Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)/Archive 5

Unfair to discredit criticism by choosing a source that does not include the evidence those making the criticism always include in their articles
Honestly. Snopes choses an article and claims it does not provide any evidence, totally ignoring all the other articles by the same author with audiovisual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshmustard (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean |this edit? The title is "Are the Syrian ‘White Helmets’ Rescue Organization Terrorists?" so the topic is the general claim, not just that one author's specific claim. Snopes also cites its sources clearly, including in hyperlinks in the article, as well as the expert interviewed, and the list of sources entitled "Sources" at the end of the article. I don't think there's any justification to remove it, especially as the claim was clearly attributed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Snopes is usually a good read, not entirely sure why I added this talk point here (as WP's not reponsible for Snopes!). But my point was, Snopes say "Beeley claims XYZ, but in this singular handpicked speech where she reiterated her claim, she did not have audiovisual evidence at hand. Therefore we're not going to address her claim, or bother to read any of her articles, so will just dismiss it outright". That is really poor of Snopes (and typical of most counter-arguments cited here) - "The Russians said it, QED". Harshmustard (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemical-weapons-chlorine-gas-video-conspiracy-theory-russia-a8927116.html
 * https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-douma-chemical-attacks-that-led-us-to-bomb-syria-were-a-opcw-lie/
 * https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/17/confirmed-chemical-weapons-assessment-contradicting-official-syria-narrative-is-authentic/
 * https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/27/the-evidence-we-were-never-meant-to-see-about-the-douma-gas-attack/embed/
 * https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/05/27/western-media-key-syria-deceptions
 * https://www.mintpressnews.com/as-mainstream-journalists-acknowledge-douma-attacks-were-staged-the-humanitarian-syria-regime-change-network-tries-to-save-a-sinking-ship/255223/
 * https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/douma-chemical-attack-evidence-syria/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4FC1:74A8:DDA3:F246:B87C:DC4D (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This page is propaganda
It's straight up McCarthyism. Any criticism of the White Helmets makes you a terrorist supporter. This has to be put into a context. According to a New York Times article, the African American minds are controlled by Putin's Russia. Why else would they not vote for Hillary Clinton, right? These are scary times, where any dissent makes you either a Putin puppet or a terrorist apologist. These accusations come from the sorry talking heads and media personalities who so shamelessly pandered the phony Russiagate conspiracy for two years. And I otherwise agree with virtually all criticism of Trump.

These things aren't new, but it has gotten worse. It has become more prevalent because it works. It scares people to silence. They are ad hominem attacks. Wikipedia is perpetuating this by using RT as the new Red Scare. Sure, RT has its share of garbage, as do CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. RT is judged by its worst and the "mainstream" media by its best. RT ran the embarrassingly fake Project Veritas story with the "Google whistle blower." I know this isn't a place for opinions, but my respect for RT diminished greatly with that report. We should shame RT for it. But few things are more embarrassing than Joe Rogan's destruction of this political hack at the NYT. Rogan isn't a political commentator and asked the most base commonsense questions. It was all it took. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T77uFdw9HJA

We need to apply the same standard to all sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
The White Helmets have been accused of being funded by G Soros and made up of terrorist fighters masquerading as health workers, but are present at executions, the left want these folks praised the right sees them for what they are propaganda to cover up and fabricate evidence of gas attacks that have been discredited, 86.9.155.113 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Masum Reza 📞 12:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead falsely claiming that "independent and unaffiliated British fact-finding delegations" have criticized the White Helmets
Yesterday, an editor removed reliably sourced text in the lede about how the White Helmets have been the target of a disinformation attack, and replaced it with weasel text that suggested that "independent and unaffiliated British fact-finding delegations" had uncovered that the White Helmets were a Western propaganda outfit with ties to terrorists. The latter is absolute nonsense: in fact, the sources cited rebut conspiracy theories about the White Helmets, and solely attribute the claims against White Helmets to the Russian government, Syrian government, and fringe bloggers. The "British fact-finding delegation" appears to be a single British priest who the Times writes has been criticized for appeasing the Assad regime. The non-fringe lead should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The recent changes are an improvement, but the older version of the lede is much better. Why on Earth are we citing one pro-Assad priest in the lede of this article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the recent changes were seriously problematic (for some of the reasons you identify, and for some additional reasons that I identify in my edit summary). I have returned to the older, stable version. If the proponent of these changes wants to come here and discuss specifics, I'm happy to do that. Neutralitytalk 17:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The stable lede is much better. This stuff is not noteworthy enough to be in the lede. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

'''"Lead falsely claiming that "independent and unaffiliated British fact-finding delegations" have criticized the White Helmets"

-False? That is 100% true (and sourced).'''

