Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be
aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Neutralitytalk22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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."
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be
aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Neutralitytalk22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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."
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.