, this won't be difficult. If it's difficult, then by definition it's not notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that SOHR covered the execution but not anything about the White Helmets involvement. That secondary source some deem reliable was also removed. It is another on the list that verifies the event. Ian Adams (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, support I don't even know why this is being discussed. As some above mentioned: they were caught with their pants down and admitted it. Huldra (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This implies that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to expose or embarrass the agency the article is about. Actually, though, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to give a balanced account of notable material based on secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, obviously it is not Wikipedias job to work as a smear machine. But when people/organisations clearly  have done something bad, it is simply not our job to censor that, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As well as the RS issues noted here, as I already said above I simply don't understand why this is at all notable. White Helmets consist of some 3000 volunteers in over 100 units, operating in a pretty decentralised way in conditions of war and fragmented governance, and in one single rural area a couple of volunteers cheered while carrying out their duties and were reprimanded. That is not in the least notable is it? (As I said before, imagine if the article on LAPD had a paragraph added every time one of its employees had a minor disciplinary.) Those who want it included need not just to have a reliable source for the info, but to have some way of showing notability, e.g. multiple reports in mainstream reliable sources. As that is clearly impossible at this stage, should simply be excluded.BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is very obviously should not be included per policy. Generally speaking, WP:Consensus should not override WP:RS and WP:NPOV ("undue" in this case). But a number of participants voted otherwise, without policy-based justifications. Why? I am sure they have their reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * SupportConfirmed by White Helmets themselves, so no-brainer. Unless we want wikipedia to be censored North Korea style. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: When Asilah1981's post was made, the community was in the process of indef-blocking this user for severely problematical behavior in this general topic area. Due to WP:Courtesy vanishing the Asilah1981 account no longer exists, so I'll I'll include these two helpful links The closer can determine to what extent (if at all) a blocked user should carry weight as a representative of community consensus. Alsee (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether it happened, but whether it is notable, how to show it is, and if it is how to reference it to reliable secondary sources rather than write it up as original research from primary sources. Not mentioning a non-notable factoid is not North Korean style censorship but consensual editing based on accepted principles.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like wanting to focus on technicalities so that something which is extremely relevant and notable does not spoil the current lede which is, btw, plain ridiculous. Are we using snopes as a source to say that these guys are angels from heavens subject to a propaganda campaign by the evil baddies? Because that is what the lede currently says.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is neither "extremely relevant" nor "notable" nor actually sourced to reliable sources. If it was so "notable" you'd figure editors who want to add it in would be able to come up with more than one junkety source to back it up. It's also plain false that this was "confirmed by the WH themselves". That's a convenient interpretation some editors are making on their own - POV driven original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I don't see an issue with inclusion given it's referenced (and it does appear to do just that). Now, as pointed out by Asilah1981, the intro has a few problems of its own, but that's not relevant to the RfC, but I will come back more to this page to help out with cleaning. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 06:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's referenced to AlterNet (although some editors are pretending it's Salon - it's not), a non-reliable source. So yeah, that IS an issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The British journalist and ISIS hostage John Cantlie inadvertently exposed the group’s relationship with ISIS when he referred to a White Helmets team as "the Islamic State’s fire brigade" in a propaganda video he was forced to participate in.
 * Exclude Bot-summoned Very poor sourcing, not demonstrably notable, some inaccuracy such as the plural members. Given the level of disinformation relating to this subject better sourcing is needed. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Include As Kingsindian noted, Ben Norton, one of the authors of the article, is a writer for Salon and The Intercept . So although published by AlterNet, both of the publishing journalists easily satisfy the requirements for WP:RS. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude There exists only one reliable source for a very controversial claim which really isn't notable in the context of the article. Stikkyy t/c 16:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Include reliably sourced, relevant. Arguments against WP:JDL using technicalities and sophistry. Khirurg (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude massive WP:REDFLAG. Alternet is not a Reliable source. The story has been covered no where else, except a reprint by Slate. While Slate generally is a Reliable Source, their reprint of the Alternet story clearly falls far below their usual reliability standards and it shows no evidence of independent verification. The reprinted story itself contains screaming evidence that the story is unreliable. Look at this line from the same story:
 * John Cantlie and James Foley were captured by ISIS in 2013. Foley was beheaded, and Cantile has held captive by ISIS and forced to produce propaganda videos. No reliable source would ever take a captive's forced statement at face value. Furthermore, the White Helmets were in fact not identified as "the Islamic State’s fire brigade" in the video. ISIS produced a propaganda video claiming they help people, and some White Helmets are visible in the video background. The Alternet piece presents an unfounded assumption that the White Helmets are one-and-the-same as ISIS's claimed "fire brigade". It is questionable whether any "ISIS fire brigade" was present at all, ISIS has a clear propaganda aim to claim credit whether they were involved or not. The Alternet piece is clearly manufacturing a case against the White Helmets. I know squat about the White Helmets, but this sourcing stinks.