This was added to the lede to add balance. Even here it seems anyone with a different perspective is belittled as a Kremlinbot. It is not becoming of a Wikipedia article to act as cheerleaders for a controversial organisation, and prejudice readers before they've even got onto the body.

It was not a single priest. From the Wikipedia page itself
 * "In 2018, Anglican vicar Andrew Ashdown, along with Church of England and House of Lords figures such as Lord Carey of Clifton and Michael Nazir-Ali, visited Syria and met with Assad; Ashdown accused the White Helmets of being militants, and accused the group of "keeping an injured Syrian child untreated and covered in dust and blood" for propaganda purposes".

Yes, the Times was critical because we mustn't say anything, do anything, or publish anything, that might benefit Assad now, can we? (Even if it might be true). That is a strategic no-no!

Channel 4 News recently (following the abandonment of the Kurds) broadcast the report "Idlib: Jihadi Stronghold" - one of the few mentions of the reality of Idlib, which the media just do not represent impartially most of the time (see: "They are all innocent refugees" in every single other report).

Weasel words?

You are even misrepresenting the wording here.

I am trying to keep this article neutral - it has MAJOR problems with its slant.

As for conspiracy theories and their rebutting. Many of the references just seem to be analysis along the lines of "Pro-Assad reporting appears to come mostly from the Russian-aligned media sphere. Ergo, we should dismiss it entirely as Russian propaganda". Articles like this, specifically Solon, DO NOT actually address the criticism properly, they just say there is criticism, but it's ok to ignore it, because of the Ruskies.

Solon briefly acknowledges some of the criticism, but bats it away as "Oh, there might be genuine evidence of Jihadists in the White Helmets, but they were just some bad apples" ~ So let's just ignore it since it helps the Russian narrative. That is in no shape or form a rebuttal.

Is Robert Fisk a fringe blogger?

The way this issue should be treated, is for Wikipedia to neutrally acknowledge there IS criticism, identify who is making it, and also acknowledge the counterarguments of it being a disinformation campaign.

