Talk:White Helmets (Syrian civil war)

United Nations Round Table Meeting Removed

The United Nations has held a round table discussion on its organ and other valuables theft actions on Dec 20, 2018 .

Could someone please explain why these lines are removed? If text formation is not proper, then we need some work on wording instead of removing it. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Your addition was WP:PROFRINGE and you should self-revert immediately. This article is covered by discretionary sanctions. The content you added was about a UN panel organized by allies of the Assad regime where crackpots pushed disinformation about the White Helmets. No reliable sources have covered the content you added for precisely that reason. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right that it's hard to find "reliable sources" based on guidelines in WP:RS. Because the US and western European government support this group, hard to believe there are other mainstream media will report it. While the Russian/Chinese/Kazakh/Bolivian media that reported it are concerned not reliable. Also, the "independent" journalists report in the panel are considered fringe. But including this line does not mean it is a "pro"-fringe action, rather than mentioning Russian missions have brought their concern to the UN and held a panel on it. This is important and should be put under section "Information warfare campaign". --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this text does not belong. This was a random panel, organized by the Russians' UN delegation, that promotes disinformation about the group (as the Russian government usually does). I don't think there's any basis to include this. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If a killer saved a child, it cannot be interpretated as he wants to kill the child eventually, as he did kill people before. Same logic, "As Russian usually does" is not a reason to prove this is a "disinformation". --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"As a russian usually does"? America lied its way into Iraq almost a generation ago. What trite xenophobia is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriv98 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose adding this text. This text is not grammatical. What is "on its organ" and "valuables theft actions"? Also, are there any secondary sources that summarize what the round table concluded? The fact that a round table was held, without knowing what they concluded, doesn't seem very notable to me. Finally, the lead may not be the best place for this, as anything in the lead has strong weight, and the lead should summarize important points in the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

1. I agree it is not clear. Could you please help me to format the text? What about:

"On Dec 20, 2018, Russian Mission to the United Nations has organized a round table discussion in the UN about the activities of White Helmets stealing organ and other valuables, claiming they are terrorists."

2. I added the conclusion in the new paragraph.

3. I agree, this should not be placed in the lead. It should be put in section "Information warfare campaign". --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell what the original author's meaning is. "stealing organ"... like human organs? WP:EXCEPTIONAL, are there multiple good sources for this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes human organs. The media that reported this news are not considered "mainstream" or "reliable". Investigación revela que los Cascos Blancos robaban órganos en Siria (National TV of Venezuela), 俄在联合国指证：“白头盔”非救援组织 应被列为恐怖组织 (a tabloid aligned with Chinese Communist Party), “白头盔”创始人神秘身亡 (state news agency of China). I can put these also as reference, but I think quoting the official source of the UN is enough to prove that there was a panel. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is odd that there is no mention of organ trafficking/harvesting in the article. The accusation appears in other of our articles, e.g. the page for Vanessa Beeley. Apart from the primary source used in the deleted text, the issue has been covered by MiddleEastEye, The Times and the Pakistani newspaper The Nation among many others that we probably would not use. Btw, editors can include the accusations in a Wikipedia article without believing they are true. The source of the accusations can also be mentioned - those dastardly Russians, Beeley etc. - as well as any responses from the defenders of TWH. Burrobert (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The article already notes that the White Helmets have been subject to falsehoods, conspiracy theories and other disinformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That could mean anything. Have they been accused of being lizard people, of denying global warming, of shooting JFK? Burrobert (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If it is really a false information, why there were oppositions of adding a tone-neutral false information statement to the article? I don't receive any replies coming back on my replies for more than two months. I have put the adjusted sentence into the paragraph "Information warfare campaign". Keep conscience clear, then never fear. --WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 22:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. This is really fringe. Without reliable secondary sources no reason to think it's noteworthy. (Also, if included, it would need to be written in a way that makes sense in English and in non-POV.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• I see this section is a bit old, but I want to OPPOSE inclusion of this unless it is part of a section dedicated to the disinformation campaign. That also goes for any other stories that trace back to Russian sources or known Russian disinformation channels, including but not limited to Vanessa Beeley. Given the known disinformation campaign, I also advise stringent multiple-quality-sourcing requirements regarding any negative claims which would raise Redflag concerns if they were made against other humanitarian aid orgs. For example it would be a blatant Redflag if somesource claimed Doctors without borders were faking chemical attacks, or if some source claimed International Rescue Committee earthquake rescue workers were engaging in covert organ harvesting. We don't know what the next propaganda story will be, but any outrageous&outlandish atrocity claims must be subject to heightened scrutiny and heightened sourcing per Redflag. Alsee (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Article concerns

The following are concerns noted when reading the article and are aimed at article improvements. I do not "generally" edit articles under discretionary sanctions although this seems to be just a 1RR restriction.

• citation clutter: This is apparently a contentious subject but too many inline citations are an obvious distraction and does not help readability.

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead has 10 such citations creating two issues, 1)- Content in the lead| is normally information found in the body of the article and should already be properly sourced there. The lead is supposed to be the "introduction to the article" or "basics in a nutshell" summarizing what is in the article. 2)-Some editors might want contentious content sourced but usually, that is just unnecessary duplication. Even allowing for that 10 citations are totally unnecessary.

One sentence in the "History" section has 7 citations. A sentence in the "Information warfare campaign" subsection has 8 citations and one in the "Other" subsection has 5. The need for additional citations would be for necessary clarification and not to definitively "prove a point".

• Notes and commentary: The Ellis, Emma Grey (currently #13 and one of the lead refbomb citations) has additional commentary presented as a quote (and a link to another site) that would be better presented in the article or removed. The added commentary "name drops" Alex Jones and George Soros. Someone not familiar with the article subject or the names would have to stop reading and "look around" to determine who these people are. If they have an article they should be linked which would also allow our cool hover tool to be of good use.--- -Otr500 (talk)

The likelihood Russian or Syrian misinformation could be added to the article is still quite high, the multiple citations help discourage this possibility. See Template:Efn for a means to group multiple citations together without the clutter. Philip Cross (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

The co-founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, was found dead in Istanbul on 9 November 2019.[19] Ruled a suicide by Turkish authorities, the cause of his death remains contested.

The last sentence seems WP:FRINGE, I'd recommend changing to "The cause of death was ruled a suicide bu Turkish authorities." And attribute whoever is disputing it accordingly 2600:1012:B01C:EC58:C457:AEFF:FEFC:7BA6 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I removed the whole sentence from the lead (see edit summary for more info). M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

In the "Other" sub-section, Please remove the last sentence ("The White Helmets operated in the Afrin District..."). It is just duplicating the previous section, "Relationship with SDF", including using the same ref. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:E036:D1E7:9384:6C46 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)