 * Given the clear case of ISIS falsifications, given Assad&Russia's clear efforts to equate all opposition as ISIS-related, contentious content in this article needs better than our most minimal Reliable Sourcing thresholds per WP:REDFLAG. A solitary bare-reprint by Slate doesn't cut it. We can reconsider this if and when a Reliable Source actually writes some words about it. Alsee (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Please see discussion in this section. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Several people have commented on the venue of publication. The reference is to Salon.com, where they have some sort of partnership/syndication with Alternet. I can note that Ben Norton, one of the co-authors of the article was, until last year, a writer for Salon.com. The other co-author, Max Blumenthal, has written for various publications. On this matter, criticism flows in all directions; and Blumenthal has written other articles on the White Helmets which were critical, and were themselves criticized. That said, I also see the point about WP:REDFLAG. Therefore, I am ambivalent about inclusion. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Max Blumenthal's views do not determine whether he is WP:RS, though since he is biased source and well-known it might be appropriate to add attribution directly to the authors rather then Alternet. However, Max Blumenthal clearly has the credentials to satisfy WP:RS. I don't really see what is so extraordinary about this claim to merit WP:REDFLAG, and while "controversial" is not strictly partly of the WP:REDFLAG policy — I will note that this doesn't seem particularly controversial, and the consensus to include looks pretty decisive at this point. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus will be determined by an uninvolved closer (after this RfC finishes its duration). In the meantime, you can indicate your preference in the section above. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordination Office = Headquarters?
I have repeatedly had this group's headquarters location information removed from this page. TIME Magazine has quoted they have a "coordination office" in Gaziantep, Turkey. I have discussed how "coordination office" is a synonym of "headquarters" along with some dictionary definitions of headquarters on my talk page. Please could anyone who supports the inclusion of the headquarters information office, and understands that a coordination office is a headquarters could indicate this with a yes or no below, I would be grateful. I would also be pleased to try and answer any further questions or concerns why a "coordination office" is not the same thing as a "headquarters", if you have read my talk page and are still going to vote no. Ian Adams (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If source calls something "coordination office", this should be called "coordination office" on the page. Same with other terminology ("rebels", "insurgents", whatever). But I do not see why setting up a coordination office in Turkey deserves inclusion on the page. They had a lot of "offices" in Aleppo and other places. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not answering the question. That location of a company's headquarters is notable and should be included in the infobox. They have a training center in Gaziantep too and that should be added. What are your reasons for not considering coordination office a synonym for a headquarters? I tried adding coordination office and that got deleted too. I guess that would be better than nothing. A coordination office is so obviously a headquarters, it is really silly to keep denying it. It is better to use the word headquarters anyway so as not to plagiarize copyrighted text straight from TIME Magazine. I believe there are guidelines advising editor to change text with synonyms and the like and not lift straight words and phrases, so I really can't see what the problem is. Ian Adams (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to RS, they have/had many offices in numerous places. Which one of them was "main office" (headquarters) RS do not tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. "Main office" is a perfect synonym for "Coordination office". TIME Magazine tells this. Do you think they have a main office somewhere other than the place things are coordinated from? This isn't even vaguely plausible. Ian Adams (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly "co-ordination office" and "headquarters" mean different things. A single RS has referred to "the group's sparsely furnished coordination office in the Turkish city of Gaziantip, near the Syrian border". The source does not clarify if this is one of many co-ordination offices (I think it is the one serving the border region) or if it is the only or main office. "Headquarters" clearly means the main office, and the Time article says nothing to imply this is the main office. White Helmets are a decentralised volunteer force, not a hierarchical structure, so we don't even know if they have a single main office. Other (Russian and pro-regime) sources, which I don't consider reliable but which Ian has suggested on this talk page are, have claimed the actual headquarters are in East Aleppo. If the article says anything more than that there is a co-ordination office near the border in Gazientip, that claim needs referencing to a reliable source, which no-one has attempted to do.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Their headquarters in Aleppo was captured when it fell. That office no longer exists. I do not see any source that called their East Aleppo office a "headquarters". I do not see clearly why coordination office and headquarters are different things. Surely one of the responsibilities to qualify as the main office or headquarters is coordination? And it is a hierarchical structure because we know it has a leader and all about him. The Economist is a reliable source and tells of the training centre ARK set up in Turkey.  Training is another responsibility of a headquarters. This source  says the following :-

"Around the same time (early 2013, CE), ARK, an international contracting firm based in Istanbul, had received a mix of U.S. and British funding intended for “non-lethal aid” to the Syrian opposition, and had identified the rescue teams as a priority. The scale of Assad’s bombardment paralleled conventional wars in Europe (lol, CE), and ARK resurrected a Blitz-era doctrine called Civil Defense. Partnering with a Turkish organization, AKUT, that specialized in earthquake response, they established a training center in southern Turkey for the new teams. There, the boys from Hanano learned basic urban search-and-rescue techniques, along with first aid and firefighting. They were issued trucks, uniforms, and equipment, and then sent back to Syria."