Simply because the alternative perspectives might be shared by states such as Russia, does not mean they are disinformation. Harshmustard (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems many other little things have gone missing over the months too. I can see why it was removed, but this was a direct quote from the BBC article.
 * "(They) only operate in rebel-held areas, although they say they are non-partisan".
 * I think it's worth keeping, in describing the scope of their work. Harshmustard (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Claim of "disinformation" from RT/Syrian news
Where is this evidence that RT and Syrian news produce "disinformation", that it is a "conspiracy theory" and that they "falsely report" on the White Helmets? You will need a stronger argument than "oh but that's what western sources say and we decree those reliable" because that is insanely weak and fails to counter the content over what non-mainstream sources have exposed. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the previously weak reliable sourcing for clearly accurate assertions. Philip Cross (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh really. Assertion yes but accurate, no. You are pushing a narrative that professes one entire block of evidence ranging from media to scholarship is guilty of "disinformation" and are using the publication drawn from the rival partisan sources to assert your claim. You haven't demonstrated "disinformation" (and neither have your sources if you read them properly) but are merely begging the question. That is a fallacy and you don't arrive at a conclusion with a fallacy. So one way or another, there will need to be a change to the current text and all other articles which regurgitate its main points. Over what is clearly a binary matter, yes there are those of us inclined to believe that the Helmets are terrorists, and there are those of you hell-bent on brandishing the Emperor's New Clothes with your feigned No,-the-helmets-really-are-a-cuddly-band-of-non-dangerous-fanatics moonshine. But let's not kid ourselves Philip Cross. Given your reputation which came to my attention way ahead of your online presence, I know you do not think the Helmets are terrorists. Likewise I now realise that the bulk of editors who have fought for this NPOV breach also do not think the Helmets are terrorists. You and your buccaneers KNOW that the Helmets are connected to the Syrian Jihadist opposition. There is no charade where any of you are concerned. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please consult Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You will find RT and Sputnik are not to be used, except in very limited circumstances, such as relaying statements from the Russian government. The entry for the first of these sources states: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated". Of the other Russian outlet, it states: "Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation". So "a change to the current text" on the basis you suggest is unlikely to happen. Philip Cross (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that this should be reviewed (and I intend to do so), the question of "reliability" is not what is being peddled on the article. It says that a host of sources "spread disinformation" which is a separate matter from what is RS and what is not. To claim that diametrically opposed accounts mean that A is right and B is wrong purely on the basis of its arbitrary "reliability" status is WP:SYNTH. If RT/Sputnik are not reliable, then their standpoints need not be mentioned at all. To erect them as a cardboard cut-out for the sake of a power exercise (shoot it down) is nothing more than a propaganda push. The claim of disinformation carries the burden of proof, and "The Telegraph says..." does not support the claim being reported in the article. It merely supports the statement that mainstream media claims such and such. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as the Syrian Civil War goes, I think it is misguided to make statements about "clearly accurate assertions" about anything but the most uncontested claims. My guess is that coverage of the war was awash with propaganda from all the involved sides. I agree with what Rachel Marsden wrote in a 2018 opinion piece: "Now that the conflict is wrapping up, the fog of war can finally start to lift, but we cannot be complacent in accepting that the narratives we were fed during this conflict constitute objective reality." The long list of citations attached to statements made in the Lead is a red flag that something questionable policy-wise has been included.     ←   ZScarpia  13:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is to verify the statements and discourage anyone adding citations to poor sources (such as those deep pink on the sourcing page), some of which (MintPress News, Press TV, RT, Sputnik, The Grayzone) are now deprecated. By definition, there will be no confirmation from the highest quality sources (green) agreeing with the assertion that the White Helmets are terrorists because those that do (from Russian/Syrian/Iranian outlets or their western followers) are at the other end of the spectrum. Policy wise, this is the way most Wikipedia editors' work. Philip Cross (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Poor quality sources" = those not to kowtow to your predetermined narrative. "Green" = those who serve as mouthpieces for western regimes. Once upon a time it was just Syrian/Iranan/Russian outlets that were "spreading disinformation", and you were only able to rely on what their opponents said about them as evidence. Then Chinese became added to the list, not because they were determined to be circulating falsehoods, but because their narrative was out of harmony with the western propaganda machine. If uninvolved editors don't believe me, they can check the page history and see that Chinese media was brazenly added without analysis into what they were reporting. I am familiar with Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Serbian non-state outlets who also expose the Helmets for what they really are, but if I were to include these, someone will no doubt pile them onto the "disinformation" list. Meanwhile, the "community" considers the BBC reliable when the BBC does not even try to hide that it cites the Helmets as a source over what it reports on Syria. In other words, until the Helmets - an organisation who astonishingly have nothing bad to say about Al-Qaeda who at some time since 2001 have gone into chrysalis - come clean about what they are (as if the BBC/Fox et al don't already know), nobody is allowed to call them terrorists. That invokes myriad fallacies; begging the question and appeal to authority to name but two. Keep on dreaming Philip Cross. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

These sources meet Wikipedia's definition of "reliable".  Volunteer Marek  18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * V.Marek I have been there on the noticeboard for reliable sources and exhausted myself arguing with two or three editors and even this subject came up. It was clear then just as a short time ago that I was never going to stem the tide but then I really don't seek to. I've given you my word that I will not touch the article again (at least in this current paradigm) and I will honour that pledge. But when the topic of sources themselves come up and people start labelling them "green" and so forth, that is where I feel the urge to reply. FTR I have no alternative to suggest for the article as it stands. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

important new article
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/oct/27/syria-disinformation-war-white-helmets-mayday-rescue-james-le-mesurier BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Offers nothing new to the moonshine littered all over the article as it stands. It is a regurgitation of the bullshit that western sources have been peddling from the get-go. Since it operates on the basis of the Helmets being a benign force-for-good, it isn't even qualified to comment on the commentators and investigators who have exposed the Helmets for what they truly are.
 * “For me personally, I can’t ignore the weight of the disinformation, not only on me but on all of us at the White Helmets,” said Saleh. “We put all our energy into saving lives and easing the living conditions in Syria. But this humanitarian work threatens Russian and Syrian regime narratives of what is really happening on the ground. We get called terrorists that are funded by the west. This is a burden that affects us emotionally and it takes a tremendous effort to deal with.” That is one big argument by assertion.--Coldtrack (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)