Here we see that they were not only founded in Turkey but also that Turkey is the central store for their vehicles and equipment. So we have 1) coordination 2) training 3) founding, and 4) equipment, materials and vehicle storage, purchasing and distribution all based in the Gaziantep headquarters. Sorry I can't seem to stop using this synonym for coordination office but it couldn't be clearer if it had a giant, flashing, neon sign on top of it saying "BADDY BASE". It is important to figure this information because the article is wildly misleading, making it look like the group is Syrian based. It's a con-job page without showing this. At least I got the word Turkey in there somewhere so people get a peek a the truth. Ian Adams (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Lots of organisations have their headquarters and training centres in totally different locations. The UK ambulance service, for example, has multiple local and regional offices (we might call these co-ordination offices) as well as a few training centres, and no national headquarters, while the volunteer-based St John's ambulance service has a national headquarters where no training takes place, as well as several regional and local offices. The Economist article mentions a training centre in Turkey, but doesn't say if it is in the same building, let alone the same town, as the co-ordination office mentioned in Time. If the White Helmets were a hierarchical organisation controlled by Raed Saleh, as you suggest, then we might expect the headquarters to be Istanbul where he is based, where you claim it was founded, but you seem unaware that Gaziantep is over 1000 km from Istanbul (it is far nearer Aleppo, just 100 km). You are also being a bit self-contradictory in saying they had a headquarters in Aleppo (which RT and other Russian and Syrian pro-government sources claimed up until December) but that nobody calls it a headquarters. You seem to be intent on doing a considerable amount of original research in order to make a politically motivated point. Why can't the article simply say what we know based on reliable sources, i.e that there is a co-ordination office in Gazientep? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I could agree to that. That sounds a fair amendment. I think it would be good to add that there is a training center in Turkey too. Ian Adams (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Good to reach consensus! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Operations
According to White Helmets, they have rescued over 80,000 people. Can we have a table with the dates, locations and number of rescued people? Properly sourced of course. emijrp (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Analysis
Here are some analysis excluded in the article currently:
 * John Pilger: "White Helmets are a complete propaganda construct in Syria"
 * Vanessa Beeley: "‘White Helmets’: New Breed of Mercenaries and Propagandists, Disguised as ‘Humanitarians’ in Syria"
 * Global Research: ‘White Helmets’ — Pawns for U.S. Militarism and War Propaganda
 * El País: "Sin embargo, otros medios independientes, como la periodista Vanessa Beeley o el centro Global Research (con sede en Canadá) les acusan de servir de instrumento de propaganda antirrégimen y de connivencia con los yihadistas."

Regards. emijrp (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Emilio,
 * I am not sure whether Global Research is credible enough to be included in Wikipedia.
 * As for John Pilger's comments and El País, these seem like good add-ons to add to the article.
 * Amin (Talk) 16:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Obviously GlobalResearch and 21st Century Wire are not reliable sources. The El Pais piece is reliable, but I can't see what it adds; it just says what the article already says, that pro-Russian and fringe media sources have attacked the White Helmets. The Pilger opinion video also adds nothing - it is simply the opinion of one commentator, with no particular notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)